Movement System Impairment-Based Classification Treatment Versus General Exercises for Chronic Low Back Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial

Physiotherapeutic and non-conventional approaches in patients with chronic low-back pain: a level I Bayesian network meta-analysis

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is a major cause of disability and healthcare expenditure worldwide. Its prevalence is increasing globally from somatic and psychosocial factors. While non-pharmacological management, and in particular physiotherapy, has been recommended as a first-line treatment for cLBP, it is not clear what type of physiotherapeutic approach is the most effective in terms of pain reduction and function improvement. This analysis is rendered more difficult by the vast number of available therapies and a lack of a widely accepted classification that can effectively highlight the differences in the outcomes of different management options. This study was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. In January 2024, the following databases were accessed: PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase. All the randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the efficacy of physiotherapy programs in patients with cLBP were accessed. Studies reporting on non-specific or mechanical cLPB were included. Data concerning the Visual Analogic Scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Data from 12,773 patients were collected. The mean symptom duration was 61.2 ± 51.0 months and the mean follow-up was 4.3 ± 5.9 months. The mean age was 44.5 ± 9.4 years. The mean BMI was 25.8 ± 2.9 kg/m2. The Adapted Physical Exercise group evidenced the lowest pain score, followed by Multidisciplinary and Adapted Training Exercise/Complementary Medicine. The Adapted Physical Exercise group evidenced the lowest RMQ score followed by Therapeutic Exercises and Multidisciplinary. The Multidisciplinary group evidenced the lowest ODI score, followed by Adapted Physical Exercise and Physical Agent modalities. Within the considered physiotherapeutic and non-conventional approaches to manage nonspecific and/or mechanic cLBP, adapted physical exercise, physical agent modalities, and a multidisciplinary approach might represent the most effective strategy to reduce pain and disability.

Effectiveness of diagnosis and treatment based on movement system impairment in individuals with cervical pain: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Movement System Impairment (MSI) classification and treatment effectively diagnose and treat the individual with neck pain. There is a lacuna in the current neck pain management guidelines addressing movement-specific mechanical diagnosis. MSI is based on the movement-specific mechanical diagnosis and kinesiopathologic model.

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the movement system impairment model among neck pain individuals.

METHODS

This study was designed as a randomized controlled trial. Eighty-two participants were screened for eligibility; Sixty individuals fulfilling the inclusion criteria were randomized into the experimental group (n = 30) and control group (n = 30). A total of 52 individuals completed the study, 26 in both groups. The experimental and the control group received treatment as recommended by the MSI model and clinical practice guideline (CPG) for neck pain with mobility deficits. All participants were assessed for pain intensity, cervical range of motion, deep cervical muscle strength, endurance, and disability at baseline and the end of 3rd week of treatment.

RESULTS

Significant differences were found in pain intensity, cervical range of motion, cervical muscle strength, endurance, and disability with both groups at the end of 10 sessions of treatment spread over three weeks (p < 0.05). However, the experimental group (MSI) demonstrated more clinical benefits than CPG based neck mobility deficits treatment.

CONCLUSION

The movement system impairment model may effectively diagnose and treat neck pain in individuals with mobility deficits. Future research is warranted to establish its long-term effect.

"My Back is Fit for Movement": A Qualitative Study Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial for Chronic Low Back Pain

A new wave of treatments has emerged to target nervous system alterations and maladaptive conceptualizations about pain for chronic low back pain. The acceptability of these treatments is still uncertain. We conducted a qualitative study alongside a randomized controlled trial to identify perceptions of facilitators or barriers to participation in a non-pharmacological intervention that resulted in clinically meaningful reductions across 12 months for disability compared to a sham intervention. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants from the trial's active arm after they completed the 12-week program. We included a purposeful sample (baseline and clinical characteristics) (n = 20). We used reflexive thematic analysis informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability for health care interventions. We identified positive and negative emotional/cognitive responses associated with treatment acceptability and potential efficacy, including emotional support, cognitive empowerment, readiness for self-management, and acceptance of face-to-face and online components designed to target the brain. These findings suggest the importance of psychoeducation and behavior change techniques to create a positive attitude towards movement and increase the perception of pain control; systematic approaches to monitor and target misconceptions about the interventions during treatment; and psychoeducation and behavior change techniques to maintain the improvements after the cessation of formal care. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the experiences of people with chronic low back pain participating in a new non-pharmacological brain-targeted treatment that includes face-to-face and self-directed approaches. The facilitators and barriers of the interventions could potentially inform adaptations and optimization of treatments designed to target the brain to treat chronic low back pain.

