Interexaminer Agreement and Reliability of an Internationally Endorsed Screening Framework for Cervical Vascular Risks Following Manual Therapy and Exercise: The Go4Safe Project.

OBJECTIVE: Clinicians are recommended to use the clinical reasoning framework developed by the International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) to provide guidance regarding assessment of the cervical spine and potential for cervical artery dysfunction prior to manual therapy and exercise. However, the interexaminer agreement and reliability of this framework is unknown. This study aimed to estimate the interexaminer agreement and reliability of the IFOMPT framework among physical therapists in primary care. METHODS: Ninety-six patients who consulted a physical therapist for neck pain or headache were included in the study. Each patient was tested independently by 2 physical therapists, from a group of 17 physical therapists (10 pairs) across The Netherlands. Patients and examiners were blinded to the test results. The overall interexaminer agreement, specific agreement per risk category (high-, intermediate-, and low-risk), and interexaminer reliability (weighted κ) were calculated. RESULTS: Overall agreement was 71% (specific agreement in high-risk category = 63%; specific agreement in intermediate-risk category = 38%; specific agreement in low-risk category = 84%). Overall reliability was moderate (weighted κ = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.21-0.57) and varied considerably between pairs of physical therapists (κ = 0.14-1.00). CONCLUSION: The IFOMPT framework showed an insufficient interexaminer agreement and fair interexaminer reliability among physical therapists when screening the increased risks for vascular complications following manual therapy and exercise prior to treatment. IMPACT: The IFOMPT framework contributes to the safety of manual therapy and exercise. It is widely adopted in clinical practice and educational programs, but the measurement properties are unknown. This project describes the agreement and reliability of the IFOMPT framework.

Is behavioral graded activity cost-effective in comparison with manual therapy for patients with subacute neck pain? An economic evaluation alongside a randomized clinical trial.

STUDY DESIGN: An economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial comparing behavioral graded activity (BGA) with manual therapy (MT). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of BGA in comparison with MT for patients with subacute neck pain from a societal perspective. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Neck pain is common and poses an important socioeconomic burden to society. Data on the cost-effectiveness of treatments for neck pain are scarce. METHODS: A randomized clinical trial was conducted, involving 146 patients with subacute nonspecific neck pain. The BGA program can be described as a time-contingent increase in activities from baseline toward predetermined goals. MT consists of specific spinal mobilization techniques and exercises. Clinical outcomes included recovery, pain, disability, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were measured from a societal perspective using cost diaries. The follow-up period was 52 weeks. Multiple imputation was used for missing cost and effect data. Uncertainty surrounding cost differences and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios was estimated using bootstrapping. Cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability (CEA) curves were estimated. RESULTS: BGA had no significant effect on recovery or QALYs gained in comparison with MT but pain and disability did improve significantly in the BGA group in comparison with the MT group. Total societal costs in the BGA group were nonsignificantly higher than in the MT group. Cost-effectiveness analyses showed that BGA is not cost-effective in comparison with MT for recovery and QALYs gained. Substantial investments are needed to reach a 0.95 probability that BGA is cost-effective in comparison with MT for pain and disability. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the data presented, we consider BGA not cost-effective in comparison with MT.

Are psychological factors prognostic indicators of outcome in patients with sub-acute neck pain?

The aim was to determine if psychological factors favourably influence the short and long-term outcome of patients with sub-acute neck pain in terms of global perceived recovery, pain, using a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and functional disability, using the Neck Disability Index (NDI). This study was conducted within the framework of a randomised clinical trial comparing two types of conservative therapy in 146 patients with sub-acute neck pain. Multilevel techniques were used for data-analysis. The short and long term results for the three outcomes were very diverse. The sub-scales of the used questionnaires, i.e. the Pain Coping and Cognition List (PCCL), and the 4 Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ), did not contribute significantly to all of the multilevel models. Only the factor 'fear of movement' was consistently and significantly present in the univariable analysis for all outcomes at both follow-up measurements. The explained variance in the short term ranged from 16% to 30%, and from 6% to 34% in the long term. This can be considered to be low. We conclude that all psychological factors showed a considerable variation on the specific measurement and time point used. Only 'fear of movement' consistently impedes short term and long term recovery. Further prognostic research is needed to achieve more consistent results.

Physiotherapists' treatment approach towards neck pain and the influence of a behavioural graded activity training: an exploratory study.

Physiotherapists' treatment approach might influence their behaviour during practice and, consequently, patients' treatment outcome; however, an explicit description of the treatment approach is often missing in trials. The purpose of this prospective exploratory study was to evaluate whether the treatment approach differs between therapists who favour a behavioural graded activity (BGA) program, conservative exercise (CE) or manual therapy, and whether BGA training has influence on the treatment approach. Forty-two therapists participated. BGA therapists received a 2-day training. Treatment approach was measured at baseline and at 3-month follow-up, using the Pain Attitude and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS-PTs). By this method data on the adoption of biomedical or biopsychosocial approaches were generated. Differences were examined with analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent Student's t-test. Influence of the BGA training was examined with linear regression. At baseline, there were no significant differences between BGA, CE or manual therapists use of biomedical or biopsychosocial approaches, but there was a trend for BGA therapists to score higher on the biopsychosocial approach. At follow-up, their biopsychosocial score remained higher and their biomedical score was lower compared to CE therapists. Corrected regression analysis showed a 4.4 points (95%CI -7.9; -0.8) higher decrease for therapists who followed the BGA training compared to therapists who did not. Our results indicate no significant differences in treatment approach at baseline, and that BGA training might influence therapists' treatment approach since the scores on the biomedical approach decreased.

Manual therapy, physical therapy, or continued care by the general practitioner for patients with neck pain: long-term results from a pragmatic randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: The authors' goals were to compare the effectiveness of manual therapy (MT; mainly spinal mobilization), physical therapy (PT; mainly exercise therapy), and continued care by the general practitioner (GP; analgesics, counseling and education) over a period of 1 year. METHODS: One hundred eighty-three patients suffering for at least 2 weeks from nonspecific neck pain were randomized to receive a 6-week treatment strategy of MT once a week, PT twice a week, or GP care once every 2 weeks. The primary outcome measures were perceived recovery, severity of physical dysfunctioning, pain intensity, and functional disability. RESULTS: The differences between groups considered over 1 year were statistically significant (repeated measurements analyses P<0.001 to P=0.02) for all outcomes but borderline for the Neck Disability Index (P=0.06). Higher improvement scores were observed for MT for all outcomes, followed by PT and GP care. The success rate, based on perceived recovery after 13 weeks, was 72% for MT, which was significantly higher than the success rate for continued GP care (42%, P=0.001) but not significantly higher compared with PT treatment (59%, P=0.16). The difference between PT and GP approached statistical significance (P=0.06). After 1 year the success rates were 75%, 63%, and 56%, respectively, and no longer significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term results (at 7 weeks) have shown that MT speeded recovery compared with GP care and, to a lesser extent, also compared with PT. In the long-term, GP treatment and PT caught up with MT, and differences between the three treatment groups decreased and lost statistical significance at the 13-week and 52-week follow-up.

Variance in manual treatment of nonspecific low back pain between orthomanual physicians, manual therapists, and chiropractors.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to identify differences in the diagnosis and treatment of nonspecific low back pain among 3 professional groups in the Netherlands: orthomanual physicians, manual therapists, and chiropractors. METHODS: Information was obtained from training materials from professional groups, literature searches, and observation of selected practitioners at work. RESULTS: In The Netherlands, there are differences in education between the 3 professional groups. The focus of orthomanual medicine is on abnormal positions of components of the skeleton and symmetry in the spine. Manual therapy focuses on functional disorders of the musculoskeletal system. Chiropractic focuses on the musculoskeletal and nervous systems in relation to patients' health in general. Orthomanual medicine considers inspection and palpation the most important diagnostic tools. Manual therapists and chiropractors additionally perform tests to determine functional disorders and manual therapists evaluate psychosocial influences. Chiropractors take radiographs if necessary. Orthomanual physicians apply mobilization techniques using fixed protocols. Manual therapists and chiropractors use various manipulation and mobilization techniques and their manipulation techniques differ in amplitude and velocity. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic techniques and treatment methods of the 3 professional groups differ considerably. For more accurate reporting of the efficacy of manipulative and mobilizing therapies, the characteristics of treatments should be described in more detail when reported in studies such as randomized clinical trials.

Manipulative therapy in addition to usual medical care for patients with shoulder dysfunction and pain: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dysfunction of the cervicothoracic spine and the adjacent ribs (also called the shoulder girdle) is considered to predict occurrence and poor outcome of shoulder symptoms. It can be treated with manipulative therapy, but scientific evidence for the effectiveness of such therapy is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To study the effectiveness of manipulative therapy for the shoulder girdle in addition to usual medical care for relief of shoulder pain and dysfunction. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: General practices in Groningen, the Netherlands. PATIENTS: 150 patients with shoulder symptoms and dysfunction of the shoulder girdle. INTERVENTIONS: All patients received usual medical care from their general practitioners. Only the intervention group received additional manipulative therapy, up to 6 treatment sessions in a 12-week period. MEASUREMENTS: Patient-perceived recovery, severity of the main complaint, shoulder pain, shoulder disability, and general health. Data were collected during and at the end of the treatment period (at 6 and 12 weeks) and during the follow-up period (at 26 and 52 weeks). RESULTS: During treatment (6 weeks), no significant differences were found between study groups. After completion of treatment (12 weeks), 43% of the intervention group and 21% of the control group reported full recovery. After 52 weeks, approximately the same difference in recovery rate (17 percentage points) was seen between groups. During the intervention and follow-up periods, a consistent between-group difference in severity of the main complaint, shoulder pain and disability, and general health favored additional manipulative therapy. LIMITATIONS: The sample size was small, and assessment of end points was subjective. CONCLUSION: Manipulative therapy for the shoulder girdle in addition to usual medical care accelerates recovery of shoulder symptoms.