Manual therapy
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study
Can a within/between-session change in pain during reassessment predict outcome using a manual therapy intervention in patients with mechanical low back pain?
The purposes of the study were to determine whether the combined occurrence of within/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 low back pain. A secondary purpose was to determine the extent of change needed for the within/between-session change with association to function. The study involved 100 subjects who were part of a randomized controlled trial that examined manual therapy techniques who demonstrated a positive response to manual therapy during the initial assessment. ⋯ A 2-point change or greater on an 11-point scale is associated with functional recovery at discharge and accurately described the outcome in 67% of the cases. This is the first study that has shown an association of within/between-session changes with disability scores at discharge and is the first to define the extent of change necessary for prognosis of an outcome. A within/between-session change should be considered as a complimentary artifact along with other examination findings during clinical decision making.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study
Primary care randomized clinical trial: manual therapy effectiveness in comparison with TENS in patients with neck pain.
This study investigated effectiveness of manual therapy (MT) with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) to reduce pain intensity in patients with mechanical neck disorder (MND). A randomized multi-centered controlled clinical trial was performed in 12 Primary Care Physiotherapy Units in Madrid Region. Ninety patients were included with diagnoses of subacute or chronic MND without neurological damage, 47 patients received MT and 43 TENS. ⋯ The success rate decreased to one-third of the patients 6 months after the intervention. No differences can be found in the reduction of pain, in the decrease of disability nor in the quality of life between both therapies. Both analyzed physiotherapy techniques produce a short-term pain reduction that is clinically relevant.
-
Multicenter Study
Validity of the Neck Disability Index and Neck Pain and Disability Scale for measuring disability associated with chronic, non-traumatic neck pain.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the construct and content validity of the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and the Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPAD) in patients with chronic, non-traumatic neck pain. Twenty patients (mean age=64.5 years) completed a patient-specific questionnaire, the Problem Elicitation Technique (PET), followed by the NDI and NPAD. Content validity was assessed by comparing the items of the NDI and NPAD with problems identified from the PET. ⋯ The NDI and NPAD scores were strongly correlated (r=0.86, p<0.01), while the correlation between the PET and the fixed-item questionnaires was moderate (NDI: r=0.62, p<0.01; NPAD: r=0.71, p<0.01). Both the NDI and the NPAD include most of the functional problems common to this patient group, and display good content validity. The PET is better able to evaluate the problems specific to the individual patient and is therefore measuring a somewhat different construct to the fixed-item questionnaires.
-
The purpose of the study was to explore the construct validity of three versions of the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire for low back pain using Rasch analysis. The three versions of the ODQ share 9 items and differ on one other. About 100 patients with non-specific low back pain seeking physiotherapy treatment at hospital outpatient departments and physiotherapy private practices completed the 12 Oswestry items as part of a battery of questionnaires. ⋯ The third version, in which Sex Life is replaced by Changing Degree of Pain, did not fit the model (chi(2)P=.006) and the Changing Degree of Pain item was misfitting (residual 2.34, P=.007). These findings suggest that either of the first two of the three versions of this widely used low back pain outcome measure should be selected over the third. Users should also be aware that for some items the rating scale steps do not perform as intended.