Baseline characteristics of patients with nerve-related neck and arm pain predict the likely response to neural tissue management

Rethinking neck-related arm pain: hypothetical clinical scenarios to differentiate the underlying IASP-defined pain mechanisms

Neck-related arm pain is frequently encountered in clinical settings, yet its underlying pain mechanisms remain elusive. While such pain radiating from the neck to the arm is often attributed to injuries or diseases of the nervous system (neuropathic pain), it can also arise from nociceptive (referred) or nociplastic sources. Regrettably, patients exhibiting this specific pain distribution are frequently diagnosed with varying terms, including 'cervicobrachialgia', 'cervicobrachial neuralgia', 'cervicobrachial pain syndrome', and 'cervical radiculopathy'. The ambiguity surrounding these diagnostic labels complicates the clinical reasoning process. It is imperative for clinicians to discern and comprehend the dominant pain mechanism. Three distinct hypothetical clinical scenarios depict patients with almost identical pain distribution but divergent dominant pain mechanisms. Within these scenarios, both subjective and objective examinations are employed to elucidate the dominant pain mechanism associated with neck-related arm pain: nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic. Furthermore, clinicians must remain aware that the dominant pain mechanism can evolve over time.

Effectiveness of neural mobilisation for the treatment of nerve-related cervicobrachial pain: a systematic review with subgroup meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Neural mobilisations (NM) have been advocated for the treatment of nerve-related cervicobrachial pain; however, it is unclear what types of patients with nerve-related cervicobrachial pain (if any) may benefit. Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, PeDro, Cinahl, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception until December 2022. Randomised controlled trials were included if they assessed the effectiveness of NM in nerve-related cervicobrachial pain, and outcome measures were pain intensity and/or disability. Studies were classified according to their inclusion/exclusion criteria as radiculopathy , Wainner cluster , Hall , and Elvey cluster or other . Meta-analyses with subgroup analyses were performed. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Rob2 tool. Twenty-seven studies were included. For pain and disability reduction, NM was found to be more effective than no treatment (pooled pain mean difference [MD] = -2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -3.81 to -1.81; pooled disability standardized mean difference = -1.55, 95% CI = -2.72 to -0.37), increased the effectiveness of standard physiotherapy as an adjuvant when compared with standard physiotherapy alone (pooled pain MD = -1.44, 95% CI = -1.98 to -0.89; pooled disability MD = -11.07, 95% CI = -16.38 to -5.75) but was no more effective than cervical traction (pooled pain MD = -0.33, 95% CI = -1.35 to 0.68; pooled disability MD = -10.09, 95% CI = -21.89 to 1.81). For disability reduction, NM was found to be more effective than exercise (pooled MD = -18.27, 95% CI = -20.29 to -17.44). In most comparisons, there were significant differences in the effectiveness of NM between the subgroups. Neural mobilisations was consistently more effective than all alternative interventions (no treatment, traction, exercise, and standard physiotherapy alone) in 13 studies classified as Wainner cluster . PROSPERO registration: CRD42022376087.

Effectiveness of Neural Mobilisation Techniques in the Management of Musculoskeletal Neck Disorders with Nerve-Related Symptoms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with a Mapping Report

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to assess the effectiveness of neural mobilisation (NM) techniques in the management of musculoskeletal neck disorders with nerve-related symptoms (MND-NRS).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis, using pain intensity, disability, perceived function, cervical range of motion and mechanosensitivity as the main outcome measures.

RESULTS

The systematic review included 22 studies (n = 978). More favourable outcomes were observed for NM on pain intensity compared with control interventions (standardised mean differences (SMDs) -0.92; 95% CI - 1.66--0.18), but not compared with other treatments (OTs) (SMD 1.06; 95% CI - 0.02-2.15). Regarding neck pain intensity, no significant differences were found in favour of NM compared with OTs (SMD 0.37; 95% CI - 0.35-1.1). However, between-treatment differences were found in favour of OT on arm-pain intensity (SMD 0.57; 95% CI 0.08-1.05). In addition, the grouped MA did not show statistically significant differences between NM and OT outcomes on the cervical range of motion (SMD 0.16; 95% CI - 0.06-0.38). However, compared with no intervention, NM was associated with significantly improved outcomes in cervical rotation (SMD 0.91; 95% CI 0.61-1.22). Similar results were found regarding disability (SMD -0.08; 95% CI - 0.36--0.20, and SMD -1.44; 95% CI - 2.28--0.6, respectively). Finally, NM was associated with more favourable outcomes on mechanosensitivity compared with OT (SMD 0.79; 95% CI 0.15-1.42) and greater improvements in function compared with no intervention (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.16-1.62).

CONCLUSIONS

NM appeared to be effective to improve overall pain intensity when embedded in a physiotherapy treatment in the management of MND-NRS. When compared with no intervention, it was effective to improve neck rotation, disability, and function. However, it was not superior to other types of treatments in improving overall pain intensity, neck pain intensity, arm pain intensity, cervical range of motion and disability, except for mechanosensitivity.

