Distinguishing chronic low back pain in young adults with mild to moderate pain and disability using trunk compliance.

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) rates among younger individuals are rising. Although pain and disability are often less severe, underlying changes in trunk behavior may be responsible for recurrence. We examine the biomarker capacity of a simple Trunk Compliance Index (TCI) to distinguish individuals with and without cLBP. A random subset (n = 49) of the RELIEF RCT were matched to healthy controls for sex, age, height and weight. We measured TCI (as displacement/ weight-normalized perturbation force) using anthropometrically-matched, suddenly-applied pulling perturbations to the trunk segment, randomized across three planes of motion (antero-posterior, medio-lateral, and rotational). Mean differences between cLBP, sex and perturbation direction were assessed with repeated-measures analysis of variance. Discriminatory accuracy of TCI was assessed using Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) analysis. Baseline characteristics between groups were equivalent (x̅ [range]): sex (57% female / group), age (23.0 [18-45], 22.8 [18-45]), height, cm (173.0 [156.5-205], 171.3 [121.2-197], weight, kg (71.8 [44.5-116.6], 71.7 [46.8-117.5]) with cLBP associated with significantly lower TCI for 5 of 6 directions (range mean difference, - 5.35: - 1.49, range 95% CI [- 6.46: - 2.18 to - 4.35: - 0.30]. Classification via ROC showed that composite TCI had high discriminatory potential (area under curve [95% CI], 0.90 [0.84-0.96]), driven by TCI from antero-posterior perturbations (area under curve [95% CI], 0.99 [0.97-1.00]). Consistent reductions in TCI suggests global changes in trunk mechanics that may go undetected in classic clinical examination. Evaluation of TCI in younger adults with mild pain and disability may serve as a biomarker for chronicity, leading to improved preventative measures in cLBP.Trial Registration and Funding RELIEF is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01854892) and funded by the NIH National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health (R01AT006978).

How Does the Measurement of Disability in Low Back Pain Map Unto the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health?: A Scoping Review of the Manual Medicine Literature.

ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to catalog items from instruments used to measure functioning, disability, and contextual factors in patients with low back pain treated with manual medicine (manipulation and mobilization) according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. This catalog will be used to inform the development of an International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-based assessment schedule for low back pain patients treated with manual medicine. In this scoping review, we systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We identified instruments (questionnaires, clinical tests, single questions) used to measure functioning, disability, and contextual factors, extracted the relevant items, and then linked these items to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. We included 95 articles and identified 1510 meaningful concepts. All but 70 items were linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Of the concepts linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, body functions accounted for 34.7%, body structures accounted for 0%, activities and participation accounted for 41%, environmental factors accounted for 3.6%, and personal factors accounted for 16%. Most items used to measure functioning and disability in low back pain patient treated with manual medicine focus on body functions, as well as activities and participation. The lack of measures that address environmental factors warrants further investigation.

Current Evidence for Diagnosis of Common Conditions Causing Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Standardized Terminology Recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate and summarize current evidence for diagnosis of common conditions causing low back pain and to propose standardized terminology use. METHODS: A systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted from inception through December 2018. Electronic databases searched included PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Index to Chiropractic Literature. Methodological quality was assessed with the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. RESULTS: Of the 3995 articles screened, 36 (8 systematic reviews and 28 individual studies) met final eligibility criteria. Diagnostic criteria for identifying likely discogenic, sacroiliac joint, and zygapophyseal (facet) joint pain are supported by clinical studies using injection-confirmed tissue provocation or anesthetic procedures. Diagnostic criteria for myofascial pain, sensitization (central and peripheral), and radicular pain are supported by expert consensus-level evidence. Criteria for radiculopathy and neurogenic claudication are supported by studies using combined expert-level consensus and imaging findings. CONCLUSION: The absence of high-quality, objective, gold-standard diagnostic methods limits the accuracy of current evidence-based criteria and results in few high-quality studies with a low risk of bias in patient selection and reference standard diagnosis. These limitations suggest practitioners should use evidence-based criteria to inform working diagnoses rather than definitive diagnoses for low back pain. To avoid the unnecessary complexity and confusion created by multiple overlapping and nonspecific terms, adopting International Association for the Study of Pain terminology and definitions is recommended.

Does a Diagnostic Classification Algorithm Help to Predict the Course of Low Back Pain? A Study of Danish Chiropractic Patients With 1-Year Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: A diagnostic classification algorithm, "the Petersen classification," consisting of 12 categories based on a standardized examination protocol, was developed for the primary purpose of identifying clinically homogeneous subgroups of individuals with low back pain (LBP). OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether a diagnostic classification algorithm is associated with activity limitation and LBP intensity at follow-up assessments of 2 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year, and whether the algorithm improves outcome prediction when added to a set of known predictors. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of 934 consecutive adult patients with new episodes of LBP who were visiting chiropractic practices in primary care and categorized according to the Petersen classification. Outcomes were disability and pain intensity measured with questionnaires at 2 weeks and 3 months, and 1-year trajectories of LBP based on weekly responses to text messages. Associations were analyzed with linear and logistic regression models. In a subgroup of patients, the numbers of visits to primary and secondary care were described. RESULTS: The Petersen classification was statistically significantly associated with all outcomes (P<.001) but explained very little of the variance (R2 = 0.00-0.05). Patients in the nerve root involvement category had the most pain and activity limitation and the most visits to primary and secondary care. Patients in the myofascial pain category were the least affected. CONCLUSION: The Petersen classification was not helpful in determining individual prognosis in patients with LBP receiving usual care in chiropractic practice. However, patients should be examined for potential nerve root involvement to improve prediction of likely outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognosis, level 1b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(11):837-846. Epub 8 May 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.8083.

Effectiveness of the McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy for Treating Low Back Pain: Literature Review With Meta-analysis.

Study Design Literature review with meta-analysis. Background The McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT), a classification-based system, was designed to classify patients into homogeneous subgroups to direct treatment. Objectives To examine the effectiveness of MDT for improving pain and disability in patients with either acute (less than 12 weeks in duration) or chronic (greater than 12 weeks in duration) low back pain (LBP). Methods Randomized controlled trials examining MDT in patients with LBP were identified from 6 databases. Independent investigators assessed the studies for exclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval were calculated to compare the effects of MDT to those of other interventions in patients with acute or chronic LBP. Results Of the 17 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 11 yielded valid data for analysis. In patients with acute LBP, there was no significant difference in pain resolution (P = .11) and disability (P = .61) between MDT and other interventions. In patients with chronic LBP, there was a significant difference in disability (SMD, -0.45), with results favoring MDT compared to exercise alone. There were no significant differences between MDT and manual therapy plus exercise (P>.05) for pain and disability outcomes. Conclusion There is moderate- to high-quality evidence that MDT is not superior to other rehabilitation interventions for reducing pain and disability in patients with acute LBP. In patients with chronic LBP, there is moderate- to high-quality evidence that MDT is superior to other rehabilitation interventions for reducing pain and disability; however, this depends on the type of intervention being compared to MDT. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1a. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(6):476-490. Epub 30 Mar 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7562.

An integrated approach to the examination and treatment of a patient with chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY DESIGN: Several physical therapy classification systems exist for low back pain (LBP). Little is known about how these systems could be integrated in clinical practice. This case report describes an episode of care utilizing elements of the mechanical diagnosis and therapy (MDT), movement system impairment (MSI) and treatment-based classification (TBC) systems. CASE DESCRIPTION: Patient History - the patient was a 40-year-old male presenting to an outpatient musculoskeletal clinic with a complaint of chronic LBP. Examination and diagnosis - there was moderate loss of lumbar extension ROM and joint mobility, and excessive lumbar flexion and rotation with active movement tests. Modified Oswestry Disability Index score = 8%. Worst pain was described as 6/10. Intervention - the patient was treated once per week for seven consecutive weeks. Intervention focused on sitting postural corrections (MSI), functional movement corrections (MSI), lumbar mobilization (TBC) and extension-based exercise (MDT). Outcomes - at discharge, the patient reported a decrease in pain intensity (worst pain 0 to 1 out of 10) and demonstrated an improvement in the quality of lumbar movement and overall function. DISCUSSION: Symptomatic response to active movement, observations of quality of movement and joint mobility assessment were key factors in directing a therapeutic program that was successful in helping the patient meet his treatment goals.

