Kenneth Learman

Early use of thrust manipulation versus non-thrust manipulation: A randomized clinical trial

The purpose of this study was to investigate the comparative effectiveness of early use of thrust (TM) and non-thrust manipulation (NTM) in sample of patients with mechanical low back pain (LBP). The randomized controlled trial included patients with mechanically reproducible LBP, ≥ age 18-years who were randomized into two treatment groups. The main outcome measures were the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and a Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), with secondary measures of Rate of Recovery, total visits and days in care, and the work subscale of the Fears Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire work subscale (FABQ-w). A two-way mixed model MANCOVA was used to compare ODI and pain, at baseline, after visit 2, and at discharge and total visits, days in care, and rate of recovery (while controlling for patient expectations and clinical equipoise). A total of 149 subjects completed the trial and received care over an average of 35 days. There were no significant differences between TM and NTM at the second visit follow-up or at discharge with any of the outcomes categories. Personal equipoise was significantly associated with ODI and pain. The findings suggest that there is no difference between early use of TM or NTM, and secondarily, that personal equipoise affects study outcome. Within-groups changes were significant for both groups.

A Comparison of Physical Characteristics and Swing Mechanics Between Golfers With and Without a History of Low Back Pain

STUDY DESIGN Controlled laboratory study using a cross-sectional design. OBJECTIVES To examine the kinematics and kinetics of the trunk and the physical characteristics of trunk and hip in golfers with and without a history of low back pain (LBP). BACKGROUND Modified swing patterns and general exercises have been suggested for golfers with back pain. Yet we do not know what contributes to LBP in golfers. To create and validate a low back-specific exercise program to help prevent and improve back injuries in golfers, it may be valuable to understand the differences in biomechanical and physical characteristics of golfers with and without a history of LBP. METHODS Sixteen male golfers with a history of LBP were matched by age and handicap with 16 male golfers without a history of LBP. All golfers underwent a biomechanical swing analysis, trunk and hip strength and flexibility assessment, spinal proprioception testing, and postural stability testing. RESULTS The group with a history of LBP demonstrated significantly less trunk extension strength at 60 degrees/s and left hip adduction strength, as well as limited trunk rotation angle toward the nonlead side. No significant differences were found in postural stability, trunk kinematics, and maximum spinal moments during the golf swing. CONCLUSION Deficits observed in this study may affect a golfers ability to overcome the spinal loads generated during the golf swing over time. Exercises for improving these physical deficits can be considered, although the cause-effect of LBP in golfers still cannot be determined.

Different minimally important clinical difference (MCID) scores lead to different clinical prediction rules for the Oswestry disability index for the same sample of patients

Abstract Background: Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) scores for outcome measures are frequently used evidence-based guides to gage meaningful changes. There are numerous outcome instruments used for analyzing pain, disability, and dysfunction of the low back; perhaps the most common of these is the Oswestry disability index (ODI). A single agreed-upon MCID score for the ODI has yet to be established. What is also unknown is whether selected baseline variables will be universal predictors regardless of the MCID used for a particular outcome measure. Objective: To explore the relationship between predictive models and the MCID cutpoint on the ODI. Setting: Data were collected from 16 outpatient physical therapy clinics in 10 states. Design: Secondary database analysis using backward stepwise deletion logistic regression of data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to create prognostic clinical prediction rules (CPR). Participants and Interventions: One hundred and forty-nine patients with low back pain (LBP) were enrolled in the RCT. All were treated with manual therapy, with a majority also receiving spine-strengthening exercises. Results: The resultant predictive models were dependent upon the MCID used and baseline sample characteristics. All CPR were statistically significant (P < 001). All six MCID cutpoints used resulted in completely different significant predictor variables with no predictor significant across all models. Limitations: The primary limitations include sub-optimal sample size and study design. Conclusions: There is extreme variability among predictive models created using different MCIDs on the ODI within the same patient population. Our findings highlight the instability of predictive modeling, as these models are significantly affected by population baseline characteristics along with the MCID used. Clinicians must be aware of the fragility of CPR prior to applying each in clinical practice.

