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

In trials of physiotherapy for chronic low back pain, clinical relevance is rarely interpreted, with great heterogeneity in the frameworks and thresholds used:a meta-research study

QUESTIONS: How do authors of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) interpret the clinical relevance of the effects of physiotherapy interventions compared with no intervention on pain intensity, physical function and time to recovery in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP)? How can the clinical relevance be re-interpreted based on the available smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) threshold for this comparison? Are the studies in this field adequately powered?DESIGN: Cross-sectional meta-research study.PARTICIPANTS: People with CLBP.OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain intensity, physical function and time to recovery.RESULTS: This review included 23 RCTs with 1,645 participants. Twenty-two and 18 studies were included in the analysis of pain intensity and physical function, respectively. No studies investigated time to recovery. Sixteen studies reported varying thresholds to interpret clinical relevance for physical function and pain intensity. Discrepancies between interpretation using the minimal important difference and SWE values were observed in five studies. Study power ranged from 9% to 98%, with only four studies having a power &gt; 80%.CONCLUSION: Little attention is given to the interpretation of clinical relevance in RCTs comparing physiotherapy with no intervention in CLBP, with great heterogeneity in the frameworks and thresholds used. Future trials should inform patients and clinicians on whether the effect of an intervention is large enough to be worthwhile, using a reliable and comprehensive approach like available SWE estimates.REGISTRATION: medRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.14.22283454.</p

How do physiotherapists understand and interpret the ‘Pain Attitudes and Beliefs scale’? A cognitive interview study.

Background: The Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (PABS) for physiotherapists aims to differentiate between clinicians’ biomedical and biopsychosocial treatment orientations regarding nonspecific low back pain (LBP). Objective: To study the content validity of the Norwegian PABS by following international guidelines: exploring its relevance, comprehensibility and comprehensiveness. Methods: Cognitive interviews were performed using the Three-Step Test Interview, consisting of think-aloud techniques, retrospective probing and in-depth interviews. Eleven Norwegian physiotherapists with a diversity of professional backgrounds participated. Results: The participants encountered little difficulty in completing the PABS. All items were deemed relevant and important but five items had ambiguous formulations which can easily be handled. The biomedical subscale appeared to be a comprehensive representation of biomedical treatment orientation. The biopsychosocial subscale was found to lack items concerning cognitive behavioral aspects of LBP management, such as patient education, therapeutic alliance, shared decision making and graded exposure. Conclusions: This study provides empirical evidence that the Norwegian version of the PABS-PT is relevant and comprehensible, provided some minor adjustments. The biopsychosocial subscale, however, lacks comprehensiveness, as it is not able to capture important aspects of contemporary biopsychosocial best practice care. Measurement of biopsychosocial treatment orientation may therefore be incomplete.publishedVersio

Limited use of virtual reality in primary care physiotherapy for patients with chronic pain

Background: Chronic pain is a disabling condition which is prevalent in about 20% of the adult population. Physiotherapy is the most common non-pharmacological treatment option for chronic pain, but often demonstrates unsatisfactory outcomes. Virtual Reality (VR) may offer the opportunity to complement physiotherapy treatment. As VR has only recently been introduced in physiotherapy care, it is unknown to what extent VR is used and how it is valued by physiotherapists. The aim of this study was to analyse physiotherapists’ current usage of, experiences with and physiotherapist characteristics associated with applying therapeutic VR for chronic pain rehabilitation in Dutch primary care physiotherapy. Methods: This online survey applied two rounds of recruitment: a random sampling round (873 physiotherapists invited, of which 245 (28%) were included) and a purposive sampling round (20 physiotherapists using VR included). Survey results were reported descriptively and physiotherapist characteristics associated with VR use were examined using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: In total, 265 physiotherapists participated in this survey study. Approximately 7% of physiotherapists reported using therapeutic VR for patients with chronic pain. On average, physiotherapists rated their overall experience with therapeutic VR at 7.0 and “whether they would recommend it” at 7.2, both on a 0–10 scale. Most physiotherapists (71%) who use therapeutic VR started using it less than two years ago and use it for a small proportion of their patients with chronic pain. Physiotherapists use therapeutic VR for a variety of conditions, including generalized (55%), neck (45%) and lumbar (37%) chronic pain. Physiotherapists use therapeutic VR mostly to reduce pain (68%), improve coordination (50%) and increase physical mobility (45%). Use of therapeutic VR was associated with a larger physiotherapy practice (OR = 2.38, 95% CI [1.14–4.98]). Unfamiliarity with VR seemed to be the primary reason for not using VR. Discussion: Therapeutic VR for patients with chronic pain is in its infancy in Dutch primary care physiotherapy practice as only a small minority uses VR. Physiotherapists that use therapeutic VR are modestly positive about the technology, with large heterogeneity between treatment goals, methods of administering VR, proposed working mechanisms and chronic pain conditions to treat.</p

Development of a Multimodal, Personalized Intervention of Virtual Reality Integrated Within Physiotherapy for Patients With Complex Chronic Low-Back Pain

Background: Chronic low-back pain (CLBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability. Physiotherapy is the most common treatment option for CLBP, but effects are often unsatisfactory. Virtual reality (VR) offers possibilities to enhance the effectiveness of physiotherapy treatment. Primary aim was to develop and test a personalized VR intervention integrated within a physiotherapy treatment for patients with CLBP.Methods: This study describes an intervention development process using mixed methods design that followed the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework. This involved a cocreation process with patients, physiotherapists, and researchers. A draft intervention was constructed based on a literature review and focus groups, and subsequently tested in a feasibility study and evaluated in focus groups. Focus group data were analyzed using thematic analysis. This intervention development process resulted in a final intervention.Results: Focus group data showed that VR and physiotherapy can strengthen each other when they are well integrated, and that VR needs to be administered under the right conditions including flawless technology, physiotherapists with sufficient affinity and training, and the right expectations from patients. The draft intervention was considered feasible after evaluation by four patients and three physiotherapists and was further complemented by expanding the training for physiotherapists and improving the protocols for physiotherapists and patients. The final intervention consisted of a 12-week physiotherapy treatment with three integrated VR modules: pain education, physical exercise, and relaxation.Conclusion: Using the MRC framework in cocreation with the end users, a personalized VR intervention integrated within a physiotherapy treatment for patients with CLBP was developed. This intervention was found to be feasible and will subsequently be evaluated for (cost-)effectiveness in a cluster randomized controlled trial

The smallest worthwhile effect of primary care physiotherapy did not differ across musculoskeletal pain sites

Objectives: To determine and compare estimates of the smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) for physiotherapy in neck, shoulder, and low-back pain patients and to investigate the influence of sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors on these estimates. Methods: A structured telephone interview was conducted before treatment was commenced in 160 patients referred for primary care physiotherapy. The benefit-harm trade-off method was used to estimate the SWE of physiotherapy for the following outcomes; pain, disability, and time to recovery, compared with the improvement achieved without any treatment (natural course). Regression analyses were used to assess the influence of sociodemographics, clinical variables, and intake scores on pain, disability, and psychological scales. Results: The median SWE for improvements on pain and disability was 20% (interquartile range 10%–30%), and the SWE for time to recovery was 10 days (interquartile range 7–14 days) over a period of 6 weeks. These estimates did not differ with respect to pain location (neck, shoulder, or back) and were generally unaffected by sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors. Conclusion: People with neck, shoulder, and low-back pain need to see at least 20% of additional improvement on pain and disability compared with natural recovery to consider that the effect of physiotherapy is worthwhile, given its costs, potential side effects, and inconveniences

Measurement Properties of Visual Analogue Scale, Numeric Rating Scale, and Pain Severity Subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory in Patients With Low Back Pain:A Systematic Review

Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Pain Severity subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI-PS)] are the most frequently used instruments to measure pain intensity in low back pain (LBP). However, their measurement properties in this population have not been systematically reviewed. The goal of this study was to provide such systematic evidence synthesis. Six electronic sources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, Google Scholar) were searched (July 2017). Studies assessing any measurement property in patients with non-specific LBP were included. Two reviewers independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias using the COSMIN checklist. For each measurement property: evidence quality was rated as high, moderate, low, or very low (GRADE approach); results were classified as sufficient, insufficient or inconsistent. Ten studies assessed the VAS, 13 the NRS, four the BPI-PS. The three instruments displayed low or very low quality evidence for content validity. High quality evidence was only available for NRS insufficient measurement error. Moderate evidence was available for: NRS inconsistent responsiveness, BPI-PS sufficient structural validity and internal consistency, and BPI-PS inconsistent construct validity. All VAS measurement properties were underpinned by no, low or very low quality evidence, likewise the other measurement properties of NRS and BPI-PS