Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Kathryn M. Refshauge is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Kathryn M. Refshauge.


BMJ | 2003

Acute low back pain: systematic review of its prognosis

Liset H. M. Pengel; Robert D. Herbert; Christopher G. Maher; Kathryn M. Refshauge

Abstract Objectives To describe the course of acute low back pain and sciatica and to identify clinically important prognostic factors for these conditions. Design Systematic review. Data sources Searches of Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and Science Citation Index and iterative searches of bibliographies. Main outcome measures Pain, disability, and return to work. Results 15 studies of variable methodological quality were included. Rapid improvements in pain (mean reduction 58% of initial scores), disability (58%), and return to work (82% of those initially off work) occurred in one month. Further improvement was apparent until about three months. Thereafter levels for pain, disability, and return to work remained almost constant. 73% of patients had at least one recurrence within 12 months. Conclusions People with acute low back pain and associated disability usually improve rapidly within weeks. None the less, pain and disability are typically ongoing, and recurrences are common.


BMJ | 2008

Prognosis in patients with recent onset low back pain in Australian primary care: inception cohort study

Nicholas Henschke; Christopher G. Maher; Kathryn M. Refshauge; Robert D. Herbert; Robert G. Cumming; Jane Bleasel; John York; Anurina Das; James H. McAuley

Objective To estimate the one year prognosis and identify prognostic factors in cases of recent onset low back pain managed in primary care. Design Cohort study with one year follow-up. Setting Primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia. Participants An inception cohort of 973 consecutive primary care patients (mean age 43.3, 54.8% men) with non-specific low back pain of less than two weeks’ duration recruited from the clinics of 170 general practitioners, physiotherapists, and chiropractors. Main outcome measures Participants completed a baseline questionnaire and were contacted six weeks, three months, and 12 months after the initial consultation. Recovery was assessed in terms of return to work, return to function, and resolution of pain. The association between potential prognostic factors and time to recovery was modelled with Cox regression. Results The follow-up rate over the 12 months was more than 97%. Half of those who reduced their work status at baseline had returned to previous work status within 14 days (95% confidence interval 11 to 17 days) and 83% had returned to previous work status by three months. Disability (median recovery time 31 days, 25 to 37 days) and pain (median 58 days, 52 to 63 days) took much longer to resolve. Only 72% of participants had completely recovered 12 months after the baseline consultation. Older age, compensation cases, higher pain intensity, longer duration of low back pain before consultation, more days of reduced activity because of lower back pain before consultation, feelings of depression, and a perceived risk of persistence were each associated with a longer time to recovery. Conclusions In this cohort of patients with acute low back pain in primary care, prognosis was not as favourable as claimed in clinical practice guidelines. Recovery was slow for most patients. Nearly a third of patients did not recover from the presenting episode within a year.


Pain | 2007

Comparison of general exercise, motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: a randomized trial

Manuela L. Ferreira; Paulo H. Ferreira; Jane Latimer; Robert D. Herbert; Paul W. Hodges; Matthew Jennings; Christopher G. Maher; Kathryn M. Refshauge

Abstract Practice guidelines recommend various types of exercise and manipulative therapy for chronic back pain but there have been few head‐to‐head comparisons of these interventions. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare effects of general exercise, motor control exercise and manipulative therapy on function and perceived effect of intervention in patients with chronic back pain. Two hundred and forty adults with non‐specific low back pain ⩾3 months were allocated to groups that received 8 weeks of general exercise, motor control exercise or spinal manipulative therapy. General exercise included strengthening, stretching and aerobic exercises. Motor control exercise involved retraining specific trunk muscles using ultrasound feedback. Spinal manipulative therapy included joint mobilization and manipulation. Primary outcomes were patient‐specific function (PSFS, 3–30) and global perceived effect (GPE, −5 to 5) at 8 weeks. These outcomes were also measured at 6 and 12 months. Follow‐up was 93% at 8 weeks and 88% at 6 and 12 months. The motor control exercise group had slightly better outcomes than the general exercise group at 8 weeks (between‐group difference: PSFS 2.9, 95% CI: 0.9–4.8; GPE 1.7, 95% CI: 0.9–2.4), as did the spinal manipulative therapy group (PSFS 2.3, 95% CI: 0.4–4.2; GPE 1.2, 95% CI: 0.4–2.0). The groups had similar outcomes at 6 and 12 months. Motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy produce slightly better short‐term function and perceptions of effect than general exercise, but not better medium or long‐term effects, in patients with chronic non‐specific back pain.


