A review of the definitions of 'recovery' used in prognostic studies on whiplash using an ICF framework

How is recovery defined and measured in patients with low back pain? A mixed study systematic review

BACKGROUND

Despite the burden of low back pain (LBP) there is no currently accepted definition for its recovery, nor is there a gold standard for measurement. In addition, it is currently unclear how the perspective of patients are used in making recovery determinations. The purpose of this mixed study systematic review across both quantitative and qualitative literature was to (1) explore how recovery has been defined and measured for patients experiencing LBP, and (2) examine how the perspectives of patients and providers for recovery of LBP align or differ.

METHODS

This was a mixed study systematic review. Key databases were searched from inception until February 20, 2023: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PEDro looking for sources examining definitions and measures of recovery in patients with LBP. Grey literature was identified through the ProQuest Thesis & Dissertation database. Two reviewers used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for quality assessment of both qualitative and quantitative studies to explore definitions, measurements and perspective of recovery.

RESULTS

466 original studies were included: 12 qualitative studies, 88 quantitative randomized control trials, 348 quantitative non-randomized studies, 16 quantitative descriptive studies, and two mixed methods studies. Most of the time recovery was not defined, with six other themes identified: comparison of scores, in relation to a singular cut-off score, improvement of absence of clinical symptoms, a return to a pre-injury state, change/improvement score from baseline and as a process/trajectory. For recovery measurements, six themes described the data: multiple measures, single measure excluding recovery, a recovery measure, recovery and an additional measure, pain and an additional measure, or indirect/ not specified. Lastly recovery perspectives were made from either the patient, provider, or a combination of patient and provider.

CONCLUSION

For patients living with LBP, the concept of recovery continues to lack consensus for its definition and measurement in patients with LBP. The perspectives of patients were mostly not preserved in making recovery determinations. Urgent action is needed to generate consensus across clinicians, researchers, and patients regarding how recovery should be defined and measured. A multitude of study-specific definitions limit knowledge syntheses and definition of best practice.

Longitudinal Changes and Associations Between Quantitative Sensory Testing and Psychological Factors in Whiplash-Associated Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses-Based Data Synthesis

Whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) represent a multifactorial condition often accompanied by altered nociceptive processing and psychological factors. This systematic review on acute and chronic WAD aimed to investigate the relationship between quantitative sensory testing (QST) and psychological factors and quantify whether their trajectories over time follow a similar pattern to disability levels. Eight databases were searched until October 2022. When 2 prospective studies examined the same QST or psychological variable, data synthesis was performed with random-effects meta-analysis by pooling within-group standardized mean differences from baseline to 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. From 5,754 studies, 49 comprising 3,825 WAD participants were eligible for the review and 14 for the data synthesis. Altered nociceptive processing in acute and chronic WAD, alongside worse scores on psychological factors, were identified. However, correlations between QST and psychological factors were heterogeneous and inconsistent. Furthermore, disability levels, some QST measures, and psychological factors followed general positive improvement over time, although there were differences in magnitude and temporal changes. These results may indicate that altered psychological factors and increased local pain sensitivity could play an important role in both acute and chronic WAD, although this does not exclude the potential influence of factors not explored in this review. PERSPECTIVE: Acute WAD show improvements in levels of disability and psychological factors before significant improvements in nociceptive processing are evident. Facilitated nociceptive processing might not be as important as psychological factors in chronic WAD-related disability, which indicates that chronic and acute WAD should not be considered the same entity although there are similarities. Nonetheless, pressure pain thresholds in the neck might be the most appropriate measure to monitor WAD progression.

How is recovery defined and measured in patients with low back pain? Protocol for a mixed study systematic review

INTRODUCTION

This protocol describes the methods for a mixed study systematic review aiming to explore the definitions and measurements of recovery in patients with low back pain, and how perspectives of recovery differ between patients and providers. This review will be the first to review the concept of recovery in patients with low back pain across both quantitative and qualitative literature.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol has been designed and reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. The following databases will be electronically searched from database inception until 30 November 2021: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PEDro. Grey literature will be searched for through targeted searching of ProQuest Dissertations and Theses and handsearching of the references of all included studies. Studies will be included if they include a patient population of >50% with low back pain (with or without leg pain), and mention the concept of recovery within the abstract, methods or results. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool will be used for quality assessment of both quantitative and qualitative included studies. Two independent reviewers will conduct the search, screen titles/abstracts and extract relevant data from full texts. Discrepancies between reviewers will be settled by a third reviewer with spinal pain expertise. For syntheses, thematic analysis will be used to analyse both qualitative and quantitative investigations to explore meanings, measurement and perspectives of recovery from a diverse evidence base. There is no clinical trial associated with this protocol.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

There are no ethical issues associated with this systematic review, and ethics approval was not required. Once completed, the results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal within the realm of spinal pain to help guide future research inquiries.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022295804.

Are Measures of Physical Function of the Neck Region Associated With Poor Prognosis Following a Whiplash Trauma?: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to synthesize the current evidence regarding the predictive ability of measures of physical function (PF) of the neck region and perceived PF on prognosis following a whiplash injury.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases were searched by 2 independent reviewers up to July 2020, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science as well as gray literature. Eligible studies were selected by 2 reviewers who then extracted and assessed the quality of evidence. Observational cohort studies were included if they involved participants with acute whiplash-associated disorders (WAD), followed for at least 3 months postinjury, and included objective measures of neck PF or self-reported measures of PF as prognostic factors. Data could not be pooled and therefore were synthesized qualitatively.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies (13 cohorts) were included in this review. Low to very low quality of evidence indicated that initial higher pain-related disability and higher WAD grade were associated with poor outcome, while there was inconclusive evidence that neck range of motion, joint position error, activity of the superficial neck muscles, muscle strength/endurance, and perceived functional capacity are not predictive of outcome. The predictive ability of more contemporary measures of neck PF such as the smoothness of neck movement, variability of neck motion, and coactivation of neck muscles have not been assessed.

