Examining diagnostic tests: an evidence-based perspective

Diagnosis is an important aspect of physical therapist practice. Selecting tests that will provide the most accurate information and evaluating the results appropriately are important clinical skills. Most of the discussion in physical therapy to date has centered on defining diagnosis, with considerably less attention paid to elucidating the diagnostic process. Determining the best diagnostic tests for use in clinical situations requires an ability to appraise evidence in the literature that describes the accuracy and interpretation of the results of testing. Important issues for judging studies of diagnostic tests are not widely disseminated or adhered to in the literature. Lack of awareness of these issues may lead to misinterpretation of the results. The application of evidence to clinical practice also requires an understanding of evidence and its use in decision making. The purpose of this article is to present an evidence-based perspective on the diagnostic process in physical therapy. Issues relevant to the appraisal of evidence regarding diagnostic tests and integration of the evidence into patient management are presented. [Fritz JM, Wainner RS. Examining diagnostic tests: an evidence-based perspective. Phys Ther. 2001;81:1546 -156

Thoracic costotransverse joint pain patterns: a study in normal volunteers

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pain referral patterns of asymptomatic costotransverse joints have not been established. The objective of this study was to determine the pain referral patterns of asymptomatic costotransverse joints via provocative intra-articular injection.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Eight asymptomatic male volunteers received a combined total of 21 intra-articular costotransverse joint injections. Fluoroscopic imaging was used to identify and isolate each costotransverse joint and guide placement of a 25 gauge, 2.5 inch spinal needle into the costotransverse joint. Following contrast medium injection, the quality, intensity, and distribution of the resultant pain produced were recorded.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 21 costotransverse joint injections, 16 (76%) were classified as being intra-articular via arthrograms taken at the time of injection, and 14 of these injections produced a pain sensation distinctly different from that of needle placement. Average pain produced was 3.3/10 on a 0–10 verbal pain scale. Pain was described generally as a deep, dull ache, and pressure sensation. Pain patterns were located superficial to the injected joint, with only the right T2 injections showing referred pain 2 segments cranially and caudally. No chest wall, upper extremity or pseudovisceral pains were reported.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study provides preliminary data of the pain referral patterns of costotransverse joints. Further research is needed to compare these findings with those elicited from symptomatic subjects.</p

Spinal manipulation in physical therapist professional degree education: A model for teaching and integration into clinical practice

Spinal manipulation for low back complaints is an intervention supported by randomized clinical trials and its use recommended by clinical practice guidelines. Physical therapists in this country and internationally have used thrust spinal manipulation at much lower-than-expected rates, despite evidence supporting its efficacy for the treatment of acute low back pain (LBP). The purpose of this clinical commentary is to describe a physical therapist professional degree curriculum in thrust spinal manipulation and outline a method of monitoring ongoing student performance during the clinical education experience. Increased emphasis on evidence-based decision making and on the psychomotor skills of thrust spinal manipulation was introduced into a physical therapist professional degree curriculum. As part of ongoing student performance monitoring, physical therapy students on their first full-time (8-week) clinical education experience, collected practice pattern and outcome data on individuals with low back complaints. Eight of 18 first-year students were in outpatient musculoskeletal clinical settings and managed 61 individuals with low back complaints. Patients were seen for an average (±SD) of 6.2 ± 4.0 visits. Upon initial visit the student therapists employed spinal manipulation at a rate of 36.2% and spinal mobilization at 58.6%. At the final visit, utilization of manipulation and mobilization decreased (13% and 37.8%, respectively), while the utilization of exercise interventions increased, with 75% of patients receiving some form of lumbar stabilization training. Physical therapist students used thrust spinal manipulation at rates that are more consistent with clinical practice guidelines and substantially higher then previously reported by practicing physical therapists. Education within an evidence-based framework is thought to contribute to practice behaviors and outcomes that are more consistent with best practice guidelines

