Master-eis voor alle manueel therapeuten in zicht!:opiniepeiling manueel therapeuten

Vanaf 1 januari 2025 moet elk geregistreerd manueel therapeut een masterdiploma hebben gehaald. Uit een enquête onder NVMT-leden zonder master blijkt dat op dit moment een meerderheid verwacht niet op tijd een master te hebben afgerond. De resultaten zijn voorgelegd aan de opleidingen, die suggesties doen voor het behalen van het masterniveau

Master-eis voor alle manueel therapeuten in zicht!:opiniepeiling manueel therapeuten

https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/abq_citizen_news/2512/thumbnail.jp

Treatment based classification systems for patients with non-specific neck pain:A systematic review

Objective: We aimed to identify published classification systems with a targeted treatment approach (treatment-based classification systems (TBCSs)) for patients with non-specific neck pain, and assess their quality and effectiveness. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PEDro and the grey literature were systematically searched from inception to December 2019. Study appraisal and synthesis: The main selection criterium was a TBCS for patients with non-specific neck pain with physiotherapeutic interventions. For data extraction of descriptive data and quality assessment we used the framework developed by Buchbinder et al. We considered as score of ≤3 as low quality, a score between 3 and 5 as moderate quality and a score ≥5 as good quality. To assess the risk of bias of studies concerning the effectiveness of TBCSs (only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included) we used the PEDro scale. We considered a score of ≥ six points on this scale as low risk of bias. Results: Out of 7664 initial references we included 13 studies. The overall quality of the TBCSs ranged from low to moderate. We found two RCTs, both with low risk of bias, evaluating the effectiveness of two TBCSs compared to alternative treatments. The results showed that both TBCSs were not superior to alternative treatments. Conclusion: Existing TBCSs are, at best, of moderate quality. In addition, TBCSs were not shown to be more effective than alternatives. Therefore using these TBCSs in daily practice is not recommended

Completeness of the description of manipulation and mobilisation techniques in randomized controlled trials in neck pain:A review using the TiDieR checklist

Study design: A secondary analysis of a systematic review. Background: Manipulations or mobilizations are commonly used interventions in patients with mechanical neck pain. The treatment effects have often been studied in randomized controlled trials (RCT) which are generally considered the gold standard in evaluating the treatment effects, mainly due to its high internal validity. External validity is defined as the extent to which the effects can be generalised to clinical practice. An important prerequisite for this is that interventions used in clinical trials can be replicated in clinical practice. It can be questioned if interventions utilized in randomized controlled trials can be translated into clinical practice. Objectives: The overall aim of this study is to examine whether the quality of the description of manipulation and mobilization interventions is sufficient for to replication of these interventions in clinical practice. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed. Two independent researchers used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) which is a 12-item checklist for describing the completeness of the interventions. Results: Sixty-seven articles were included that used manipulation and/or mobilization interventions for patients with mechanical neck pain. None of the articles describe the intervention e.g. all the items on the TIDieR list. Considering item 8 (a-f) of the TIDieR checklist only one article described the used techniques completely. Conclusion: Manipulation or a mobilization interventions are poorly reported in RCTs, which jeopardize the external validity of RCTs, making it difficult for clinicians and researchers to replicate these interventions

An Exploratory Practice-Oriented Pilot Study into Matched Treatments in Patients with Non-Specific Neck Pain

Background: Even though physiotherapists attempt to match care to the patient’s needs, there is little knowledge about which treatments are applied in daily practice and which treatments have the most potential to improve ROM in patients with non-specific neck pain with a limited ROM. The objective of this study was 1) to establish the measurement error of the Sensamove cervical training accelerometer (SCT); 2) to describe the applied treatments for patients with non-specific neck pain with an identified restriction in cervical Range of Motion (ROM) in primary care physiotherapy clinics; 3) to explore if the cervical ROM, pain, (perceived) disability and motor control improved after one manual therapy treatment. Methods: The standard error of measurement (SEM) and the smallest detectable difference (SDD) were calculated based on a test-retest study. Second, an explorative, longitudinal study design (follow-up one week) was performed. Inclusion criterion: nonspecific neck pain with an identified restriction in cervical ROM. Measurements: pre- (T0) and post-treatment (T1), and one-week post-treatment (T2). Outcomes: ROM, motor control movement task, Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), and Patient Specific Function Scale (PSFS). Results: The SEM varied from 1.62° (lateral flexion right) to 3.46° (extension). The SDD varied from 4.49° (lateral flexion right) to 9.58° (extension). Four physiotherapists included 24 patients and used eight different treatments. The T0-T2 improvement in cervical ROM ranged from 2.95° (SD 6.09) (right lateral flexion) to 11.00° (SD11.87) (left rotation). The movement task was performed 3.96 (SD 4.24) seconds faster. The NPRS decreased by 3.08 (SD 1.82) points, and PSFS improved by 7.71 (SD 5.34) points. Conclusion: The measurement error has been established. Moreover, this study illustrates that matched treatments, as applied in daily practice, have the potential to induce short-term improvements

Master-eis voor alle manueel therapeuten in zicht!: opiniepeiling manueel therapeuten

Vanaf 1 januari 2025 moet elk geregistreerd manueel therapeut een masterdiploma hebben gehaald. Uit een enquête onder NVMT-leden zonder master blijkt dat op dit moment een meerderheid verwacht niet op tijd een master te hebben afgerond. De resultaten zijn voorgelegd aan de opleidingen, die suggesties doen voor het behalen van het masterniveau

Consensus of potential modifiable prognostic factors for persistent pain after a first episode of nonspecific idiopathic, non-traumatic neck pain:results of nominal group and Delphi technique approach

Background Identify and establish consensus regarding potential prognostic factors for the development of chronic pain after a first episode of idiopathic, non-traumatic neck pain. Design This study used two consensus group methods: a modified Nominal Group (m-NGT) and a Delphi Technique. Methods The goal of the m-NGT was to obtain and categorize a list of potential modifiable prognostic factors. These factors were presented to a multidisciplinary panel in a two-round Delphi survey, which was conducted between November 2018 and January 2020. The participants were asked whether factors identified are of prognostic value, whether these factors are modifiable, and how to measure these factors in clinical practice. Consensus was a priori defined as 70% agreement among participants. Results Eighty-four factors were identified and grouped into seven categories during the expert meeting using the modified NGT. A workgroup reduced the list to 47 factors and grouped them into 12 categories. Of these factors, 26 were found to be potentially prognostic for chronification of neck pain (> 70% agreement). Twenty-one out of these 26 factors were found to be potentially modifiable by physiotherapists based on a two-round Delphi survey. Conclusion Based on an expert meeting (m-NGT) and a two-round Delphi survey, our study documents consensus (> 70%) on 26 prognostic factors. Twenty-one out of these 26 factors were found to be modifiable, and most factors were psychological in nature

Clinical reasoning in unimodal interventions in patients with non-specific neck pain in daily physiotherapy practice, a Delphi study

Background: Neck pain is the fourth major cause of disability worldwide but sufficient evidence regarding treatment is not available. This study is a first exploratory attempt to gain insight into and consensus on the clinical reasoning of experts in patients with non-specific neck pain. Objective: First, we aimed to inventory expert opinions regarding the indication for physiotherapy when, other than neck pain, no positive signs and symptoms and no positive diagnostic tests are present. Secondly, we aimed to determine which measurement instruments are being used and when they are used to support and objectify the clinical reasoning process. Finally, we wanted to establish consensus among experts regarding the use of unimodal interventions in patients with non-specific neck pain, i.e. their sequential linear clinical reasoning. Study design: A Delphi study. Methods: A Web-based Delphi study was conducted. Fifteen experts (teachers and researchers) participated. Results: Pain alone was deemed not be an indication for physiotherapy treatment. PROMs are mainly used for evaluative purposes and physical tests for diagnostic and evaluative purposes. Eighteen different variants of sequential linear clinical reasoning were investigated within our Delphi study. Only 6 out of 18 variants of sequential linear clinical reasoning reached more than 50% consensus. Conclusion: Pain alone is not an indication for physiotherapy. Insight has been obtained into which measurement instruments are used and when they are used. Consensus about sequential linear lines of clinical reasoning was poor