DISCUSSION

Although initial higher pain-related disability and higher WAD grade are associated with poor outcome, there is little evidence available investigating the role of neck PF on prognosis following a whiplash injury.

A Systematic Review and Synthesis of Psychometric Properties of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale and the Visual Analog Scale for Use in People With Neck Pain

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic search and synthesis of evidence about the measurement properties of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) as patient-reported outcome measures in neck pain research.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

CINAHL, Embase, PsychInfo, and MedLine databases were searched to identify studies evaluating the psychometric properties of the NPRS and the VAS used in samples of which >50% of participants were people with neck pain. Quality and consistency of findings were synthesized to arrive at recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 46 manuscripts were included. Syntheses indicated high-to-moderate-quality evidence of good-to-excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.58 to 0.93) test-retest reliability over an interval of 7 hours to 4 weeks. Moderate evidence of a clinically important difference of 1.5 to 2.5 points was found, while minimum detectable change ranged from 2.6 to 4.1 points. Moderate evidence of a moderate association (r=0.48 to 0.54) between the NPRS or VAS and the Neck Disability Index. Findings from other patient-reported outcomes indicated stronger associations with ratings of physical function than emotional status. There is limited research addressing the extent that these measures reflect outcomes that are important to patients.

DISCUSSION

It is clear NPRS and the VAS ratings are feasible to implement, provide reliable scores and relate to multi-item patient-reported outcome measures. Responsiveness (meaningful change) of the scales and interpretation of change scores requires further refinement. The NPRS can be a useful single-item assessment complimenting more comprehensive multi-item patient-reported outcome measures in neck pain research and practice.

Comparison of the Accuracy of WhipPredict to That of a Modified Version of the Short-Form Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire to Predict Poor Recovery After Whiplash Injury

OBJECTIVE

To compare the accuracy of a whiplash-specific risk screening tool (WhipPredict) with that of the modified generic short-form Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (SF-ÖMPSQ) for predicting poor recovery in patients following whiplash injury.

STUDY DESIGN

Inception cohort study.

METHODS

Two hundred two participants with acute whiplash completed the WhipPredict and modified SF-ÖMPSQ at baseline. Poor recovery was measured at 6 and 12 months using the Neck Disability Index (greater than 10%), numeric pain-rating scale (greater than 3/10), global perceived recovery (less than +4), and inability to return to preinjury work level. Accuracy statistics were calculated to predict poor recovery.

RESULTS

Seventy-one percent (n = 143) of participants completed the 6-month assessment and 56% (n = 113) completed the 12-month assessment. At baseline, agreement between the WhipPredict and modified SF-ÖMPSQ was fair (prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted κ = 0.26; 95% confidence interval: 0.12, 0.39). Depending on the outcome, 20% to 72% of people had not recovered at 6 months and 12% to 71% had not recovered at 12 months. At 6 and 12 months, the WhipPredict tool showed high sensitivity (88%-96%) and low specificity (all outcomes less than 31%) on all 4 separate outcomes. The modified SF-ÖMPSQ showed moderate sensitivity (67%-75%) for the Neck Disability Index, numeric pain-rating scale, and global perceived recovery, high sensitivity for return to work (81%-90%), and moderate specificity (54%-77%) for all 4 outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Both tools showed acceptable accuracy in predicting poor recovery. The WhipPredict tool is recommended to correctly identify patients who will not recover but may falsely classify those who recover well. Using the modified SF-ÖMPSQ will result in fewer patients falsely categorized as being at risk of poor recovery and may result in some people being undertreated. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(5):207-215. Epub 19 Feb 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.9987.

Expert consensus and perspectives on recovery following road traffic crashes: a Delphi study

PURPOSE

To reach expert consensus on a definition for recovery following minor and moderate road traffic crash-related injuries and key factors that influence recovery, and to explore expert perspectives on risk identification methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A three-round Delphi study was conducted in which 47 experts (insurance representatives, health care professionals and researchers) were consulted.

RESULTS

Strong expert agreement (86%) was reached for the definition: "Recovery is multifaceted and includes return to activities of daily living (ADLs), work and social/leisure activities at pre-injury level or at a level deemed acceptable by the individual, with minimal ongoing pain and symptoms, considering physical and mental health and wellbeing". Agreed key factors that influenced recovery included: resilience; coping skills; recovery expectations; pre-existing physical and mental health; workplace support; and, collaboration between the injured individual, treating providers and claim handlers. Expert perspectives on risk identification methods were mixed.

CONCLUSIONS

An accepted definition for recovery following minor and moderate road traffic crash-related injury was established, which could facilitate communication and engagement between different rehabilitation stakeholders. Strong consensus was achieved on nine key factors that influenced recovery. Further research is needed to evaluate whether injured persons agree with this definition and on the utility of risk identification methods.Implications for rehabilitationExpert consensus was established for a definition of recovery following minor and moderate road traffic crash-related injuries and nine key influencing factors.An established definition could facilitate communication and engagement between all rehabilitation stakeholders, which could improve the recovery process of the injured person.Rehabilitation professionals need to be familiar with the role of psychosocial factors, such as recovery expectations, resilience and coping skills, in the recovery process.The use of physical and psychological outcome measures at regular intervals could help to identify risk of poor recovery following minor and moderate road traffic crash-related injuries.