Boletín oficial de la provincia de Santander: Año LIII Número 92 - 1989 Mayo 09

STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial (RCT). OBJECTIVES: To perform a secondary analysis on the treatment arm of a larger RCT to determine differences in treatment outcomes, adverse reactions, and effect sizes between patients who received cervical thrust manipulation and those who received only nonthrust manipulation as part of an impairment-based, multimodal treatment program of manual physical therapy (MPT) and exercise for patients with mechanical neck pain. BACKGROUND: A treatment regimen of MPT and exercise has been effective in patients with mechanical neck pain. Limited research has compared the effectiveness of cervical thrust manipulations and nonthrust mobilizations for this patient population, and no studies have investigated the added benefit of cervical thrust manipulations as part of an overall MPT treatment plan. METHODS: Treatment outcomes from 47 patients in the treatment arm of a larger RCT with a primary complaint of mechanical neck pain, were analyzed. Twenty-three patients (49%) received cervical thrust manipulations as part of their MPT treatment, and 24 patients (51%) received only cervical nonthrust mobilizations. All patients received up to 6 clinic sessions, twice weekly for 3 weeks, and a home exercise program. Primary outcome measures were the Neck Disability Index (NDI), 2 visual analog scales for cervical and upper extremity pain, and a 15-point global rating of change scale. Blinded outcome measurements were collected at baseline and at 3-, 6- and 52-week follow-ups. RESULTS: Consistent with the larger RCT, both subgroups in this secondary analysis demonstrated improvement in short- and long-term pain and disability scores. Low statistical power (beta \u3c=.28) and the resultant small effect size indices (-0.21 to 0.17) preclude the identification of any between-group differences. No serious adverse reactions were reported by patients in either subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in both subgroups of patients over time suggest that cervical thrust manipulation, as part of the MPT treatment plan, did not influence the results of the treatment arm of the larger RCT from which this study was drawn. Although no between-group differences can be identified, the small observed effect sizes in this study may benefit future studies with sample size estimation for larger RCTs and indicate the need to incorporate clinical prediction rule criteria as a means to improve statistical power

Psychometric properties of selected tests in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis

Background context: The psychometric properties of many outcome tools commonly used with patients with lumbar spinal stenosis have yet to be examined. Purpose: Examine the test-retest reliability, responsiveness, and minimum levels of detectable and clinically important differences for several outcome measures in a cohort of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Study design/setting: Cohort secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis receiving outpatient physical therapy. Patient sample: Fifty-five patients (mean age, 69.5 years; standard deviation, ±7.9 years; 43.1% females) presenting with lumbar spinal stenosis to physical therapy. Outcome measures: The Modified Oswestry Disability Index, Modified Swiss Spinal Stenosis Scale (SSS), Patient Specific Functional Scale, and Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Methods: All patients completed the Oswestry Disability Index, SSS, Patient Specific Functional Scale, and NPRS at the baseline examination and at a follow-up. In addition, patients completed a 15-point Global Rating of Change at follow-up, which was used to categorize whether patients experienced clinically meaningful change. Changes in the Oswestry Disability Index, SSS, Patient Specific Functional Scale, and NPRS were then used to assess test-retest reliability, responsiveness, and minimum levels of detectable and clinically important differences. Results: The Oswestry Disability Index was the only outcome measure to exhibit excellent test-retest reliability with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.93). All others ranged between fair and moderate. The Oswestry Disability Index, SSS, and Patient Specific Functional Scale exhibited varying levels of responsiveness, each of which was superior to the NPRS. The minimal clinically important difference for the Oswestry Disability Index was five points, the SSS was 0.36 and 0.10 for symptoms subscale and functional subscale, respectively, 1.3 for the Patient Specific Functional Scale, and for the NPRS, 1.25 for back/buttock symptoms and 1.5 for thigh/leg symptoms. Conclusions: The results of our study indicate that the Oswestry Disability Index, SSS, and Patient Specific Functional Scale possess adequate psychometric properties to be used in the outcome assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. However, further investigation is needed to validate these findings in other samples of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and nonspecific low back pain. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved