Is there 'trustworthy' evidence for using manual therapy to treat patients with shoulder dysfunction?: A systematic review.

The primary objective of this review was to create a 'trustworthy,' living systematic review and meta-analysis for the application of manual therapy interventions in treating patients with shoulder dysfunction. Included studies were English-language randomized controlled trials published between 1/1/2010 and 8/3/2023, with searches performed in: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINHAL, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health, EBSCO Medline, and PEDro. The population of focus included adults 18 years and older with musculoskeletal impairments related to shoulder dysfunction. Our primary outcomes included pain and region-specific outcome measures. We excluded trials, including participants having shoulder dysfunction resulting from surgery, radicular pain, instability/dislocation, fracture, lymphedema, and radiation. Our screening methodology was based upon a previously published 'trustworthy' systematic review protocol. This included the application of our PICOTS criteria in addition to screening for prospective clinical trial registration and following of prospective intent, as well as assessment of PEDro scores, risk-of-bias ratings, GRADE scoring, and examination of confidence in estimated effects. Twenty-six randomized controlled trials met our PICOTS criteria; however, only 15 of these were registered. Only three were registered prospectively. Two of these did not have discussions and conclusions that aligned with their primary outcome. The remaining single study was found to have a high risk-of-bias, meaning the remainder of the protocol could not be employed and that no randomized controlled trials could undergo further assessment or meta-analysis. The results of this systematic review indicate there are no 'trustworthy' randomized controlled trials examining the effectiveness of manual therapy interventions for the treatment of patients with shoulder dysfunction, as defined by the prospectively established methodology. Therefore, these findings signal that creating a 'trustworthy,' living systematic review on this clinically relevant topic is not yet possible due to a lack of 'trustworthy' randomized controlled trials.

Does manual therapy meaningfully change quantitative sensory testing and patient reported outcome measures in patients with musculoskeletal impairments related to the spine?: A 'trustworthy' systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a 'trustworthy' systematic review (SR) with meta-analysis on the potential mechanisms of manual therapy used to treat spinal impairments. DESIGN: SR with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: Articles published between January 2010 and October 2022 from CENTRAL, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, ProQuest, and PEDro. METHODS: This SR included English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving manual therapy to treat spinal impairments in adults. The primary outcome was pressure pain thresholds (PPTs). To synthesize RCTs with high confidence in estimated effects using the GRADE, RCTs with questionable prospective, external, and internal validity, and high risk of bias (RoB) were excluded. RESULTS: Following title and abstract screening, 89 full-text RCTs were reviewed. Twenty-two studies included the criteria of interest. Sixteen were not prospectively registered, two contained discussion/conclusions judged to be inconsistent with the registry, and one was rated as having a high RoB. Three studies met the inclusion criteria; heterogeneous interventions and locations for PPT testing prevented synthesis into practice recommendations. The two studies with high confidence in estimated effects had small effect sizes, and one study had confidence intervals that crossed zero for the outcome measures of interest. DISCUSSION: Standardized PPT testing, as a potential measure of centrally mediated pain, could provide clues regarding the mechanisms of manual therapy or help identify/refine research questions. CONCLUSION: High-quality RCTs could not be synthesized into strong conclusions secondary to the dissimilarity in research designs. Future research regarding quantitative sensory testing should develop RCTs with high confidence in estimated effects that can be translated into strong recommendations.

Manual therapy for non-radicular cervical spine related impairments: establishing a 'Trustworthy' living systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To establish a 'trustworthy' living systematic review (SR) with a meta-analysis of manual therapy for treating non-radicular cervical impairments. DESIGN: SR with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: Articles published between January 2010 and September 2022 were included from: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); CINAHL; MEDLINE; PubMed; PEDro, and ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health. METHODS: This SR included English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of manual therapy involving adults used to treat non-radicular cervical impairments. The primary outcomes were pain and region-specific outcome measures. Cervicogenic headaches and whiplash were excluded to improve homogeneity. Two reviewers independently assessed RCTs. The prospective plan was to synthesize results with high confidence in estimated effects using GRADE. RESULTS: Thirty-five RCTs were screened for registration status. Twenty-eight were not registered or registered prospectively. In 5 studies, the discussion and conclusion did not match the registry, or this could not be determined. One study did not meet the external validity criterion, and another was rated as having a high risk of bias. One study met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, so practice recommendations could not be made. The remaining study did not identify any clinically meaningful group differences. DISCUSSION: Only one prospectively registered RCT met this SR's strict, high-quality standards. The single identified paper provides initial high-quality evidence on this topic. CONCLUSION: This SR establishes a foundation of trustworthiness and can be used to generate research agendas to determine the potential clinical utility of manual therapy directed at the cervical spine for non-radicular cervical complaints.

Is the quality of systematic reviews influenced by prospective registration: a methods review of systematic musculoskeletal physical therapy reviews.

INTRODUCTION: It is unknown if verified prospective registration of systematic reviews (SRs) and the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that they use affect an SR's methodological quality on A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). METHODS: Data originated from interventional SRs published in International Society of Physiotherapy Journals Editors (ISPJE) member journals, indexed in MEDLINE, between 1 January 2018 and 18 August 2021. Blinded reviewers identified the SRs and extracted the data for the variables of interest for the SRs and the RCTs. RESULTS: Two of 14 ISPJE member journals required prospective SR registration. Twenty SRs were identified, and 169 unique, retrievable RCTs were included within those SRs. One (5.0%) of the 20 SRs and 15 of the 169 (8.9%) RCTs were prospectively registered and published consistent with this intent. Nineteen (95.0%) of the 20 identified SRs was categorized as 'critically low' on the AMSTAR 2. DISCUSSION: SRs and the RCTs identified within them were infrequently prospectively registered, prospectively verifiable, or prospectively verified based on the established research record. CONCLUSIONS: Ensuring that SRs and RCTs have fidelity with the research record from conception to publication may help rule out low-value interventions, decrease variability in physical therapy practice, and solidify evidence-based physical therapy practice.

