Are manual therapy or booster sessions worthwhile in addition to exercise therapy for knee osteoarthritis: Economic evaluation and 2-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy: A Modern Definition and Description

Currently, orthopaedic manual physical therapy (OMPT) lacks a description of practice that reflects contemporary thinking and embraces advances across the scientific, clinical, and educational arms of the profession. The absence of a clear definition of OMPT reduces understanding of the approach across health care professions and potentially limits OMPT from inclusion in scientific reviews and clinical practice guidelines. For example, it is often incorrectly classified as passive care or incorrectly contrasted with exercise-therapy approaches. This perspective aims to provide clinicians, researchers, and stakeholders a modern definition of OMPT that improves the understanding of this approach both inside and outside the physical therapist profession. The authors also aim to outline the unique and essential aspects of advanced OMPT training with the corresponding examination and treatment competencies. This definition of practice and illustration of its defining characteristics is necessary to improve the understanding of this approach and to help classify it correctly for study in the scientific literature. This perspective provides a current definition and conceptual model of OMPT, defining the distinguishing characteristics and key elements of this systematic and active patient-centered approach to improve understanding and help classify it correctly for study in the scientific literature.

Booster visits in the management of the acute musculoskeletal injuries: Transforming care to improve outcomes-A perspective review

The current healthcare delivery system for patients with acute musculoskeletal injury is failing. Current rehabilitation management of acute musculoskeletal injury typically includes physical therapy, focused on management of impairments, with an eventual transition to functional activities and release to prior level of function. At that point, formal physical therapy is often discontinued, despite the knowledge that a high percentage of patients fail to maintain preinjury level of activity and often reduce participation in regular physical activity. Further, for those who attempt to return to prior levels of pivoting and cutting activities, there is a high second injury rate. The long-term human experience is compromised by the current model of care which terminates at the point of transition to activity. This model of care fails to meet the continued needs of these patients and may result in long term deficits and potential disability. Extended care models include intermittent follow up visits after discharge from an acute episode of care and have been efficacious and cost effective in some patient populations with musculoskeletal conditions. Specifically, a type of extended care model, labeled "booster sessions," represents an opportunity to provide structured, intermittent care to assist in a smooth transition back to function, following an acute episode of care and promote a healthier life outcome. This perspective review will discuss the opportunity to transform acute musculoskeletal care to booster visit care model in an attempt to develop a more efficacious and cost-effective system of care which could be generalizable to all musculoskeletal conditions.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments for Musculoskeletal Conditions Offered by Physiotherapists: A Systematic Review of Trial-Based Evaluations

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal conditions are a leading contributor to disability worldwide. The treatment of these conditions accounts for 7% of health care costs in Germany and is often provided by physiotherapists. Yet, an overview of the cost-effectiveness of treatments for musculoskeletal conditions offered by physiotherapists is missing. This review aims to provide an overview of full economic evaluations of interventions for musculoskeletal conditions offered by physiotherapists.

METHODS

We systematically searched for publications in Medline, EconLit, and NHS-EED. Title and abstracts, followed by full texts were screened independently by two authors. We included trial-based full economic evaluations of physiotherapeutic interventions for patients with musculoskeletal conditions and allowed any control group. We extracted participants' information, the setting, the intervention, and details on the economic analyses. We evaluated the quality of the included articles with the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist.

RESULTS

We identified 5141 eligible publications and included 83 articles. The articles were based on 78 clinical trials. They addressed conditions of the spine (n = 39), the upper limb (n = 8), the lower limb (n = 30), and some other conditions (n = 6). The most investigated conditions were low back pain (n = 25) and knee and hip osteoarthritis (n = 16). The articles involved 69 comparisons between physiotherapeutic interventions (in which we defined primary interventions) and 81 comparisons in which only one intervention was offered by a physiotherapist. Physiotherapeutic interventions compared to those provided by other health professionals were cheaper and more effective in 43% (18/42) of the comparisons. Ten percent (4/42) of the interventions were dominated. The overall quality of the articles was high. However, the description of delivered interventions varied widely and often lacked details. This limited fair treatment comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

High-quality evidence was found for physiotherapeutic interventions to be cost-effective, but the result depends on the patient group, intervention, and control arm. Treatments of knee and back conditions were primarily investigated, highlighting a need for physiotherapeutic cost-effectiveness analyses of less often investigated joints and conditions. The documentation of provided interventions needs improvement to enable clinicians and stakeholders to fairly compare interventions and ultimately adopt cost-effective treatments.

Pragmatism in manual therapy trials for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review

Introduction

Manual therapy is an often-utilized intervention for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA). The interpretation of results presented by these trials can be affected by how well the study designs align applicability to real-world clinical settings.

Aim

To examine the existing body of clinical trials investigating manual therapy for knee OA to determine where they fall on the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum.

Methods

This systematic review has been guided and informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Randomized controlled trials that investigated manual therapy treatments for adults with knee OA were retrieved via searches of multiple databases to identify trials published prior to April 2023. The Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool was used to objectively rate the efficacy-effectiveness nature of each trial design. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 assessment tool (RoB-2) was used to assess the risk of bias across five domains.

Results

Of the 36 trials, a higher percentage of trials had a greater emphasis on efficacy within all four domains: participant characteristics (75.0%), trial setting (77.8%), flexibility of intervention (58.3%), and clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention (47.2%). In addition, 13.9% of the trials had low risk of bias, 41.7% had high risk of bias, and 44.4% had some concerns regarding bias.

Conclusions

While many trials support manual therapy as effective for the management of knee OA, a greater focus on study designs with an emphasis on effectiveness would improve the applicability and generalizability of future trials.

Musculoskeletal physiotherapists' discharge practices for people treated with low back pain: A United Kingdom survey

BACKGROUND

Persistent low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability, and a major burden on the healthcare system globally. Many people with LBP experience recurrent pain flares and receive repeated appointments and re-referrals to services such as physiotherapy. However, it is not clear what the criteria are for discharging people with LBP from physiotherapy services. This study aims to describe the current practices for discharging people from physiotherapy for LBP in the United Kingdom (UK).

METHODS

A cross-sectional study using an anonymous online national (UK) survey was conducted among qualified physiotherapists who treat people with LBP in UK musculoskeletal out-patient services.

RESULTS

A total of 104 surveys were completed. The majority of respondents reported using (i) a shared decision-making (77%) and (ii) person-physiotherapist goal attainment (74%) approach to discharging people with LBP. Sixty-three percent of respondents reported using a patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) approach. Only 8% of respondents reported using a graded discharge approach with 'booster' appointments. A PIFU or graded discharge approach was considered most pertinent for people at higher risk of a pain flare (97%; 86%) and with low self-efficacy to self-manage their LBP.

CONCLUSIONS

This UK survey established that discharge practices for people with LBP after physiotherapy vary. Whilst the majority of people are currently discharged with a PIFU appointment, a graded discharge approach may be more beneficial for people who are less likely to initiate a PIFU appointment. Further consideration on the development of such a pathway is now required.

Leveraging the Short-Term Benefits of Manual Therapy which Includes Exercise Over Exercise Therapy Alone Appears Justified for Knee Osteoarthritis

Letter to the Editor-in-Chief in response to JOSPT article "The Benefits of Adding Manual Therapy to Exercise Therapy for Improving Pain and Function in Patients with Knee or Hip Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis" by Runge et al. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(1):49-50. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.0201.