Effect of Adding McKenzie Syndrome, Centralization, Directional Preference, and Psychosocial Classification Variables to a Risk-Adjusted Model Predicting Functional Status Outcomes for Patients With Lumbar Impairments

Reliability of the McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy in the examination of spinal pain, including the OTHER classifications: Reliability of the McKenzie Method in spinal pain

BACKGROUND

The McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) is used worldwide to classify and manage musculoskeletal (MSK) problems. The assessment includes a detailed patient history and a specific physical examination. Research has investigated the reliability of the MDT spinal classification system (Derangement syndrome, Dysfunction syndrome, Postural syndrome, and OTHER), however no study has assessed the reliability of the 10 classifications grouped together as OTHER.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the inter-rater reliability of MDT trained clinicians when utilising the full breadth of the MDT system for patients with spinal pain.

METHODS

Six experienced MDT clinicians each submitted potentially eligible MDT assessment forms of 30 consecutive patients. A MSK physician and a faculty of the McKenzie Institute checked the 180 forms for eligibility and completeness, where a provisional MDT classification was blinded. Apart from their own assessment forms, the six MDT clinicians each classified 150 forms. Each patient could be classified into 1 of 13 diagnostic classifications (Derangement syndrome, Dysfunction syndrome, Postural syndrome, and 10 classifications grouped as OTHER). Reliability was determined using Fleiss' Kappa (k).

RESULTS

The reliability among six MDT clinicians classifying 150 patient assessment forms was almost perfect (Fleiss' κ = 0.82 [95% CI 0.80, 0.85]).

CONCLUSIONS

Among experienced MDT clinicians, the reliability in classifying patient assessment forms of patients with spinal pain is almost perfect when the full breadth of the MDT system is used. Future research should investigate the reliability of the full breadth of the MDT system among clinicians with lower levels of training.

Associations between smoking history, baseline pain interference and symptom distribution, and physical function at discharge, in individuals seeking care for musculoskeletal pain

OBJECTIVE

Study of the association between smoking and pain intensity has produced conflicting results; with less focus on pain interference. Different pain constructs could have varying associations with smoking behaviors. This study sought to investigate the association between smoking history and not only pain intensity, but also pain interference, symptom distribution and physical function.

METHODS

Smoking history (current, past, or none), pain interference (Pain, Enjoyment of Life, and General Activity scale), symptom distribution and physical function scores were extracted from medical records of patients seen in physical therapy for common sites of musculoskeletal pain (lumbar and cervical spine, knee, or hip). Generalized linear models assessed the relationship between smoking history and pain/function.

RESULTS

833 patients from an integrated healthcare system were included (mean: 57.6 years, SD=16.3; 43 % male). After controlling for several variables, current smokers had significantly higher baseline pain interference scores compared to never and former smokers (beta [B]: 0.65, 95 %CI: 0.13 to 1.18, P=.02). Smoking was not a significant predictor of symptom distribution at baseline [B: 0.17, 95 %CI -0.06 to 0.42, P=.16] or physical function scores at discharge [B: -0.03, 95 %CI: -0.08 to 0.02, P=.25].

CONCLUSION

Smokers experienced a greater impact of pain at baseline. However, symptom distribution at intake and function upon discharge were similar between all smoking groups. These findings suggest smoking cessation and abstinence may be important recommendations to help curb pain interference.

Effectiveness of mechanical diagnosis and therapy in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain: a literature review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of mechanical diagnosis and therapy (MDT) in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) compared to other traditional physical therapy interventions.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of MDT compared to other traditional physical therapy interventions in individuals with CLBP were considered eligible. For the purpose of this review, MDT was compared to active and passive physical therapy interventions. Independent reviewers assessed the eligibility of studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcomes investigated were pain and disability.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the review. Of these, 11 provided data to be included in the meta-analyses. Our findings showed that MDT was no more effective in decreasing pain (standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.44, 0.46) and disability (SMD=0.08, 95% CI: -0.53, 0.68) than other active treatments. Similar results were found when comparing MDT to other passive treatments for pain (SMD=-0.39, 95% CI: -0.90, 0.11) and disability (SMD=-0.13, 95% CI: -0.29, 0.03).

CONCLUSION

There is low to moderate quality evidence that MDT is not superior than other traditional physical therapy interventions in improving pain and disability in people with CLBP.

Does the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool Contribute to Effectiveness in Treatment and Cost and Loss of Follow-Up of the Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy for Patients with Low Back Pain?

