Interrater Reliability of Motion Palpation in the Thoracic Spine

Musculoskeletal aspects of respiratory function in cystic fibrosis: a cross-sectional comparative study

Background

Respiration is an intricate interaction between visceral and musculoskeletal structures. In cystic fibrosis (CF), the airways and lungs are subject to progressive obstruction and destruction. However, knowledge about the musculoskeletal aspects of respiratory function and symptoms is still limited in this patient group.

Methods

In a cross-sectional comparative study, 21 adults with CF enrolled at the Gothenburg CF Centre were matched with 42 healthy controls. The two groups were examined and compared in terms of thoracic mobility, respiratory muscle strength, lung function, and musculoskeletal pain in accordance with a predefined protocol.

Results

Significant differences were observed between the groups in the number of tender points, thoracic excursion, forced vital capacity (FVC), and forced expiratory volume (FEV). The CF group also demonstrated a tendency toward reduced function in other measurements, although these were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

This cross-sectional study revealed that people with CF have reduced thoracic mobility and an increased prevalence of muscular tender points, alongside decreased lung function, compared to healthy controls. These findings stress the need for greater emphasis on the often-overlooked musculoskeletal aspects of CF care, especially as people with CF are living longer and may require more musculoskeletal health support.

A critical review of the role of manual therapy in the treatment of individuals with low back pain

The number of low back pain (LBP) cases is projected to increase to more than 800 million by 2050. To address the substantial burden of disease associated with this rise in prevalence, effective treatments are needed. While clinical practice guidelines (CPG) consistently recommend non-pharmacological therapies as first-line treatments, recommendations regarding manual therapy (MT) in treating low back pain vary. The goal of this narrative review was to critically summarize the available evidence for MT behind these recommendations, to scrutinize its mechanisms of action, and propose some actionable steps for clinicians on how this knowledge can be integrated into a person-centered approach. Despite disparate recommendations from CPG, MT is as effective as other available treatments and may be offered to patients with LBP, especially as part of a treatment package with exercise and education. Most of the effects of MT are not specific to the technique. MT and other interventions share several mechanisms of action that mediate treatment success. These mechanisms can encompass patients' expectations, prior experiences, beliefs and convictions, epistemic trust, and nonspecific contextual effects. Although MT is safer than opioids for patients with LBP, this alone is insufficient. Our goal is to encourage clinicians to shift away from outdated and refuted ideas in MT and embrace a person-centered approach rooted in a comprehensive biopsychosocial framework while incorporating patients' beliefs, addressing illness behaviors, and seeking to understand each patient's journey.

Evaluating for a correlation between osteopathic examination and ultrasonography on thoracic spine asymmetry

CONTEXT

The thoracic spine is a common area of focus in osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) for a variety of conditions. Thoracic spine somatic dysfunction diagnosis is achieved by palpating for asymmetry at the tips of the transverse processes (TPs). Previous studies reveal that instead of following the rule of threes, the TPs of a given thoracic vertebra generally align with the spinous process (SP) of the vertebra above. Ultrasonography has been widely utilized as a diagnostic tool to monitor musculoskeletal conditions; it does not utilize ionizing radiation, and it has comparable results to gold-standard modalities. In the case of thoracic somatic dysfunction, ultrasound (US) can be utilized to determine the location of each vertebral TP and its relationship with the SP. Previous studies have investigated the correlation between OMM and ultrasonography of the cervical, lumbar, and sacral regions. However, there has been no study yet that has compared osteopathic structural examination with ultrasonographic examination of the thoracic vertebral region.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the relationship between osteopathic palpation and ultrasonographic measurements of the thoracic spine by creating a study design that utilizes interexaminer agreement and correlation.

METHODS

The ClinicalTrials.gov study identifier is NCT04823637. Subjects were student volunteers recruited from the Midwestern University (MWU)-Glendale campus. A nontoxic, nonpermanent marker was utilized to mark bony landmarks on the skin. Two neuromusculoskeletal board-certified physicians (OMM1, OMM2) separately performed structural exams by palpating T2-T5 TPs to determine vertebral rotation. Two sonographers (US1, US2) separately scanned and measured the distance from the tip of the SP to the adjacent TPs of the vertebral segment below. Demographic variables were summarized with mean and standard deviation. Interexaminer agreement was assessed with percent agreement, Cohen's Kappa, and Fleiss' Kappa. Correlation was measured by Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Recruitment and protocols were approved by the MWU Institutional Review Board (IRB).