Do measures of physical function enhance the prediction of persistent pain and disability following a whiplash injury? Protocol for a prospective observational study in Spain

INTRODUCTION

Not all factors that predict persistent pain and disability following whiplash injury are known. In particular, few physical factors, such as changes in movement and muscle behaviour, have been investigated. The aim of this study is to identify predictive factors that are associated with the development of persistent pain and disability following a whiplash injury by combining contemporary measures of physical function together with established psychological and pain-related predictive factors.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A prospective observational study will recruit 150 consecutive eligible patients experiencing whiplash-related symptoms, admitted to a private physiotherapy clinic in Spain within 15 days of their whiplash injury. Poor outcome will be measured using the Neck Disability Index (NDI), defined as an NDI score of 30% or greater at 6 months post injury. Candidate predictors, including demographic characteristics, injury characteristics, pain characteristics, self-reported psychosocial factors and physical factors, will be collected at baseline (within 15 days of inception). Regression analyses will be performed to identify factors that are associated with persistent neck pain and disability over the study period.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The project has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the province of Malaga, Spain (#30052019). The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

Defining pain and interference recovery trajectories after acute non-catastrophic musculoskeletal trauma through growth mixture modeling

BACKGROUND

Recovery trajectories support early identification of delayed recovery and can inform personalized management or phenotyping of risk profiles in patients. The objective of this study was to investigate the trajectories in pain severity and functional interference following non-catastrophic musculoskeletal (MSK) trauma in an international, mixed injury sample.

METHODS

A prospective longitudinal cohort (n = 241) was formed from patients identified within four weeks of trauma, from attendance at emergency or urgent care centres located in London, ON, Canada, or Chicago, IL, USA. Pain interference was measured via the Brief Pain Inventory (London cohort) or the Neck Disability Index (Chicago cohort). Pain severity was captured in both cohorts using the numeric pain rating scale. Growth mixture modeling and RM repeated measures ANOVA approaches identified distinct trajectories of recovery within pain interference and pain severity data.

RESULTS

For pain interference, the three trajectories were labeled accordingly: Class 1 = Rapid recovery (lowest intercept, full or near full recovery by 3 months, 32.0% of the sample); Class 2 = Delayed recovery (higher intercept, recovery by 12 months, 26.7% of the sample); Class 3 = Minimal or no recovery (higher intercept, persistently high interference scores at 12 months, 41.3% of the sample). For pain severity, the two trajectories were labeled: Class 1 = Rapid recovery (lower intercept, recovery by 3 months, 81.3% of the sample); and Class 2 = Minimal or no recovery (higher intercept, flat curve, 18.7% of the sample). The "Minimal or No Recovery" trajectory could be predicted by female sex and axial (vs. peripheral) region of trauma with 74.3% accuracy across the 3 classes for the % Interference outcome. For the Pain Severity outcome, only region (axial trauma, 81.3% accuracy) predicted the "Minimal or No Recovery" trajectory.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that three meaningful recovery trajectories can be identified in an international, mixed-injury sample when pain interference is the outcome, and two recovery trajectories emerge when pain severity is the outcome. Females in the sample or people who suffered axial injuries (head, neck, or low back) were more likely to be classed in poor outcome trajectories.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

National Institutes of Health - clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02711085 ; Retrospectively registered Mar 17, 2016).

Intervention with an educational video after a whiplash trauma - a randomised controlled clinical trial

Background and aims Previous systematic reviews have considered that providing patient information is ineffective for patients with whiplash-associated disorders (WAD), with the exception of interventional educational videos. The aim of this randomised controlled clinical trial was to determine if use of an educational video as an intervention in the acute stage after a whiplash injury might improve self-reported recovery at 6 months after the injury. Methods In total, 289 consecutive patients with a whiplash injury following a motor vehicle collision were randomised to an intervention group (educational video) or to a control group (written information sheet). The video focused on information about pain mechanisms, deep flexor physiotherapy and reassurance. Emailed questionnaires were used to collect baseline data within 2 weeks after the accident and then to collect outcome data at 6 months post-injury. Non-responders were followed up with a brief telephone interview regarding the outcome. The primary outcome measure was self-reported recovery (yes/no) at 6 months post-injury. The secondary outcomes measures were pain level according to a numeric rating scale (NRS) and the whiplash disability questionnaire (WDQ) score at the same time point. Results The response rate for the baseline questionnaire was 70% (203/289). The follow-up rate was 97% (196/203). The non-recovery rates were similar between the intervention group, at 37.9% (39/103), and the control group, at 33.3% (31/93) (p = 0.55). No differences between the groups were noted in pain levels, NRS scores (1.9 vs. 2.2, p = 0.35) or the mean WDQ scores (17.5 vs. 21.2, p = 0.42). Conclusions The intervention with the educational video used in this study had no effect on the non-recovery rate when compared to a basic written information sheet. Implications The results of this trial add knowledge to the area of patient education for patients with acute WAD. Further studies are needed before the current recommendations for patient information are modified.

Contrasting real time quantitative measures (weekly SMS) to patients' retrospective appraisal of their one-year's course of low back pain; a probing mixed-methods study

Background

Due to the recurrent nature of low back pain (LBP), the traditional concepts of cure and recovery are challenged, and investigating the course rather than status at fixed time-points may help us understand prognosis as well as treatment effect. However, methods of frequent measuring still need development and validation. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the agreement between continuous, quantitative self-assessment (weekly SMS) of the course of LBP over a one-year period and qualitatively derived retrospective patient self-appraisal of the same time-period.

