Contextual Factors-Enriched Standard Care on mechanical neck pain (ContextualizAR trial): Protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the influence of contextual factors (CFs) on interventions for mechanical neck pain (MNP) is essential for evidence-based practice in physical therapy. However, the specific effects and synergies of combining different CFs remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: The primary purpose of this study will be to determine if a CFs-Enriched Standard Care (SC) approach is an effective treatment for MNP in terms of reducing pain and improving function. METHODS: This will be an assessor-blinded, 2-group (1:1) randomised clinical trial (RCT) aiming to enrol 94 participants with neck pain persisting for more than 4 weeks. Both groups will undergo 4 weeks of SC twice weekly, following established clinical practice guidelines. In the intervention group, CFs will be enhanced, encompassing the physical, psychological, and social elements inherent in the clinical encounter, based on existing evidence. The primary outcomes will encompass changes in pain and disability after 4 weeks of treatment, with a follow-up reassessment at week 12 post-treatment. Secondary outcomes will include changes in Active Range of Motion, Global Rating of Change, and Satisfaction with treatment. The change between groups after treatment and at the 12-week follow-up will be reported for all outcomes, considering the difference from scores recorded at baseline. RESULTS: We hypothesise that a 4-week CFs-Enriched SC approach will be superior to SC alone in terms of patient-reported disability and pain, with measurements conducted using the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale, respectively. CONCLUSION: This RCT rigorously assesses the effect of purposeful manipulation of CFs during MNP treatment. By elucidating the role of these factors, our findings have the potential to significantly refine clinical practice in managing MNP, thereby enhancing patient care, and advancing the fields of physical therapy and rehabilitation.

Prevalence of positive modified scapular assistance test in patients with shoulder pain with and without scapular dyskinesis: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Scapular dyskinesis (SD) is defined as an altered position of the scapula or altered motion patterns and their relationship with shoulder pain (SP) is still under debate. The modified scapular assistance test (mSAT) modifies scapular kinematics and is used to determine the impact of scapular dyskinesis in shoulder pain. However, data about the relationship between SD and the result of mSAT is scarce. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to establish the frequency of positive mSAT in patients with SP and compare the prevalence in those with and without SD. As a secondary objective, we compare changes in pain intensity during the mSAT in patients with a positive test between those with and without SD. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Adult patients with a diagnosis of SP and with pain ≥2 during anterior flexion were included. The mSAT, scapular dyskinesis test (SDT), and shoulder function were assessed. RESULTS: The study was conducted between August 2018 and May 2022 and included 70 patients. The prevalence of SDT was 54.29%. No statistically significant associations were detected when assessing the relation between the presence of mSAT and SDT (p-value 0.83). When comparing pain response during the mSAT in patients with a positive test, no differences were seen between patients with SD and patients without SD (p-value 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of positive mSAT results was equal between individuals with and without SD. These findings suggest that the presence or absence of SD in individuals with SP was independent of the mSAT result. The mSAT should not be used solely for the assessment of SD in clinical practice nor be influenced by the SDT result. More research is needed to determine if the result of this test could inform prognosis and guide treatment choices.

Standard measurement error and minimal detectable change of the Back-PAQ ArgSpan questionnaire: Secondary analysis.

BACKGROUND: Negative attitudes and beliefs about back pain in patients with low back pain (LBP) are associated with high levels of pain and negatively influence clinical outcome. The Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) was developed to assess back beliefs of patients and healthcare professionals. The minimal detectable change (MDC) is defined as the smallest amount of change that can be detected not due to inherent variation or "noise" in the measure. The MDC values at 68%, 90% and 95% confidence levels of the Back-PAQ ArgSpan are unknown. OBJECTIVE: to calculate standard error measurement (SEM) and MDC to confirm the feasibility of Back-PAQ ArgSpan as a reliable outcome measure in clinical and research settings. STUDY DESIGN: a secondary analysis was carried out using a subgroup of data from the cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Argentine version of the Back PAQ. METHOD: SEM was calculated (SD × âˆš1 - ICC) and MDC as (SEM × z-value × âˆš2). MDC was calculated as percentage as well. RESULTS: the SEM was 5.16 points. The MDC68, MDC90 and MDC95 of the Back-PAQ were 7.30, 12 and 14.3 points, respectively. The percentages of MDC68, MDC90 and MDC95 of the Back-PAQ were 6.7%, 11.0% and 13.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated that the Back-PAQ ArgSpan is a reliable and interpretable measurement tool. When assessing a patient, a change in the score in the Back-PAQ ArgSpan over 15 points shows a true change at 95% confidence level.

