Asymptomatic intraspinal epidermoid cyst in a 7-year-old male with juvenile idiopathic arthritis identified by an advanced physiotherapist practitioner: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric intraspinal epidermoid cysts are rare with potential to cause life-altering outcomes if not addressed. Reports to date describe symptomatic presentations including loss of bladder or bowel function and motor and sensory losses. This case report identifies the diagnostic challenge of an asymptomatic intraspinal epidermoid cyst in the cauda equina region presenting in a 7-year-old male with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). DIAGNOSIS: An advanced physiotherapist practitioner assessed and diagnosed a previously healthy 7-year-old-male of South Asian descent with JIA based on persistent knee joint effusions. Complicating factors delayed the investigation of abnormal functional movement patterns, spinal and hip rigidity and severe restriction of straight leg raise, all atypical for JIA. Further delaying the diagnosis was the lack of subjective complaints including no pain, no reported functional deficits, and no neurologic symptoms. A spinal MRI investigation 10-months from initial appointment identified intraspinal epidermoid cysts occupying the cauda equina region requiring urgent referral to neurosurgery. DISCUSSION: Clinical characteristics and pattern recognition are essential for diagnosing spinal conditions in pediatric populations. Diagnostic challenges present in this case included co-morbidity (JIA), a severe adverse reaction to treatment, a lack of subjective complaints and a very low prevalence of intraspinal epidermoid cysts. IMPACT STATEMENTS: Early signs of pediatric asymptomatic intraspinal epidermoid cysts included abnormal functional movement patterns, rigidity of spine, severely limited straight leg raise and hip flexion without pain. Advanced physiotherapist practitioners can be integral to pediatric rheumatology teams considering their basic knowledge in musculoskeletal examination and functional mobility assessment when identifying rare spinal conditions that present within the complex context of rheumatic diseases.

Effectiveness and safety of manual therapy when compared with oral pain medications in patients with neck pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis seeks to investigate the effectiveness and safety of manual therapy (MT) interventions compared to oral pain medication in the management of neck pain. METHODS: We searched from inception to March 2023, in Cochrane Central Register of Controller Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCO) for randomized controlled trials that examined the effect of manual therapy interventions for neck pain when compared to medication in adults with self-reported neck pain, irrespective of radicular findings, specific cause, and associated cervicogenic headaches. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool to assess the potential risk of bias in the included studies, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to grade the quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Nine trials (779 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. We found low certainty of evidence that MT interventions may be more effective than oral pain medication in pain reduction in the short-term (Standardized Mean Difference: -0.39; 95% CI -0.66 to -0.11; 8 trials, 676 participants), and moderate certainty of evidence that MT interventions may be more effective than oral pain medication in pain reduction in the long-term (Standardized Mean Difference: - 0.36; 95% CI - 0.55 to - 0.17; 6 trials, 567 participants). We found low certainty evidence that the risk of adverse events may be lower for patients that received MT compared to the ones that received oral pain medication (Risk Ratio: 0.59; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.79; 5 trials, 426 participants). CONCLUSIONS: MT may be more effective for people with neck pain in both short and long-term with a better safety profile regarding adverse events when compared to patients receiving oral pain medications. However, we advise caution when interpreting our safety results due to the different level of reporting strategies in place for MT and medication-induced adverse events. Future MT trials should create and adhere to strict reporting strategies with regards to adverse events to help gain a better understanding on the nature of potential MT-induced adverse events and to ensure patient safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023421147.

Spinal manipulation and mobilisation among infants, children, and adolescents: an international Delphi survey of expert physiotherapists.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to establish international consensus regarding the use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation among infants, children, and adolescents among expert international physiotherapists. METHODS: Twenty-six international expert physiotherapists in manual therapy and paediatrics voluntarily participated in a 3-Round Delphi survey to reach a consensus via direct electronic mail solicitation using Qualtrics®. Consensus was defined a-priori as ≥75% agreement on all items with the same ranking of agreement or disagreement. Round 1 identified impairments and conditions where spinal mobilisation and manipulation might be utilised. In Rounds 2 and 3, panelists agreed or disagreed using a 4-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Eleven physiotherapists from seven countries representing five continents completed all three Delphi rounds. Consensus regarding spinal mobilisation or manipulation included:Manipulation is not recommended: (1) for infants across all conditions, impairments, and spinal levels; and (2) for children and adolescents across most conditions and spinal levels.Manipulation may be recommended for adolescents to treat spinal region-specific joint hypomobility (thoracic, lumbar), and pain (thoracic).Mobilisation may be recommended for children and adolescents with hypomobility, joint pain, muscle/myofascial pain, or stiffness at all spinal levels. CONCLUSION: Consensus revealed spinal manipulation should not be performed on infants regardless of condition, impairment, or spinal level. Additionally, the panel agreed that manipulation may be recommended only for adolescents to treat joint pain and joint hypomobility (limited to thoracic and/or lumbar levels). Spinal mobilisation may be recommended for joint hypomobility, joint pain, muscle/myofascial pain, and muscle/myofascial stiffness at all spinal levels among children and adolescents.

Massage for neck pain.

BACKGROUND: Massage is widely used for neck pain, but its effectiveness remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of massage compared to placebo or sham, no treatment or exercise as an adjuvant to the same co-intervention for acute to chronic persisting neck pain in adults with or without radiculopathy, including whiplash-associated disorders and cervicogenic headache. SEARCH METHODS: We searched multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Index to Chiropractic Literature, trial registries) to 1 October 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any type of massage with sham or placebo, no treatment or wait-list, or massage as an adjuvant treatment, in adults with acute, subacute or chronic neck pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We transformed outcomes to standardise the direction of the effect (a smaller score is better). We used a partially contextualised approach relative to identified thresholds to report the effect size as slight-small, moderate or large-substantive. MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 studies (1994 participants analysed). Selection (82%) and detection bias (94%) were common; multiple trials had unclear allocation concealment, utilised a placebo that may not be credible and did not test whether blinding to the placebo was effective. Massage was compared with placebo (n = 10) or no treatment (n = 8), or assessed as an adjuvant to the same co-treatment (n = 15). The trials studied adults aged 18 to 70 years, 70% female, with mean pain severity of 51.8 (standard deviation (SD) 14.1) on a visual analogue scale (0 to 100). Neck pain was subacute-chronic and classified as non-specific neck pain (85%, including n = 1 whiplash), radiculopathy (6%) or cervicogenic headache (9%). Trials were conducted in outpatient settings in Asia (n = 11), America (n = 5), Africa (n = 1), Europe (n = 12) and the Middle East (n = 4). Trials received research funding (15%) from research institutes. We report the main results for the comparison of massage versus placebo. Low-certainty evidence indicates that massage probably results in little to no difference in pain, function-disability and health-related quality of life when compared against a placebo for subacute-chronic neck pain at up to 12 weeks follow-up. It may slightly improve participant-reported treatment success. Subgroup analysis by dose showed a clinically important difference favouring a high dose (≥ 8 sessions over four weeks for ≥ 30 minutes duration). There is very low-certainty evidence for total adverse events. Data on patient satisfaction and serious adverse events were not available. Pain was a mean of 20.55 points with placebo and improved by 3.43 points with massage (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.16 better to 1.29 worse) on a 0 to 100 scale, where a lower score indicates less pain (8 studies, 403 participants; I2 = 39%). We downgraded the evidence to low-certainty due to indirectness; most trials in the placebo comparison used suboptimal massage doses (only single sessions). Selection, performance and detection bias were evident as multiple trials had unclear allocation concealment, utilised a placebo that may not be credible and did not test whether blinding was effective, respectively. Function-disability was a mean of 30.90 points with placebo and improved by 9.69 points with massage (95% CI 17.57 better to 1.81 better) on the Neck Disability Index 0 to 100, where a lower score indicates better function (2 studies, 68 participants; I2 = 0%). We downgraded the evidence to low-certainty due to imprecision (the wide CI represents slight to moderate benefit that does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change) and risk of selection, performance and detection biases. Participant-reported treatment success was a mean of 3.1 points with placebo and improved by 0.80 points with massage (95% CI 1.39 better to 0.21 better) on a Global Improvement 1 to 7 scale, where a lower score indicates very much improved (1 study, 54 participants). We downgraded the evidence to low-certainty due to imprecision (single study with a wide CI that does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change) and risk of performance as well as detection bias. Health-related quality of life was a mean of 43.2 points with placebo and improved by 5.30 points with massage (95% CI 8.24 better to 2.36 better) on the SF-12 (physical) 0 to 100 scale, where 0 indicates the lowest level of health (1 study, 54 participants). We downgraded the evidence once for imprecision (a single small study) and risk of performance and detection bias. We are uncertain whether massage results in increased total adverse events, such as treatment soreness, sweating or low blood pressure (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.08 to 11.55; 2 studies, 175 participants; I2 = 77%). We downgraded the evidence to very low-certainty due to unexplained inconsistency, risk of performance and detection bias, and imprecision (the CI was extremely wide and the total number of events was very small, i.e < 200 events). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The contribution of massage to the management of neck pain remains uncertain given the predominance of low-certainty evidence in this field. For subacute and chronic neck pain (closest to 12 weeks follow-up), massage may result in a little or no difference in improving pain, function-disability, health-related quality of life and participant-reported treatment success when compared to a placebo. Inadequate reporting on adverse events precluded analysis. Focused planning for larger, adequately dosed, well-designed trials is needed.

