Reproducibility and construct validity of three non-invasive instruments for assessing the trunk range of motion in patients with low back pain

Mismo con una gran variabilidad de métodos e instrumentos disponibles para evaluar la amplitud de movimiento de la columna, son raros los métodos cuantitativos precisos de mensuración. El objetivo de eso estudio fue verificar la reproductibilidad intra- e inter-examinadores y validad del constructo entre medidas de amplitud de movimiento de la columna en pacientes con dolor en la región lumbar, las cuales fueron obtenidas con los instrumentos goniómetro, inclinómetro y electrogoniómetro. La reproductibilidad y validad del constructo de instrumentos fueron testadas en 58 pacientes con dolor en la región lumbar en un diseño de test y re-test, en la línea de base y después de 24 a 72 horas. Todos los instrumentos presentaron buena correlación entre sí (r>;0,60), lo que reflete buena validad del constructo, y tuvieron buenos niveles de confiabilidades inter- e intra-examinadores. Entre todos los movimientos evaluados, el inclinómetro presentó un error absoluto inter- e intra-examinador que varió del 6,20 al 7,52 y 6,75 al 11,89 grados; y lo goniómetro mostró uno del 15 al 7,85 y 2,83 al 8,06 grados; y lo electrogoniómetro con uno entre 3,27 al 16,42 y 2,72 al 8,06 grados. Por lo tanto, los instrumentos aplicados pueden ser considerados con buenos niveles de validad del constructo y reproducibles para evaluación de la amplitud de movimiento en pacientes con dolor en la región lumbar.Although there is a wide variety of methods and instruments aiming to assess the trunk range of motion, there is uncertainty regarding their construct validity and reproducibility. The objective of this study was to verify the construct validity and intra and inter-rater reproducibility of the goniometer, inclinometer and electrogoniometer in measuring the trunk range of motion in patients with history of low back pain. The measurement properties of reliability, agreement and construct validity were tested in 58 patients with low back pain using a test-retest design at baseline and after 24 to72 hours. All instruments showed good construct validity (r>;0.60) as well as good levels of intra and inter-rater reliability with measurement errors ranging from 2.83 to 16.42 degrees. Among the assessed movements, the inclinometer, goniometer and electrogoniometer instruments can be considered as having good levels of construct validity and reproducibility for the assessment of trunk range of motion in patients with low back pain.Apesar da grande variabilidade de métodos e instrumentos disponíveis para avaliar a amplitude de movimento da coluna, são escassos os métodos quantitativos precisos de mensuração. O objetivo do estudo foi verificar a reprodutibilidade intra e interexaminadores e a validade de construto entre as medidas de amplitude de movimento da coluna em pacientes com dor lombar, obtidas com os instrumentos goniômetro, inclinômetro e eletrogoniômetro. A reprodutibilidade e a validade do construto dos instrumentos foram testadas em 58 pacientes com dor lombar num delineamento de teste-reteste, na linha de base e após 24 a 72 horas. Todos os instrumentos apresentaram boa correlação entre si (r>;0,60), refletindo boa validade do construto, e obtiveram bons níveis de confiabilidades inter e intraexaminadores. Entre todos os movimentos avaliados, o inclinômetro apresentou um erro absoluto inter e intraexaminador que variou de 6,20 a 7,52 e 6,75 a 11,89 graus respectivamente; o goniômetro mostrou um erro de 3,15 a 7,85 e 2,83 a 8,06 graus, respectivamente; e o eletrogoniômetro, entre 3,27 a 16,42 e 2,72 a 8,06 graus, respectivamente. Dessa forma, todos os instrumentos utilizados podem ser considerados com bons níveis de validade do construto e reprodutíveis para avaliação da amplitude de movimento em pacientes com dor lombar

Identifying patients with chronic low back pain who respond best to mechanical diagnosis and therapy : secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Background: "Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy" (MDT) (also known as the McKenzie method), like other interventions for low back pain (LBP), has been found to have small effects for people with LBP. It is possible that a group of patients respond best to MDT and have larger effects. Identification of patients who respond best to MDT compared with other interventions would be an important finding. Objective: The purpose of the study was to investigate whether baseline characteristics of patients with chronic LBP, already classified as derangement syndrome, can identify those who respond better to MDT compared with Back School. Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of data from a previous trial comparing MDT with Back School in 148 patients with chronic LBP. Only patients classified at baseline assessment as being in the directional preference group (n=140) were included. The effect modifiers tested were: clear centralization versus directional preference only, baseline pain location, baseline pain intensity, and age. The primary outcome measures for this study were pain intensity and disability at the end of treatment (1 month). Treatment effect modification was evaluated by assessing the group versus predictor interaction terms from linear regression models. Interactions ≥1.0 for pain and ≥3 for disability were considered clinically important. Results: Being older met our criteria for being a potentially important effect modifier; however, the effect occurred in the opposite direction to our hypothesis. Older people had 1.27 points more benefit in pain reduction from MDT (compared with Back School) than younger participants after 1 month of treatment. Limitations: The sample (n=140) was powered to detect the main effects of treatment but not to detect the interactions of the potential treatment effect modifiers. Conclusions: The results of the study suggest older age may be an important factor that can be considered as a treatment effect modifier for patients with chronic LBP receiving MDT. As the main trial was not powered for the investigation of subgroups, the results of this secondary analysis have to be interpreted cautiously, and replication is needed.8 page(s

