Directional preference constructs for patients' low back pain in the absence of centralization.

Objectives: A detailed description of how Directional Preference (DP) constructs are measured could accelerate research to practice translation and improve research findings for Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) stakeholders. A secondary analysis of a prospective, observational cohort study was conducted to understand (1) the type and prevalence of DP constructs at first examination and (2) the relationships between DP constructs and clinical outcomes at follow-up. Methods: Data were collected and analyzed from 1485 consecutive patients who presented to outpatient, private practice clinics with primary complaints of non-specific low back pain (LBP); 400 patients met the inclusion criteria and completed first examination and follow-up data. Statistical analysis determined prevalence and the relationships between DP constructs at first examination and clinical outcomes at follow-up. Results: The primary findings in this investigation were that (1) the most prevalent DP constructs at first examination were related to range of motion (ROM) and pain intensity (Patient Reported Improvement in ROM (74.8%), Increase in Spine ROM (29.5%), and Pain Intensity Change (17.3%)), (2) all groups improved and made clinically meaningful improvements in disability and pain intensity at follow-up, (3) no clinically significant differences in disability or pain intensity were found between the groups at follow-up, and (4) 26.5% and 6.5% of patients exhibited a relative increase in lumbar spine extension and flexion ROM, respectively, post repeated movement testing on the first examination. Discussion: The findings in this study assist providers in making assessment and treatment decisions with their patients by offering insight regarding the most prevalent DP constructs typically found at the first examination and their subsequent association with outcome when Centralization (CEN) does not occur. Recommendations for researchers have been made to further explore the DP framework used in this study.

Provider reliability with interventions for knee impairments: a preliminary investigation to facilitate development of an MDT-based knee intervention taxonomy.

Objectives: The lack of a standardized intervention taxonomy in comparative effectiveness research trials has led to uncertainty regarding the management of individuals with knee impairments. Inconsistently and poorly defined interventions affect frontline-care providers' abilities to understand and assimilate research findings into practice. An intervention taxonomy could help overcome the lack of treatment specificity commonly found in research trials. Methods: In the present study, we aimed to develop a Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT)-based taxonomy and test the levels of reliability between providers who currently manage individuals with knee impairments in a rehabilitation setting. A total of 182 participants accessed the study during the study period, in which 180 consented to participate and 59 completed the survey (98.9% participation rate; 32.7% completion rate). Results: A total of 89.8% of the participants who completed the survey were physical therapists. Fleiss kappa values for the primary, secondary, and tertiary categories were 0.90, 0.89, and 0.71, respectively. The results of our investigation suggest substantial to almost perfect levels of reliability for identifying diverse MDT-based knee interventions displayed in video and vignette format within a sample population primarily of physical therapists who currently manage individuals with knee impairments in a rehabilitation setting. Discussion: Our findings show acceptable levels of reliability and provide support for using this standardized MDT-based intervention taxonomy as a way to improve intervention specificity and generalizability in comparative effectiveness research. Level of Evidence: 5.

Pain pattern classification and directional preference for patients with neck pain.

Objectives: Pain Pattern Classification (PPC) and Directional Preference (DP) have been shown to be predictive of health care outcomes and serve to guide orthopedic clinical decision making. We conducted a prospective, observational cohort study to verify the association between PPC, DP, and clinical outcomes. Methods: Clinical outcome measures including pain intensity and disability were completed at first examination and follow-up by 335 patients. A Pearson's chi-squared test was used to determine differences in prevalence rates for the categorical variables, and two-sample t-tests were used to determine differences in rates for the continuous variables. A Tukey's range test was used to determine differences in follow-up pain intensity and disability for neck pain dual-classification schemes. Results: The prevalence of DP was 82.4%. The prevalence of CEN, Non-CEN, and Non-Classifiable (NC) was 15.2%, 42.1%, and 25.1%, respectively. The prevalence of DP was lowest for patients with sub-acute symptoms and who were <45 years old. Patients classified as DP CEN had, on average 2.62 NDI units less than patients classified as Non-DP. Patients classified as DP CEN had, on average, 0.90 pain intensity units less than patients classified as Non-DP at follow-up. Patients who demonstrated DP CEN did not have clinically significant lower pain intensity or disability at follow-up than patients who demonstrated Non-DP. Discussion: The results of this investigation need to be interpreted with caution with respect to the study design and it's subsequent strengths and limitations. Level of Evidence: 1b.

Pain pattern classification and directional preference are associated with clinical outcomes for patients with low back pain.

Pain Pattern Classification (PPC) and Directional Preference (DP) have shown merit as reliable and predictable clinical solutions to help reduce the burden posed by low back pain (LBP). We conducted a prospective, observational cohort study to verify the association between PPC, DP, and clinical outcomes. We hypothesized that (1) patients who demonstrated DP Centralization (CEN) would have lower pain intensity and disability at follow-up than patients who demonstrated Non-DP Non-CEN, and (2) the prevalence of DP at first examination would be lowest for patients with chronic LBP and are greater than 65 years old. First examination and follow-up data were completed by 639 patients. Clinical outcome measures, including pain intensity and disability, were collected at first examination and follow-up. Baseline comparisons were made between groups with first examination data only and groups with first examination data and follow-up data. A Pearson's chi-squared test was used to determine differences in prevalence rates for the categorical variables, and two-sample t-tests were used for the continuous variables. A Turkey's range test was used to determine differences in follow-up pain intensity and disability for LBP dual-classifications. Multiple regression was used to investigate DP prevalence considering risk adjusted factors. Overall prevalence of DP was 84.5% and prevalence was lowest for patients with sub-acute symptoms. No significant difference existed for the prevalence of DP for patients based on age. Patients classified as DP CEN had, on average, 1.99 pain intensity units less than patients classified as Non-DP Non-CEN at follow-up. Patients classified as DP CEN had, on average, 3.43 RMDQ units less than patients classified as Non-DP Non-CEN at follow-up.These findings support previous reports, verifying the association between LBP dual-classification schemes and clinical outcomes.

Directional preference constructs for patients' neck pain in the absence of centralization.

Objectives: We conducted a secondary analysis of a prospective, observational cohort study to (1) report the prevalence of Directional Preference (DP) constructs at first examination for patients with cervical spine challenges, and (2) determine the association between DP constructs and clinical outcomes at discharge from physical therapy. Methods: We analyzed data collected from 718 consecutive patients who presented to outpatient, private practice clinics with primary complaints of non-specific neck pain; 200 patients met the inclusion criteria and completed first examination and discharge data. Statistical analysis determined the association between DP constructs at first examination and clinical outcomes at discharge. Results: The findings in this investigation were that (1) the most prevalent DP constructs at first examination were related to ROM and pain intensity including Patient Reported Improvement in ROM (79.5%), Increase in Spine ROM (32.5%), and Pain Intensity Change (15.0%), (2) all DP groups improved and met the MCID for disability and pain intensity change at discharge except for the group that did not exhibit Increase in Spine ROM for pain intensity, (3) no clinically significant differences in pain intensity or disability existed between DP groups at discharge, and (4) 28.5% and 6.5% of patients exhibited a relative increase in cervical spine extension and flexion ROM, respectively, post-repeated movement testing on the first examination. Discussion: The most prevalent DP constructs at first examination were related to ROM and pain intensity, and each was associated with a comparable clinical trajectory in terms of pain and disability outcomes at discharge. The findings of this study help Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) providers understand the common DP constructs encountered in routine clinical practice and their relation to pain and disability outcomes for patients with cervical spine challenges. Level of Evidence: 2b.