Reliability of measuring abductor hallucis muscle parameters using two different diagnostic ultrasound machines

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Diagnostic ultrasound provides a method of analysing soft tissue structures of the musculoskeletal system effectively and reliably. The aim of this study was to evaluate within and between session reliability of measuring muscle dorso-plantar thickness, medio-lateral length and cross-sectional area, of the abductor hallucis muscle using two different ultrasound machines, a higher end Philips HD11 Ultrasound machine and clinically orientated Chison 8300 Deluxe Digital Portable Ultrasound System.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The abductor hallucis muscle of both the left and right feet of thirty asymptomatic participants was imaged and then measured using both ultrasound machines. Interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to calculate both within and between session intra-tester reliability. Standard error of the measurement (SEM) calculations were undertaken to assess difference between the actual measured score across trials and the smallest real difference (SRD) was calculated from the SEM to indicate the degree of change that would exceed the expected trial to trial variability.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The ICCs, SEM and SRD for dorso-plantar thickness and medial-lateral length were shown to have excellent to high within and between-session reliability for both ultrasound machines. The between-session reliability indices for cross-sectional area were acceptable for both ultrasound machines.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results of the current study suggest that regardless of the type ultrasound machine, intra-tester reliability for the measurement the abductor hallucis muscle parameters is very high.</p

Dry Needling for Spine Related Disorders: a Scoping Review

Introduction/Background: The depth and breadth of research on dry needling (DN) has not been evaluated specifically for symptomatic spine related disorders (SRD) from myofascial trigger points (TrP), disc, nerve and articular structures not due to serious pathologies. Current literature appears to support DN for treatment of TrP. Goals of this review include identifying research published on DN treatment for SRD, sites of treatment and outcomes studied. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following Levac et al.’s five part methodological framework to determine the current state of the literature regarding DN for patients with SRD. Results: Initial and secondary search strategies yielded 55 studies in the cervical (C) region (71.43%) and 22 in the thoracolumbar-pelvic (TLP) region (28.57%). Most were randomized controlled trials (60% in C, 45.45% in TLP) and clinical trials (18.18% in C, 22.78% in TLP). The most commonly treated condition was TrP for both the C and TLP regions. In the C region, DN was provided to 23 different muscles, with the trapezius as treatment site in 41.88% of studies. DN was applied to 31 different structures in the TLP region. In the C region, there was one treatment session in 23 studies (41.82%) and 2–6 treatments in 25 (45.45%%). For the TLP region, one DN treatment was provided in 8 of the 22 total studies (36.36%) and 2–6 in 9 (40.9%). The majority of experimental designs had DN as the sole intervention. For both C and TLP regions, visual analogue scale, pressure pain threshold and range of motion were the most common outcomes. Conclusion: For SRD, DN was primarily applied to myofascial structures for pain or TrP diagnoses. Many outcomes were improved regardless of diagnosis or treatment parameters. Most studies applied just one treatment which may not reflect common clinical practice. Further research is warranted to determine optimal treatment duration and frequency. Most studies looked at DN as the sole intervention. It is unclear whether DN alone or in addition to other treatment procedures would provide superior outcomes. Functional outcome tools best suited to tracking the outcomes of DN for SRD should be explored.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-020-00310-

Modifying patterns of movement in people with low back pain -does it help? A systematic review

Background: Physiotherapy for people with low back pain frequently includes assessment and modification of lumbo-pelvic movement. Interventions commonly aim to restore normal movement and thereby reduce pain and improve activity limitation. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate: (i) the effect of movement-based interventions on movement patterns (muscle activation, lumbo-pelvic kinematics or postural patterns) of people with low back pain (LBP), and (ii) the relationship between changes in movement patterns and subsequent changes in pain and activity limitation. Methods. MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, AMI, CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ISI Web of Science were searched from inception until January 2012. Randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials of people with LBP were eligible for inclusion. The intervention must have been designed to influence (i) muscle activity patterns, (ii) lumbo-pelvic kinematic patterns or (iii) postural patterns, and included measurement of such deficits before and after treatment, to allow determination of the success of the intervention on the lumbo-pelvic movement. Twelve trials (25% of retrieved studies) met the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently identified, assessed and extracted data. The PEDro scale was used to assess method quality. Intervention effects were described using standardised differences between group means and 95% confidence intervals. Results: The included trials showed inconsistent, mostly small to moderate intervention effects on targeted movement patterns. There was considerable heterogeneity in trial design, intervention type and outcome measures. A relationship between changes to movement patterns and improvements in pain or activity limitation was observed in one of six studies on muscle activation patterns, one of four studies that examined the flexion relaxation response pattern and in two of three studies that assessed lumbo-pelvic kinematics or postural characteristics. Conclusions: Movement-based interventions were infrequently effec tive for changing observable movement patterns. A relationship between changes in movement patterns and improvement in pain or activity limitation was also infrequently observed. No independent studies confirm any observed relationships. Challenges for future research include defining best methods for measuring (i) movement aberrations, (ii) improvements in movements, and (iii) the relationship between changes in how people move and associated changes in other health indicators such as activity limitation

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