Methods

Participants were 32 subjects with LBP from primary care. The quantitative measures consisted of weekly SMS questions for one-year about pain intensity, days with LBP, and activity limitations for that week. For each subject, the weekly responses were graphed and categorized into categories based on intensity, variation and overall change patterns. Qualitative measures were based on semi-structured telephone interviews one-year after a consultation for LBP, where two coders independently categorized the self-appraisal of LBP course into the same predefined categories as the SMS-based trajectories. Furthermore, patients' perceived overall recovery was related to variation patterns from SMS track.

Results

There was perfect agreement for 48% in the pain intensity domain, 53% in the variation domain and 63% in the change pattern domain. Most of the discordant cases were classified in neighboring categories with the majority relating to fluctuating patterns. The self-perceived overall recovery status seemed to be reflected quite well by the quantitative measures of pain intensity and days with pain in this study.

Conclusion

This study shows that a real time quantitative measure (weekly SMS) and the patient's retrospective appraisal do not fundamentally differ in their reflection of the one-year course of LBP.As a first investigation into this area, these results are promising, as longitudinal quantitatively derived trajectories of LBP seem to reflect the lived experience of the patient to a large degree. Furthermore, the patient's ability to retrospectively recall their one-year course of LBP appears to be quite good. Future studies should focus on refining the categories of trajectories.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used for Neck Disorders: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

BACKGROUND

The evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures for the neck from multiple systematic reviews will provide a broader view of, and may identify potential conflicting or consistent results for, their psychometric properties.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to conduct an overview of systematic reviews and synthesize evidence to establish the current state of knowledge on psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures for patients with neck disorders.

METHODS

In this overview of systematic reviews, an electronic search of 6 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ILC, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and LILACS) was conducted to identify reviews that addressed at least one measurement property of outcome measures for people with neck pain. Only systematic reviews with patient-reported outcome measures were included in the analysis. Risk of bias was assessed with A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Data on measurement properties were extracted from each systematic review.

RESULTS

From 13 systematic reviews, 8 patient-reported outcome measures were evaluated in 2 or more reviews. Risk-of-bias scores ranged from moderate (5-7) to high (4 and lower). Findings on internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, responsiveness to change, and content and structural validity were synthesized for the Neck Disability Index (NDI) in 11 systematic reviews; the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire and Neck Pain and Disability scale (NPDS) in 6 systematic reviews; the Copenhagen Neck Functional Disability Scale in 5 systematic reviews; the Neck Bournemouth Questionnaire in 4 systematic reviews; the Core Neck Pain Questionnaire and Patient-Specific Functional Scale in 3 systematic reviews, and the Whiplash Disability Questionnaire in 2 systematic reviews.

CONCLUSION

High-quality evidence was found of good to excellent internal consistency and moderate to excellent test-retest reliability for the NDI. Moderate-quality evidence was found of good to excellent internal consistency and good test-retest reliability for the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire. High-quality evidence was found of excellent test-retest reliability and good to strong construct validity with pain scales for the Copenhagen Neck Functional Disability Scale. Moderate-quality evidence was found of unclear to excellent internal consistency and moderate to strong concurrent associations with the NDI and global assessment of change for the Neck Pain and Disability scale. Moderate-quality evidence was found of excellent internal consistency for the Whiplash Disability Questionnaire and of high test-retest reliability for the Patient-Specific Functional Scale. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(10):775-788. Epub 22 Jun 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.8131.

The potential and perils of prognosticating persistent post-traumatic problems from a postpositivist perspective

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Predicting recovery after traumatic neck pain has become an active area of research but is moving in several different directions with currently little consensus on the important outcomes to predict or relevant variables to predict them.

PURPOSE

This editorial explores the current state of prognostic (risk)-based tools or algorithms for predicting the likelihood of chronic problems after acute axial trauma, with a focus on traumatic neck pain (ie, whiplash-associated disorder).

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This paper has an editorial study design.

METHOD

This is a narrative commentary.

RESULTS

Prognostic efforts have value in guiding clinical decision-making and optimizing resource allocation to those at highest risk while minimizing iatrogenic disability for those at lower risk, but there are also several important caveats that should be observed when applying and interpreting the results of such tools. These include the biases associated with predicting outcomes based on findings from a single administration of a tool, inappropriate assumptions of causality, assumptions of linear relationships, and inability to consider the unique individual traits and contexts of patients that likely interact with clinical variables to influence the actual degree of risk they impart.

CONCLUSIONS

The paper concludes with a brief overview of trends that are likely to dramatically change the field, including creation of large clinical databases and big data analytics.

The Multidimensional Symptom Index: A new patient-reported outcome for pain phenotyping, prognosis and treatment decisions

BACKGROUND

There are few patient-reported outcomes routinely used that capture frequency and interference of different pain-related symptoms on a single scale. The purpose of this study was to describe the development and initial validation of the new Multidimensional Symptom Index (MSI).

METHODS

Items were generated from patient interviews of the experience of chronic pain. Health valuations were created from rankings of 82 healthy subjects for each of 120 symptom (×10) × frequency (×3) × interference (×4) combinations using preference-based health valuations (0-100). Ranks for each symptom combination were then used in scale scoring. A sample of 300 patients with acute or chronic pain subsequently completed the MSI and a battery of other tools. Exploratory (EFA) and Confirmatory (CFA) factor analyses were triangulated with theory to arrive at the factor structure. Convergent validity was tested against established measures.