Psychometric properties of clinician-reported and performance-based outcomes cited in a scoping review on spinal manipulation and mobilization for pediatric populations with diverse medical conditions: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Risks and benefits of spinal manipulations and mobilization in pediatric populations are a concern to the public, policymakers, and international physiotherapy governing organizations. Clinical Outcome Assessments (COA) used in the literature on these topics are contentious. The aim of this systematic review was to establish the quality of clinician-reported and performance-based COAs identified by a scoping review on spinal manipulation and mobilization for pediatric populations across diverse medical conditions. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: Electronic databases, clinicaltrials.gov and Ebsco Open Dissertations were searched up to 21 October 2022. Qualitative synthesis was performed using Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines to select studies, perform data extraction, and assess risk of bias. Data synthesis used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) to determine the certainty of the evidence and overall rating: sufficient (+), insufficient (-), inconsistent (±), or indeterminate (?). RESULTS: Four of 17 identified COAs (77 studies, 9653 participants) with supporting psychometric research were classified as:Performance-based outcome measures: AIMS - Alberta Infant Motor Scale (n = 51); or:Clinician-reported outcome measures: LATCH - Latch, Audible swallowing, Type of nipple, Comfort, Hold (n = 10),Cobb Angle (n = 15),Postural Assessment (n = 1).AIMS had an overall sufficient (+) rating with high certainty evidence, and LATCH had an overall sufficient (+) rating with moderate certainty of evidence. For the Cobb Angle and Postural Assessment, the overall rating was indeterminate (?) with low or very low certainty of evidence, respectively. CONCLUSION: The AIMS and LATCH had sufficient evidence to evaluate the efficacy of spinal manipulation and mobilization for certain pediatric medical conditions. Further validation studies are needed for other COAs.

Psychometric measurement properties of patient-reported and observer-reported outcome measures for spinal mobilisations and manipulation on paediatric subjects with diverse medical conditions: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Reliable, valid, and responsive outcomes is foundational to address concerns about the risks and benefits of performing spinal manipulation and mobilization in pediatric populations. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize evidence on measurement properties from cohort/case-control/cross-sectional/randomized studies on patient-reported (SQLI - Scoliosis Quality of Life Index; VAS-Visual Analog Scale; PAQLQ - Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire), observer-reported (Crying Diaries; ATEC - Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist) and mixed (PedsQL - Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory) outcome measurements identified through a scoping review on manipulation and mobilization for pediatric populations with diverse medical conditions. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: Electronic databases, clinicaltrial.gov and Ebsco Open Dissertations were searched up to 21 October 202221 October 2022. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Qualitative synthesis was performed using COSMIN and Cochrane GRADE methodology to establish the certainty of evidence and overall rating: sufficient (+), insufficient (-), inconsistent (±), indeterminate (?). RESULTS: Eighteen studies (2 SQLI for scoliosis; 1 VAS - perceived influence of exertion or movement/position on low back problems; 1 PAQLQ for asthma; 1 Crying Diaries for infantile colic; 8 ATEC for autism; 5 PedsQL for cerebral palsy/scoliosis/healthy) with 9653 participants were selected. ATEC and PedsQL had overall sufficient (+) measurement properties with moderate certainty evidence. PAQLQ had indeterminate measurement properties with moderate certainty evidence. Very low certainty of evidence identified measurement properties to be indeterminate (?) for SQLI, Crying Diaries, and VAS- perceived influence of exertion or movement/position on low back problems. CONCLUSION: ATEC for autism and PedsQL for asthma may be a suitable clinical outcome assessment (COA); additional validation studies on responsiveness and the minimal important difference are needed. Other COA require further validation.