Patient characteristics in low back pain subgroups based on an existing classification system. A descriptive cohort study in chiropractic practice.

Sub-grouping of low back pain (LBP) is believed to improve prediction of prognosis and treatment effects. The objectives of this study were: (1) to examine whether chiropractic patients could be sub-grouped according to an existing pathoanatomically-based classification system, (2) to describe patient characteristics within each subgroup, and (3) to determine the proportion of patients in whom clinicians considered the classification to be unchanged after approximately 10 days. A cohort of 923 LBP patients was included during their first consultation. Patients completed an extensive questionnaire and were examined according to a standardised protocol. Based on the clinical examination, patients were classified into diagnostic subgroups. After approximately 10 days, chiropractors reported whether they considered the subgroup had changed. The most frequent subgroups were reducible and partly reducible disc syndromes followed by facet joint pain, dysfunction and sacroiliac (SI)-joint pain. Classification was inconclusive in 5% of the patients. Differences in pain, activity limitation, and psychological factors were small across subgroups. Within 10 days, 82% were reported to belong to the same subgroup as at the first visit. In conclusion, LBP patients could be classified according to a standardised protocol, and chiropractors considered most patient classifications to be unchanged within 10 days. Differences in patient characteristics between subgroups were very small, and the clinical relevance of the classification system should be investigated by testing its value as a prognostic factor or a treatment effect modifier. It is recommended that this classification system be combined with psychological and social factors if it is to be useful.

Clinimetric analysis of pressure biofeedback and transversus abdominis function in individuals with stabilization classification low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a proposed clinical test (pressure biofeedback) could detect changes in transversus abdominis (TrA) muscle thickness during an abdominal drawing-in maneuver. BACKGROUND: Pressure biofeedback may be used to assess abdominal muscle function and TrA activation during an abdominal drawing-in maneuver but has not been validated. METHODS: Forty-nine individuals (18 men, 31 women) with low back pain who met stabilization classification criteria underwent ultrasound imaging to quantify changes in TrA muscle thickness while a pressure transducer was used to measure pelvic and spine position during an abdominal drawing-in maneuver. A paired t test was used to compare differences in TrA activation ratios between groups (able or unable to maintain pressure of 40 ± 5 mmHg). The groups were further dichotomized based on TrA activation ratio (high, greater than 1.5; low, less than 1.5). Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios were calculated. RESULTS: There was not a significant difference (P = .57) in TrA activation ratios (able to maintain pressure, 1.59 ± 0.28; unable to maintain pressure, 1.54 ± 0.24) between groups. The pressure biofeedback test had low sensitivity of 0.22 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10, 0.42) but moderate specificity of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.58, 0.89), a positive likelihood ratio of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.33, 2.68), and a negative likelihood ratio of 1.02 (95% CI: 0.75, 1.38). CONCLUSION: Successful completion on pressure biofeedback does not indicate high TrA activation. Unsuccessful completion on pressure biofeedback may be more indicative of low TrA activation, but the correlation and likelihood coefficients indicate that the pressure test is likely of minimal value to detect TrA activation. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01015846).J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2013;43(3):184-193. Epub 16 November 2012. doi:10.2519/jospt.2013.4397.

Agreement and correlation between the self-report leeds assessment of neuropathic symptoms and signs and Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions neuropathic pain screening tools in subjects with low back-related leg pain.

OBJECTIVE: The self-report Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (S-LANSS) and Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions (DN4) neuropathic pain screening tools have been shown to be reliable, valid, and able to differentiate neuropathic pain from inflammatory or mixed pain syndromes. However, no studies have compared these tools to determine whether their outcomes are similar. This study evaluated agreement and correlation between the S-LANSS and DN4 in the identification of neuropathic pain in subjects with low back-related leg pain. METHODS: This observational study compared S-LANSS and DN4 scores in 45 patients with low back-related leg pain. The S-LANSS and DN4 cutoff scores of 12 and 4, respectively, were used to classify subjects as positive or negative for the presence of neuropathic pain for each screening tool. The κ statistic was used to determine whether there was agreement in classification of neuropathic pain between the 2 screening tools. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to determine correlation between scores of the 2 screening tools. RESULTS: Neuropathic pain was identified in 15 subjects (33%) using the S-LANSS and in 19 subjects (42%) using the DN4. Agreement on neuropathic pain classification was fair, with a κ value of 0.34. There was moderate to good correlation (r = 0.62; P < .001) between scores obtained from the 2 tools. CONCLUSIONS: The finding of fair agreement suggests that despite the moderate to good correlation between scores, the cutoff points for the classification of neuropathic pain of the 2 tools may not be congruent.

[Effectiveness and safety of a homeopathic drug combination in the treatment of chronic low back pain. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial]. / Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit eines homöopathischen Komplexpräparates bei chronischen Rückschmerzen. Doppelblinde, randomisierte, placebokontrollierte, klinische Studie.

BACKGROUND: The homeopathic drug combination Lymphdiaral Basistropfen is established in the treatment of edema and swellings. This is the first time the effectiveness and safety was investigated in the treatment of chronic low back pain. METHODS: The study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. From December 2003 to May 2007 248 patients aged 18 to 75 years were screened, 228 were randomized, 221 started therapy, in 192 the progress was measured (103 verum vs. 89 placebo), 137 completed the study (72 verum vs. 65 placebo). They received 10 drops of verum or placebo solution three times daily for 105 days additionally to an inpatient complex naturopathic treatment. RESULTS: The hannover functional ability questionnaire score (primary outcome measure) tends to increase in the intention-to-treat-analysis (verum: 6.6 vs. placebo: 3.4; p = 0.11) and increases significantly in the per-protocol-analysis (verum: 9.4 vs. placebo: 4.1; p = 0.029). The treatment was well tolerated (92.9% vs. 95.4%). The incidence of adverse reactions and serious adverse reactions was similar in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: This first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial shows, that the homeopathic drug combination can improve the treatment of chronic low back pain.

A hospital-based standardized spine care pathway: report of a multidisciplinary, evidence-based process.

OBJECTIVE: A health care facility (Jordan Hospital) implemented a multidimensional spine care pathway (SCP) using the National Center for Quality Assurance (NCQA) Back Pain Recognition Program (BPRP) as its foundation. The purpose of this report is to describe the implementation and results of a multidisciplinary, evidence-based, standardized process to improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs associated with treatment and diagnostic testing. METHODS: A standardized SCP was developed to improve the quality of back pain care. The NCQA BPRP provided the framework for the SCP to determine the standard of quality care delivered. Patients were triaged, and suitable patients were categorized into 1 of 5 classifications based upon history and examination, directional exercise flexion or "extension biases," spinal manipulation, traction, or spinal stabilization exercises. RESULTS: The findings for 518 consecutive patients were included. One hundred sixteen patients were seen once and triaged to specialty care; 7% of patients received magnetic resonance imagings. Four hundred thirty-two patients (83%) were classified and treated by doctors of chiropractic and/or physical therapists. Results for the patients treated by doctors of chiropractic were mean of 5.2 visits, mean cost per case of $302, mean intake pain rating score of 6.2 of 10, and mean discharge score of 1.9 of 10; 95% of patients rated their care as "excellent." CONCLUSIONS: By adopting the NCQA BPRP as an SCP, training physicians in this SCP, and using a back pain classification, Jordan Hospital Spine Care demonstrated the quality and value of care rendered to a population of patients. This was accomplished with a relatively low cost and with high patient satisfaction.

Chiropractic management of low back disorders: report from a consensus process.

OBJECTIVE: Although a number of guidelines addressing manipulation, an important component of chiropractic professional care, exist, none to date have incorporated a broad-based consensus of chiropractic research and clinical experts representing mainstream chiropractic practice into a practical document designed to provide standardized parameters of care. The purpose of this project was to develop such a document. METHODS: Development of the document began with seed materials, from which seed statements were distilled. These were circulated electronically to the Delphi panel until consensus was reached, which was considered to be present when there was agreement by at least 80% of the panelists. RESULTS: The panel consisted of 40 clinically experienced doctors of chiropractic, representing 15 chiropractic colleges and 16 states, as well as both the American Chiropractic Association and the International Chiropractic Association. The panel reached 80% consensus of the 27 seed statements after 2 rounds. Specific recommendations regarding treatment frequency and duration, as well as outcome assessment and contraindications for manipulation were agreed upon by the panel. CONCLUSIONS: A broad-based panel of experienced chiropractors was able to reach a high level (80%) of consensus regarding specific aspects of the chiropractic approach to care for patients with low back pain, based on both the scientific evidence and their clinical experience.

Chiropractic management of low back pain and low back-related leg complaints: a literature synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this project was to review the literature for the use of spinal manipulation for low back pain (LBP). METHODS: A search strategy modified from the Cochrane Collaboration review for LBP was conducted through the following databases: PubMed, Mantis, and the Cochrane Database. Invitations to submit relevant articles were extended to the profession via widely distributed professional news and association media. The Scientific Commission of the Council on Chiropractic Guidelines and Practice Parameters (CCGPP) was charged with developing literature syntheses, organized by anatomical region, to evaluate and report on the evidence base for chiropractic care. This article is the outcome of this charge. As part of the CCGPP process, preliminary drafts of these articles were posted on the CCGPP Web site www.ccgpp.org (2006-8) to allow for an open process and the broadest possible mechanism for stakeholder input. RESULTS: A total of 887 source documents were obtained. Search results were sorted into related topic groups as follows: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of LBP and manipulation; randomized trials of other interventions for LBP; guidelines; systematic reviews and meta-analyses; basic science; diagnostic-related articles, methodology; cognitive therapy and psychosocial issues; cohort and outcome studies; and others. Each group was subdivided by topic so that team members received approximately equal numbers of articles from each group, chosen randomly for distribution. The team elected to limit consideration in this first iteration to guidelines, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, RCTs, and coh ort studies. This yielded a total of 12 guidelines, 64 RCTs, 13 systematic reviews/meta-analyses, and 11 cohort studies. CONCLUSIONS: As much or more evidence exists for the use of spinal manipulation to reduce symptoms and improve function in patients with chronic LBP as for use in acute and subacute LBP. Use of exercise in conjunction with manipulation is likely to speed and improve outcomes as well as minimize episodic recurrence. There was less evidence for the use of manipulation for patients with LBP and radiating leg pain, sciatica, or radiculopathy.

Low back pain: clinimetric properties of the Trendelenburg test, active straight leg raise test, and breathing pattern during active straight leg raising.

OBJECTIVE: Classification of patients with low back pain (LBP) into subgroups is important as considerable variability exists in the LBP population. Clinical applicable, reliable, and valid tests to differentiate patients with LBP are therefore necessary. The purpose of this study is to examine the reliability, internal consistency, and clinical importance of 3 clinical tests that analyze motor control mechanisms of the lumbopelvic region in patients with nonspecific LBP. METHODS: Thirty-six patients with chronic nonspecific LBP volunteered for the study (cross-sectional design). The patients were examined by 2 assessors who were blinded to the results of each other. The following tests were performed: the Trendelenburg test, the active straight leg raise (ASLR) test, and the ASLR with visual inspection of the breathing pattern. RESULTS: The test-retest reliability coefficients (kappa) were greater than 0.75 for the Trendelenburg score and greater than 0.70 for the ASLR. The interobserver reliability coefficients were greater than 0.39 for the assessment of the breathing pattern during the ASLR. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for internal consistency of the Trendelenburg and ASLR tests was greater than .73. No significant associations were found between the outcome of the tests and self-reported pain severity or disability. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide evidence favoring the test-retest reliability of the Trendelenburg and ASLR tests in patients with LBP. The internal consistency of the outcome of these tests was high for both assessors, suggesting that these tests assess the same dimension. The interobserver reliability of the assessment of the breathing pattern was fair to moderate. Further research regarding the interobserver reliability, clinical importance, validity, and responsiveness of the Trendelenburg test, ASLR test, and breathing pattern during these tests is required.

