Use of the STarT Back Screening Tool in patients with chronic low back pain receiving physical therapy interventions.

BACKGROUND: The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) is used to stratify care. It is unclear if the SBST approach works as well for patients in low- and medium-income countries as for patients from high-income countries. OBJECTIVES: (1) To investigate whether patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) stratified by the SBST are different at baseline; (2) to describe the clinical course for each SBST subgroup; (3) to investigate the SBST utility to predict clinical outcomes; and (4) to determine which SBST subgroup show greater clinical improvement. DESIGN: This is a secondary analysis of data derived from a previously published clinical trial. METHODS: 148 patients with chronic nonspecific LBP were included. Pain intensity, disability, global perceived effect, and the SBST were assessed at baseline and at 5, 12, and 24 weeks after baseline. Descriptive data were provided and ANOVA, unadjusted and adjusted regression models, and linear mixed models were used for data analysis. RESULTS: Duration of symptoms, use of medication, pain, disability, and global perceived effect were different between SBST subgroups. Clinical improvements over a 6-month period were consistently greater in patients classified as high risk. The SBST was able to predict disability but this predictability decreased when the analysis was adjusted for possible confounders. CONCLUSION: Clinical outcomes were different between SBST subgroups over 6 months. Adjusting for confounders influenced the predictability of SBST. Patients classified as high risk presented higher improvements in terms of disability.

Predictors of research productivity among physical therapy programs in the United States: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: This study targeted the association of program characteristics of 203 Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) programs in the United States (US) reported by the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE) in their 2017 Annual Accreditation Report (AAR) with measures of core faculty research volume. The association of institutional, program, and faculty characteristics of an institution with core faculty research volume was investigated. METHODS: This observational study analyzed data provided in the AAR about program research volume. Predictor variables included institutional, program and faculty characteristics. Research volume was measured as a ratio of 1) number of peer-reviewed publications, 2) National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, and 3) faculty with grants, per number of core faculty. Research volume was stratified by quartiles and analyzed using logistic regression analyses. The highest 25% were analyzed against the lowest 75%. RESULTS: In the multivariate logistic regression analyses, research Carnegie classification was positively associated with NIH funding (OR = 4.04; 95% CI = 1.92, 8.48) and number of peer reviewed publications (OR = 7.63; 95% CI = 3.39, 17.14). Square footage of research space was positively associated with number of peer reviewed publications (OR = 4.58; 95% CI = 2.08, 10.11). Private status was negatively associated with NIH funding (OR = 0.37; 95% CI = 0.17, 0.83) and faculty holding grants (OR = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.19, 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence that research culture (e.g., research Carnegie status and dedicated research space) is related to research productivity in DPT programs in the US. Private status was indicative of a non-research intensive environment, which may be reflective of a current trend of small, non-research based private institutions initiating DPT programs.

Do older adults with shoulder disorders who meet the minimal clinically important difference also present low disability at discharge? An observational study.

BACKGROUND: The choice of outcome success thresholds may influence clinical management, pay-for-performance, and assessment of value-based care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes success thresholds in older adults using two different methods: 1) Minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) of the Quick-DASH and 2) Dichotomization of the Quick-DASH based on low disability rating at discharge DESIGN: An observational design (retrospective database study). SETTING: Dataset of 1109 patients with shoulder disorders. PARTICIPANTS: 297 older adults patients who were diagnosed with rotator cuff related shoulder disorders and were managed through physical therapy treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We categorized and calculated how many patients met 8.0 and 16.0 point changes on the Quick-DASH. To evaluate outcomes success thresholds using dichotomization, patients who discharge score of ≤20 on the Quick-DASH were considered positive responders with successful outcomes. RESULTS: The percentage of positive responders who met the MCID thresholds for the Quick-DASH were 63.3% using MCID of 8.0 points, 39.7% using the MCID of 16.0 points, and 46.12% who met discharge score of ≤ 20 on the Quick-DASH. 39.0% met both MCID of 8.0 points and discharge score of ≤ 20 on the Quick-DASH. Only 28% met both MCID of 16.0 points and discharge score of = 20 on the Quick-DASH. CONCLUSION: Three different success threshold derivations classified patients into three very different assessments of success. Quick-DASH scores of ≤ 20 represent low levels of self-report disability at discharge and can be a stable clinical option for a measure of success to capture whether a treatment results in meaningful improvement.

Which patients do not seek additional medical care after a self-management class for low back pain? An observational cohort.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify baseline variables associated with patients that sought no additional care during the 12 months following a single self-management education session for low back pain (LBP), and (2) in those who sought care, to determine whether the same variables were associated with low versus high downstream LBP-related healthcare utilization. DESIGN: An observational cohort. SETTING: Single large military hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 733 patients with LBP. INTERVENTION: Single self-management education session. MAIN OUTCOMES: Eleven variables were explored in two distinct logistic regression models: (1) no additional care versus additional care, and (2) low versus high number of additional visits in the additional care group. RESULTS: In the first model, not being on active duty service (odds ratio (OR) = 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.37-2.86), low baseline disability (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.00-1.04), low baseline fear-avoidance related to work (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.00-1.03), and, in the last year, no opioid prescriptions (OR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.00-2.07), physical therapy (OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.00-2.65), or sleep disorder diagnosis (OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.05-2.51) significantly increased the odds that patients would not seek any additional care. In the second model, not being on active duty service (OR = 2.18, 95% CI = 1.38-3.46), low baseline disability (OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.02-1.06), and no opioid prescriptions in the prior year (OR = 2.19, 95% CI = 1.42-3.37) increased the odds that patients would have less visits (⩽2 visits). CONCLUSION: Our study found several variables that helped determine whether patients would seek little or no additional care during the 12 months following a self-management education class for LBP.

Do prognostic variables predict a set of outcomes for patients with chronic low back pain: a long-term follow-up secondary analysis of a randomized control trial.

Objective: The objective was to explore for universal prognostic variables, or predictors, across three different outcome measures in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). We hypothesized that selected prognostic variables would be 'universal' prognostic variables, regardless of the outcome measures used. Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of data from a previous randomized controlled trial comparing the McKenzie treatment approach with placebo in patients with chronic LBP. Ten baseline prognostic variables were explored in predictive models for three outcomes: pain intensity, disability, and global perceived effect, at 6 and 12 months. Predictive models were created using backward stepwise logistic and linear multivariate regression analyses. Results: Several predictors were present including age, expectancy of improvement, global perceived effect; however, we only identified baseline disability as a universal predictor of outcomes at 6 months. The second most represented universal predictor was baseline pain intensity for outcomes at 12 months. Discussion: Only two predictors demonstrated an association with more than one outcome measure. High baseline disability predicts multidimensional outcome measures at 6 months in patients with chronic LBP while baseline pain intensity can best predict the outcome at 12 months. Nevertheless, other predictors seem to be unique to the outcome used. Level of evidence: 2c.

Can demographic and anthropometric characteristics predict clinical improvement in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain?

OBJECTIVE: To identify potential prognostic factors that may predict clinical improvement of patients treated with different physical therapy interventions in the short-term. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study. A total of 616 patients with chronic non-specific low back pain treated with interventions commonly used by physical therapists were included. These patients were selected from five randomized controlled trials. Multivariate linear regression models were used to verify if sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender, and marital status), anthropometric variables (height, body mass, and body mass index), or duration of low back pain, pain intensity at baseline, and disability at baseline could be associated with clinical outcomes of pain intensity and disability four weeks after baseline. RESULTS: The predictive variables for pain intensity were age (ß=0.01 points, 95% CI=0.00 to 0.03, p=0.03) and pain intensity at baseline (ß=0.23 points, 95% CI=0.13 to 0.33, p=0.00), with an explained variability of 4.6%. Similarly, the predictive variables for disability after four weeks were age (ß=0.03 points, 95% CI=0.00 to 0.06, p=0.01) and disability at baseline (ß=0.71 points, 95% CI=0.65 to 0.78, p=0.00), with an explained variability of 42.1%. CONCLUSION: Only age, pain at baseline and disability at baseline influenced the pain intensity and disability after four weeks of treatment. The beta coefficient for age was statistically significant, but the magnitude of this association was very small and not clinically important.

Reliability of the Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy System in Patients With Spinal Pain: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: An updated summary of the evidence for the reliability of the Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) system in patients with spinal pain is needed. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the evidence on the intrarater and interrater reliability of MDT in patients with spinal pain. METHODS: Searches in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PEDro, and Scopus were conducted for this systematic review. We included any study design as long as reliability of the MDT method was tested in patients with spinal pain. We collected data on the reliability of MDT to identify main and subsyndromes, directional preference, the centralization phenomenon, and lateral shift. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Quality Appraisal of Diagnostic Reliability and the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies checklists. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included (8 studies on back pain, pooled n = 2160 patients; 3 studies on neck pain, pooled n = 45 patients; and 3 studies recruited mixed spinal conditions, pooled n = 389 patients). Studies investigating patients with back pain reported kappa estimates ranging from 0.26 to 1.00 (main and subsyndromes), 0.27 to 0.90 (directional preference), and 0.11 to 0.70 (centralization phenomenon). Kappa estimates for studies investigating neck pain ranged from 0.47 to 0.84 (main and subsyndromes) and 0.46 (directional preference). In mixed populations, kappa estimates ranged from 0.56 to 0.96 (main and subsyndromes). CONCLUSION: The MDT system appears to have acceptable interrater reliability for classifying patients with back pain into main and subsyndromes when applied by therapists who have completed the credentialing examination, but unacceptable reliability in other therapists. We found conflicting evidence regarding the reliability of the MDT system in patients with neck pain or mixed pain locations. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(12):923-933. Epub 22 Jun 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7876.

McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy was slightly more effective than placebo for pain, but not for disability, in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomised placebo controlled trial with short and longer term follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) is one of the exercise approaches recommended by low back pain (LBP) guidelines. We investigated the efficacy of MDT compared with placebo in patients with chronic LBP. METHODS: This was a prospectively registered, two-arm randomised placebo controlled trial, with a blinded assessor. A total of 148 patients seeking care for chronic LBP were randomly allocated to either MDT (n=74) or placebo (n=74). Patients from both groups received 10 treatment sessions over 5 weeks. Patients from both groups also received an educational booklet. Clinical outcomes were obtained at the end of treatment (5 weeks) and 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability at the end of treatment (5 weeks). We also conducted a subgroup analysis to identify potential treatment effect modifiers that could predict a better response to MDT treatment. RESULTS: The MDT group had greater improvements in pain intensity at the end of treatment (mean difference (MD) -1.00, 95% CI -2.09 to -0.01) but not for disability (MD -0.84, 95% CI -2.62 to 0.93). We did not detect between-group differences for any secondary outcomes, nor were any treatment effect modifiers identified. Patients did not report any adverse events. CONCLUSION: We found a small and likely not clinically relevant difference in pain intensity favouring the MDT method immediately at the end of 5 weeks of treatment but not for disability. No other difference was found for any of the primary or secondary outcomes at any follow-up times. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02123394).

Identifying Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain Who Respond Best to Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: "Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy" (MDT) (also known as the McKenzie method), like other interventions for low back pain (LBP), has been found to have small effects for people with LBP. It is possible that a group of patients respond best to MDT and have larger effects. Identification of patients who respond best to MDT compared with other interventions would be an important finding. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to investigate whether baseline characteristics of patients with chronic LBP, already classified as derangement syndrome, can identify those who respond better to MDT compared with Back School. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of data from a previous trial comparing MDT with Back School in 148 patients with chronic LBP. Only patients classified at baseline assessment as being in the directional preference group (n=140) were included. The effect modifiers tested were: clear centralization versus directional preference only, baseline pain location, baseline pain intensity, and age. The primary outcome measures for this study were pain intensity and disability at the end of treatment (1 month). Treatment effect modification was evaluated by assessing the group versus predictor interaction terms from linear regression models. Interactions ≥1.0 for pain and ≥3 for disability were considered clinically important. RESULTS: Being older met our criteria for being a potentially important effect modifier; however, the effect occurred in the opposite direction to our hypothesis. Older people had 1.27 points more benefit in pain reduction from MDT (compared with Back School) than younger participants after 1 month of treatment. LIMITATIONS: The sample (n=140) was powered to detect the main effects of treatment but not to detect the interactions of the potential treatment effect modifiers. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study suggest older age may be an important factor that can be considered as a treatment effect modifier for patients with chronic LBP receiving MDT. As the main trial was not powered for the investigation of subgroups, the results of this secondary analysis have to be interpreted cautiously, and replication is needed.

Efficacy of the McKenzie method in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a protocol of randomized placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The McKenzie method is widely used as an active intervention in the treatment of patients with nonspecific low back pain. Although the McKenzie method has been compared with several other interventions, it is not yet known whether this method is superior to placebo in patients with chronic low back pain. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this trial is to assess the efficacy of the McKenzie method in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. DESIGN: An assessor-blinded, 2-arm, randomized placebo-controlled trial will be conducted. SETTING: This study will be conducted in physical therapy clinics in São Paulo, Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: The participants will be 148 patients seeking care for chronic nonspecific low back pain. INTERVENTION: Participants will be randomly allocated to 1 of 2 treatment groups: (1) McKenzie method or (2) placebo therapy (detuned ultrasound and shortwave therapy). Each group will receive 10 sessions of 30 minutes each (2 sessions per week over 5 weeks). MEASUREMENTS: The clinical outcomes will be obtained at the completion of treatment (5 weeks) and at 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. The primary outcomes will be pain intensity (measured with the Pain Numerical Rating Scale) and disability (measured with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) at the completion of treatment. The secondary outcomes will be pain intensity; disability and function; kinesiophobia and global perceived effect at 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization; and kinesiophobia and global perceived effect at completion of treatment. The data will be collected by a blinded assessor. LIMITATIONS: Therapists will not be blinded. CONCLUSIONS: This will be the first trial to compare the McKenzie method with placebo therapy in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. The results of this study will contribute to better management of this population.

What do physical therapists think about evidence-based practice? A systematic review.

Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) has been widely implemented in different health-related areas. Several studies investigated important characteristics in EBP by physiotherapists and systematic review is needed. Therefore the aim of this study is to describe the current evidence on EBP knowledge, skills, behaviour, opinions and barriers by physiotherapists. Searches were conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PSYCINFO, LILACS, and SciELO in September 2014. We retrieved quantitative cross-sectional studies that investigated EBP knowledge, skills, behaviour, opinions, and barriers in physiotherapy. Risk of bias was assessed using a scale to evaluate representativeness of the sample, response rate, the accuracy of the data, evidence of power calculation and the instrument used. The search yielded 12,392 potentially eligible studies. Of these, 12 studies were included in the review (pooled sample = 6411 participants). In 3 studies that analysed knowledge, approximately 21-82% of respondents claimed to have received prior information on EBP. In 2 studies that reported skills and behaviour, nearly half of the sample had used databases to support clinical decision-making. In 6 studies that investigated opinions, the majority of the samples considered EBP necessary or important. The barriers most frequently reported were: lack of time, inability to understand statistics, lack of support from employer, lack of resources, lack of interest and lack of generalisation of results. Although the majority of physiotherapists have a positive opinion about EBP, they consider that they need to improve their knowledge, skills and behaviour towards EBP. They also faced barriers that might hinder the implementation of EBP.

Reproducibility and construct validity of three non-invasive instruments for assessing the trunk range of motion in patients with low back pain / Reproducibilidad y validad del constructo de tres instrumentos no invasivos para evaluar la amplitud de movimiento de la columna en pacientes con dolor lumbar / Reprodutibilidade e validade do construto de três instrumentos não invasivos para a avaliação da amplitude de movimento da coluna em pacientes com dor lombar

Although there is a wide variety of methods and instruments aiming to assess the trunk range of motion, there is uncertainty regarding their construct validity and reproducibility. The objective of this study was to verify the construct validity and intra and inter-rater reproducibility of the goniometer, inclinometer and electrogoniometer in measuring the trunk range of motion in patients with history of low back pain. The measurement properties of reliability, agreement and construct validity were tested in 58 patients with low back pain using a test-retest design at baseline and after 24 to72 hours. All instruments showed good construct validity (r>0.60) as well as good levels of intra and inter-rater reliability with measurement errors ranging from 2.83 to 16.42 degrees. Among the assessed movements, the inclinometer, goniometer and electrogoniometer instruments can be considered as having good levels of construct validity and reproducibility for the assessment of trunk range of motion in patients with low back pain.

Mismo con una gran variabilidad de métodos e instrumentos disponibles para evaluar la amplitud de movimiento de la columna, son raros los métodos cuantitativos precisos de mensuración. El objetivo de eso estudio fue verificar la reproductibilidad intra- e inter-examinadores y validad del constructo entre medidas de amplitud de movimiento de la columna en pacientes con dolor en la región lumbar, las cuales fueron obtenidas con los instrumentos goniómetro, inclinómetro y electrogoniómetro. La reproductibilidad y validad del constructo de instrumentos fueron testadas en 58 pacientes con dolor en la región lumbar en un diseño de test y re-test, en la línea de base y después de 24 a 72 horas. Todos los instrumentos presentaron buena correlación entre sí (r>0,60), lo que reflete buena validad del constructo, y tuvieron buenos niveles de confiabilidades inter- e intra-examinadores. Entre todos los movimientos evaluados, el inclinómetro presentó un error absoluto inter- e intra-examinador que varió del 6,20 al 7,52 y 6,75 al 11,89 grados; y lo goniómetro mostró uno del 15 al 7,85 y 2,83 al 8,06 grados; y lo electrogoniómetro con uno entre 3,27 al 16,42 y 2,72 al 8,06 grados. Por lo tanto, los instrumentos aplicados pueden ser considerados con buenos niveles de validad del constructo y reproducibles para evaluación de la amplitud de movimiento en pacientes con dolor en la región lumbar.

Apesar da grande variabilidade de métodos e instrumentos disponíveis para avaliar a amplitude de movimento da coluna, são escassos os métodos quantitativos precisos de mensuração. O objetivo do estudo foi verificar a reprodutibilidade intra e interexaminadores e a validade de construto entre as medidas de amplitude de movimento da coluna em pacientes com dor lombar, obtidas com os instrumentos goniômetro, inclinômetro e eletrogoniômetro. A reprodutibilidade e a validade do construto dos instrumentos foram testadas em 58 pacientes com dor lombar num delineamento de teste-reteste, na linha de base e após 24 a 72 horas. Todos os instrumentos apresentaram boa correlação entre si (r>0,60), refletindo boa validade do construto, e obtiveram bons níveis de confiabilidades inter e intraexaminadores. Entre todos os movimentos avaliados, o inclinômetro apresentou um erro absoluto inter e intraexaminador que variou de 6,20 a 7,52 e 6,75 a 11,89 graus respectivamente; o goniômetro mostrou um erro de 3,15 a 7,85 e 2,83 a 8,06 graus, respectivamente; e o eletrogoniômetro, entre 3,27 a 16,42 e 2,72 a 8,06 graus, respectivamente. Dessa forma, todos os instrumentos utilizados podem ser considerados com bons níveis de validade do construto e reprodutíveis para avaliação da amplitude de movimento em pacientes com dor lombar.

Effectiveness of back school versus McKenzie exercises in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Back School and McKenzie methods are popular active treatment approaches that include both exercises and information for patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Back School and McKenzie methods in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. DESIGN: The study was a prospectively registered, 2-arm randomized controlled trial with a blinded assessor. SETTING: The study was conducted in the outpatient physical therapy clinic in São Paulo, Brazil. PATIENTS: The study participants were 148 patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. INTERVENTIONS: The 4-week treatment program (one session/week) was based on the Back School (delivered to the group) or McKenzie (delivered individually) principles. The participants also were instructed to perform a daily set of home exercises. MEASUREMENTS: Clinical outcomes were assessed at follow-up appointments at 1, 3, and 6 months after randomization. Primary outcome measures were pain intensity (measured by the 0-10 pain numerical rating scale) and disability (measured by the 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) 1 month after randomization. Secondary outcome measures were pain intensity and disability at 3 and 6 months after randomization, quality of life (measured by the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF instrument) at 1, 3, and 6 months after randomization, and trunk flexion range of motion measured by an inclinometer at 1 month after randomization. The data were collected by a blinded assessor. RESULTS: Participants allocated to the McKenzie group had greater improvements in disability at 1 month (mean effect=2.37 points, 95% confidence interval=0.76 to 3.99) but not for pain (mean effect=0.66 points, 95% confidence interval=-0.29 to 1.62). No between-group differences were observed for all secondary outcome measures. LIMITATIONS: It was not possible to monitor the home exercise program. Therapists and participants were not blinded. CONCLUSIONS: The McKenzie method (a more resource-intensive intervention) was slightly more effective than the Back School method for disability, but not for pain intensity immediately after treatment in participants with chronic low back pain.