BMJ | 2009

Prognosis for patients with chronic low back pain: inception cohort study

Lucíola da Cunha Menezes Costa; Christopher G. Maher; James H. McAuley; Mark J. Hancock; Robert D. Herbert; Kathryn M. Refshauge; Nicholas Henschke

Objectives To describe the course of chronic low back pain in an inception cohort and to identify prognostic markers at the onset of chronicity. Design Inception cohort study with one year follow-up. Setting Primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia. Participants The study sample was a subcohort of an inception cohort of 973 consecutive patients presenting to primary care with acute low back pain (<2 weeks’ duration). 406 participants whose pain persisted for three months formed the inception cohort of patients with chronic low back pain. Main outcome measures Outcomes and putative predictors measured at initial presentation, onset of chronicity (study entry), and follow-up at nine and 12 months. Recovery was determined from measures of pain intensity, disability, and work status. The association between potential prognostic factors and time to recovery was modelled with Cox regression. Results Completeness of follow-up was 97% of total person time for all outcomes. The cumulative probability of being pain-free was 35% at nine months and 42% at 12 months and for complete recovery was 35% at nine months and 41% at 12 months. Of the 259 participants who had not recovered from pain related disability at entry to the chronic study, 47% had recovered by 12 months. Previous sick leave due to low back pain, high disability levels or high pain intensity at onset of chronicity, low levels of education, greater perceived risk of persistent pain, and being born outside Australia were associated with delayed recovery. Conclusion More than one third of patients with recent onset, non-radicular chronic low back pain recover within 12 months. The prognosis is less favourable for those who have taken previous sick leave for low back pain, have high disability levels or high pain intensity at onset of chronic low back pain, have lower education, perceive themselves as having a high risk of persistent pain, and were born outside Australia.


Spine | 1999

The reliability and validity of the Biering-Sorensen test in asymptomatic subjects and subjects reporting current or previous nonspecific low back pain.

Jane Latimer; Christopher G. Maher; Kathryn M. Refshauge; Ian Colaco

STUDY DESIGN A reliability study and case-control study were conducted. OBJECTIVES To determine the reliability and discriminative validity of the Biering-Sorensen test. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA A low Biering-Sorensen score has been found to predict who will have nonspecific low back pain. However, the reliability of the test remains controversial, implying that some studies may have produced results that underestimated the magnitude of the predictive validity of this test. METHODS Two raters measured the time holding a specific position (holding time) of 63 subjects (23 currently experiencing nonspecific low back pain, 20 who had had an episode, and 20 who were asymptomatic) while they performed the Biering-Sorensen test twice, 15 minutes apart. A standardized protocol was followed. Test-retest reliability was evaluated by calculating intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC 1,1), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and standard errors of the measurement (SEM) for the total group and for the subgroups. A three-way analysis of variance was used to determine whether test order, subject gender, or symptom status affected holding time. RESULTS High reliability indices were obtained for the Biering-Sorensen test in subjects with current nonspecific low back pain (ICC [1,1], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73-0.95; SEM, 11.6 seconds), in subjects who had had nonspecific low back pain (ICC [1,1], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.52-0.90; SEM, 17.5 seconds), and in asymptomatic subjects (ICC [1,1], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.62-0.93; SEM, 17.4 seconds). Results of an analysis of variance showed that subjects asymptomatic for low back pain had a significantly longer holding time than the other two groups (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS The Biering-Sorensen test provides reliable measures of position-holding time and can discriminate between subjects with and without nonspecific low back pain.


The Australian journal of physiotherapy | 2006

Specific stabilisation exercise for spinal and pelvic pain: a systematic review

Paulo H. Ferreira; Manuela L. Ferreira; Christopher G. Maher; Robert D. Herbert; Kathryn M. Refshauge

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the efficacy of specific stabilisation exercise for spinal and pelvic pain. Randomised clinical trials evaluating specific stabilisation exercise were identified and retrieved. Outcomes were disability, pain, return to work, number of episodes, global perceived effect, or health-related quality of life. A single trial reported that specific stabilisation exercise was more effective than no treatment but not more effective than spinal manipulative therapy for the management of cervicogenic headache and associated neck pain. Single trials reported that specific stabilisation exercise was effective for pelvic pain and for prevention of recurrence after an acute episode of low back pain but not to reduce pain or disability associated with acute low back pain. Pooled analyses revealed that, for chronic low back pain, specific stabilisation exercise was superior to usual medical care and education but not to manipulative therapy, and no additional effect was found when specific stabilisation exercise was added to a conventional physiotherapy program. A single trial reported that specific stabilisation exercise and a surgical procedure to reduce pain and disability in chronic low back pain were equally effective. The available evidence suggests that specific stabilisation exercise is effective in reducing pain and disability in chronic but not acute low back pain. Single trials indicate that specific stabilisation exercise can be helpful in the treatment of cervicogenic headache and associated neck pain, pelvic pain, and in reducing recurrence after acute low back pain.


American Journal of Sports Medicine | 2006

Long-term Outcome of Endoscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Patellar Tendon Autograft Minimum 13-Year Review

Lucy J. Salmon; Vivianne J. Russell; Kathryn M. Refshauge; Deiary F. Kader; Chris Connolly; James Linklater; Leo A. Pinczewski

Background Short-term results of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction are well reported; however, there are no studies evaluating endoscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with a minimum 10-year follow-up. Hypothesis Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon graft affords good subjective results and clinical laxity assessments but may be associated with development of osteoarthritis over the long term. Study Design Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods Endoscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was performed in 67 consecutive patients without significant articular surface damage. Patients were assessed at 5, 7, and 13 years after surgery with the International Knee Documentation Committee Knee Ligament Evaluation Form, Lysholm knee score, hop tests, kneeling pain, and radiographs. Results At 13-year review, self-reported assessments remained excellent; 96% of patients reported normal or nearly normal knee function. Grade 0 or 1 results were seen in more than 92% of patients on laxity testing. Patients who had undergone meniscectomy at the time of reconstruction had increased laxity between 7 and 13 years on instrumented testing (P = .03) and 6 times greater odds of anterior cruciate ligament graft rupture than if they had not undergone meniscectomy (95% confidence interval, 1-37). Degenerative changes on radiographs were found in 79% of patients at 13 years and were associated with meniscectomy (P = .006), loss of extension (P = .05), and greater laxity on Lachman test (P = .04). Conclusions Endoscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon autograft affords and maintains good self-reported assessments and clinical ligament evaluation up to 13 years. Radiographic degenerative changes were seen in three quarters of patients. Almost half developed loss of extension, suggesting onset of early osteoarthritis. Patients who had undergone meniscectomy at the time of reconstruction had increased clinical ligament laxity over time and greater odds of graft rupture, possibly reflecting the effect of prolonged increased strain on the graft. Continued follow-up is required to resolve concerns regarding integrity of the patellar tendon graft beyond 13 years, particularly in the absence of meniscal tissue.


Spine | 2004

Responsiveness of pain, disability, and physical impairment outcomes in patients with low back pain