Spinal manipulation and mobilisation in the treatment of infants, children, and adolescents: a systematic scoping review.

PURPOSE: To i) identify and map the available evidence regarding effectiveness and harms of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for infants, children and adolescents with a broad range of conditions; ii) identify and synthesise policies, regulations, position statements and practice guidelines informing their clinical use. DESIGN: Systematic scoping review, utilising four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINHAL and Cochrane) and grey literature from root to 4th February 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Infants, children and adolescents (birth to < 18 years) with any childhood disorder/condition. INTERVENTION: Spinal manipulation and mobilisation OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes relating to common childhood conditions were explored. METHOD: Two reviewers (A.P., L.L.) independently screened and selected studies, extracted key findings and assessed methodological quality of included papers using Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Synthesis, Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Text and Opinion Papers, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and International Centre for Allied Health Evidence Guideline Quality Checklist. A descriptive synthesis of reported findings was undertaken using a levels of evidence approach. RESULTS: Eighty-seven articles were included. Methodological quality of articles varied. Spinal manipulation and mobilisation are being utilised clinically by a variety of health professionals to manage paediatric populations with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), asthma, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), back/neck pain, breastfeeding difficulties, cerebral palsy (CP), dysfunctional voiding, excessive crying, headaches, infantile colic, kinetic imbalances due to suboccipital strain (KISS), nocturnal enuresis, otitis media, torticollis and plagiocephaly. The descriptive synthesis revealed: no evidence to explicitly support the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilisation for any condition in paediatric populations. Mild transient symptoms were commonly described in randomised controlled trials and on occasion, moderate-to-severe adverse events were reported in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials and other lower quality studies. There was strong to very strong evidence for 'no significant effect' of spinal manipulation for managing asthma (pulmonary function), headache and nocturnal enuresis, and inconclusive or insufficient evidence for all other conditions explored. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding spinal mobilisation to treat paediatric populations with any condition. CONCLUSION: Whilst some individual high-quality studies demonstrate positive results for some conditions, our descriptive synthesis of the collective findings does not provide support for spinal manipulation or mobilisation in paediatric populations for any condition. Increased reporting of adverse events is required to determine true risks. Randomised controlled trials examining effectiveness of spinal manipulation and mobilisation in paediatric populations are warranted.

Which Exercise for Low Back Pain? (WELBack) trial predicting response to exercise treatments for patients with low back pain: a validation randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Exercise therapy is the most recommended treatment for chronic low back pain (LBP). Effect sizes for exercises are usually small to moderate and could be due to the heterogeneity of people presenting with LBP. Thus, if patients could be better matched to exercise based on individual factors, then the effects of treatment could be greater. A recently published study provided evidence of better outcomes when patients are matched to the appropriate exercise type. The study demonstrated that a 15-item questionnaire, the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ), could identify patients who responded best to one of the two exercise approaches for LBP (motor control and graded activity). The primary aim of the current study isill be to evaluate whether preidentified baseline characteristics, including the LSIQ, can modify the response to two of the most common exercise therapies for non-specific LBP. Secondary aims include an economic evaluations with a cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Participants (n=414) will be recruited by primary care professionals and randomised (1:1) to receive motor control exercises or graded activity. Participants will undergo 12 sessions of exercise therapy over an 8-week period. The primary outcome will be physical function at 2 months using the Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcomes will be pain intensity, function and quality of life measured at 2, 6 and 12 months. Potential effect modifiers will be the LSIQ, self-efficacy, coping strategies, kinesiophobia and measures of nociceptive pain and central sensitisation. We will construct linear mixed models with terms for participants (fixed), treatment group, predictor (potential effect modifier), treatment group×predictor (potential effect modifier), physiotherapists, treatment group×physiotherapists and baseline score for the dependent variable. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received ethics approval from the Hamilton Integrate Research Ethics Board. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04283409.

Sensorimotor synchronization in patients with mechanical neck disorders.

