Quality and acceptability of measures of exercise adherence in musculoskeletal settings: a systematic review

Objective. To recommend robust and relevant measures of exercise adherence for application in the musculoskeletal field. Method. A systematic review of measures was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 sought to identify all reproducible measures used to assess exercise adherence in a musculoskeletal setting. Phase 2 identified published evidence of measurement and practical properties of identified measures. Eight databases were searched (from inception to February 2016). Study quality was assessed against the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments guidelines. Measurement quality was assessed against accepted standards. Results. Phase 1: from 8511 records, 326 full-text articles were reviewed; 45 reproducible measures were identified. Phase 2: from 2977 records, 110 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility; 10 articles provided evidence of measurement/practical properties for just seven measures. Six were exercise adherence-specific measures; one was specific to physical activity but applied as a measure of exercise adherence. Evidence of essential measurement and practical properties was mostly limited or not available. Assessment of relevance and comprehensiveness was largely absent and there was no evidence of patient involvement during the development or evaluation of any measure. Conclusion. The significant methodological and quality issues encountered prevent the clear recommendation of any measure; future applications should be undertaken cautiously until greater clarity of the conceptual underpinning of each measure is provided and acceptable evidence of essential measurement properties is established. Future research should seek to engage collaboratively with relevant stakeholders to ensure that exercise adherence assessment is high quality, relevant and acceptable

The McKenzie method for the management of acute non-specific low back pain: design of a randomised controlled trial [ACTRN012605000032651]

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem. Effective treatment of acute LBP is important because it prevents patients from developing chronic LBP, the stage of LBP that requires costly and more complex treatment. Physiotherapists commonly use a system of diagnosis and exercise prescription called the McKenzie Method to manage patients with LBP. However, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of the McKenzie Method for these patients. We have designed a randomised controlled trial to evaluate whether the addition of the McKenzie Method to general practitioner care results in better outcomes than general practitioner care alone for patients with acute LBP. METHODS/DESIGN: This paper describes the protocol for a trial examining the effects of the McKenzie Method in the treatment of acute non-specific LBP. One hundred and forty eight participants who present to general medical practitioners with a new episode of acute non-specific LBP will be randomised to receive general practitioner care or general practitioner care plus a program of care based on the McKenzie Method. The primary outcomes are average pain during week 1, pain at week 1 and 3 and global perceived effect at week 3. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide the first rigorous test of the effectiveness of the McKenzie Method for acute non-specific LBP

Yoga vs. physical therapy vs. education for chronic low back pain in predominantly minority populations: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Chronic low back pain causes substantial morbidity and cost to society while disproportionately impacting low-income and minority adults. Several randomized controlled trials show yoga is an effective treatment. However, the comparative effectiveness of yoga and physical therapy, a common mainstream treatment for chronic low back pain, is unknown.Methods/Design: This is a randomized controlled trial for 320 predominantly low-income minority adults with chronic low back pain, comparing yoga, physical therapy, and education. Inclusion criteria are adults 18-64 years old with non-specific low back pain lasting ≥12 weeks and a self-reported average pain intensity of ≥4 on a 0-10 scale. Recruitment takes place at Boston Medical Center, an urban academic safety-net hospital and seven federally qualified community health centers located in diverse neighborhoods. The 52-week study has an initial 12-week Treatment Phase where participants are randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio into i) a standardized weekly hatha yoga class supplemented by home practice; ii) a standardized evidence-based exercise therapy protocol adapted from the Treatment Based Classification method, individually delivered by a physical therapist and supplemented by home practice; and iii) education delivered through a self-care book. Co-primary outcome measures are 12-week pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical rating scale and back-specific function measured using the modified Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. In the subsequent 40-week Maintenance Phase, yoga participants are re-randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either structured maintenance yoga classes or home practice only. Physical therapy participants are similarly re-randomized to either five booster sessions or home practice only. Education participants continue to follow recommendations of educational materials. We will also assess cost effectiveness from the perspectives of the individual, insurers, and society using claims databases, electronic medical records, self-report cost data, and study records. Qualitative data from interviews will add subjective detail to complement quantitative data.Trial registration: This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, with the ID number: NCT01343927. © 2014 Saper et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Chronic non-specific low back pain - sub-groups or a single mechanism?

Copyright 2008 Wand and O'Connell; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Background: Low back pain is a substantial health problem and has subsequently attracted a considerable amount of research. Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of a variety of interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain indicate limited effectiveness for most commonly applied interventions and approaches. Discussion: Many clinicians challenge the results of clinical trials as they feel that this lack of effectiveness is at odds with their clinical experience of managing patients with back pain. A common explanation for this discrepancy is the perceived heterogeneity of patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. It is felt that the effects of treatment may be diluted by the application of a single intervention to a complex, heterogeneous group with diverse treatment needs. This argument presupposes that current treatment is effective when applied to the correct patient. An alternative perspective is that the clinical trials are correct and current treatments have limited efficacy. Preoccupation with sub-grouping may stifle engagement with this view and it is important that the sub-grouping paradigm is closely examined. This paper argues that there are numerous problems with the sub-grouping approach and that it may not be an important reason for the disappointing results of clinical trials. We propose instead that current treatment may be ineffective because it has been misdirected. Recent evidence that demonstrates changes within the brain in chronic low back pain sufferers raises the possibility that persistent back pain may be a problem of cortical reorganisation and degeneration. This perspective offers interesting insights into the chronic low back pain experience and suggests alternative models of intervention. Summary: The disappointing results of clinical research are commonly explained by the failure of researchers to adequately attend to sub-grouping of the chronic non-specific low back pain population. Alternatively, current approaches may be ineffective and clinicians and researchers may need to radically rethink the nature of the problem and how it should best be managed

The effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation for dysphagia in opercular syndrome: a case study

A 76-year-old man with opercular syndrome characterized by complete bilateral loss of voluntary control of facial, lingual, pharyngeal and masticatory muscles is presented with focus on the severe dysphagia. Three years earlier the patient had experienced two strokes resulting in opercular syndrome with severe dysphagia. Despite initial logopedic dysphagia treatment, swallowing did not improve. A new treatment for dysphagia, consisting of neuromuscular electrical stimulation was applied on the patient. He returned to oral feeding. Clinical and treatment observations are reported

Comparison of the effectiveness of three manual physical therapy techniques in a subgroup of patients with low back pain who satisfy a clinical prediction rule: Study protocol of a randomized clinical trial [NCT00257998]

BACKGROUND: Recently a clinical prediction rule (CPR) has been developed and validated that accurately identifies patients with low back pain (LBP) that are likely to benefit from a lumbo-pelvic thrust manipulation. The studies that developed and validated the rule used the identical manipulation procedure. However, recent evidence suggests that different manual therapy techniques may result similar outcomes. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of three different manual therapy techniques in a subgroup of patient with low back pain that satisfy the CPR. METHODS/DESIGN: Consecutive patients with LBP referred to physical therapy clinics in one of four geographical locations who satisfy the CPR will be invited to participate in this randomized clinical trial. Subjects who agree to participate will undergo a standard evaluation and complete a number of patient self-report questionnaires including the Oswestry Disability Index (OSW), which will serve as the primary outcome measure. Following the baseline examination patients will be randomly assigned to receive the lumbopelvic manipulation used in the development of the CPR, an alternative lumbar manipulation technique, or non-thrust lumbar mobilization technique for the first 2 visits. Beginning on visit 3, all 3 groups will receive an identical standard exercise program for 3 visits (visits 3,4,5). Outcomes of interest will be captured by a therapist blind to group assignment at 1 week (3(rd )visit), 4 weeks (6(th )visit) and at a 6-month follow-up. The primary aim of the study will be tested with analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the change in OSW score from baseline to 4-weeks (OSW(Baseline )– OSW(4-weeks)) as the dependent variable. The independent variable will be treatment with three levels (lumbo-pelvic manipulation, alternative lumbar manipulation, lumbar mobilization). DISCUSSION: This trial will be the first to investigate the effectiveness of various manual therapy techniques for patients with LBP who satisfy a CPR

The role of agonist and antagonist muscles in explaining isometric knee extension torque variation with hip joint angle.

PURPOSE: The biarticular rectus femoris (RF), operating on the ascending limb of the force-length curve, produces more force at longer lengths. However, experimental studies consistently report higher knee extension torque when supine (longer RF length) compared to seated (shorter RF length). Incomplete activation in the supine position has been proposed as the reason for this discrepancy, but differences in antagonistic co-activation could also be responsible due to altered hamstrings length. We examined the role of agonist and antagonist muscles in explaining the isometric knee extension torque variation with changes in hip joint angle. METHOD: Maximum voluntary isometric knee extension torque (joint MVC) was recorded in seated and supine positions from nine healthy males (30.2 ± 7.7 years). Antagonistic torque was estimated using EMG and added to the respective joint MVC (corrected MVC). Submaximal tetanic stimulation quadriceps torque was also recorded. RESULT: Joint MVC was not different between supine (245 ± 71.8 Nm) and seated (241 ± 69.8 Nm) positions and neither was corrected MVC (257 ± 77.7 and 267 ± 87.0 Nm, respectively). Antagonistic torque was higher when seated (26 ± 20.4 Nm) than when supine (12 ± 7.4 Nm). Tetanic torque was higher when supine (111 ± 31.9 Nm) than when seated (99 ± 27.5 Nm). CONCLUSION: Antagonistic co-activation differences between hip positions do not account for the reduced MVC in the supine position. Rather, reduced voluntary knee extensor muscle activation in that position is the major reason for the lower MVC torque when RF is lengthened (hip extended). These findings can assist standardising muscle function assessment and improving musculoskeletal modelling applications