Randomized Clinical-Trial of Manipulative Therapy and Physiotherapy for Persistent Back and Neck Complaints - Results of One Year Follow-Up

Objective - To compare the effectiveness of manipulative therapy, physiotherapy, treatment by the general practitioner, and placebo therapy in patients with persistent non-specific back and neck complaints. Design - Randomised clinical trial. Setting-Primary health care in the Netherlands. Patients-256 patients with non-specific back and neck complaints of at least six weeks' duration who had not received physiotherapy or manipulative therapy in the past two years. Interventions - At the discretion of the manipulative therapists, physiotherapists, and general practitioners. Physiotherapy consisted of exercises, massage, and physical therapy (heat, electrotherapy, ultrasound, shortwave diathermy). Manipulative therapy consisted of manipulation and mobilisation of the spine. Treatment by general practitioners consisted of drugs (for example, analgesics), advice about posture, home exercises, and (bed)rest. Placebo treatment consisted of detuned shortwave diathermy (10 minutes) and detuned ultrasound (10 minutes). Main outcome measures - Changes in severity of the main complaint and limitation of physical functioning measured on 10 point scales by a blinded research assistant and global perceived effect measured on a 6 point scale by the patients. Results - Many patients in the general practitioner and placebo groups received other treatment during follow up. Improvement in the main complaint was larger with manipulative therapy (4·5) than with physiotherapy (3·8) after 12 months' follow up (difference 0·9; 95% confidence interval 0·1 to 1·7). Manipulative therapy also gave larger improvements in physical functioning (difference 0·6; -0·1 to 1·3). The global perceived effect after six and 12 months' follow up was similar for both treatments. Conclusions - Manipulative therapy and physiotherapy are better than general practitioner and placebo treatment. Furthermore, manipulative therapy is slightly better than physiotherapy after 12 months

Prospective Cohort Study of Patients With Neck Pain in a Manual Therapy Setting: Design and Baseline Measures.

OBJECTIVES:The purpose of this study was to describe the design and baseline measurements of a prospective multicenter cohort study in patients with neck pain treated by Dutch manual therapists. Objectives of the study were to determine which patients seek help from a manual therapist, to describe usual care manual therapy in patients with neck pain, to examine the occurrence of nonserious adverse events after treatment, to describe predictors of adverse events, and to determine whether the occurrence of nonserious adverse events affect outcome after manual therapy care. METHODS:During a 3-month inclusion period, consecutive patients aged between 18 and 80 years presenting with neck pain in manual therapy practices in The Netherlands were included in the study. Baseline questionnaires included the Numeric Rating Scale, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Neck Bournemouth Questionnaire, Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), and Patient Expectancy List. Within the treatment episode, manual therapist clinical reasoning and applied interventions were registered and patients reported on adverse events. At the end of the treatment episode and at 12-month follow-up, pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale), functional outcomes (NDI, Neck Bournemouth Questionnaire), personal factors (FABQ), and global perceived effect were measured. RESULTS:During the 3-month inclusion period, 263 participating manual therapists collected data on 1193 patients with neck pain. Most patients (69.4%) were female. The mean age was 44.7 (±13.7) years. The NDI showed overall mild disability (mean score 26%). Mean scores in pain intensity were moderate (4.8), and there was low risk of prolonged disability owing to personal factors (FABQ). CONCLUSION:This study provides information on baseline characteristics of patients visiting manual therapists for neck pain. In The Netherlands, patients seeking care of manual therapists are comparable to patients in other countries regarding demographics and neck pain characteristics

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

© 2017 Australian Physiotherapy Association 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

Effectiveness of Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Development and internal validation of prognostic models for recovery in patients with non-specific neck pain presenting in primary care