RESULTS

Health rankings resulted in scores of 0-12 for each of the 10 symptom types. Factor analyses revealed two factors: MSI Somatic Symptoms and MSI Non-Somatic Symptoms. The MSI also quantified number of symptoms experienced (/10), mean frequency (/3) and mean interference (/4). The indices showed appropriate associations with the established PROs.

CONCLUSIONS

The MSI is a new symptom-focused PRO that allows patient phenotyping and may have value for screening, prognosis and evaluating change.

SIGNIFICANCE

This article presents the development and psychometric properties of a new measure of pain and related symptom frequency and interference. This measure could aid clinicians in establishing clinically relevant pain phenotypes for screening, prognosis and treatment decisions.

Clinical Practice Guideline for Physical Therapy Assessment and Treatment in Patients With Nonspecific Neck Pain

The Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF) issued a clinical practice guideline for physical therapists that addresses the assessment and treatment of patients with nonspecific neck pain, including cervical radiculopathy, in Dutch primary care. Recommendations were based on a review of published systematic reviews.During the intake, the patient is screened for serious pathologies and corresponding patterns. Patients with cervical radiculopathy can be included or excluded through corresponding signs and symptoms and possibly diagnostic tests (Spurling test, traction/distraction test, and Upper Limb Tension Test). History taking is done to gather information about patients' limitations, course of pain, and prognostic factors (eg, coping style) and answers to health-related questions.In case of a normal recovery (treatment profile A), management should be hands-off, and patients should receive advice from the physical therapist and possibly some simple exercises to supplement "acting as usual."In case of a delayed/deviant recovery (treatment profile B), the physical therapist is advised to use, in addition to the recommendations for treatment profile A, forms of mobilization and/or manipulation in combination with exercise therapy. Other interventions may also be considered. The physical therapist is advised not to use dry needling, low-level laser, electrotherapy, ultrasound, traction, and/or a cervical collar.In case of a delayed/deviant recovery with clear and/or dominant psychosocial prognostic factors (treatment profile C), these factors should first be addressed by the physical therapist, when possible, or the patient should be referred to a specialist, when necessary.In case of neck pain grade III (treatment profile D), the therapy resembles that for profile B, but the use of a cervical collar for pain reduction may be considered. The advice is to use it sparingly: only for a short period per day and only for a few weeks.

How Do We Meet the Challenge of Whiplash?

A previous special issue of JOSPT (October 2016) discussed whiplash in terms of the clinical problems and current research surrounding prevention, biomechanics of injury, emergent care, imaging advancements, recovery pathways and prognosis, pathogenesis of posttrauma pain, acute and chronic management, and new predictive clinical tools. While great strides have been made in the field of whiplash and are continuing in earnest, a key group of clinicians and academics have recognized that inconsistent outcomes in published literature hamper our ability to meaningfully synthesize research findings, leading to results of systematic reviews that provide very few concrete clinical recommendations. We are optimistic that improved outcomes for people with whiplash-associated disorder (WAD) are attainable in the near future, as interdisciplinary research efforts continue to align internationally, new mechanisms are identified and explored, and advanced statistical techniques allow complex questions to be answered in clinically meaningful ways. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(7):444-446. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.0106.

Neck Pain: Revision 2017

The Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) has an ongoing effort to create evidence-based practice guidelines for orthopaedic physical therapy management of patients with musculoskeletal impairments described in the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). The purpose of these revised clinical practice guidelines is to review recent peer-reviewed literature and make recommendations related to neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017;47(7):A1-A83. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.0302.

Recovery Pathways and Prognosis After Whiplash Injury

Synopsis Recovery from a whiplash injury is varied and complex. Some individuals recover quickly and fully, while others experience ongoing pain and disability. Three distinct patterns of predicted recovery (trajectories) have been identified using disability and psychological outcome measures. These trajectories are not linear, and show that recovery, if it is going to occur, tends to happen within the first 3 months of the injury, with little improvement after this period. Identification of factors associated with poor recovery is accumulating, and since 2000 there have been at least 10 published systematic reviews on prognostic factors for whiplash-associated disorder. Poor recovery has been consistently reported to be associated with high initial neck pain intensity and neck-related disability, posttraumatic stress symptoms, pain catastrophizing, and, to a lesser extent, low self-efficacy and cold hyperalgesia. Evidence regarding factors, including compensation status, psychological factors, structural pathology, and preinjury health status, remains equivocal. Given the huge number of predictive factors and various interpretations of recovery, adapting these data for use in clinical practice is difficult. Tools such as clinical prediction rules (CPRs), by statistically quantifying relevant data, may help to predict the probability of diagnosis, prognosis, or response to treatment. Numerous CPRs have been derived for individuals with whiplash; however, to date, only 3 prognostic CPRs have undergone external validation, and none have yet undergone impact analysis, a necessary step in providing information about the rules' ability to improve clinically relevant outcomes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(10):851-861. Epub 3 Sep 2016. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.6918.

