• Arch Phys Med Rehabil · Sep 2005

    Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial

    Lumbar spine segmental mobility assessment: an examination of validity for determining intervention strategies in patients with low back pain.

    • Julie M Fritz, Julie M Whitman, and John D Childs.
    • Division of Physical Therapy, University of Utah, and Clinical Outcomes Research Scientist, Intermountain Health Care, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA.
    • Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Sep 1; 86 (9): 1745-52.

    ObjectiveTo examine the predictive validity of posterior-anterior (PA) mobility testing in a group of patients with low back pain (LBP).DesignRandomized controlled trial.SettingOutpatient physical therapy clinics.ParticipantsPatients with LBP (N=131; mean age +/- standard deviation, 33.9+/-10.9 y; range, 19-59 y), and a median symptom duration of 27 days (range, 1-5941 d). Patients completed a baseline examination, including PA mobility testing, and were categorized with respect to both hypomobility and hypermobility (present or absent), and treated for 4 weeks.InterventionSeventy patients were randomized to an intervention involving manipulation and 61 to a stabilization exercise intervention.Main Outcome MeasuresOswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) scores were collected at baseline and after 4 weeks. Three-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were performed to assess the effect of mobility categorization and intervention group on the change on the ODQ with time. Number-needed-to-treat (NNT) statistics were calculated.ResultsNinety-three (71.0%) patients were judged to have hypomobility present and 15 (11.5%) were judged with hypermobility present. The ANOVAs resulted in significant interaction effects. Pairwise comparisons showed greater improvements among patients receiving manipulation categorized with hypomobility present versus absent (mean difference, 23.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1%-42.4%), and among patients receiving stabilization categorized with hypermobility present versus absent (mean difference, 36.4%; 95% CI, 10.3%-69.3%). For patients with hypomobility, failure rates were 26% with manipulation and 74.4% with stabilization (NNT=2.1; 95% CI, 1.6-3.5). For patients with hypermobility, failure rates were 83.3% and 22.2% for manipulation and stabilization, respectively (NNT=1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-10.2).ConclusionsPatients with LBP judged to have lumbar hypomobility experienced greater benefit from an intervention including manipulation; those judged to have hypermobility were more likely to benefit from a stabilization exercise program.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…