Objectives: Development and internal validation of prognostic models for post-treatment and 1-year recovery in patients with neck pain in primary care. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Primary care manual therapy practices. Participants: Patients with non-specific neck pain of any duration (n = 1193). Intervention: Usual care manual therapy. Outcome measures: Recovery defined in terms of pain intensity, disability, and global perceived improvement directly post-treatment and at 1-year follow-up. Results: All post-treatment models exhibited acceptable discriminative performance after derivation (AUC ≥ 0.7). The developed post-treatment disability model exhibited the best overall performance (R2 = 0.24; IQR, 0.22–0.26), discrimination (AUC = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63–0.84), and calibration (slope 0.92; IQR, 0.91–0.93). After internal validation and penalization, this model retained acceptable discriminative performance (AUC = 0.74). The five other models, including those predicting 1-year recovery, did not reach acceptable discriminative performance after internal validation. Baseline pain duration, disability, and pain intensity were consistent predictors across models. Conclusion: A post-treatment prognostic model for disability was successfully developed and internally validated. This model has potential to inform primary care clinicians about a patient’s individual prognosis after treatment, but external validation is required before clinical use can be recommended

External validation of prognostic models for recovery in patients with neck pain

BackgroundNeck pain is one of the leading causes of disability in most countries and it is likely to increase further. Numerous prognostic models for people with neck pain have been developed, few have been validated. In a recent systematic review, external validation of three promising models was advised before they can be used in clinical practice.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to externally validate three promising models that predict neck pain recovery in primary care.MethodsThis validation cohort consisted of 1311 patients with neck pain of any duration who were prospectively recruited and treated by 345 manual therapists in the Netherlands. Outcome measures were disability (Neck Disability Index) and recovery (Global Perceived Effect Scale) post-treatment and at 1-year follow-up. The assessed models were an Australian Whiplash-Associated Disorders (WAD) model (Amodel), a multicenter WAD model (Mmodel), and a Dutch non-specific neck pain model (Dmodel). Models' discrimination and calibration were evaluated.ResultsThe Dmodel and Amodel discriminative performance (AUC ConclusionsExternal validation of promising prognostic models for neck pain recovery was not successful and their clinical use cannot be recommended. We advise clinicians to underpin their current clinical reasoning process with evidence-based individual prognostic factors for recovery. Further research on finding new prognostic factors and developing and validating models with up-to-date methodology is needed for recovery in patients with neck pain in primary care

Diagnostic ultrasound in patients with shoulder pain:An inter-examiner agreement and reliability study among Dutch physical therapists

Study designA cross-sectional inter-examiner agreement and reliability study among physical therapists in primary care.Backgroundmusculoskeletal ultrasound (MSU) is frequently used by physical therapists to improve specific diagnosis in patients with shoulder pain, especially for the diagnosis rotator cuff tendinopathy (RCT) including tears.ObjectivesTo estimate the inter-examiner agreement and reliability in physical therapists using MSU for patients with shoulder pain.MethodsPhysical therapists performed diagnostic MSU in 62 patients with shoulder pain. Both physical therapists were blinded to each other's results and patients were not informed about the test results. We calculated the overall inter-examiner agreement, specific positive and negative inter-examiner agreement, and inter-examiner reliability (Cohen's Kappa's).ResultsOverall agreement for detecting RC ruptures ranged from 61.7% to 85.5% and from 43.9% to 91.4% for specific positive agreement. The specific negative agreement was lower with values ranging from 44.4% to 79.1% for RC ruptures. Overall agreement for other pathology than ruptures related to SAPS, ranged from 72.6% to 93.6% and from 77.3% to 96% for specific positive agreement. The specific negative agreement was lower with values ranging from 44.4% to 79.1% for RC ruptures and 52.5%-83.3% for other pathology than ruptures related to SAPS. Reliability values varied from substantial for any thickness ruptures to moderate for partial thickness ruptures and fair for full thickness tears. Moreover, reliability was fair for cuff tendinopathy. The reliability for AC arthritis and no pathology found was fair and moderate. There was substantial agreement for the calcifying tendinopathy.ConclusionsPhysical therapists using MSU agree on the diagnosis of cuff tendinopathy and on the presence of RCT in primary care, but agree less on the absence of pathology