The McKenzie method for (sub)acute non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND: There is widespread agreement amongst clinicians that people with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) comprise a heterogeneous group and that their management should be individually tailored. One treatment known by its tailored design is the McKenzie method (e.g. an individualized program of exercises based on clinical clues observed during assessment). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the McKenzie method in people with (sub)acute non-specific low back pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two trials registers up to 15 August 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of the McKenzie method in adults with (sub)acute (less than 12 weeks) NSLBP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: This review included five RCTs with a total of 563 participants recruited from primary or tertiary care. Three trials were conducted in the USA, one in Australia, and one in Scotland. Three trials received financial support from non-commercial funders and two did not provide information on funding sources. All trials were at high risk of performance and detection bias. None of the included trials measured adverse events. McKenzie method versus minimal intervention (educational booklet; McKenzie method as a supplement to other intervention - main comparison) There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may result in a slight reduction in pain in the short term (MD -7.3, 95% CI -12.0 to -2.56; 2 trials, 377 participants) but not in the intermediate term (MD -5.0, 95% CI -14.3 to 4.3; 1 trial, 180 participants). There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD -2.5, 95% CI -7.5 to 2.0; 2 trials, 328 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD -0.9, 95% CI -7.3 to 5.6; 1 trial, 180 participants). McKenzie method versus manual therapy There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce pain in the short term (MD -8.7, 95% CI -27.4 to 10.0; 3 trials, 298 participants) and may result in a slight increase in pain in the intermediate term (MD 7.0, 95% CI 0.7 to 13.3; 1 trial, 235 participants). There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD -5.0, 95% CI -15.0 to 5.0; 3 trials, 298 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD 4.3, 95% CI -0.7 to 9.3; 1 trial, 235 participants). McKenzie method versus other interventions (massage and advice) There is very low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD 4.0, 95% CI -15.4 to 23.4; 1 trial, 30 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD 10.0, 95% CI -8.9 to 28.9; 1 trial, 30 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low- to very low-certainty evidence, the treatment effects for pain and disability found in our review were not clinically important. Thus, we can conclude that the McKenzie method is not an effective treatment for (sub)acute NSLBP

Efficacy of the McKenzie Method in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain : a protocol of randomized placebo-controlled trial

Background: The McKenzie method is widely used as an active intervention in the treatment of patients with nonspecific low back pain. Although the McKenzie method has been compared with several other interventions, it is not yet known whether this method is superior to placebo in patients with chronic low back pain. Objective: The purpose of this trial is to assess the efficacy of the McKenzie method in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. Design: An assessor-blinded, 2-arm, randomized placebo-controlled trial will be conducted. Setting: This study will be conducted in physical therapy clinics in São Paulo, Brazil. Participants: The participants will be 148 patients seeking care for chronic nonspecific low back pain. Intervention: Participants will be randomly allocated to 1 of 2 treatment groups: (1) McKenzie method or (2) placebo therapy (detuned ultrasound and shortwave therapy). Each group will receive 10 sessions of 30 minutes each (2 sessions per week over 5 weeks). Measurements: The clinical outcomes will be obtained at the completion of treatment (5 weeks) and at 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. The primary outcomes will be pain intensity (measured with the Pain Numerical Rating Scale) and disability (measured with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) at the completion of treatment. The secondary outcomes will be pain intensity; disability and function; kinesiophobia and global perceived effect at 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization; and kinesiophobia and global perceived effect at completion of treatment. The data will be collected by a blinded assessor. Limitations: Therapists will not be blinded. Conclusions: This will be the first trial to compare the McKenzie method with placebo therapy in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. The results of this study will contribute to better management of this population.7 page(s

Importance of Baseline Prognostic Factors With Increasing Time Since Initiation of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy: Collaborative Analysis of Cohorts of HIV-1-Infected Patients

Background: The extent to which the prognosis for AIDS and death of patients initiating highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) continues to be affected by their characteristics at the time of initiation (baseline) is unclear. Methods: We analyzed data on 20,379 treatment-naive HIV-1- infected adults who started HAART in 1 of 12 cohort studies in Europe and North America (61,798 person-years of follow-up, 1844 AIDS events, and 1005 deaths). Results: Although baseline CD4 cell count became less prognostic with time, individuals with a baseline CD4 count 350 cells/μL (hazard ratio for AIDS = 2.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0 to 2.3; mortality hazard ratio = 2.5, 95% CI: 1.2 to 5.5, 4 to 6 years after starting HAART). Rates of AIDS were persistently higher in individuals who had experienced an AIDS event before starting HAART. Individuals with presumed transmission by means of injection drug use experienced substantially higher rates of AIDS and death than other individuals throughout follow-up (AIDS hazard ratio = 1.6, 95% CI: 0.8 to 3.0; mortality hazard ratio = 3.5, 95% CI: 2.2 to 5.5, 4 to 6 years after starting HAART). Conclusions: Compared with other patient groups, injection drug users and patients with advanced immunodeficiency at baseline experience substantially increased rates of AIDS and death up to 6 years after starting HAART