Flexion mobilizations with movement techniques: the immediate effects on range of movement and pain in subjects with low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the immediate effects of flexion mobilizations with movement techniques (MWMs) on spinal range of movement in individuals with low back pain and also their impact on pain. A preliminary attempt has been made to describe the clinical profiles of subjects who were thought to benefit from MWMs. METHOD: A small-scale explanatory study was conducted using a crossover design, placebo-controlled, with subjects and assessors blinded. After assessment by physiotherapists, 26 subjects with low back pain with pain on lumbar flexion, thought to be appropriate for treatment with MWMs, participated. Subjects received an MWM intervention and a placebo intervention in a randomized order. Lumbar spinal flexion and extension and pain during flexion were recorded immediately before and after each intervention, using double inclinometry and visual analogue scales. RESULTS: Mean spinal range of movement increased significantly with the MWM intervention, as compared with the placebo (true flexion: MWMs 49.2 degrees [SD 16.4], placebo 45.3 degrees [SD 14.1], P = .005; total flexion: MWMs 76.7 degrees [SD 22.4], placebo 69.7 degrees [SD 21.5], P = .005). Mean pain scores did not change. CONCLUSIONS: The MWMs produced statistically significant, but small, immediate spinal mobility increases but no pain reduction when compared with placebo. By introducing clinical judgment into the subject selection process for the trial, 19 (73%) of 26 subjects benefited from MWMs techniques in terms of range of movement and/or pain intensity, whereas 9 (35%) subjects showed such changes with the placebo intervention.

Interexaminer reliability of the hip extension test for suspected impaired motor control of the lumbar spine.

OBJECTIVE: The hip extension test may be a clinical sign of impaired motor control in the lumbar spine, which may have a negative impact on spine stability. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the interexaminer reliability of the hip extension test for suspected dynamic instability of the lumbar spine in patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS: Forty-two patients with chronic low back pain participated in this interexaminer reliability study. Chronic low back pain was defined as pain of greater than 7 weeks duration in the area between T12 and the buttocks, with or without leg pain. Two doctors of chiropractic simultaneously observed and independently assessed the left and right prone hip extension test on all 42 patients. Results for both examiners were given to an independent recorder. Each examiner was blinded to the results of the other examiner. RESULTS: The mean age of subjects was 38 years (SD 12.35); 73.8% were female. Sixty-eight percent (SD 1.72) reported current back pain intensity greater than 5 on an 11-point numerical rating scale. The mean score for the Roland-Morris Low Back Pain and Disability questionnaire was 5.8 (SD 4.34). The kappa measure of agreement was 0.72 for the left leg and 0.76 for the right leg. This indicated a substantial strength of agreement between examiners for both left and right hip extension tests. For the 8 cases of disagreement, rater 1 generally rated the tests as positive, whereas rater 2 consistently rated the tests as negative. CONCLUSIONS: The hip extension test appears to have good reliability in detecting deviation of the lumbar spine from the midline. Validity with regard to the test's ability to distinguish patients with chronic low back pain from normal individuals and its relation to lumbar spine stability remains to be determined.

The inter-examiner reliability of a classification method for non-specific chronic low back pain patients with motor control impairment.

The importance of classifying chronic low back pain (LBP) patients into homogeneous sub-groups has recently been emphasized. This paper reports on two studies examining clinicians ability to agree independently on patients' chronic LBP classification, using a novel classification system (CS) proposed by O'Sullivan. In the first study, a sub-group of 35 patients with non-specific chronic LBP were independently classified by two 'expert' clinicians. Almost perfect agreement (kappa-coefficient 0.96; %-of-agreement 97%) was demonstrated. In the second study, 13 clinicians from Australia and Norway were given 25 cases (patients' subjective information and videotaped functional tests) to classify. Kappa-coefficients (mean 0.61, range 0.47-0.80) and %-of-agreement (mean 70%, range 60-84%) indicated substantial reliability. Increased familiarity with the CS improved reliability. These studies demonstrate the reliability of this multi-dimensional mechanism-based CS and provide essential evidence in a multi-step validation process. A fully validated CS will have significant research and clinical application.