Background: There lacks knowledge of how patients with chronic persisting mechanical neck disorder (cMND) coordinate their movements. Objective: Analyze kinematic data from people with cMND by extracting vertical trajectories from 3D Qualisys data of the patients' hand. The time between metronome beat and bottle placement were cross-correlated to compare timing accuracy. Design: Cross-sectional case-series. Method: A cyclical overhead reach and grasp task involving lifting bottles from low to high shelves at a pace of 60 bpm tested muscular incoordination. Subjects from a convenience sample were classified by a modified Quebec Task Force Classification. Motion capture imaging and seven channel electromyography was recorded during each patients' trial. Outcome measures include: Neck Disability Index, subjective pain ratings measured by a numeric pain rating scale, and 3D coordinates from motion capture data. The time between metronome beat and bottle placement were cross-correlated to compare timing accuracy (mean percent values, standard deviation [SD]). Two within-subject variables ([1] side: affected vs. unaffected; and [2] posture: sitting vs. standing) were assessed. Results: Seven participants (five females/two male; age mean 46.7, SD 15.21 years) had a mean of 7.25, SD 2.3 in arm pain and 6.38, SD 2.60 in neck pain post trial. Timing accuracies were found while standing (mean 0.84, SD 0.04) but not sitting (mean 0.67 SD 0.16). Numeric pain ratings increased from pre (neck 4.21[1.88]; arm 3.40[2.72]) to post (neck 6.38[2.61], arm 7.25[2.30]) trial. Conclusion: Initial data suggest that patients with persisting cMND have reduced accuracy in timing when coordinating their movement to a paced external event.

International consensus on the most useful assessments used by physical therapists to evaluate patients with temporomandibular disorders: A Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify assessment tools used to evaluate patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) considered to be clinically most useful by a panel of international experts in TMD physical therapy (PT). METHODS: A Delphi survey method administered to a panel of international experts in TMD PT was conducted over three rounds from October 2017 to June 2018. The initial contact was made by email. Participation was voluntary. An e-survey, according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES), was posted using SurveyMonkey for each round. Percentages of responses were analysed for each question from each round of the Delphi survey administrations. RESULTS: Twenty-three experts (completion rate: 23/25) completed all three rounds of the survey for three clinical test categories: 1) questionnaires, 2) pain screening tools and 3) physical examination tests. The following was the consensus-based decision regarding the identification of the clinically most useful assessments. (1) Four of 9 questionnaires were identified: Jaw Functional Limitation (JFL-8), Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia for Temporomandibular disorders (TSK/TMD) and the neck disability index (NDI). (2) Three of 8 identified pain screening tests: visual analog scale (VAS), numeric pain rating scale (NRS) and pain during mandibular movements. (3) Eight of 18 identified physical examination tests: physiological temporomandibular joint (TMJ) movements, trigger point (TrP) palpation of the masticatory muscles, TrP palpation away from the masticatory system, accessory movements, articular palpation, noise detection during movement, manual screening of the cervical spine and the Neck Flexor Muscle Endurance Test. CONCLUSION: After three rounds in this Delphi survey, the results of the most used assessment tools by TMD PT experts were established. They proved to be founded on test construct, test psychometric properties (reliability/validity) and expert preference for test clusters. A concordance with the screening tools of the diagnostic criteria of TMD consortium was noted. Findings may be used to guide policymaking purposes and future diagnostic research.

Comparison of CPG's for the diagnosis, prognosis and management of non-specific neck pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain (NP) is a very common musculoskeletal condition with potential for a high burden in disability and length of disorder. Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) give recommendations to clinicians for providing optimal care for patients however best practice recommendations are often contradictory. The purpose for this review was to conduct a SR of CPGs to assess the management recommendations for NP (diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, imaging). METHODS: Standard SR methodology was employed including a grey literature search (including the National Guideline Clearing House). Medline, Cinahl, Embase, ILC, Cochrane, Central, and Lilacs were searched from 1995-to March 2018. Two raters evaluated all citations and a third rater resolved any disagreements. The AGREE II was used to assess risk of bias of each CPG. Data was extracted and included CPG purpose, type of NP problem and clinical recommendations. The AGREE II critical appraisal tool was used to assess risk of bias of each CPG. RESULTS: From 640 articles, 241 were available for screening. A total of 46 guidelines were selected. CPG's were categorized by the NP population (General NP, whiplash, interventional, headache and risk for vertebral insufficiency) and type of clinical aim (diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, imaging). Each clinical NP population had a large overlap of clinical aims presented. The CPGs were directed to a variety of clinicians that included physicians, physiotherapists and chiropractors. Results suggest heterogeneity in CPG recommendations within each clinical aim. CPG characteristics accounting for these differences are outlined. CONCLUSION: The majority of CPGs were developed for general NP that focused on treatment recommendations, with fewer number aimed at recommendations for diagnosis, prognosis, and outcomes. Heterogeneity of recommendations within the categories were noted as were potential factors associated with these differences, including CPG quality as assessed by the AGREE II.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used for Neck Disorders: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