Pain management using a multimodal physiotherapy program including a biobehavioral approach for chronic nonspecific neck pain: a randomized controlled trial

Objective: To determine the effectiveness of a therapeutic patient education (TPE) intervention based on a biobehavioral approach combined with manual therapy (MT) to reduce pain in patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain (CNSNP). In addition, this study intended to assess the effectiveness of a multimodal physiotherapy program including TPE to reduce pain in patients with CNSNP. Design: Single-blind randomized controlled trial. Interventions: A total of 47 patients with CNSNP were randomized into three groups: (1) MT (control group); (2) MT plus TPE based on a biobehavioral approach (Exp1); and (3) MT plus TPE based on a biobehavioral approach, and therapeutic exercise (Exp2). Main Outcome Measurements: The clinical outcomes were recorded at baseline and at 1 and 4 months after the initiation of treatment. The primary outcome was pain intensity (Visual Analog Scale), and the secondary outcomes were pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale), illness severity and global improvement (Clinical Global Impression Scale), and mechanosensitivity of the median nerve (Upper Limb Neural Test) and the cervical region (Modified Passive Neck Flexion Test). Results: Statistically significant differences in pain intensity were found when Exp2 was compared with Exp1 and the control group at 4 months (p = 0.015 and p = 0.001, respectively), but no difference was found between Exp1 and the control group at the same follow-up period (p = 0.86). Exp2 showed statistically significant differences in all of the secondary outcomes except for pain catastrophizing when compared with the control group at 4 months. Conclusions: The Exp2 group was more effective than Exp1 and the control group in terms of reducing pain intensity at 4 months; at post-treatment, only Exp2 was more effective than the control group.

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.

Few promising multivariable prognostic models exist for recovery of people with non-specific neck pain in musculoskeletal primary care: a systematic review

QUESTION

Which multivariable prognostic model(s) for recovery in people with neck pain can be used in primary care?

DESIGN

Systematic review of studies evaluating multivariable prognostic models.

PARTICIPANTS

People with non-specific neck pain presenting at primary care.

DETERMINANTS

Baseline characteristics of the participants.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Recovery measured as pain reduction, reduced disability, or perceived recovery at short-term and long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

Fifty-three publications were included, of which 46 were derivation studies, four were validation studies, and three concerned combined studies. The derivation studies presented 99 multivariate models, all of which were at high risk of bias. Three externally validated models generated usable models in low risk of bias studies. One predicted recovery in non-specific neck pain, while two concerned participants with whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). Discriminative ability of the non-specific neck pain model was area under the curve (AUC) 0.65 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.71). For the first WAD model, discriminative ability was AUC 0.85 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.91). For the second WAD model, specificity was 99% (95% CI 93 to 100) and sensitivity was 44% (95% CI 23 to 65) for prediction of non-recovery, and 86% (95% CI 73 to 94) and 55% (95% CI 41 to 69) for prediction of recovery, respectively. Initial Neck Disability Index scores and age were identified as consistent prognostic factors in these three models.

CONCLUSION

Three externally validated models were found to be usable and to have low risk of bias, of which two showed acceptable discriminative properties for predicting recovery in people with neck pain. These three models need further validation and evaluation of their clinical impact before their broad clinical use can be advocated.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016042204. [Wingbermühle RW, van Trijffel E, Nelissen PM, Koes B, Verhagen AP (2018) Few promising multivariable prognostic models exist for recovery of people with non-specific neck pain in musculoskeletal primary care: a systematic review. Journal of Physiotherapy 64: 16-23].

Clinical prediction rules for prognosis and treatment prescription in neck pain: A systematic review

Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) developed to identify sub-groups of people with neck pain for different prognoses (i.e. prognostic) or response to treatments (i.e. prescriptive) have been recommended as a research priority to improve health outcomes for these conditions. A systematic review was undertaken to identify prognostic and prescriptive CPRs relevant to the conservative management of adults with neck pain and to appraise stage of development, quality and readiness for clinical application. Six databases were systematically searched from inception until 4th July 2016. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility, risk of bias (PEDro and QUIPS), methodological quality and stage of development. 9840 records were retrieved and screened for eligibility. Thirty-two studies reporting on 26 CPRs were included in this review. Methodological quality of included studies varied considerably. Most prognostic CPR development studies employed appropriate designs. However, many prescriptive CPR studies (n = 12/13) used single group designs and/or analysed controlled trials using methods that were inadequate for identifying treatment effect moderators. Most prognostic (n = 11/15) and all prescriptive (n = 11) CPRs have not progressed beyond the derivation stage of development. Four prognostic CPRs relating to acute whiplash (n = 3) or non-traumatic neck pain (n = 1) have undergone preliminary validation. No CPRs have undergone impact analysis. Most prognostic and prescriptive CPRs for neck pain are at the initial stage of development and therefore routine clinical use is not yet supported. Further validation and impact analyses of all CPRs are required before confident conclusions can be made regarding clinical utility.

Upper Limb Neurodynamic Test 1 on Healthy Individuals: Intra- and Intersession Reliability of the Angle between Pain Onset and Submaximal Pain

Assessment of nerve trunk mechanosensitivity using the upper limb neurodynamic test 1 (ULNT1) often includes measurement of the angle of occurrence in the range of pain onset (PO) and submaximal pain (SP). A measurement that better fits the idea of mechanosensitivity could be the angle between PO and SP (AbOS). This study investigated the intra- and intersession reliability of AbOS, PO, and SP during the ULNT1. Forty-four healthy volunteers underwent three ULNT1 to the point of PO and SP, twice in the first session and once in the second. AbOS, PO, and SP angles of occurrence reliability were examined using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC 3,1) and Bland-Altman plots. The intra- and intersession ICC values for AbOS were 0.71 (95% CI: 0.47; 0.85) and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.60; 0.89), respectively. The intra- and intersession mean difference and 95% limits of agreement (±1.96 SD) in the Bland-Altman plots were 2.3° (-18.3°; 23.1°) and 2.8° (-14.7°; 20.4°), respectively. The intra- and intersession reliability of the AbOS during the ULNT1 in healthy individuals is high and higher than the reliability of PO and SP angles of occurrence. The AbOS could be a preferable variable in the assessment of neural mechanosensitivity.

In a secondary care setting, differences between neck pain subgroups classified using the Quebec task force classification system were typically small - a longitudinal study

BACKGROUND

The component of the Quebec Task Force Classification System that subgroups patients based on the extent of their radiating pain and neurological signs has been demonstrated to have prognostic implications for patients with low back pain but has not been tested on patients with neck pain (NP). The main aim of this study was to examine the association between these subgroups, their baseline characteristics and outcome in chronic NP patients referred to an outpatient hospital department.

METHODS

This was an observational study of longitudinal data extracted from systematically collected, routine clinical data. Patients were classified into Local NP only, NP + arm pain above the elbow, NP + arm pain below the elbow, and NP with signs of nerve root involvement (NP + NRI). Outcome was pain intensity and activity limitation. Associations were tested in longitudinal linear mixed models.

RESULTS

A total of 1,852 people were classified into subgroups (64 % females, mean age 49 years). Follow ups after 3, 6 and 12 months were available for 45 %, 32 % and 40 % of those invited to participate at each time point. A small improvement in pain was observed over time in all subgroups. There was a significant interaction between subgroups and time, but effect sizes were small. The local NP subgroup improved slightly less after 3 months as compared with all other groups, but continued to have the lowest level of pain. After 6 and 12 months, those with NP + pain above the elbow had improved the least and patients with NP + NRI had experienced the largest improvements in pain intensity. Similar results were obtained for activity limitation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found baseline and outcome differences between neck pain subgroups classified using the Quebec Task Force Classification System. However, differences in outcome were typically small in size and mostly differentiated the local NP subgroup from the other subgroups. A caveat to these results is that they were obtained in a cohort of chronic neck pain patients who only displayed small improvements over time and the results may not apply to other cohorts, such as people at earlier stages of their clinical course and in other clinical settings.

Predictors of response to physical therapy intervention for plantar heel pain

BACKGROUND

Age, weight, and duration of symptoms have been associated with a poor response to treatment for plantar heel pain (PHP), but no studies were identified that examined predictors of response to physical therapy intervention. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the influence of age, body mass index (BMI), and symptom duration on treatment response to physical therapy intervention.

METHODS

Sixty participants received 6 visits over 4 weeks of physical therapy intervention that included manual therapy and exercise or electrophysiological agents and exercise. Outcomes were assessed using the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), and Global Rating of Change Scale (GRC). Logistic regression (P < .05) was used to analyze age, BMI, and symptom duration as potential predictors of a successful response based on the minimal clinically important difference of the outcome measures. Sensitivity analysis was used to assess the influence of success based on minimal clinically important changes in the FAAM, NPRS, and GRC or only the FAAM and NPRS. Receiver operating curves were used to determine the cut point for the significant predictor.

RESULTS

At the 6-month follow-up to physical therapy intervention, NPRS was improved by 3 points (95% CI, 2.4-3.6) and FAAM improved by 22.5 points (95% CI, 16.8-28.2). Individuals with symptoms less than 7.2 months were 4.2 (95% CI, 1.3-13.8; P = .016) and 8.5 (95% CI, 2.5-28.9; P = .001) times more likely to respond to treatment based on the NPRS/FAAM/GRC and NPRS/FAAM success criteria, respectively. Age and BMI were not significant predictors (P ≥ .455 and P ≥ .450, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Age and BMI were not associated with outcomes and obese individuals did achieve a successful outcome with the physical therapy intervention used in the clinical trial. Individuals with PHP symptoms longer than 7 months require additional consideration and further investigation of effective strategies to improve treatment response.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognosis, level 2b comparative study.