Effects of Spinal Manipulation on Trunk Proprioception in Subjects With Chronic Low Back Pain During Symptom Remission

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to examine the immediate effects of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) on trunk proprioception in subjects with asymptomatic chronic low back pain (CLBP) and determine if those effects lasted 1 week. METHODS This unbalanced randomized controlled crossover design examined 33 subjects with CLBP. Proprioception was tested via joint position sense, threshold to detect passive motion (TTDPM), direction of motion (DM), and force reproduction. Each subject received lumbar manipulation or a sham procedure followed by proprioception retest. This procedure was repeated 1 week later using the opposing treatment. Subjects receiving SMT in the second session returned a third time receiving the sham procedure again. RESULTS Spinal manipulative therapy produced an effect for TTDPM in the manipulation first group (P = .008), the sham procedure produced an effect for joint position sense in the sham first group (P = .005). Spinal manipulative therapy had a 1-week effect for the manipulation first group (P = .006). No effect was noted for either DM or force reproduction. CONCLUSIONS Results suggest SMT had minimal immediate effect on trunk proprioception. The effects noted occurred in session 1, implicating learning as a potential source. Learning, from repetitive proprioception training, may enhance neuromuscular control in subjects with CLBP before the use of therapeutic exercise. Subjects showed smaller deficits than previously reported for TTDPM or DM, suggesting proprioception deficits may correlate with pain level.

Which Prognostic Factors for Low Back Pain Are Generic Predictors of Outcome Across a Range of Recovery Domains

Background Recovery from low back pain (LBP) is multidimensional and requires the use of multiple-response (outcome) measures to fully reflect these many dimensions. Predictive prognostic variables that are present or stable in all or most predictive models that use different outcome measures could be considered “universal” prognostic variables. Objective The aim of this study was to explore the potential of universal prognostic variables in predictive models for 4 different outcome measures in patients with mechanical LBP. Design Predictive modeling was performed using data extracted from a randomized controlled trial. Four prognostic models were created using backward stepwise deletion logistic, Poisson, and linear regression. Methods Data were collected from 16 outpatient physical therapy facilities in 10 states. All 149 patients with LBP were treated with manual therapy and spine strengthening exercises until discharge. Four different measures of response were used: Oswestry Disability Index and Numeric Pain Rating Scale change scores, total visits, and report of rate of recovery. Results The set of statistically significant predictors was dependent on the definition of response. All regression models were significant. Within both forms of the 4 models, meeting the clinical prediction rule for manipulation at baseline was present in all 4 models, whereas no irritability at baseline and diagnosis of sprains and strains were present in 2 of 4 of the predictive models. Limitations The primary limitation is that this study evaluated only 4 of the multiple outcome measures that are pertinent for patients with LBP. Conclusions Meeting the clinical prediction rule was prognostic for all outcome measures and should be considered a universal prognostic predictor. Other predictive variables were dependent on the outcomes measure used in the predictive model.

Thrust and Nonthrust Manipulation for Older Adults With Low Back Pain: An Evaluation of Pain and Disability

OBJECTIVE The purpose of the study was to compare the effects of thrust manipulation (TM) and non-TM (NTM) on a sample of older subjects with low back pain. METHODS This is a secondary data analysis of a randomized control trial. Forty-nine subjects aged 55 to 88 years participated in the trial, who received either a TM or NTM on at least 2 occasions during the course of care, and were extracted from the larger data set. The treatment program included a standardized home exercise program for the first 2 sessions, which could be modified by the therapist after those 2 sessions. Numeric pain rating scale and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were the outcomes for this study. RESULTS Multivariate analysis revealed no significant between-group differences for treatment group (P=.99) without group×time interaction (P=.90). Significant within-group changes were observed for both groups for ODI and numeric pain rating scale (P<.001); the average self-report of recovery was 78.0% (SD, 19.8%). Age stratification of the older subset revealed between-group differences in ODI change scores for the oldest subjects (>70 years) compared with 60 to 69 years (P=.02). CONCLUSIONS This study showed that outcomes for both TM and NTM improved in older adults with low back pain.