Effects of a Blocked Versus Full-Length Semester Design on Doctor of Physical Therapy Student Performance and Retention.

INTRODUCTION: Restrictions on in-person gatherings during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic required educational programs to explore alternative educational formats. The nature of physical therapy education as a blend of cognitive and psychomotor skill presents additional challenges. During a gradual return to in-person learning, the authors' institution chose to break a full-length 15-week semester into 3, 5-week blocks. The first aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of semester design on course performance. The second aim was to assess the effects of semester design on knowledge and skill retention. REVIEW OF LITERATURE: In undergraduate studies, blocked courses or semesters held over a short period of time may result in equal or better performance compared with courses performed over a longer time. Few studies have been performed on the graduate student population. Most studies have focused on short-term cognitive knowledge acquisition. SUBJECTS: Three cohorts of Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) students were eligible to participate. METHODS: Two DPT courses (1 first year and 1 second year) were selected to assess cognitive and psychomotor performance. Examination results were compared at the end of a full-length semester and blocked semester. A third course was selected to assess retention at 4 time points. Students were assessed on their cognitive retention using computer-based quizzes and psychomotor retention using in-person skills quizzes. RESULTS: Median cognitive performance scores for both courses were slightly better during the blocked semester. There were no significant differences in median psychomotor scores. There was no significant interaction effect between semester structure and retention of cognitive knowledge or psychomotor skills, although there were significant changes in scores over time. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: A blocked semester design may favor immediate cognitive performance. However, there is no significant effect on knowledge or skill retention over a 6-month period. Programs faced with the potential for in-person closures can select either semester structure based on their needs without compromising knowledge or skill retention.

The Safety and Effectiveness of Early, Progressive Weight Bearing and Implant Choice after Traumatic Lower Extremity Fracture: A Systematic Review.

The goal of this systematic review was to examine existing evidence on the effectiveness of early, progressive weight bearing on patients after traumatic lower extremity fractures and relate these findings to device/implant choice. A search of the literature in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was performed through January 2022. Randomized controlled trials and non-randomized, prospective longitudinal investigations of early, progressive weight bearing in skeletally mature adults after traumatic lower extremity fracture were included in the search, with 21 publications included in the final analysis. A summary of the loading progressions used in each study, along with the primary and additional outcomes, is provided. The progression of weight bearing was variable, dependent on fracture location and hardware fixation; however, overall outcomes were good with few complications. Most studies scored "high" on the bias tools and were predominately performed without physical therapist investigators. Few studies have investigated early, progressive weight bearing in patients after traumatic lower extremity fractures. The available clinical evidence provides variable progression guidelines. Relatively few complications and improved patient function were observed in this review. More research is needed from a rehabilitation perspective to obtain graded progression recommendations, informed by basic science concepts and tissue loading principles.

The Effect of Core Stabilization Training on Improving Gait and Self-Perceived Function in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Single-Arm Clinical Trial.

The treatment of patients with knee osteoarthritis is typically focused on the involved lower extremity. There is a gap in the literature concerning the effectiveness of core stabilization training on the treatment of patients with knee osteoarthritis. This investigation aimed to determine whether core stabilization improved the gait and functional ability of patients with knee osteoarthritis. Eighteen participants with knee osteoarthritis completed the six-week core stabilization intervention. Participants completed the gait motion analysis and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score to assess self-perceived function, pre- and post-intervention. Gait speed improved (p = 0.006, d = 0.59), while the external knee adduction moment decreased (p = 0.034, d = −0.90). Moreover, self-reported function improved (p < 0.001, d = 1.26). The gait speed and external knee adduction moment changes met minimal detectable change thresholds, while gait speed also met the minimal clinically important difference. A six-week core stabilization program can thus improve gait speed and reduce the external knee adduction moment, which is tied to disease progression. Increased functional scores post-intervention indicate an important clinical improvement. Core stabilization training is a safe and potentially effective treatment option for this population.

Transversus abdominis activation does not alter gait impairments in patients with and without knee osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis accounts for more years of disability than all other forms of osteoarthritis combined. Gait kinetic and kinematic changes, in addition to reduced gait speed, are commonly observed. This study investigates whether core activation, which modifies lower extremity movement in young, active populations, can alter the gait and baseline core activation of those with knee osteoarthritis as compared to controls, and alter osteoarthritic knee pain. METHODS: Forty-four participants (22 controls and 22 with knee osteoarthritis) underwent biomechanical gait assessment, examining kinetic and kinematic variables, in addition to gait speed, with and without volitional transversus abdominis activation. Surface electromyography was used to measure baseline transversus abdominis activation under both conditions. Knee pain ratings were examined for those with knee osteoarthritis. FINDINGS: No significant biomechanical differences were observed within groups, or in the time/group interaction. Between-groups kinetic (time to first peak ground reaction force and amplitude of second peak ground reaction force) and gait speed differences were observed under both conditions. There were no differences in baseline electromyography activation between or within-groups, or within-group for self-reported pain for the osteoarthritic group. INTERPRETATION: Although previous studies have shown the benefit of core activation in correcting lower extremity movement patterns and kinetic loading in young, athletic populations, this study is the first to show this is not the case for persons with knee osteoarthritis. Future studies should examine the value of a progressive core stabilization program, of sufficient dose and mode, in correcting the observed gait differences in those with knee osteoarthritis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03776981.