BACKGROUND: The evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures for the neck from multiple systematic reviews will provide a broader view of, and may identify potential conflicting or consistent results for, their psychometric properties. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to conduct an overview of systematic reviews and synthesize evidence to establish the current state of knowledge on psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures for patients with neck disorders. METHODS: In this overview of systematic reviews, an electronic search of 6 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ILC, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and LILACS) was conducted to identify reviews that addressed at least one measurement property of outcome measures for people with neck pain. Only systematic reviews with patient-reported outcome measures were included in the analysis. Risk of bias was assessed with A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Data on measurement properties were extracted from each systematic review. RESULTS: From 13 systematic reviews, 8 patient-reported outcome measures were evaluated in 2 or more reviews. Risk-of-bias scores ranged from moderate (5-7) to high (4 and lower). Findings on internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, responsiveness to change, and content and structural validity were synthesized for the Neck Disability Index (NDI) in 11 systematic reviews; the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire and Neck Pain and Disability scale (NPDS) in 6 systematic reviews; the Copenhagen Neck Functional Disability Scale in 5 systematic reviews; the Neck Bournemouth Questionnaire in 4 systematic reviews; the Core Neck Pain Questionnaire and Patient-Specific Functional Scale in 3 systematic reviews, and the Whiplash Disability Questionnaire in 2 systematic reviews. CONCLUSION: High-quality evidence was found of good to excellent internal consistency and moderate to excellent test-retest reliability for the NDI. Moderate-quality evidence was found of good to excellent internal consistency and good test-retest reliability for the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire. High-quality evidence was found of excellent test-retest reliability and good to strong construct validity with pain scales for the Copenhagen Neck Functional Disability Scale. Moderate-quality evidence was found of unclear to excellent internal consistency and moderate to strong concurrent associations with the NDI and global assessment of change for the Neck Pain and Disability scale. Moderate-quality evidence was found of excellent internal consistency for the Whiplash Disability Questionnaire and of high test-retest reliability for the Patient-Specific Functional Scale. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(10):775-788. Epub 22 Jun 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.8131.

Tool to assess causality of direct and indirect adverse events associated with therapeutic interventions.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and test a tool to assess the causality of direct and indirect adverse events associated with therapeutic interventions. The intervention was one or more drugs and/or natural health products, a device, or practice (professional delivering the intervention). METHODS: Through the assessment of causality of adverse events, we can learn about factors contributing to the harm and consider what modification may prevent its reoccurrence. Existing scales (WHO-UMC, Naranjo and Horn) were adapted to develop a tool (algorithm and table) to evaluate cases of serious harmful events reported through a national surveillance study. We also incorporated a novel approach that assesses indirect harm (caused by the delay in diagnosis/treatment) and the health provider delivering the intervention (practice). The tool was tested, revised and then implemented to assess all reported cases of serious events resulting from use of complementary therapies. The use of complementary therapies was the trigger to report the event. Each case was evaluated by two assessors, out of a panel of five, representing different health care professionals. RESULTS: The tool was used in assessment of eight serious adverse events. Each event was independently evaluated by two assessors. The algorithm facilitated assessment of a serious direct or indirect harm. Assessors agreed in the final score on seven of eight cases (weighted kappa coefficient of 0.75). CONCLUSION: A tool to support the assessment of causality of adverse events was developed and tested. We propose a novel method to assess direct and indirect harms related to product(s), device(s), practice or a combination of the previous. Further research will probably help evaluate this approach across different settings and interventions.

Neck Pain: Revision 2017.

The Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) has an ongoing effort to create evidence-based practice guidelines for orthopaedic physical therapy management of patients with musculoskeletal impairments described in the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). The purpose of these revised clinical practice guidelines is to review recent peer-reviewed literature and make recommendations related to neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017;47(7):A1-A83. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.0302.

Depicting individual responses to physical therapist led chronic pain self-management support with pain science education and exercise in primary health care: multiple case studies.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence suggests self-management programs for people with chronic pain improve knowledge and self-efficacy, but result in small to negligible changes in function. The purpose of this multiple case studies design was to describe the unique responses of six participants to a new self-management program aimed at improving function, to detail each component of the program, and to explore potential explanations for the varied trajectories of each of the participants. CASE PRESENTATION: Six participants who had been experiencing chronic pain for at least 5 years were included. All participants were enrolled 6 weeks of ChrOnic pain self-ManageMent support with pain science EducatioN and exercise (COMMENCE). Participants completed an assessment at baseline, 7 weeks (1-week follow-up), and 18 weeks (12-week follow-up). Each participant had a unique initial presentation and goals. Assessments included: function as measured by the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment - Dysfunction Index, how much participants are bothered by functional difficulties, pain intensity, fatigue, pain interference, cognitive and psychological factors associated with pain and disability, pain neurophysiology, self-efficacy, satisfaction, and perceived change. The self-management program was 6-weeks in length, consisting of one individual visit and one group visit per week. The program incorporated three novel elements not commonly included in self-management programs: pain neurophysiology education, individualized exercises determined by the participants' goals, and additional cognitive behavioural approaches. Participants were all satisfied with self-management support received. Change in function was variable ranging from 59% improvement to 17% decline. Two potential explanations for variances in response, attendance and social context, are discussed. Several challenges were identified by participants as barriers to attendance. CONCLUSIONS: A primary care self-management intervention including pain education and individualized exercise has potential to improve function for some people with chronic pain, although strategies to improve adherence and reduce barriers to participation may be needed to optimize the impact.

Intra and Inter-Rater Reliability and Convergent Validity of FIT-HaNSA in Individuals with Grade П Whiplash Associated Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Whiplash-Associated Disorders (WAD) are common following a motor vehicle accident. The Functional Impairment Test - Hand, and Neck/Shoulder/Arm (FIT-HaNSA) assesses upper extremity physical performance. It has been validated in patients with shoulder pathology but not in those with WAD. OBJECTIVES: Establish the Intra and inter-rater reliability and the known-group and construct validity of the FIT-HaNSA in patients with Grade II WAD (WAD2). METHODS: Twenty-five patients with WAD2 and 41 healthy controls were recruited. Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), cervical range of motion (CROM), and FIT-HaNSA were completed at two sessions conducted 2 to 7 days apart by two raters. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to describe Intra and inter-rater reliability. Spearman rank correlation coefficients (ρ) were used to quantify the associations between scores of the FIT-HaNSA and other measures in the WAD2 group (convergent construct validity). RESULTS: The Intra and inter-ICCs for the FIT-HaNSA scores ranged from 0.88 to 0.89 in the control group and 0.78 to 0.85 in the WAD2 group. Statistically significant differences in FIT-HaNSA performance between the two groups suggested known group construct validity (P < 0.001). The correlations between the NPRS, NDI, DASH, CROM and FIT-HaNSA were generally poor (ρ < 0.4). CONCLUSION: The study results indicate that the total FIT-HaNSA score has good Intra and inter-rater reliability and the construct validity in WAD2 and healthy controls.

Psychophysical and Patient Factors as Determinants of Pain, Function and Health Status in Shoulder Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the extent to which psychophysical quantitative sensory test (QST) and patient factors (gender, age and comorbidity) predict pain, function and health status in people with shoulder disorders. To determine if there are gender differences for QST measures in current perception threshold (CPT), vibration threshold (VT) and pressure pain (PP) threshold and tolerance. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study design. SETTING: MacHAND Clinical Research Lab at McMaster University. SUBJECTS: 34 surgical and 10 nonsurgical participants with shoulder pain were recruited. METHOD: Participants completed the following patient reported outcomes: pain (Numeric Pain Rating, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index) and health status (Short Form-12). Participants completed QST at 4 standardized locations and then an upper extremity performance-based endurance test (FIT-HaNSA). Pearson r's were computed to determine the relationships between QST variables and patient factors with either pain, function or health status. Eight regression models were built to analysis QST's and patient factors separately as predictors of either pain, function or health status. An independent sample t-test was done to evaluate the gender effect on QST. RESULTS: Greater PP threshold and PP tolerance was significantly correlated with higher shoulder functional performance on the FIT-HANSA (r =0.31-0.44) and lower self-reported shoulder disability (r = -0.32 to -0.36). Higher comorbidity was consistently correlated (r =0.31-0.46) with more pain, and less function and health status. Older age was correlated to more pain intensity and less function (r =0.31-0.57). In multivariate models, patient factors contributed significantly to pain, function or health status models (r2 =0.19-0.36); whereas QST did not. QST was significantly different between males and females [in PP threshold (3.9 vs. 6.2, p < .001) and PP tolerance (7.6 vs. 2.6, p < .001) and CPT (1.6 vs. 2.3, p =.02)]. CONCLUSION: Psychophysical dimensions and patient factors (gender, age and comorbidity) affect self-reported and performance-based outcome measures in people with shoulder disorders.

Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment.

BACKGROUND: Manipulation and mobilisation are commonly used to treat neck pain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of manipulation or mobilisation alone compared wiith those of an inactive control or another active treatment on pain, function, disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults experiencing neck pain with or without radicular symptoms and cervicogenic headache (CGH) at immediate- to long-term follow-up. When appropriate, to assess the influence of treatment characteristics (i.e. technique, dosage), methodological quality, symptom duration and subtypes of neck disorder on treatment outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: Review authors searched the following computerised databases to November 2014 to identify additional studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to find relevant studies. We updated this search in June 2015, but these results have not yet been incorporated. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken to assess whether manipulation or mobilisation improves clinical outcomes for adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and applied Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods (very low, low, moderate, high quality). We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 trials (2920 participants, 18 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus control; 34 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus another treatment, 1 trial had two comparisons). Cervical manipulation versus inactive control: For subacute and chronic neck pain, a single manipulation (three trials, no meta-analysis, 154 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) relieved pain at immediate- but not short-term follow-up. Cervical manipulation versus another active treatment: For acute and chronic neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 446 participants, ranged from moderate to high quality) produced similar changes in pain, function, quality of life (QoL), global perceived effect (GPE) and patient satisfaction when compared with multiple sessions of cervical mobilisation at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. For acute and subacute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation were more effective than certain medications in improving pain and function at immediate- (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality) and long-term follow-up (one trial, 181 participants, moderate quality). These findings are consistent for function at intermediate-term follow-up (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality). For chronic CGH, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 125 participants, low quality) may be more effective than massage in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 65 participants, very low quality) may be favoured over transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain reduction at short-term follow-up. For acute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 20 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than thoracic manipulation in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Thoracic manipulation versus inactive control: Three trials (150 participants) using a single session were assessed at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. At short-term follow-up, manipulation improved pain in participants with acute and subacute neck pain (five trials, 346 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.86 to -0.66) and improved function (four trials, 258 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.40, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.55) in participants with acute and chronic neck pain. A funnel plot of these data suggests publication bias. These findings were consistent at intermediate follow-up for pain/function/quality of life (one trial, 111 participants, low quality). Thoracic manipulation versus another active treatment: No studies provided sufficient data for statistical analyses. A single session of thoracic manipulation (one trial, 100 participants, moderate quality) was comparable with thoracic mobilisation for pain relief at immediate-term follow-up for chronic neck pain. Mobilisation versus inactive control: Mobilisation as a stand-alone intervention (two trials, 57 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) may not reduce pain more than an inactive control. Mobilisation versus another active treatment: For acute and subacute neck pain, anterior-posterior mobilisation (one trial, 95 participants, very low quality) may favour pain reduction over rotatory or transverse mobilisations at immediate-term follow-up. For chronic CGH with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, multiple sessions of TMJ manual therapy (one trial, 38 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than cervical mobilisation in improving pain/function at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. For subacute and chronic neck pain, cervical mobilisation alone (four trials, 165 participants, ranged from low to very low quality) may not be different from ultrasound, TENS, acupuncture and massage in improving pain, function, QoL and participant satisfaction at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. Additionally, combining laser with manipulation may be superior to using manipulation or laser alone (one trial, 56 participants, very low quality). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although support can be found for use of thoracic manipulation versus control for neck pain, function and QoL, results for cervical manipulation and mobilisation versus control are few and diverse. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Research designed to protect against various biases is needed. Findings suggest that manipulation and mobilisation present similar results for every outcome at immediate/short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple cervical manipulation sessions may provide better pain relief and functional improvement than certain medications at immediate/intermediate/long-term follow-up. Since the risk of rare but serious adverse events for manipulation exists, further high-quality research focusing on mobilisation and comparing mobilisation or manipulation versus other treatment options is needed to guide clinicians in their optimal treatment choices.