Liset H. M. Pengel; Kathryn M. Refshauge; Christopher G. Maher

Study Design. Cohort study. Objective. To conduct a head-to-head comparison of the responsiveness of pain, disability, and physical impairment measures in patients with low back pain. Summary of Background Data. Pain, disability, and physical impairment measures are routinely measured in clinical practice and clinical research. However, to date, a head-to-head comparison has not been performed. Methods. A numerical pain scale (0–10), the 24-item and 2 modified 18-item versions of the Roland Morris questionnaire, the patient specific functional scale, and physical impairment measures were completed by 155 patients with low back pain at baseline and then again after 6 weeks together with an 11-point global perceived effect scale. Responsiveness was evaluated by using effect sizes and t tests, correlating the change scores for each outcome with the global perceived effect score and by calculating the Guyatt responsiveness index. Results. The most responsive outcome proved to be the patient specific functional scale (effect size = 1.6), followed by the numerical pain scale (effect size = 1.3) and 24-item Roland Morris questionnaire (effect size = 0.8). The responsiveness of the two 18-item Roland Morris versions was equal to the 24-item version. However, the physical impairment measures were not very responsive (effect size 0.1–0.6). The ranking of the responsiveness indices was consistent across all statistical analyses. Conclusions. Physical impairments are routinely measured in clinical practice and clinical research, but the lower responsiveness indicates that this approach is not optimal. Our findings suggest that more emphasis should be placed on change in pain and disability scores than on change in physical impairments.


Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy | 2013

Selection criteria for patients with chronic ankle instability in controlled research: a position statement of the international ankle consortium

Phillip A. Gribble; Eamonn Delahunt; Chris M Bleakley; Brian Caulfield; Carrie L. Docherty; François Fourchet; Daniel Tik-Pui Fong; Jay Hertel; Claire E. Hiller; Thomas W. Kaminski; Patrick O. McKeon; Kathryn M. Refshauge; Philip J. van der Wees; Bill Vincenzino; Erik A. Wikstrom

The International Ankle Consortium is an international community of researchers and clinicians whose primary scholastic purpose is to promote scholarship and dissemination of research-informed knowledge related to pathologies of the ankle complex. The constituents of the International Ankle Consortium and other similar organizations have yet to properly define the clinical phenomenon known as chronic ankle instability (CAI) and its related characteristics for consistent patient recruitment and advancement of research in this area. Although research on CAI and awareness of its impact on society and healthcare systems have grown substantially in the last 2 decades, the inconsistency in participant/patient selection criteria across studies presents a potential obstacle to addressing the problem properly. This major gap within the literature limits the ability to generalize this evidence to the target patient population. Therefore, there is a need to provide standards for patient/participant selection criteria in research focused on CAI, with justifications using the best available evidence.


Physical Therapy | 2009

Motor control exercise for chronic low back pain: A randomized placebo-controlled trial

Leonardo O. P. Costa; Christopher G. Maher; Jane Latimer; Paul W. Hodges; Robert D. Herbert; Kathryn M. Refshauge; James H. McAuley; Matthew Jennings

Background The evidence that exercise intervention is effective for treatment of chronic low back pain comes from trials that are not placebo-controlled. Objective The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of motor control exercise for people with chronic low back pain. Design This was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Setting The study was conducted in an outpatient physical therapy department in Australia. Patients The participants were 154 patients with chronic low back pain of more than 12 weeks’ duration. Intervention Twelve sessions of motor control exercise (ie, exercises designed to improve function of specific muscles of the low back region and the control of posture and movement) or placebo (ie, detuned ultrasound therapy and detuned short-wave therapy) were conducted over 8 weeks. Measurements Primary outcomes were pain intensity, activity (measured by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale), and patients global impression of recovery measured at 2 months. Secondary outcomes were pain; activity (measured by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale); patients global impression of recovery measured at 6 and 12 months; activity limitation (measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) at 2, 6, and 12 months; and risk of persistent or recurrent pain at 12 months. Results The exercise intervention improved activity and patients global impression of recovery but did not clearly reduce pain at 2 months. The mean effect of exercise on activity (measured by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale) was 1.1 points (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.3 to 1.8), the mean effect on global impression of recovery was 1.5 points (95% CI=0.4 to 2.5), and the mean effect on pain was 0.9 points (95% CI=−0.01 to 1.8), all measured on 11-point scales. Secondary outcomes also favored motor control exercise. Limitation Clinicians could not be blinded to the intervention they provided. Conclusions Motor control exercise produced short-term improvements in global impression of recovery and activity, but not pain, for people with chronic low back pain. Most of the effects observed in the short term were maintained at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups.

Collaboration


Dive into the Kathryn M. Refshauge's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Robert D. Herbert

Neuroscience Research Australia

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Leigh C. Ward

University of Queensland

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

James H. McAuley

Neuroscience Research Australia

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge