Reliability and validity of self-reported questionnaires to measure pain and disability in adults with neck pain and its associated disorders: part 3-a systematic review from the CADRE Collaboration.

PURPOSE: To determine the reliability and validity of self-reported questionnaires to measure pain and disability in adults with grades I-IV neck pain and its associated disorders (NAD). METHODS: We updated the systematic review of the 2000-2010 Bone and Joint Decade Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders and systematically searched databases from 2005 to 2017. Independent reviewers screened and critically appraised studies using standardized tools. Evidence from low-risk-of-bias studies was synthesized according to best evidence synthesis principles. Validity studies were ranked according to the Sackett and Haynes classification. RESULTS: We screened 2823 articles, and 26 were eligible for critical appraisal; 18 were low risk of bias. Preliminary evidence suggests that the Neck Disability Index (original and short versions), Whiplash Disability Questionnaire, Neck Pain Driving Index, and ProFitMap-Neck may be valid and reliable to measure disability in patients with NAD. We found preliminary evidence for the validity and reliability of pain measurements including the Body Pain Diagram, Visual Analogue Scale, the Numeric Rating Scale and the Pain-DETECT Questionnaire. CONCLUSION: The evidence supporting the validity and reliability of instruments used to measure pain and disability is preliminary. Further validity studies are needed to confirm the clinical utility of self-reported questionnaires to assess pain and disability in patients with NAD. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Reliability and validity of clinical tests to assess posture, pain location, and cervical spine mobility in adults with neck pain and its associated disorders: Part 4. A systematic review from the cervical assessment and diagnosis research evaluation (CADRE) collaboration.

PURPOSE: To determine the reliability and validity of clinical tests to assess posture, pain location, and cervical spine mobility in adults with grades I-IV neck pain and associated disorders (NAD). METHODS: We systematically searched electronic databases to update the systematic review of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Eligible reliability and validity studies were critically appraised using modified versions of the QAREL and QUADAS-2 instruments, respectively. Evidence from low risk of bias studies were synthesized following best evidence synthesis principles. RESULTS: We screened 14302 articles, critically appraised 46 studies, and found 32 low risk of bias articles (14 reliability and 18 validity studies). We found preliminary evidence of: 1) reliability of visual inspection, aided with devices (CROM and digital caliper) to assess head posture; 2) reliability and validity of soft tissue palpation to locate tender/trigger points in muscles; 3) reliability and validity of joint motion palpation to assess stiffness and pain provocation in combination; and 4) range of motion tests using visual estimation (in cervical extension only) or devices (digital caliper, goniometer, inclinometer) to assess cervical mobility. CONCLUSIONS: We found little evidence to support the reliability and validity of clinical tests to assess head posture, pain location and cervical mobility in adults with NAD grades I-III. More advanced validity studies are needed to inform the clinical utility of tests used to evaluate patients with NAD.

Validity and reliability of clinical prediction rules used to screen for cervical spine injury in alert low-risk patients with blunt trauma to the neck: part 2. A systematic review from the Cervical Assessment and Diagnosis Research Evaluation (CADRE) Collaboration.

PURPOSE: To update findings of the 2000-2010 Bone and Joint Decade Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) on the validity and reliability of clinical prediction rules used to screen for cervical spine injury in alert low-risk adult patients with blunt trauma to the neck. METHODS: We searched four databases from 2005 to 2015. Pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible studies using the modified QUADAS-2 and QAREL criteria. We synthesized low risk of bias studies following best evidence synthesis principles. RESULTS: We screened 679 citations; five had a low risk of bias and were included in our synthesis. The sensitivity of the Canadian C-spine rule ranged from 0.90 to 1.00 with negative predictive values ranging from 99 to 100%. Inter-rater reliability of the Canadian C-spine rule varied from k = 0.60 between nurses and physicians to k = 0.93 among paramedics. The inter-rater reliability of the Nexus Low-Risk Criteria was k = 0.53 between resident physicians and faculty physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Our review adds new evidence to the Neck Pain Task Force and supports the use of clinical prediction rules in emergency care settings to screen for cervical spine injury in alert low-risk adult patients with blunt trauma to the neck. The Canadian C-spine rule consistently demonstrated excellent sensitivity and negative predictive values. Our review, however, suggests that the reproducibility of the clinical predictions rules varies depending on the examiners level of training and experience.

Do number of days with low back pain and patterns of episodes of pain have similar outcomes in a biopsychosocial prediction model?

PURPOSES: We used two different methods to classify low back pain (LBP) in the general population (1) to assess the overlapping of individuals within the different subgroups in those two classifications, (2) to explore if the associations between LBP and some selected bio-psychosocial factors are similar, regardless which of the two classifications is used. METHOD: During 1 year, 49- or 50-year-old people from the Danish general population were sent fortnightly automated text messages (SMS-Track) asking them if they had any LBP in the past fortnight. Responses for the whole year were then classified into two different ways: (1) In relation to the number of days with LBP in the preceding year (0, 1-30, and >30), (2) In relation to the frequency and duration of episodes of LBP (more or less never pain, episodic, and more or less constant pain). Some bio-psychosocial factors, collected with a questionnaire at baseline 9 years earlier, were entered into regression models to investigate their associations with the subgroups of the two classifications of LBP and the results compared. RESULTS: The percentage of agreement between categories of the two classification systems was above 68 % (Kappa 0.7). Despite the large overlap of persons in the two classification groups, the patterns of associations with the two types of LBP definitions were different in the two classification groups. However, none of the estimates were significantly different when the variables were compared across the two classifications. CONCLUSION: Different classification systems of LBP are capable of bringing forth different findings. This may help explain the lack of consistency between studies on risk factors of LBP.