Sick Leave within 5 Years of Whiplash Trauma Predicts Recovery: A Prospective Cohort and Register-Based Study

BACKGROUND

10-22% of individuals sustaining whiplash trauma develop persistent symptoms resulting in reduced working ability and decreased quality of life, but it is poorly understood why some people do not recover. Various collision and post-collision risk factors have been studied, but little is known about pre-collision risk factors. In particular, the impact of sickness and socioeconomic factors before the collision on recovery is sparsely explored. The aim of this study was to examine if welfare payments received within five years pre-collision predict neck pain and negative change in provisional situation one year post-collision.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

719 individuals with acute whiplash trauma consecutively recruited from emergency departments or primary care after car accidents in Denmark completed questionnaires on socio-demographic and health factors immediately after the collision. After 12 months, a visual analogue scale on neck pain intensity was completed. 3595 matched controls in the general population were sampled, and national public register data on social benefits and any other welfare payments were obtained for participants with acute whiplash trauma and controls from five years pre-collision to 15 months after. Participants with acute whiplash trauma who had received sickness benefit for more than 12 weeks pre-collision had increased odds for negative change in future provisional situation (Odds Ratio (OR) (95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 3.8 (2.1;7.1)) and future neck pain (OR (95%CI) = 3.3 (1.8;6.3)), controlling for other known risk factors. Participants with acute whiplash trauma had weaker attachment to labour market (more weeks of sick leave (χ2(2) = 36.7, p < 0.001) and unemployment (χ2(2) = 12.5, p = 0.002)) pre-collision compared with controls. Experiencing a whiplash trauma raised the odds for future negative change in provisional situation (OR (95%CI) = 3.1 (2.3;4.4)) compared with controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Sick leave before the collision strongly predicted prolonged recovery following whiplash trauma. Participants with acute whiplash trauma had weaker attachment to labour market pre-collision compared with the general population. Neck pain at inclusion predicted future neck pain. Acute whiplash trauma may trigger pre-existing vulnerabilities increasing risk of developing whiplash-associated disorders.

A population-based, incidence cohort study of mid-back pain after traffic collisions: Factors associated with global recovery

Background

Traffic collisions often result in a wide range of symptoms included in the umbrella term whiplash‐associated disorders. Mid‐back pain (MBP) is one of these symptoms. The incidence and prognosis of different traffic injuries and their related conditions (e.g. neck pain, low back pain, depression or others) has been investigated previously; however, knowledge about traffic collision‐related MBP is lacking. The study objectives were to describe the incidence, course of recovery and prognosis of MBP after traffic collisions, in terms of global self‐reported recovery.

Methods

Longitudinal data from a population‐based inception cohort of all traffic injuries occurring in Saskatchewan, Canada, during a 2‐year period were used. Annual overall and age‐sex‐specific incidence rates were calculated, the course of recovery was described using the Kaplan–Meier technique, and associations between participant characteristics and time‐to‐self‐reported recovery were explored in 3496 MBP cases using Cox proportional hazards models.

Results

The yearly incidence rate was 236 per 100,000 population during the study period, and was highest in women and in young persons. The median time‐to‐first reported recovery was 101 days (95% CI: 99–104) and about 23% were still not recovered after 1 year. Participant's expectation for recovery, general health, extent of severely affecting comorbidities and having experienced a previous traffic injury were some of the prognostic factors identified.

Conclusions

These findings show that MBP is common after traffic collisions, may result in a long recovery process and that a range of biopsychosocial factors are associated with recovery.

Development and Initial Validation of the Satisfaction and Recovery Index (SRI) for Measurement of Recovery from Musculoskeletal Trauma

Background:

There is a need for a generic patient-reported outcome (PRO) that is patient-centric and offers sound properties for measuring the process and state of recovery from musculoskeletal trauma. This study describes the construction and initial validation of a new tool for this purpose.

Methods:

A prototype tool was constructed through input of academic and clinical experts and patient representatives. After evaluation of individual items, a 9-item Satisfaction and Recovery Index (SRI) was subject to psychometric evaluation drawn from classical test theory. Subjects were recruited through online and clinical populations, from those reporting pain or disability from musculoskeletal trauma. The full sample (N = 129) completed the prototype tool and a corresponding region-specific disability measure. A subsample (N = 46) also completed the Short-Form 12 version 2 (SF12vs). Of that, a second subsample (N = 29) repeated all measures 3 months later.

Results:

A single factor ‘health-related satisfaction’ was extracted that explained 71.1% of scale variance, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95. A priori hypotheses for cross-sectional correlations with region-specific disability measures and the generic Short-form 12 component scores were supported. The SRI tool was equally responsive to change, and able to discriminate between recovered/non-recovered subjects, at a level similar to that of the region-specific measures and generally better than the SF-12 subscales.

Conclusion:

The new SRI tool, as a measure of health-related satisfaction, shows promise in this initial evaluation of its properties. It is generic, patient-centered, and shows overall measurement properties similar to that of region-specific measures while allowing the potential benefit of comparison between clinical conditions. Despite early promising results, additional properties need to be explored before the tool can be endorsed for routine clinical use.

Results of an International Survey of Practice Patterns for Establishing Prognosis in Neck Pain: The ICON Project

Results of an international survey of health care providers for neck pain are reported. The survey specifically collected self-reported practice patterns for establishing a prognosis in neck pain. Over 440 responses from 27 countries were collected. Descriptive results indicate that respondents assigned large prognostic impact to factors including mechanism of injury and psychological or behavioral constructs. Range of motion, age and sex were routinely collected despite relatively moderate impact on prognosis. A comparison between chiropractic and manual/physical therapy groups showed differences in practice patterns that were unlikely to affect prognostic accuracy. The results suggest a gap exists between current best-evidence and actual practice when the goal is to establish a prognosis in neck pain.

What does 'recovery' mean to people with neck pain? Results of a descriptive thematic analysis

OBJECTIVES

To describe the meaning of being recovered as perceived by people with chronic mechanical neck pain.

METHODS

To determine the way people with neck pain would describe a recovered state a descriptive thematic approach was used. A nominal focus group technique, written reflections, and one-on-one semi-structured interviews were used to collect sufficient data. Data from the focus groups were analyzed both through vote tallying and thematic analysis. Reflections and interviews were analyzed thematically by two independent researchers. Triangulation and member-checking were employed to establish trustworthiness of results.

RESULTS

A total of 35 people, primarily females with neck pain of traumatic origin, participated in this study. Thematic analysis identified 6 themes that adequately described the data: absent or manageable symptoms, having the physical capacity one ought to have, participation in life roles, feeling positive emotions, autonomy & spontaneity, and re-establishing a sense of self. Member checking and triangulation suggested data saturation and accuracy of the generated themes.

DISCUSSION

Recovery from neck pain appears to be informed by factors that fit with existing models of health, quality of life and satisfaction. Basing recovery solely on symptom or activity-level measures risks inaccurate estimates of recovery trajectories from traumatic or non-traumatic neck pain.

An Overview of Systematic Reviews on Prognostic Factors in Neck Pain: Results from the International Collaboration on Neck Pain (ICON) Project

Given the challenges of chronic musculoskeletal pain and disability, establishing a clear prognosis in the acute stage has become increasingly recognized as a valuable approach to mitigate chronic problems. Neck pain represents a condition that is common, potentially disabling, and has a high rate of transition to chronic or persistent problems. As a field of research, prognosis in neck pain has stimulated several empirical primary research papers, and a number of systematic reviews. As part of the International Consensus on Neck (ICON) project, we sought to establish the general state of knowledge in the area through a structured, systematic review of systematic reviews (overview).

An exhaustive search strategy was created and employed to identify the 13 systematic reviews (SRs) that served as the primary data sources for this overview. A decision algorithm for data synthesis, which incorporated currency of the SR, risk of bias assessment of the SRs using AMSTAR scoring and consistency of findings across SRs, determined the level of confidence in the risk profile of 133 different variables. The results provide high confidence that baseline neck pain intensity and baseline disability have a strong association with outcome, while angular deformities of the neck and parameters of the initiating trauma have no effect on outcome. A vast number of predictors provide low or very low confidence or inconclusive results, suggesting there is still much work to be done in this field. Despite the presence of multiple SR and this overview, there is insufficient evidence to make firm conclusions on many potential prognostic variables. This study demonstrates the challenges in conducting overviews on prognosis where clear synthesis critieria and a lack of specifics of primary data in SR are barriers.

A brief 5-item version of the Neck Disability Index shows good psychometric properties

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this secondary analysis of clinical databases of people with neck pain was to use a mixed unique conceptual and statistical approach to develop a brief version of the Neck Disability Index (NDI).

METHODS

An a priori framework of neck-related function based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health was used to identify items from the original 10-item NDI that do not conceptually fit. Remaining items were subject to Rasch analysis to identify items that did not statistically fit with axioms of quantitative measurement. Finally, approaches drawn from classical test theory were used to compare stability, responsiveness and concurrent validity of the original NDI, the new brief NDI and the linearly-transformed brief NDI.

RESULTS

Conceptual analysis identified 3 items that did not fit with the construct of self-reported ability to perform activity: pain intensity, headache, and sleeping. These items were removed, and responses to the remaining 7 items drawn from an assembled database of 316 physiotherapy patients with neck pain were subject to Rasch analysis. Two items were removed due to either considerable differential item functioning (reading) or statistical redundancy (lifting). The remaining items were considered the NDI-5. Test-retest reliability, responsiveness, sensitivity to change, and concurrent validity were all comparable across the original NDI, NDI-5 and linearly-transformed NDI-5. Sensitivity to change over a 1-month period of physiotherapy was the notable exception, where the linearly-transformed NDI-5 showed superiority over the other two forms.

CONCLUSIONS

A shortened version of the NDI, the NDI-5, has been constructed that is conceptually and statistically sound. Implications for research and clinical practice are discussed. Comparison with the NDI-8 is provided that suggests overall similar function across the forms, although the latter may be more sensitive to change.

Prognosis after whiplash injury: where to from here? Discussion paper 4

STUDY DESIGN

Nonsystematic review and discussion of prognosis after whiplash injury.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the research and identify a research agenda for improving prognostic models after whiplash injury.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

With up to 50% of individuals failing to fully recover after whiplash injury, the capacity to determine a precise estimate of prognosis will be important. Systematic reviews note inconsistencies and shortcomings of research in this area.

METHODS

A nonsystematic review and discussion.

RESULTS

Most prognostic whiplash studies are phase 1 (exploratory) studies with few confirmatory or validation studies yet available. It is recognized that whiplash is a heterogeneous condition and clinicians require prognostic indicators for clinical use. Although the evidence is not sufficiently strong to make firm recommendations, there are some prognostic factors that have shown consistency across studies and could be considered as preliminary flags or guides to gauge patients potentially at risk of poor recovery. These include pain and/or disability levels, neck range of movement, cold and mechanical hyperalgesia and psychological factors of recovery beliefs/expectations, post-traumatic stress symptoms, depression, and pain catastrophizing. It is not known whether these factors can be modified or whether modification will improve outcomes, thus they should not be considered directives for management. Research priorities identified to develop improved predictive models include confirmation and validation of factors identified in phase 1 studies; investigation of the interaction between variables; investigation of the predictive value of changes in variables over time; the inclusion of validated outcomes including measures of pain and disability as well as perceived recovery and psychological outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The current evidence is not sufficiently robust to be able to confidently predict outcome after whiplash injury. A preliminary set of consistent factors has been proposed to assist clinicians in identifying individuals at risk of poor recovery. Directions for the development of improved prognostic models are discussed.

Optimal designs for prediction studies of whiplash

STUDY DESIGN

Commentary.

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidance for the design and interpretation of predictive studies of whiplash associated disorders (WAD).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Numerous studies have sought to define and explain the clinical course and response to treatment of people with WAD. Design of these studies is often suboptimal, which can lead to biased findings and issues with interpreting the results.

METHODS

Literature review and commentary.

RESULTS

Predictive studies can be grouped into four broad categories; studies of symptomatic course, studies that aim to identify factors that predict outcome, studies that aim to isolate variables that are causally responsible for outcome, and studies that aim to identify patients who respond best to particular treatments. Although the specific research question will determine the optimal methods, there are a number of generic features that should be incorporated into design of such studies. The aim of these features is to minimize bias, generate adequately precise prognostic estimates, and ensure generalizability of the findings.

CONCLUSION

This paper provides a summary of important considerations in the design, conduct, and reporting of prediction studies in the field of whiplash.

What does the evidence tell us about design of future treatment trials for whiplash-associated disorders?

STUDY DESIGN

Reflective critique and recommendation development.

OBJECTIVE

To reflect on limitations in past trials and propose recommendations on innovative trial designs and methodologies for whiplash-associated disorders (WAD).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The cost of doing clinical research and risk of retaining an evidence void is an overarching threat to lessening the transition of WAD to chronicity.

METHODS

Review trial limitations on neck pain and propose recommendations to amend these.

RESULTS

Three innovative trial designs, 20 methodological recommendations, and two knowledge translation (KT) research strategies are proposed. Many of the gaps in our current understanding of neck disorders can be linked to an inadequate research design and implementation. Increased utilization of three design options for evaluating therapies could lead to a more accurate and efficient understanding of the merits of various therapies singly and multimodal. Increased utilization of mixed methods or biological subcomponents may advance our understanding of neck disorders and the resulting disability. There is a need for harmonization and standardization across participant disorder classification; identification and tracking of prognostic factors and adverse events; adequate intervention description and dosing; and outcome selection comparable across studies and across International Classification Framework domains. Reasons for discordant conclusions including subjective elements need to be explored in future trials using qualitative methods. KT research that defines the barriers to implementation of existing knowledge and strategies to reduce the evidence to practice gap is urgently needed.

CONCLUSION

Our recommendations suggest an overarching need for adherence to CONSORT guidelines, a consensus taxonomy illuminating neck pain characterization, prognostic indicators, and diagnostic criteria as well as a core set of trial outcomes. Innovative trial design could lead to a more accurate and efficient understanding of the merits of various therapies. As the evidence emerges, studies of KT can inform us how it will impact clinical actions.

Whiplash and the compensation hypothesis

STUDY DESIGN

Review article.

OBJECTIVE

To explain why the evidence that compensation-related factors lead to worse health outcomes is not compelling, either in general, or in the specific case of whiplash.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There is a common view that compensation-related factors lead to worse health outcomes ("the compensation hypothesis"), despite the presence of important, and unresolved sources of bias. The empirical evidence on this question has ramifications for the design of compensation schemes.

METHODS

Using studies on whiplash, this article outlines the methodological problems that impede attempts to confirm or refute the compensation hypothesis.

RESULTS

Compensation studies are prone to measurement bias, reverse causation bias, and selection bias. Errors in measurement are largely due to the latent nature of whiplash injuries and health itself, a lack of clarity over the unit of measurement (specific factors, or "compensation"), and a lack of appreciation for the heterogeneous qualities of compensation-related factors and schemes. There has been a failure to acknowledge and empirically address reverse causation bias, or the likelihood that poor health influences the decision to pursue compensation: it is unclear if compensation is a cause or a consequence of poor health, or both. Finally, unresolved selection bias (and hence, confounding) is evident in longitudinal studies and natural experiments. In both cases, between-group differences have not been addressed convincingly.

CONCLUSION

The nature of the relationship between compensation-related factors and health is unclear. Current approaches to testing the compensation hypothesis are prone to several important sources of bias, which compromise the validity of their results. Methods that explicitly test the hypothesis and establish whether or not a causal relationship exists between compensation factors and prolonged whiplash symptoms are needed in future studies.

Systematic literature review on ICF from 2001 to 2009: its use, implementation and operationalisation

PURPOSE

To present a systematic literature review on the state of the art of the utilisation of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) since its release in 2001.

METHOD

The search was conducted through EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsychInfo covering the period between 2001 and December 2009. Papers were included if ICF was mentioned in title or abstract. Papers focussing on the ICF-CY and clinical research on children and youth only were excluded. Papers were assigned to six different groups covering the wide scenario of ICF application.

RESULTS

A total of 672 papers, coming from 34 countries and 211 different journals, were included in the analysis. The majority of publications (30.8%) were conceptual papers or papers reporting clinical and rehabilitation studies (25.9%). One-third of the papers were published in 2008 and 2009.

CONCLUSIONS

The ICF contributed to the development of research on functioning and on disability in clinical, rehabilitation as well as in several other contexts, such as disability eligibility and employment. Diffusion of ICF research and use in a great variety of fields and scientific journals is a proof that a cultural change and a new conceptualisation of functioning and disability is happening.