Matheus Oliveira de Almeida

Biomechanical Differences of Foot-Strike Patterns During Running: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN Systematic review with meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES To determine the biomechanical differences between foot-strike patterns used when running. BACKGROUND Strike patterns during running have received attention in the recent literature due to their potential mechanical differences and associated injury risks. METHODS Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SciELO, and SPORTDiscus) were searched through July 2014. Studies (cross-sectional, case-control, prospective, and retrospective) comparing the biomechanical characteristics of foot-strike patterns during running in distance runners at least 18 years of age were included in this review. Two independent reviewers evaluated the risk of bias. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used to combine the data from the included studies. RESULTS Sixteen studies were included in the final analysis. In the meta-analyses of kinematic variables, significant differences between forefoot and rearfoot strikers were found for foot and knee angle at initial contact and knee flexion range of motion. A forefoot-strike pattern resulted in a plantar-flexed ankle position and a more flexed knee position, compared to a dorsiflexed ankle position and a more extended knee position for the rearfoot strikers, at initial contact with the ground. In the comparison of rearfoot and midfoot strikers, midfoot strikers demonstrated greater ankle dorsiflexion range of motion and decreased knee flexion range of motion compared to rearfoot strikers. For kinetic variables, the meta-analysis revealed that rearfoot strikers had higher vertical loading rates compared to forefoot strikers. CONCLUSION There are differences in kinematic and kinetic characteristics between foot-strike patterns when running. Clinicians should be aware of these characteristics to help in the management of running injuries and advice on training.

Is the rearfoot pattern the most frequently foot strike pattern among recreational shod distance runners

OBJECTIVE To determine the distribution of the foot strike patterns among recreational shod runners and to compare the personal and training characteristics between runners with different foot strike patterns. DESIGN Cross-sectional study. SETTING Areas of running practice in São Paulo, Brazil. PARTICIPANTS 514 recreational shod runners older than 18 years and free of injury. OUTCOMES MEASURES Foot strike patterns were evaluated with a high-speed camera (250 Hz) and photocells to assess the running speed of participants. Personal and training characteristics were collected through a questionnaire. RESULTS The inter-rater reliability of the visual foot strike pattern classification method was 96.7% and intra-rater reliability was 98.9%. 95.1% (n = 489) of the participants were rearfoot strikers, 4.1% (n = 21) were midfoot strikers, and four runners (0.8%) were forefoot strikers. There were no significant differences between strike patterns for personal and training characteristics. CONCLUSION This is the first study to demonstrate that almost all recreational shod runners were rearfoot strikers. The visual method of evaluation seems to be a reliable and feasible option to classify foot strike pattern.

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.

Primary care management of non-specific low back pain: key messages from recent clinical guidelines

One of the challenges in providing culturally appropriate care among patients with low back pain is that we lack research to guide our efforts. Most evidence about managing and preventing low back pain comes from studies performed in high income countries that have typically enrolled homogeneous samples of participants who are unrepresentative of the diversity in the population. We also lack research investigating the barriers in implementing the available evidence on managing low back pain (and other musculoskeletal conditions) in culturally and linguistically diverse populations such as Aboriginal Australians.

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)

Influence of allocation concealment and intention-to-treat analysis on treatment effects of physical therapy interventions in low back pain randomised controlled trials: a protocol of a meta-epidemiological study

Introduction Meta-epidemiological studies examining the influence of methodological characteristics, such as allocation concealment and intention-to-treat analysis have been performed in a large number of healthcare areas. However, there are no studies investigating these characteristics in physical therapy interventions for patients with low back pain. The aim of this study is to investigate the influence of allocation concealment and the use of intention-to-treat analysis on estimates of treatment effects of physical therapy interventions in low back pain clinical trials. Methods and analysis Searches on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and CINAHL databases will be performed. We will search for systematic reviews that include a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that compared physical therapy interventions in patients with low back pain with placebo or no intervention, and have pain intensity or disability as the primary outcomes. Information about selection (allocation concealment) and attrition bias (intention-to-treat analysis) will be extracted from the PEDro database for each included trial. Information about bibliographic data, study characteristics, participants’ characteristics and study results will be extracted. A random-effects model will be used to provide separate estimates of treatment effects for trials with and without allocation concealment and with and without intention-to-treat analysis (eg, four estimates). A meta-regression will be performed to measure the association between methodological features and treatment effects from each trial. The dependent variable will be the treatment effect (the mean between-group differences) for the primary outcomes (pain or disability), while the independent variables will be the methodological features of interest (allocation concealment and intention-to-treat analysis). Other covariates will include sample size and sequence generation. Ethics and dissemination No ethical approval will be required for this study. The study findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at international conferences. Registration number International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42016052347).

Reliability of 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.

Tratamento fisioterapêutico para epicondilite lateral: uma revisão sistemática

Abstract Introduction : Although conservative treatment is still the best initial management for lateral epicondylitis, there is little scientific evidence that physical therapy change the natural history of disease and is effective for treating this condition. Objective : evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different physical therapy interven-tions used in the conservative treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Materials and methods : We included only randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized studies that used at least one modality of physical therapy as an intervention. We performed a search of electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and SciELO by December 2010. There was no restriction of the period and publication of articles aiming to increase the sensitivity and accuracy; the search strategy used was adapted for each database. We used the score of the PEDro scale for assessing the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials. Results : 26 articles were included in the systematic review, and the evaluation of most of these articles had satisfactory methodological quality (6.4 points). Regarding the aspects measured, all articles evaluated pain, 18 (69%) examined the grip strength and 11 (42%) examined the patient’s function. The duration of follow-up, only nine (35%) articles made long-term monitoring.