Home Exercise Programs Are Infrequently Prescribed in Trials of Supervised Exercise for Individuals With Low Back Pain: A Scoping Review of 292 Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVES: To (1) determine how often home exercise programs (HEPs) are prescribed in supervised exercise trials for low back pain (LBP) and (2) describe characteristics of the HEP programs (design, purpose, dose, and adherence). DESIGN: Scoping review. LITERATURE SEARCH: PubMed, CINAHL, and Ovid MEDLINE were searched from January 1, 2010, to August 17, 2021. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials that included adults with LBP who received exercise interventions. DATA SYNTHESIS: The presence or absence of a prescribed HEP and any details of the HEP including design, dose, and adherence were extracted and summarized. RESULTS: Of 2689 potentially relevant trials, 292 were eligible for inclusion. Ninety-four trials (32%) included a HEP. The most commonly prescribed home exercises were core stability, trunk strengthening, and motor control exercises. There was great variation in the frequency and duration with which HEPs were prescribed. Adherence to HEPs was measured in fewer than half of the trials, and the methods for measuring adherence were inconsistent. Adherence to HEPs ranged from 29% to 82% in the 21 trials that reported adherence. CONCLUSION: Home exercise programs are not regularly prescribed in supervised exercise trials for LBP. There was considerable variation in prescribing HEPs and monitoring exercise adherence in trials of exercise-based treatments for adults with LBP. There is no consistent method used to measure participants' adherence to HEPs, and adherence percentages vary widely. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(3):120-142. Epub: 16 January 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11448.

A comparison of treatment signatures of high and low performing physical therapists for patients with lower back pain: analysis of spine care from a physical therapy outcomes registry

INTRODUCTION

Lower back pain (LBP) is the most common orthopedic complaint in the United States. Physical therapy is recommended as a conservative, non-pharmacological intervention for LBP. While it is thought that skill level and effectiveness of physical therapists differ, there is little understanding regarding characteristics that distinguish high and low performing physical therapists. The purpose of this study was to compare differences in care delivery, termed treatment signatures, between high and low performing physical therapists previously differentiated by a risk-adjusted performance measure.

METHODS

Using previously published methodology, 1,240 physical therapists were classified as "outperforming", "meeting expectations", or "underperforming" relative to predicted change in Modified Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (MDQ) across patients receiving care for LBP. Patients were divided into quartiles of baseline disability per initial MDQ. Two-way analyses of variance were used to compare billed (1) active, exercise-based units per visit (UPV), (2) manual therapy UPV, (3) modality UPV, and (4) the combination of active and manual therapy UPV (broadly termed skilled UPV) by performance cohort and baseline patient disability quartile among physical therapists deemed "outperforming" and "underperforming". Tukey's post hoc tests established mean differences with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Physical therapists that "outperformed" (n=120; 17,404 patients) used more active UPV (mean difference (diff) = 0.1, p<.001), manual therapy UPV (mean diff = 0.2, p<.001), and skilled UPV (mean diff = 0.3, p<.001), and less modality UPV (mean diff = 0.1, P < 0.001) than those that "underperformed" (n=139; 21,800 patients). Tukey's post hoc tests showed that while differences in care were negligible in patients with low baseline disability, the highest performing PT cohort delivered skilled (0.4 UPV), active (0.2 UPV), and manual therapy (0.2 UPV) UPV at a significantly higher mean rate in patients with the highest baseline disability.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically effective physical therapists incorporated a treatment signature that included a consistent blend of skilled active and manual therapy interventions that was distinct from lower performing physical therapists. While group mean differences were relatively small, a consistent pattern emerged in which high performing physical therapists maintained a high level of skilled, one-on-one interventions across their entire caseload-while their lower performing counterparts significantly decreased use of the same interventions as baseline disability increased. These differences highlighted a treatment signature that was associated with clinically important improvements for patients with greater baseline disability. Future guideline recommendations should consider the importance of baseline disability and the consistent application of skilled active and manual therapy interventions.