Cost-effectiveness of medical and chiropractic care for acute and chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVES: To identify relative provider costs, clinical outcomes, and patient satisfaction for the treatment of low back pain (LBP). METHODS: This was a practice-based, nonrandomized, comparative study of patients self-referring to 60 doctors of chiropractic and 111 medical doctors in 51 chiropractic and 14 general practice community clinics over a 2-year period. Patients were included if they were at least 18 years old, ambulatory, and had low back pain of mechanical origin (n = 2780). Outcomes were (standardized) office costs, office costs plus referral costs for office-based care and advanced imaging, pain, functional disability, patient satisfaction, physical health, and mental health evaluated at 3 and 12 months after the start of care. Multiple regression analysis was used to correct for baseline differences between provider types. RESULTS: Chiropractic office costs were higher for both acute and chronic patients (P < .01). When referrals were included, there were no significant differences in either group between provider types (P > .20). Acute and chronic chiropractic patients experienced better outcomes in pain, functional disability, and patient satisfaction (P < .01); clinically important differences in pain and disability improvement were found for chronic patients only. CONCLUSIONS: Chiropractic care appeared relatively cost-effective for the treatment of chronic LBP. Chiropractic and medical care performed comparably for acute patients. Practice-based clinical outcomes were consistent with systematic reviews of spinal manipulation efficacy: manipulation-based therapy is at least as good as and, in some cases, better than other therapeusis. This evidence can guide physicians, payers, and policy makers in evaluating chiropractic as a treatment option for low back pain.

A cross-sectional study comparing pain and disability levels in patients with low back pain with and without transitional lumbosacral vertebrae.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with transitional lumbosacral vertebrae report more pain and disability compared with patients with normal lumbar vertebrae. METHODS: Radiographic and questionnaire data were collected from 353 patients with low back pain. Back pain severity was measured using 2 scales: one for pain over the entire episode and the other for pain during the previous week. All patients completed the Revised Oswestry Disability Questionnaire before radiography was performed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those with and those without a transitional lumbosacral vertebra. Differences between patient groups were investigated using the unpaired t test. Multiple linear regression analysis was applied to investigate the effect of the transitional lumbosacral vertebrae on pain and disability controlling for the effects of age and sex. RESULTS: Forty-three patients (12.2%) had a transitional lumbosacral vertebra. There were no differences in pain or disability levels between the 2 groups on any of the pain scales or Revised Oswestry subscales. Older patients reported significantly more pain (P = .039) and disability (P = .002) than younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a transitional lumbosacral vertebra in this group of patients was not related to an increased level of reported low back pain or disability.

Reliability of McKenzie classification of patients with cervical or lumbar pain.

BACKGROUND: In the McKenzie system, patients are classified first into syndromes, then into subsyndromes. At present, the reliability of classification with this system is unclear. No study has included patients with cervical pain, and the studies to date have reported conflicting results. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to investigate the interexaminer reliability of the McKenzie classification system for patients with cervical or lumbar pain. SUBJECTS: Fifty patients with spinal pain (25 with lumbar pain and 25 with cervical pain) were included in the study. METHOD: The patients were assessed simultaneously by 2 physical therapists (14 in total) trained in the McKenzie method. Agreement was expressed using the multirater kappa coefficient and percent agreement for classification into (i) syndromes and (ii) subsyndromes. RESULTS: The reliability for syndrome classification was kappa = 0.84 with 96% agreement for the total patient pool, kappa = 1.0 with 100% agreement for lumbar patients, and kappa = 0.63 with 92% agreement for cervical patients. The reliability for subsyndrome classification was kappa = 0.87 with 90% agreement for the total patient pool, kappa = 0.89 with 92% agreement for lumbar patients, and kappa = 0.84 with 88% agreement for the cervical patients. CONCLUSION: The McKenzie assessment performed by persons trained in the McKenzie method may allow for reliable classification of patients with lumbar and cervical pain.