Is there preliminary value to a within- and/or between-session change for determining short-term outcomes of manual therapy on mechanical neck pain?

Abstract Objectives: The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether occurrences of within- and between-session changes were significantly associated with functional outcomes, pain, and self-report of recovery in patients at discharge who were treated with manual therapy for mechanical neck pain. A secondary purpose was to determine the extent of change needed for the within- and between-session change in association to function. Methods: This secondary data analysis examined 56 patients who demonstrated a positive response to manual therapy during the initial assessment within a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that examined manual therapy techniques and a home exercise program (HEP). Within- and between-session findings were defined as ‘changes in pain report during the initial session (within)’ and ‘changes in pain from baseline to 48-hours post initial assessment (between)’. Outcomes were analyzed for associations with the global rating of change (GRoC), self-report activity scale (SRAS), and a 50% reduction of the neck disability index (NDI) by discharge at 96 hours. Results: Findings indicate that within-session pain changes of 36·7% are strongly associated with a 50% change in NDI at 96 hours. Between-session changes in pain were associated with 50% change in NDI and a ≧3-point change in GRoC at 96 hours. Conclusion: Both within- and between-session measures may be useful to predict success levels at 96 hours for NDI; however, between-session changes are more useful to predict success in GRoC. Measures used during clinical examination may help guide clinicians in identification of candidates best suited for the treatment.

Does the use of a prescriptive clinical prediction rule increase the likelihood of applying inappropriate treatments? A survey using clinical vignettes

Clinical prediction rules (CPR) have been promoted as a natural progression in treatment decision-making. Methodological limitations of derivation and validation studies have resulted in some researchers questioning the indiscriminate use of CPRs. The purpose of this study was to explore the influence of the lumbar spine manipulation CPR (LCPR) use on clinical decision making through a survey of practicing clinicians. A sample of 535 physiotherapists from the United States, who routinely use thrust manipulation (TM), agreed to participate in this study. Those who use and those who do not use the LCPR determined group designation. A 9-step clinical vignette progressed a fictitious patient meeting the LCPR from no medical concern to significant concern for general health. A 2 × 9 chi-square was used to analyze the progression of decision-making. APTA board certification (P = 0.04), gender (P < 0.01), and manual therapy course attendance (P = 0.04) may increase and following the McKenzie philosophy (P < 0.01) may decrease the use of the LCPR. Subjects using the LCPR were more likely to choose to manipulate the patient (P < 0.01 and P = 0.02) during the first 2 scenarios of the vignette but both groups avoided TM equally as the medical concerns progressed. The results would suggest that subjects who routinely use TM would modify their decision-making to accommodate medical complications that preclude the indication for TM, and hence a potentially harmful intervention. This propensity to modify behaviour, was seen in both groups, regardless of their initial tendency to use the LCPR.

Should evidence or sound clinical reasoning dictate patient care

Orthopaedic manual physical therapy (OMPT) practice incorporates an evidence-based practice (EBP) model, including research integration, clinical expertise, and patient values and circumstances. Co...

No Differences in Outcomes in People with Low Back Pain Who Met the Clinical Prediction Rule for Lumbar Spine Manipulation When a Pragmatic Non-thrust Manipulation Was Used as the Comparator

PURPOSE To investigate differences in pain and disability between patients treated with thrust manipulation (TM) and those treated with non-thrust manipulation (NTM) in a group of patients with mechanical low back pain (LBP) who had a within-session response to an initial assessment and met the clinical prediction rule (CPR). METHODS Data from 71 patients who met the CPR were extracted from a database of patients in a larger randomized controlled trial comparing TM and NTM. Treatment of the first two visits involved either TM or NTM (depending on allocation) and a standardized home exercise programme. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and a two-way ANOVA examining within- and between-groups effects for pain and disability, as well as total visits, total days in care, and rate of recovery. RESULTS No between-group differences in pain or disability were found for NTM versus TM groups (p=0.55), but within-subjects effects were noted for both groups (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS This secondary analysis suggests that patients who satisfy the CPR benefit as much from NTM as from TM.