Beliefs and attitudes about low back pain in Argentina: A cross-sectional survey using social media.

BACKGROUND: low back pain (LBP) is highly prevalent, very disabling and carries an enormous economic burden. The multifactorial nature of LBP often does not allow identification of a single pathoanatomic driver of pain. Unhelpful beliefs are associated with elevated levels of pain and may have a negative impact on the recovery of an episode of LBP. Beliefs about the back and back pain have not been evaluated in the Argentine general population. OBJECTIVE: to assess the beliefs about the back and back pain of the Argentine population. The secondary objective was to compare the beliefs between respondents with and without LBP and between those who had and had not seen a health care professional (HCP). STUDY DESIGN: cross-sectional study. METHOD: we included Argentinians aged 18 years or more with or without LBP. The Argentine version of Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) was used to assess back beliefs. RESULTS: one thousand and ninety-two participants responded the survey. Current LBP was reported by 42.3% (95% CI 39.3-45.2) of respondents and the life-time prevalence was 88.4% (95% CI 82.6-94.5). The mean Back-PAQ score was 111.7 (95% CI 111-112.5). Significant differences were found when comparing means scores of the current pain group with past and never LBP groups (p < 0.001). There were no difference in mean scores between respondents who were and were not exposed to a HCP. CONCLUSION: Survey respondents sampled from the Argentine population had in general negative beliefs about back pain. Respondents with current pain had more unhelpful beliefs than pain free respondents in relation to the prognosis and recovery of an episode of LBP. Small differences were found in the beliefs of respondents who had received care for LBP from a HCP and those who did not seek care.

Spanish translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Argentine version of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: low back pain (LBP) is the main cause of years lived with disability worldwide. Psychosocial factors have been shown to be good predictors of persistent LBP. Within these, unhelpful beliefs about the back seem to be important in the development and chronicity of the symptoms. The Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) is an instrument that explores beliefs about the back that has been validated for people with and without back pain and healthcare professionals. However, until now, it has not been translated and validated for the Argentine population. OBJECTIVE: translate into Spanish, cross-cultural adapt and validate the Back-PAQ for the Argentine population with and without back pain. STUDY DESIGN: study of diagnostic accuracy/assessment scale. METHODS: the study was carried out in three consecutive phases: translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation. We included Argentinians aged 18 years or more. We used the Back-PAQ, modified Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mFABQ) and the Global Rating of Change (GROC) scale to assess the psychometric properties. RESULTS: three hundred and seventy-two participants were included for the analysis. The time taken to answer and score the questionnaire was 5.6 and 1.6 min, respectively. Neither a ceiling nor a floor effect was observed. Internal consistency was 0.76. One hundred and eighty-six participants were considered stable. Test-retest reliability was 0.90. A weak correlation (0.33) was found between the Back-PAQ and the mFABQ. CONCLUSION: the Argentine version of the Back-PAQ is a viable, reliable and valid tool for the assessment of the back beliefs of the Argentine population.

Safety of Positive Pressure Extubation Technique.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory studies suggest applying positive pressure without endotracheal suction during cuff deflation and extubation. Although some studies reported better physiological outcomes (e.g. arterial blood gases) with this technique, the safety of positive pressure extubation technique has not been well studied. The aim of this study was to determine the safety of the positive-pressure extubation technique compared with the traditional extubation technique in terms of incidence of complications. METHODS: Adult subjects who were critically ill and on invasive mechanical ventilation who met extubation criteria were included. The subjects were randomly assigned to positive-pressure extubation (n = 120) or to traditional extubation (n = 120). Sequential tests for noninferiority and, when appropriate, for superiority were performed. Positive pressure was considered noninferior if the upper limit of the CI for the absolute risk difference did not exceed a threshold of 15% in favor of the traditional group, both in per protocol and intention-to-treat analyses. A P value of <.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 236 subjects were included in the primary analysis (per protocol) (119 in the positive-pressure group and 117 in the traditional group). The incidence of overall major and minor complications, pneumonia, extubation failure, and reintubation was lower in the positive-pressure group than in the traditional group, with statistical significance for noninferiority both in the per protocol (P < .001) and intention-to-treat (P < .001) analyses. The lower incidence of major complications found in the positive-pressure group reached statistical significance for the superiority comparison, both in per protocol (P = .03) and intention-to-treat (P = .049) analyses. No statistically significant differences were found in the superiority comparison for overall complications, minor complications, pneumonia, extubation failure, and reintubation. CONCLUSIONS: Positive pressure was safe and noninferior to traditional extubation methods. Furthermore, positive pressure has shown to be superior in terms of a lower incidence of major complications. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT03174509.).