Segmental spine mobility differences between lumbar flexion- and extension-based movement syndromes in patients with low back pain

BACKGROUND

The Movement System Impairment (MSI) model is useful for identifying spine-hip mobility and motor control deficits that may contribute to low back pain (LBP). While previous studies have found differences in global spine-hip movement impairments between lumbar MSI subgroups, no studies have compared segmental spine movement impairments between these subgroups. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to analyze segmental lumbar mobility in participants with LBP and a lumbar flexion- or extension-based MSI.

METHODS

Forty participants with subacute-chronic LBP were placed into one of three age groups (< 35, 35-54, or > 54 years-old) and then classified into a flexion- or extension-based MSI sub-group. Segmental lumbar range of motion (ROM) was measured in degrees using a skin-surface device. Total lumbar and segmental flexion and extension ROM of L1-L2 to L5-S1 was compared between MSI sub-groups for each age group using separate two-way ANOVAs.

RESULTS

Significant main effects were found for the independent variables of MSI subgroup and age. Participants in all three age groups with a flexion-based MSI displayed significantly less lumbar extension (-0.6∘) at L4-5 as compared to participants with an extension-based MSI (-2.1∘), p= 0.03. In addition, lumbar total and segmental ROM was significantly less for older individuals in both subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with LBP may demonstrate a pattern of lumbar segmental hypomobility in the opposite direction of their MSI. Future studies may investigate the added value of direction-specific spinal mobilization to a program of MSI-based exercise.

Updated Integrated Framework for Making Clinical Decisions Across the Lifespan and Health Conditions

The updated Integrated Framework for Clinical Decision Making responds to changes in evidence, policy, and practice since the publication of the first version in 2008. The original framework was proposed for persons with neurological health conditions, whereas the revised framework applies to persons with any health condition across the lifespan. In addition, the revised framework (1) updates patient-centered concepts with shared clinical decision-making; (2) frames the episode of care around the patient's goals for participation; (3) explicitly describes the role of movement science; (4) reconciles movement science and International Classification of Function language, illustrating the importance of each perspective to patient care; (5) provides a process for movement analysis of tasks; and (6) integrates the movement system into patient management. Two cases are used to illustrate the application of the framework: (1) a 45-year-old male bus driver with low back pain whose goals for the episode of care are to return to work and recreational basketball; and (2) a 65-year-old female librarian with a fall history whose goals for the episode of care are to return to work and reduce future falls. The framework is proposed as a tool for physical therapist education and to guide clinical practice for all health conditions across the lifespan.

Classification Approaches for Treating Low Back Pain Have Small Effects That Are Not Clinically Meaningful: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether classification systems improve patient-reported outcomes for people with low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

LITERATURE SEARCH

The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to June 21, 2021. Reference lists of prior systematic reviews and included trials were screened.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials comparing a classification system (eg, the McKenzie method or the STarT Back Tool) to any comparator. Studies evaluating participants with specific spinal conditions (eg, fractures or tumors) were excluded.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Outcomes were patient-reported LBP intensity, leg pain intensity, and disability. We used the revised Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool to assess risk of bias, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to judge the certainty of evidence. We used random-effects meta-analysis, with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik- Jonkman adjustment, to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD; Hedges' g) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses explored classification system, comparator type, pain type, and pain duration.

RESULTS

Twenty-four trials assessing classification systems and 34 assessing subclasses were included. There was low certainty of a small effect at the end of intervention for LBP intensity (SMD, -0.31; 95% CI: -0.54, -0.07; P = .014, n = 4416, n = 21 trials) and disability (SMD, -0.27; 95% CI: -0.46, -0.07; P = .011, n = 4809, n = 24 trials), favoring classified treatments compared to generalized interventions, but not for leg pain intensity. At the end of intervention, no specific type of classification system was superior to generalized interventions for improving pain intensity and disability. None of the estimates exceeded the effect size that one would consider clinically meaningful.

CONCLUSION

For patient-reported pain intensity and disability, there is insufficient evidence supporting the use of classification systems over generalized interventions when managing LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(2):67-84. Epub 15 Nov 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10761.

Interventions for the Management of Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain: Revision 2021

Low back pain (LBP) remains a musculoskeletal condition with an adverse societal impact. Globally, LBP is highly prevalent and a leading cause of disability. This is an update to the 2012 Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy (AOPT), formerly the Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA), clinical practice guideline (CPG) for LBP. The overall objective of this update was to provide recommendations on interventions delivered by physical therapists or studied in care settings that included physical therapy providers. It also focused on synthesizing new evidence, with the purpose of making recommendations for specific nonpharmacologic treatments. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(11):CPG1-CPG60. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.0304.

The Unknown Prevalence of Postrandomization Bias in 15 Physical Therapy Journals: A Methods Review

OBJECTIVES

To determine the prevalence of prospective clinical trial registration and postrandomization bias in published musculoskeletal physical therapy randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

DESIGN

A methods review.

LITERATURE SEARCH

Articles indexed in MEDLINE and published between January 2016 and July 2020 were included.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

Two independent blinded reviewers identified the RCTs using Covidence. We included RCTs related to musculoskeletal interventions that were published in International Society of Physiotherapy Journal Editors member journals.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted independently for the variables of interest from the identified RCTs by 2 blinded reviewers. The data were presented descriptively or in frequency tables.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-eight RCTs were identified. One third of RCTs were consistent with their prospectively registered intent (49/138); consistency with prospectively registered intent could not be determined for two thirds (89/138) of the RCTs. Four RCTs (8%)reported inconsistent results with the primary aims and 7 (14%) with the outcomes from the prospective clinical trial registry, despite high methodological quality (Physiotherapy Evidence Database [PEDro] scale score). Differences between prospectively registered and non-prospectively registered RCTs for PEDro scale scores had a medium effect size (r = 0.30). Two of 15 journals followed their clinical trial registration policy 100% of the time; in 1 journal, the published RCTs were consistent with the clinical trial registration.

CONCLUSION

Postrandomization bias in musculoskeletal physical therapy RCTs could not be ruled out, due to the lack of prospective clinical trial registration and detailed data analysis plans. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(11):542-550. Epub 21 Sep 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10491.

Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain has been the leading cause of disability globally for at least the past three decades and results in enormous direct healthcare and lost productivity costs.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess the impact of exercise treatment on pain and functional limitations in adults with chronic non-specific low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo and other conservative treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which includes the Cochrane Back and Neck trials register), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), and conducted citation searching of relevant systematic reviews to identify additional studies. The review includes data for trials identified in searches up to 27 April 2018. All eligible trials have been identified through searches to 7 December 2020, but have not yet been extracted; these trials will be integrated in the next update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that assessed exercise treatment compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo or other conservative treatment on the outcomes of pain or functional limitations for a population of adult participants with chronic non-specific low back pain of more than 12 weeks' duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors screened and assessed studies independently, with consensus. We extracted outcome data using electronic databases; pain and functional limitations outcomes were re-scaled to 0 to 100 points for meta-analyses where 0 is no pain or functional limitations. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool and used GRADE to evaluate the overall certainty of the evidence. When required, we contacted study authors to obtain missing data. To interpret meta-analysis results, we considered a 15-point difference in pain and a 10-point difference in functional limitations outcomes to be clinically important for the primary comparison of exercise versus no treatment, usual care or placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 249 trials of exercise treatment, including studies conducted in Europe (122 studies), Asia (38 studies), North America (33 studies), and the Middle East (24 studies). Sixty-one per cent of studies (151 trials) examined the effectiveness of two or more different types of exercise treatment, and 57% (142 trials) compared exercise treatment to a non-exercise comparison treatment. Study participants had a mean age of 43.7 years and, on average, 59% of study populations were female. Most of the trials were judged to be at risk of bias, including 79% at risk of performance bias due to difficulty blinding exercise treatments. We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise treatment is more effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons for pain outcomes at earliest follow-up (MD -15.2, 95% CI -18.3 to -12.2), a clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to heterogeneity. For the same comparison, there was moderate-certainty evidence for functional limitations outcomes (MD -6.8 (95% CI -8.3 to -5.3); this finding did not meet our prespecified threshold for minimal clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to some evidence of publication bias.  Compared to all other investigated conservative treatments, exercise treatment was found to have improved pain (MD -9.1, 95% CI -12.6 to -5.6) and functional limitations outcomes (MD -4.1, 95% CI -6.0 to -2.2). These effects did not meet our prespecified threshold for clinically important difference. Subgroup analysis of pain outcomes suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than education alone (MD -12.2, 95% CI -19.4 to -5.0) or non-exercise physical therapy (MD -10.4, 95% CI -15.2 to -5.6), but with no differences observed for manual therapy (MD 1.0, 95% CI -3.1 to 5.1). In studies that reported adverse effects (86 studies), one or more adverse effects were reported in 37 of 112 exercise groups (33%) and 12 of 42 comparison groups (29%). Twelve included studies reported measuring adverse effects in a systematic way, with a median of 0.14 (IQR 0.01 to 0.57) per participant in the exercise groups (mostly minor harms, e.g. muscle soreness), and 0.12 (IQR 0.02 to 0.32) in comparison groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise is probably effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo for pain. The observed treatment effect for the exercise compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons is small for functional limitations, not meeting our threshold for minimal clinically important difference. We also found exercise to have improved pain (low-certainty evidence) and functional limitations outcomes (moderate-certainty evidence) compared to other conservative treatments; however, these effects were small and not clinically important when considering all comparisons together. Subgroup analysis suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than advice or education alone, or electrotherapy, but with no differences observed for manual therapy treatments.

Association between patient independence in performing an exercise program and adherence to home exercise program in people with chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

A high percentage of patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) do not adequately adhere to home exercise programs. There is no information regarding a possible association between patient independence in performing an exercise program and adherence to this exercise program.

OBJECTIVE

To assess a possible association between patient independence in performing two different home exercise programs (treatment based on the Movement System Impairment-Based classification model (MSI) and treatment based on stretching and strengthening exercises for chronic LBP and adherence to those exercise programs.

DESIGN

This was a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

The physical therapist assessed the patient's independence in performing the exercise program at the initial physical therapy sessions. Adherence was calculated during the 8-week treatment by the number of days performing the home exercise programs. Multivariate linear regression models were built to investigate whether patient independence in performing the home exercise program was associated with adherence to home exercise program for each treatment group adjusted for possible confounders (age, physical activity status, pain duration, pain intensity and disability at baseline).

RESULTS

We observed a clinically important association between patient independence in performing the home exercise and adherence to a treatment based on the MSI model group (ß = -15.6 days, 95%CI = -24.5 to -6.7, R² = 16%, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

People with chronic LBP adhered more to a home exercise program based on the MSI model when they are more independent in performing the exercise program.

Baseline characteristics did not identify people with low back pain who respond best to a Movement System Impairment-Based classification treatment

STUDY DESIGN

Secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND

Treatment based on the Movement System Impairment-Based classification for chronic low back pain results in the same benefit when compared to other forms of exercise. It is possible that participant's characteristics measured at baseline can identify people with chronic low back pain who would respond best to a treatment based on the Movement System Impairment model.

OBJECTIVES

To assess if specific characteristics of people with chronic low back pain measured at baseline can modify the effects of a treatment based on the Movement System Impairment model on pain and disability.

METHODS

Four variables assessed at baseline that could potentially modify the treatment effects of the treatment based on the Movement System Impairment model were selected (age, educational status, physical activity status and STarT back tool classification). Separate univariate models were used to investigate a possible modifier treatment effect of baseline participant's characteristics on pain and disability after the treatment. Findings of interaction values above 1 point for the outcome mean pain intensity or above 3 points for disability (Roland Morris questionnaire) were considered clinically relevant.

RESULTS

Linear regression analyses for the outcomes of pain and disability did not show interaction values considered clinically relevant for age, educational status, physical activity status and STarT back tool classification.

CONCLUSION

Age, educational status, physical activity status and STarT back tool classification did not modify the effects of an 8-week treatment based on the Movement System Impairment model in patients with chronic low back pain. Registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02221609 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02221609).

Concurrent validity of a wearable IMU for objective assessments of functional movement quality and control of the lumbar spine

Inertial measurement units (IMUs) are being recognized in clinical and rehabilitation settings for their ability to assess movement-related disorders of the spine for better guidance of treatment-planning and tracking of recovery. This study evaluated the Mbientlab MetaMotionR IMUs, relative to Vicon motion capture equipment in measuring local dynamic stability of the spine (quantified using maximum finite-time Lyapunov exponent; λ_max), lumbopelvic coordination (quantified using mean absolute relative phase; MARP), and intersegmental motor variability (quantified using deviation phase; DP) of lumbopelvic segments in 10 participants during 35 cycles of repetitive spine flexion-extension (FE). Intraclass correlations were strong between systems when using both the FE angle time-series and the sum of squares (SS) time-series to measure local dynamic stability (0.807 ≤ICC_2,1^λmax,FE ≤ 0.919; 0.738 ≤ ICC_2,1^λmax,SS ≤ 0.868), sagittal-plane lumbopelvic coordination (0.961 ≤ICC_2,1^MARP ≤ 0.963), and sagittal-plane lumbopelvic variability (0.961 ≤ICC_2,1^DP ≤ 0.963). It was concluded that the MetaMotionR IMUs can be reliably used for measuring features associated with spine movement quality and motor control during a repetitive FE task. Future work will assess the reliability of sensor placement, performance during multi-directional movements, and ability to discern clinical and healthy populations based on assessment of movement quality and control.