RESULTS

US had fair interexaminer agreement for the overall most prominent segmental rotation of the T3-T5 thoracic spine, with Cohen's Kappa at 0.27 (0.09, 0.45), and a total agreement percentage at 51.5%. Osteopathic palpation revealed low interexaminer agreement for the overall most prominent vertebral rotation, with Cohen's Kappa at 0.05 (0.0, 0.27), and 31.8%. Segment-specific vertebral analysis revealed slight agreement between US examiners, with a correlation coefficient of 0.23, whereas all other pairwise comparisons showed low agreement and correlation. At T4, US had slight interexaminer agreement with 0.24 correlation coefficient, and osteopathic palpation showed low interexaminer (OMM1 vs. OMM2) agreement (0.17 correlation coefficient). At T5, there was moderate agreement between the two sonographers with 0.44 (0.27, 0.60) and 63.6%, with a correlation coefficient of 0.57, and slight agreement between OMM1 and OMM2 with 0.12 (0.0, 0.28) and 42.4%, with 0.23 correlation coefficient.

CONCLUSIONS

This preliminary study of an asymptomatic population revealed that there is a low-to-moderate interexaminer reliability between sonographers, low-to-slight interexaminer reliability between osteopathic physicians, and low interexaminer reliability between OMM palpatory examination and ultrasonographic evaluation of the thoracic spine.

Intra- and inter-rater reliability of thoracic spine mobility and posture assessments in subjects with thoracic spine pain

Background

The thoracic spine (TS) has been neglected in the study of the spine despite its essential role in the stability and posture of the entire spinal complex. Therefore, there is an inevitable need to investigate the reproducibility of different thoracic spinal posture measures used in subjects with TS pain.

Methods

Thirty-two subjects (16 females and 16 males, mean age 39 years) were evaluated by two physiotherapists on the same day to gauge inter-rater reliability and on two consecutive days to gauge intra-rater reliability. TS posture was assessed by observation, and thoracic spine mobility was measured by manual assessment of segmental flexion and extension mobility in a seated position. Additionally, posterior-to-anterior accessory mobility in a prone position was assessed manually. Moreover, cervicothoracic flexion in a seated position, thoracic posture, and thoracic flexion and extension mobility in a standing position were assessed with a tape measure, and flexion and extension mobility in a seated position and TS posture in seated and standing positions were measured with an inclinometer. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), mean difference (MD), Bland-Altman (B&A) plot features and coefficient of repeatability (CR) were calculated.

Results

The mean and standard deviation (SD) of the duration of TS pain was 22 (SD 45) months, with the intensity of pain being rated at 27 (SD 21) mm on a visual analogue scale (VAS). Intra-rater reliability was very strong (ICC ≥ 0.80) for the evaluation of seated and standing upper TS posture, standing whole TS posture and seated lower TS posture with an inclinometer. Moreover, TS posture evaluation with a measuring tape, posture inspection in a seated position, and manual assessment of segmental extension were found to have very strong intra-rater reliability. Inter-rater reliability was very strong for inclinometer measurements of standing and seated upper TS posture as well as standing whole TS posture.

Conclusion

Intra-rater reliability was higher than inter-rater reliability in most of the evaluated measurements. Overall, posture measurements with an inclinometer were more reliable than mobility measurements with the same instrument. The manual assessments can be used reliably when same evaluator performs the examination.

Trial registration

Clinical Trials, NCT01884818. Registered 24 June 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01884818?cond=thoracic+spine&cntry=FI&rank=1

The interrater reliability of static palpation of the thoracic spine for eliciting tenderness and stiffness to test for a manipulable lesion

Background

Despite widespread use by manual therapists, there is little evidence regarding the reliability of thoracic spine static palpation to test for a manipulable lesion using stiffness or tenderness as diagnostic markers. We aimed to determine the interrater agreement of thoracic spine static palpation for segmental tenderness and stiffness and determine the effect of standardised training for examiners. The secondary aim was to explore expert consensus on the level of segmental tenderness required to locate a “manipulable lesion”.

Methods

Two experienced chiropractors used static palpation of thoracic vertebrae on two occasions (pragmatic and standardised approaches). Participants rated tenderness on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) and raters judged segmental stiffness based on their experience and perception of normal mobility with the requested outcomes of hypomobile or normal mobility. We calculated interrater agreement using percent agreement, Cohen’s Kappa coefficients (κ) and prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted Kappa coefficients (PABAK). In a preliminary study, an expert panel of 10 chiropractors took part in a Delphi process to identify the level of meaningful segmental tenderness required to locate a “manipulable lesion”.

Results

Thirty-six participants (20 female) were enrolled for the reliability study on the 13th March 2017. Mean (SD) age was 22.4 (3.4) years with an equal distribution of asymptomatic (n = 17) and symptomatic (n = 17) participants. Overall, the interrater agreement for spinal segmental stiffness had Kappa values indicating less than chance agreement [κ range − 0.11, 0.53]. When adjusted for prevalence and bias, the PABAK ranged from slight to substantial agreement [0.12–0.76] with moderate or substantial agreement demonstrated at the majority of spinal levels (T1, T2 and T6 to T12). Generally, there was fair to substantial agreement for segmental tenderness [Kappa range 0.22–0.77]. Training did not significantly improve interrater agreement for stiffness or tenderness. The Delphi process indicated that an NPRS score of 2 out of 10 identified a potential “manipulable lesion”.

Conclusion

Static palpation was overall moderately reliable for the identification of segmental thoracic spine stiffness and tenderness, with tenderness demonstrating a higher reliability. Also, an increased agreement was found within the mid-thoracic spine. A brief training intervention failed to improve reliability.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12998-018-0218-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Unraveling the Mechanisms of Manual Therapy: Modeling an Approach

Synopsis Manual therapy interventions are popular among individual health care providers and their patients; however, systematic reviews do not strongly support their effectiveness. Small treatment effect sizes of manual therapy interventions may result from a "one-size-fits-all" approach to treatment. Mechanistic-based treatment approaches to manual therapy offer an intriguing alternative for identifying patients likely to respond to manual therapy. However, the current lack of knowledge of the mechanisms through which manual therapy interventions inhibit pain limits such an approach. The nature of manual therapy interventions further confounds such an approach, as the related mechanisms are likely a complex interaction of factors related to the patient, the provider, and the environment in which the intervention occurs. Therefore, a model to guide both study design and the interpretation of findings is necessary. We have previously proposed a model suggesting that the mechanical force from a manual therapy intervention results in systemic neurophysiological responses leading to pain inhibition. In this clinical commentary, we provide a narrative appraisal of the model and recommendations to advance the study of manual therapy mechanisms. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(1):8-18. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7476.

Posterior-anterior(PA) pressure Puffin for measuring and treating spinal stiffness: Mechanism and repeatability

BACKGROUND

Posterior-anterior (PA) pressure technique is widely used for assessing and treating spinal segments. PA pressure is manually applied and stiffness is subjectively assessed. The method has been deemed unreliable and is associated with occupational strain.

OBJECTIVES

To introduce a new ergonomically designed hand-held device measuring spinal stiffness, and to assess its repeatability.

DESIGN

Quasi experimental study.

METHOD

A convenience sample of 30 university students, 20-30 years old was used. The participants were tested two consecutive days by two physical therapy students using the new device; the PA pressure Puffin. The spinal segments under study were L1, Th12, Th7 and Th6 which all were tested three times with 9 kg force by both testers, both days. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC3,k) were used to assess intra- and inter-tester repeatability and analysis of variance with alpha-level at 0.05 was used to assess differences in joint mobility at the four segments measured. Linear regression analyses were used to assess repeatability.

RESULTS

Inter-tester and intra-tester coefficients (ICCs) ranged from 0.88 to 0.97 and from 0.83 to 0.97, respectively. There was no significant difference in displacement between Th6 and Th7 but all other joints were significantly different from each other. Displacement was always significantly greater the second day compared with day one (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This close to final prototype of the PA pressure Puffin measures segmental spinal stiffness and its ergonomically designed handle provides a promising tool for physical therapists applying PA pressure. Further research is needed for validation and reliability assessments.