Background: Mechanical diagnosis and therapy (MDT) and the stratified approach using the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) are examples of stratified low back pain (LBP) management. We investigated whether the medium–high risk in SBST can contribute to the time and sessions until discharge from MDT (Question 1) and to the loss of follow-up before identifying a promising management strategy (Question 2). Methods: A retrospective chart study was conducted. Multiple regression modeling was constructed using 10 independent variables, including whether the SBST was medium–high risk or not for Question 1, and the 9/10 independent variables for Question 2. Results: The data of 89 participants for Question 1 and 166 participants for Question 2 were analyzed. SBST was not a primary contributing factor for Question 1 (R² = 0.17–0.19). The model for Question 2 included SBST as a primary contributing factor and the shortest distance from the patient address to the hospital as a secondary contributing factor (93.4% correct classification). Conclusion: SBST status was not a primary contributing factor for time and sessions until discharge from MDT, but was a critical factor for the loss of MDT follow-up before identifying a promising management strategy.

Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews

Artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) could enhance the ability to detect patterns of clinical characteristics in low-back pain (LBP) and guide treatment. We conducted three systematic reviews to address the following aims: (a) review the status of AI/ML research in LBP, (b) compare its status to that of two established LBP classification systems (STarT Back, McKenzie). AI/ML in LBP is in its infancy: 45 of 48 studies assessed sample sizes <1000 people, 19 of 48 studies used ≤5 parameters in models, 13 of 48 studies applied multiple models and attained high accuracy, 25 of 48 studies assessed the binary classification of LBP versus no-LBP only. Beyond the 48 studies using AI/ML for LBP classification, no studies examined use of AI/ML in prognosis prediction of specific sub-groups, and AI/ML techniques are yet to be implemented in guiding LBP treatment. In contrast, the STarT Back tool has been assessed for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, validity, pain and disability prognosis, and influence on pain and disability treatment outcomes. McKenzie has been assessed for inter- and intra-tester reliability, prognosis, and impact on pain and disability outcomes relative to other treatments. For AI/ML methods to contribute to the refinement of LBP (sub-)classification and guide treatment allocation, large data sets containing known and exploratory clinical features should be examined. There is also a need to establish reliability, validity, and prognostic capacity of AI/ML techniques in LBP as well as its ability to inform treatment allocation for improved patient outcomes and/or reduced healthcare costs.

Are within and/or between session improvements in pain and function prognostic of medium and long-term improvements in musculoskeletal problems? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Initial or between session improvements in pain and/or function are often considered to be predictive of ultimate outcomes in musculoskeletal problems.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the long-term prognostic value of within and between session improvements to pain and function.

DESIGN

Systematic review of relevant literature.

METHOD

A search was made of multiple databases (Pubmed/Medline, Cochrane, Cinahl, and AMed) using relevant search terms. Titles, abstracts, and then full texts were filtered to find articles that met the strict inclusion/exclusion criteria. Searching, data extraction, and quality assessment, using GRADE, were done independently by two authors. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

Only 13 articles met the criteria for inclusion. For the effect of pain location or pain intensity changes in the first treatment session on medium or long-term pain, disability, return-to-work, or global outcomes nine outcomes were available. Findings were mostly inconclusive (5) or negative (3). There was only one study evaluating between session improvements with ambiguous results. There were no studies evaluating the prognostic value of early improvements in function.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no conclusive evidence to support the concept that early changes in pain location or pain intensity offer a good longer-term prognosis on a variety of outcomes; and no evidence relating to early improvements in function. The idea that patients who appear to improve in the first treatment session will do well longer term is not supported by the literature.

Predictors of functional outcome in musculoskeletal healthcare: An umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Multiple cohort and systematic review studies exist, reporting independent predictive factors associated with outcome in musculoskeletal populations. These studies have found evidence for a number of "generic" factors that have been shown to predict outcome across musculoskeletal patient cohorts. This review provides a higher level review of the evidence with a focus on generic patient factors associated with functional musculoskeletal outcome with a view to informing predictive modelling.

OBJECTIVES

(a) Identify patient factors found to have evidence to support their association with functional outcome, and (b) review these findings across body areas/conditions to identify generic predictive factors.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

Electronic databases of MEDLINE, AMED, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane were searched for eligible studies. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality using an established checklist for umbrella reviews.

RESULTS

Twenty-one systematic reviews met inclusion criteria, all were of moderate/high quality. Six independent predictors were found to have strong evidence of association with worse musculoskeletal functional outcome across anatomical body sites (worse baseline function, higher symptom/pain severity, worse mental well-being, more comorbidities, older age and higher body mass index). Longer duration of symptoms, worse pain coping, presence of workers compensation, lower vitality and lower education were also found to have moderate evidence of association with worse functional outcome across body sites.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies a number of factors associated with musculoskeletal functional outcome. The generic predictive factors identified should be considered for inclusion into musculoskeletal prognostic models, including models used for case-mix-adjustment of patient reported outcome measure data.

SIGNIFICANCE

This article identifies "generic" patient factors that predict functional outcome (measured using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)) across musculoskeletal conditions. Findings provide support for the development and content of generic musculoskeletal prognostic models including models used to case-mix adjust PROM data for baseline complexity. Generic musculoskeletal models and functional PROMs would facilitate more feasible comparison and benchmarking of musculoskeletal services in order to identify variation and address health inequalities.

An international survey of the comprehensiveness of the McKenzie classification system and the proportions of classifications and directional preferences in patients with spinal pain

BACKGROUND

Classification of spinal pain has been a key goal identified in the research. However it is not clear if existing classification systems are comprehensive.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the comprehensiveness and distribution of classifications within the McKenzie classification system (MDT), and the directional preference in consecutive patients with spine pain.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, observational study.

METHODS

Clinicians with a Diploma in MDT provided data on patients that they had assessed, classified, managed, and then confirmed their classification at discharge. They provided data on the spinal area, the MDT classification, and the loading strategy used in management.

RESULTS

Fifty-four clinicians from at least 15 different countries provided data on 750 patients: lumbar 64.8%, cervical 29.6%, thoracic 5.6%. The distribution of classifications was as follows: Derangement 75.4%, OTHER 22.8%, Dysfunction 1.7%, Postural syndrome 0.1%. In Derangements 82.5% had a directional preference for extension, 12.9% for lateral forces, and 4.6% for flexion. Those patients classified as one of the OTHER subgroups were given specific classifications.

CONCLUSION

Derangement was the most common classification and extension was by far the most common directional preference. A substantial proportion were classified as OTHER subgroups, for whom management is less straightforward.

Centralization and directional preference: An updated systematic review with synthesis of previous evidence

BACKGROUND

Centralization and directional preference are common management and prognostic factors in spinal symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

To update the previous systematic review.

DESIGN

Systematic review to synthesis multiple aspects of centralization and directional preference.

METHOD

Contemporary search was made of multiple databases using relevant search terms. Abstracts and titles were filtered by two authors; relevant articles were independently reviewed by two authors for content, data extraction, and quality.

RESULTS

Forty-three additional relevant articles were found. The quality of the studies, using PEDro for randomized controlled trials, was moderate or high in six out of ten RCTs; moderate or high in six out of 12 cohort studies. Prevalence of centralization was 40%, the same as the previous review. Directional preference without Centralization was 26%; thus Centralization and directional preference combined was 66%, which was very similar to the previous review. Neither clinical response was recorded in about a third of patients. Centralization and directional preference were confirmed as key positive prognostic factors, certainly in patients with low back pain, but limited evidence for patients with neck pain. There was no evidence that these might be important treatment effect modifiers. One study evaluated reliability, and found generally poor levels, despite training.

CONCLUSIONS

Centralization and directional preference are worthwhile indicators of prognosis, and should be routinely examined for even in patients with chronic low back pain. But they do not occur in all patients with spinal problems, and there was no evidence that they were treatment effect modifiers.

A preliminary analysis of outcomes and end range procedures used to achieve centralization in people with low back pain

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the relationship between clinical outcome and the types of end range procedures used to achieve centralization in a sample of patients with low back pain (LBP) and/or peripheral symptoms.

METHODS

Small sample retrospective analysis of an observational cohort. Patients with LBP who centralized during initial visit at two physical therapy clinics were recruited to participate. The types of end range procedures used to achieve centralization were documented during each office visit and a chart review was performed after 4 weeks. Outcomes were determined by improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score after 4 weeks. Statistical analysis determined the association between the types of end range procedures and outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients gave consent to participate. Nineteen patients met inclusion criteria and were included in data analysis. After 4 weeks, the improvement in mean ODI scores was 15.89 ± 16.28. Differing end range procedures were used to achieve centralization within this cohort. The types of end range procedures used to achieve centralization were not significantly associated with outcomes.

DISCUSSION

The results observed in this study promote exhausting many different types of end range procedures to determine if centralization can be achieved. Limiting the end range procedures used to assess centralization may fail to identify patients who can achieve centralization and subsequently have positive clinical outcomes. Larger cohort studies investigating relationships between outcomes and the types of end range procedures used to achieve centralization would contribute to management of people with LBP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.