White Paper: Movement System Diagnoses in Neurologic Physical Therapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The APTA recently established a vision for physical therapists to transform society by optimizing movement to promote health and wellness, mitigate impairments, and prevent disability. An important element of this vision entails the integration of the movement system into the profession, and necessitates the development of movement system diagnoses by physical therapists. At this point in time, the profession as a whole has not agreed upon diagnostic classifications or guidelines to assist in developing movement system diagnoses that will consistently capture an individual's movement problems. We propose that, going forward, diagnostic classifications of movement system problems need to be developed, tested, and validated. The Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy's Movement System Task Force was convened to address these issues with respect to management of movement system problems in patients with neurologic conditions. The purpose of this article is to report on the work and recommendations of the Task Force.

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

The Task Force identified 4 essential elements necessary to develop and implement movement system diagnoses for patients with primarily neurologic involvement from existing movement system classifications. The Task Force considered the potential impact of using movement system diagnoses on clinical practice, education and, research. Recommendations were developed and provided recommendations for potential next steps to broaden this discussion and foster the development of movement system diagnostic classifications.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

The Task Force proposes that diagnostic classifications of movement system problems need to be developed, tested, and validated with the long-range goal to reach consensus on and adoption of a movement system diagnostic framework for clients with neurologic injury or disease states.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A198).

Analysis of Motor Control in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Key to Personalized Care?

SYNOPSIS

Motor control exercise has been shown to be effective in the management of low back pain (LBP). However, the effect sizes for motor control exercise are modest, possibly because studies have used a one-size-fits-all approach, while the literature suggests that patients may differ in presence or type of motor control issues. In this commentary, we address the question of whether consideration of such variation in motor control issues might contribute to more personalized motor control exercise for patients with LBP. Such an approach is plausible, because motor control changes may play a role in persistence of pain through effects on tissue loading that may cause nociceptive afference, particularly in the case of peripheral sensitization. Subgrouping systems used in clinical practice, which comprise motor control aspects, allow reliable classification that is, in part, aligned with findings in studies on motor control in patients with LBP. Motor control issues may have heuristic value for treatment allocation, as the different presentations observed suggest different targets for motor control exercise, but this remains to be proven. Finally, clinical assessment of patients with LBP should take into account more aspects than motor control alone, including pain mechanisms, musculoskeletal health, and psychosocial factors, and may need to be embedded in a stratification approach based on prognosis to avoid undue diagnostic procedures. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(6):380-388. Epub 12 Jun 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.7916.

Association Between Clinical Tests Related to Motor Control Dysfunction and Changes in Pain and Disability After Lumbar Stabilization Exercises in Individuals With Chronic Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether clinical tests used to detect motor control dysfunction can predict improvements in pain and disability in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP) who have undergone an 8-week lumbar stabilization exercise program.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Outpatient physical therapy university clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventy people with chronic nonspecific LBP were recruited, and 64 completed the exercise program (N=64).

INTERVENTIONS

The lumbar stabilization program was provided twice a week for 8 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pain intensity (11-point numerical rating scale) and disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) and clinical tests, such as the Deep Muscle Contraction (DMC) scale, Clinical Test of Thoracolumbar Dissociation (CTTD), and Passive Lumbar Extension (PLE) test. Univariate and multivariate linear regression models were used in the prediction analysis.

RESULTS

Mean changes in pain intensity and disability following the 8-week stabilization program were -3.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], -3.2 to -4.4) and -7.4 (95% CI, -6.3 to -8.5), respectively. Clinical test scores taken at baseline did not predict changes in pain and disability at 8-week follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Our findings revealed that the DMC scale, CTTD, PLE test, clinical tests used to assess motor control dysfunction, do not predict improvements in pain and disability in patients with chronic nonspecific LBP following an 8-week lumbar stabilization exercise program.

