Megan Donaldson

Conservative physical therapy management for the treatment of cervicogenic headache: a systematic review

Abstract Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of conservative physical therapy management of cervicogenic headache (CGH). Introduction: CGH affects 22–25% of the adult population with females being four times more affected than men. CGHs are thought to arise from musculoskeletal impairments in the neck with symptoms most commonly consisting of suboccipital neck pain, dizziness, and lightheadedness. Currently, both invasive and non-invasive techniques are available to address these symptoms; however, the efficacy of non-invasive treatment techniques has yet to be established. Methods: Computerized searches of CINAHL, ProQuest, PubMed, MEDLINE, and SportDiscus, were performed to obtain a qualitative analysis of the literature. Inclusion criteria were: randomized controlled trial design, population diagnosed with CGH using the International Headache Society classification, at least one baseline measurement and one outcomes measure, and assessment of a conservative technique. Physiotherapy evidence-based database scale was utilized for quality assessment. Results: One computerized database search and two hand searches yielded six articles. Of the six included randomized controlled trials, all were considered to be of ‘good quality’ utilizing the physiotherapy evidence-based database scale. The interventions utilized were: therapist-driven cervical manipulation and mobilization, self-applied cervical mobilization, cervico-scapular strengthening, and therapist-driven cervical and thoracic manipulation. With the exception of one study, all reported reduction in pain and disability, as well as improvement in function. Conclusion: Calculated effect sizes allowed comparison of intervention groups between studies. A combination of therapist-driven cervical manipulation and mobilization with cervico-scapular strengthening was most effective for decreasing pain outcomes in those with CGH.

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.

Diagnostic accuracy of self-report and subjective history in the diagnosis of low back pain with non-specific lower extremity symptoms: A systematic review

Subjective history questions/self-report items are commonly used to triage the patient with low back pain and related leg symptoms. However the value of the history taking process for decision-making to identify common classifications/diagnosis for patients presenting with low back related leg pain (LBRLP) have not been considered. The purpose of this study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of self-report items/history-taking questions used to identify patients with LBRLP. Eligible studies included: 1)subjects with low back pain AND related lower extremity pain, 2)details of subjective examination/self-report items, 3)cohort, prospective/longitudinal studies, and randomized control trials, 4)use of statistical reporting, 5)an acceptable reference standard. Quality was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. A synthesis of history items that met the threshold for at least a small shift in the likelihood of the condition with a +LR ≥ 2 or -LR ≤ 0.5 were reported. Conditions commonly reported in the literature: lumbar spinal stenosis, lumbosacral nerve root compression/radiculopathy, disc herniation and neurophysiological low back pain ± leg pain. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. This is the first systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies that examined only the history-taking items for their ability to identify LBRLP conditions. Clustering key items may provide a more precise clinical picture necessary to detect and treat a patients presentation. History questions formed within the interview and their contributing value for decision-making remain understudied. There is a need for better designs to determine a more accurate diagnostic power to identify conditions with LBRLP.

Factor structure and concurrent/convergent validity of the modified somatic perception questionnaire and pain beliefs instrument.

OBJECTIVE Our goal was to create a parsimonious combination of the Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire (MSPQ) and the Pain Beliefs Screening Instrument (PBSI) through factorial structural analysis and to investigate the associations of the new scale (if unique) to disability, health condition, and quality of life report in patients with neck and low back pain scheduled for spine fusion surgery. METHODS Factor analysis was used to refine all items within the 2 scales to 4 distinct factors: (1) somatic complaints of the head/neck, (2) somatic complaints of the gastrointestinal symptom, (3) pain beliefs and fear, and (4) self perception of serious problems. Each factor was assessed for concurrent validity with other well-established tools including the Deyo comorbidity index, the Short Form (SF)-36 mental and physical component subscales, and the Oswestry and Neck Disability Indices (ODI/NDI). RESULTS The PBSI was fairly to moderately correlated with assessment tools of quality of life (SF-36) and disability assessment (ODI/NDI). Some of the items in the factor 1 from the MSPQ were slightly associated with the Deyo comorbidity index but not with the ODI/NDI. CONCLUSIONS The items from the MSPQ failed to associate with measures of quality of life and disability and thus may provide only marginal value when assessing the multidimensional aspects associated with neck and low back pain. The PBSI has moderate correlation with disability assessments. Neither tool was found to strongly correlate with disability measures or with SF-36 scales (mental and physical component subscales). Additional tools may be needed to further identify the dimensions associated with chronic pain patients.

A Prescriptively Selected Nonthrust Manipulation Versus a Therapist-Selected Nonthrust Manipulation for Treatment of Individuals With Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

STUDY DESIGN Randomized controlled trial. BACKGROUND Several studies that have investigated the effects of a therapist-selected versus a randomly assigned segmental approach have looked at immediate effects only for pain-related outcomes. OBJECTIVES To examine differences in outcomes following a therapist-selected nonthrust manipulation versus a prescriptively selected nonthrust manipulation in subjects with low back pain. METHODS Subjects with mechanically producible low back pain were randomly treated with nonthrust manipulation in a therapist-selected approach or a prescriptively selected approach. All subjects received a standardized home exercise program. Outcome measures included pain, disability, global rating of change, and patient acceptable symptom state. Analyses of covariance, chi-square tests, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to determine differences between groups. RESULTS Sixty-three subjects were tracked for 6 months, during which subjects in both groups significantly improved. There were no differences between groups in pain, disability, or patient acceptable symptom state scores at 6 months. There was a significant difference in global rating of change scores favoring the therapist-selected manipulation group at 6 months. CONCLUSION This study measured long-term differences between a prescriptively selected nonthrust manipulation and a therapist-selected approach to nonthrust manipulation. In pain, disability, and patient acceptable symptom state there were no differences in outcomes, findings similar to studies of immediate effects. After 6 months, perceived well-being was significantly higher for those in the therapist-selected treatment group. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01940744). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapy, level 1b.

The influence of home exercise programs for patients with non-specific or specific neck pain: a systematic review of the literature

Abstract Study design: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCT). Objectives: To examine the effects of a therapeutic home exercise program (HEP) for patients with neck pain (associated with whiplash, non-specific, or specific neck pain, with or without radiculopathy, or cervicogenic headache) on pain, function, and disability. Our secondary aim was to describe the design, dosage, and adherence of the prescribed HEPs. Background: Neck pain is a leading cause of disability that affects 22–70% of the population. Different techniques have been found effective for the treatment of neck pain. However, there is conflicting evidence to support the role of a therapeutic HEP to reduce pain, disability, and improve function and quality of life (QOL). Methods: A systematic review in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement for reporting systematic reviews. The full-text review utilized the Maastricht–Amsterdam assessment tool to assess quality among RCTs. Results: A total of 1927 subjects included within seven full-text articles met our specific search strategy. It was found that HEPs with a focus on strength and endurance-training exercises, as well as self- mobilization, have a positive effect when used in combination with other conservative treatments or alone. Conclusions: Home exercise programs that utilize either self-mobilizations within an augmented HEP to address specific spinal levels, or strengthening, and/or endurance exercise are effective at reducing neck pain, function, and disability and improving QOL. The benefit of HEPs in combination with other conservative interventions yields some benefit with a range of effect sizes.

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.

Self-report and subjective history in the diagnosis of painful neck conditions: A systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies

Rising healthcare costs and inherent risks with over-utilizing diagnostic imaging require a quality subjective examination to improve effectiveness and time management of physical examinations. This systematic review investigates the diagnostic accuracy of subjective history and self-report items to determine if there is significant alteration in the probability of identifying specific painful neck conditions. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. INCLUSION CRITERIA 1) Written in the English language 2) Cervical pain with/without referred upper extremity or head pain 3) Subjective history or self-report items 4) Study designs that reported diagnostic statistics or allowed calculation of sensitivities, specificities, diagnostic odds ratios, and likelihood ratios 5) used a reference standard that has a sensitivity or specificity ≥75% or a diagnostic tool that is strongly supported in the literature where this data is not available. Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy II was performed to evaluate risk of bias. Five studies with 830 total patients met the inclusion criteria. Conditions commonly reported in the literature included: cervical radiculopathy, cervical myelopathy, degenerative joint disease, and cervicogenic headache. Individual history questions show minimal diagnostic value in identifying cervical conditions without the physical examination. The value of the subjective history report is important and requires further investigation for specific neck conditions. Clustering symptoms may provide more insight than individual history items in future studies. The diagnostic value of history for neck conditions may be underrepresented due to the lack of studies that isolate subjective examination from the physical examination. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 3a.

The effectiveness of exercise therapy for temporomandibular dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of exercise therapy on pain, function, and mobility outcomes in patients with temporomandibular joint dysfunction. Study design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis undertaken following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies that met the inclusion criteria: (1) randomized controlled trials; (2) a population with the diagnosis of temporomandibular joint dysfunction; and (3) interventions that included exercise therapy were considered for review. When studies demonstrated homogeneity on outcome measures, the mean differences or standardized mean differences with 95% confidence interval were calculated and pooled in a meta-analysis for pooled synthesis. Results: Six articles with a total of 419 participants were included in the review and only four studies were included in the meta-analysis. Mobility and mixed exercise therapy approaches appear to be the most common exercise approaches utilized for management of temporomandibular joint dysfunction. Exercise therapy and the associated dosage provide moderate short-term and varying long-term benefits in reduction of pain and improvement of range of motion of the in patients with temporomandibular joint dysfunction. Conclusion: Included studies suggest a mobility or a mixed approach to exercise therapies have impact on reducing pain, significant impact for increasing range of motion, but lack a significant impact for functional improvement. Level of evidence: Therapy, level 1a-.

The effect of manual therapy with augmentative exercises for neck pain: a randomised clinical trial

Objectives: To compare the effect of manual therapy (MT) and an augmentative exercise programme (AEP) versus MT and general neck range of motion (ROM) on functional outcomes for patients with neck pain. A secondary objective was to examine changes in self-report measures and quantitative sensory testing (QST) following MT and AEP. Methods: This was a randomised clinical trial. Seventy-two patients with neck pain were recruited. All patients received a single session of MT. Patients were randomly assigned to MT+AEP or MT+ROM. Clinical self-report outcome measures for disability and pain, and QST measures (pain and vibration thresholds) were collected at baseline, post MT treatment, at ∼48 hours, and at ∼96 hours. Repeated measures ANOVA and MANOVA were used to analyse within and between-group effects for clinical and QST measures. Results: There were no between-group differences for disability, pain and QST measures. There was, however, a significant difference between groups for Global Rating of Change (GRoC) scores (P = 0.037). Patients in both groups showed improvements in pain, disability and trapezius pressure-pain threshold (PPT) (all P < 0.001). Discussion: Augmentative exercise programme does not significantly improve disability, pain or QST measures in patients with chronic neck pain although it may enhance their GRoC scores. Over a 96-hour period, patients benefitted from MT plus exercise whether the exercise was general or specific.