International consensus on the most useful physical examination tests used by physiotherapists for patients with headache: A Delphi study

Background: A wide range of physical tests have been published for use in the assessment of musculoskeletal dysfunction in patients with headache. Which tests are used depends on a physiotherapist's clinical and scientific background as there is little guidance on the most clinically useful tests. Objectives: To identify which physical examination tests international experts in physiotherapy consider the most clinically useful for the assessment of patients with headache. Design/methods: Delphi survey with pre-specified procedures based on a systematic search of the literature for physical examination tests proposed for the assessment of musculoskeletal dysfunction in patients with headache. Results: Seventeen experts completed all three rounds of the survey. Fifteen tests were included in round one with eleven additional tests suggested by the experts. Finally eleven physical examination tests were considered clinically useful: manual joint palpation, the cranio-cervical flexion test, the cervical flexion-rotation test, active range of cervical movement, head forward position, trigger point palpation, muscle tests of the shoulder girdle, passive physiological intervertebral movements, reproduction and resolution of headache symptoms, screening of the thoracic spine, and combined movement tests. Conclusions: Eleven tests are suggested as a minimum standard for the physical examination of musculoskeletal dysfunctions in patients with headache

Review of methods used by chiropractors to determine the site for applying manipulation

Background: With the development of increasing evidence for the use of manipulation in the management of musculoskeletal conditions, there is growing interest in identifying the appropriate indications for care. Recently, attempts have been made to develop clinical prediction rules, however the validity of these clinical prediction rules remains unclear and their impact on care delivery has yet to be established. The current study was designed to evaluate the literature on the validity and reliability of the more common methods used by doctors of chiropractic to inform the choice of the site at which to apply spinal manipulation. Methods: Structured searches were conducted in Medline, PubMed, CINAHL and ICL, supported by hand searches of archives, to identify studies of the diagnostic reliability and validity of common methods used to identify the site of treatment application. To be included, studies were to present original data from studies of human subjects and be designed to address the region or location of care delivery. Only English language manuscripts from peer-reviewed journals were included. The quality of evidence was ranked using QUADAS for validity and QAREL for reliability, as appropriate. Data were extracted and synthesized, and were evaluated in terms of strength of evidence and the degree to which the evidence was favourable for clinical use of the method under investigation. Results: A total of 2594 titles were screened from which 201 articles met all inclusion criteria. The spectrum of manuscript quality was quite broad, as was the degree to which the evidence favoured clinical application of the diagnostic methods reviewed. The most convincing favourable evidence was for methods which confirmed or provoked pain at a specific spinal segmental level or region. There was also high quality evidence supporting the use, with limitations, of static and motion palpation, and measures of leg length inequality. Evidence of mixed quality supported the use, with limitations, of postural evaluation. The evidence was unclear on the applicability of measures of stiffness and the use of spinal x-rays. The evidence was of mixed quality, but unfavourable for the use of manual muscle testing, skin conductance, surface electromyography and skin temperature measurement. Conclusions: A considerable range of methods is in use for determining where in the spine to administer spinal manipulation. The currently published evidence falls across a spectrum ranging from strongly favourable to strongly unfavourable in regard to using these methods. In general, the stronger and more favourable evidence is for those procedures which take a direct measure of the presumptive site of care– methods involving pain provocation upon palpation or localized tissue examination. Procedures which involve some indirect assessment for identifying the manipulable lesion of the spine–such as skin conductance or thermography–tend not to be supported by the available evidence.https://doi.org/10.1186/2045-709X-21-3