The type and pain provoking nature of exercise prescribed for low back pain: A survey of Australian health professionals

OBJECTIVES

To explore the type of exercise prescribed by Australian health professionals for LBP, and whether the exercises prescribed are pain-free or into pain.

METHODS

A survey of physiotherapists and exercise physiologists was conducted from all states/territories in Australia. The survey contained two chronic LBP vignettes with different pain mechanisms (dominant nociceptive or central sensitisation pain) and one acute LBP vignette. Respondents were asked if they would prescribe advice to stay active and exercise. If exercise was prescribed, respondents were asked to specify the type and pain provoking nature (exercise with no pain, exercise to the start of pain, exercise with pain at a tolerable level or exercise irrespective of pain).

RESULTS

The response rate was 17%(218/1276). Most respondents prescribed advice to stay active(≥95%) and exercise(≥90%) for all vignettes. Irrespective of the vignette, several exercises were prescribed [aerobic (57-85% of clinicians), motor control (62-84% of clinicians), range of motion (72-75% of clinicians)]. Strengthening exercise was prescribed more for chronic(>60%) than acute LBP(23%). Irrespective of the exercise, between 20 and 25% of respondents prescribed pain-free exercise, between 71 and 79% of respondents prescribed exercise into pain, and ≤4% prescribed exercise irrespective of pain for acute and chronic LBP.

CONCLUSIONS

Several exercises are prescribed for LBP, irrespective of pain mechanism or duration, with more clinicians prescribing strengthening exercise for chronic than acute LBP. Most clinicians prescribed exercise into pain for acute and chronic LBP, irrespective of the exercise. Further research should determine which exercises are beneficial based on pain mechanism and duration, and whether exercise into pain should be prescribed for LBP.

Are movement-based classification systems more effective than therapeutic exercise or guideline based care in improving outcomes for patients with chronic low back pain? A systematic review

Objectives: The purpose of this systematic review was to determine if movement-based classification (MBC) systems are more effective than therapeutic exercise or guideline-based care (GBC) in improving outcomes in patients with low back pain (LBP) based upon randomized clinical trials (RCT) with moderate to high methodological quality and low to moderate risk of bias. Methods: The search strategy was developed by a librarian experienced in systematic review methodology and peer reviewed by a second research librarian. The following databases were searched from their inception to May 17, 2018: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The identified RCTs with a PEDro score of ≥6 were screened and assessed for risk of bias by two blinded individual reviewers using Covidence. Results: Seven studies were identified that had moderate-to-high methodological quality. One of the studies was identified as having a high risk of bias. Of the six studies that remained, only one study reported finding a statistically significant difference at the immediate follow-up that was not clinically significant. There was no significance at 6 and 12 months. Discussion: There is a paucity of moderate to high methodological quality RCTs with similar methodology that compare MBC to standard of care treatments for patients with LBP. Studies with moderate to high methodological quality that have a low risk of bias do not support MBCs as being superior to general exercise or GBC in the treatment of nonradicular LBP. Level of Evidence: 1a.

Motor skill training in musculoskeletal pain: a case report in chronic low back pain

Purpose: Low back pain is a chronic condition that limits function. The chief reason individuals with low back pain seek care is difficulty performing functional activities. A novel approach to improving performance of painful and limited functional activities is motor skill training, defined as challenging practice of activities to learn or relearn a skill. The purpose of this report is to describe the design and application of a motor skill training intervention in a 26-year-old man with a 10-year history of low back pain. Methods: A motor skill training intervention was implemented to modify the altered alignment and movement patterns he used during the performance of his painful and limited activities. Results: The patient was seen for six visits in 12 weeks. The patient reported decreased pain and medication use, as well as improved function immediately, 3-, and 9-months post-intervention. Conclusion: Individuals with low back pain report limitation in ability to perform everyday functions and demonstrate altered patterns of movement and alignment during these activities. This case report describes an innovative motor skill training intervention that directly addresses the performance of functional activities and the application of motor learning principles. Implications for rehabilitation Low back pain is a chronic condition that limits function. The chief reason individuals with chronic low back pain seek care is difficulty performing everyday functional activities. Motor skill training is a novel approach that directly addresses the performance of painful and limited functional activities through challenging practice to improve performance and decrease pain.