Search

Objective: To determine whether adding hip treatment to usual care for low back pain (LBP) improved disability and pain in individuals with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment., Design: Randomized controlled trial., Methods: Seventy-six participants (age, 18 years or older; Oswestry Disability Index, 20% or greater; numeric pain-rating scale, 2 or more points) with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment were randomly assigned to a group that received treatment to the lumbar spine only (LBO group) (n = 39) or to one that received both lumbar spine and hip treatments (LBH group) (n = 37). The individual treating clinicians decided which specific low back treatments to administer to the LBO group. Treatments aimed at the hip (LBH group) included manual therapy, exercise, and education, selected by the therapist from a predetermined set of treatments. Primary outcomes were disability and pain, measured by the Oswestry Disability Index and the numeric pain-rating scale, respectively, at baseline, 2 weeks, discharge, 6 months, and 12 months. The secondary outcomes were fear-avoidance beliefs (work and physical activity subscales of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire), global rating of change, the Patient Acceptable Symptom State, and physical activity level. We used mixed-model 2-by-3 analyses of variance to examine group-by-time interaction effects (intention-to-treat analysis)., Results: Data were available for 68 patients at discharge (LBH group, n = 33; LBO group, n = 35) and 48 at 12 months (n = 24 for both groups). There were no between-group differences in disability at discharge (-5.0; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -10.9, 0.89; P = .09), 12 months (-1.0; 95% CI: -4.44, 2.35; P = .54), and all other time points. There were no between-group differences in pain at discharge (-0.2; 95% CI: -1.03, 0.53; P = .53), 12 months (0.1; 95% CI: -0.53, 0.72; P = .76), and all other time points. There were no between-group differences in secondary outcomes, except for higher Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (work subscale) scores in the LBH group at 2 weeks (-3.35; 95% CI: -6.58, -0.11; P = .04) and discharge (-3.45; 95% CI: - 6.30, -0.61; P = .02)., Conclusion: Adding treatments aimed at the hip to usual low back physical therapy did not provide additional short- or long-term benefits in reducing disability and pain in individuals with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment. Clinicians may not need to include hip treatments to achieve reductions in low back disability and pain in individuals with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(12):581-601. Epub 16 Nov 2021. 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10593 .

Objectives: To determine the prevalence of prospective clinical trial registration and postrandomization bias in published musculoskeletal physical therapy randomized clinical trials (RCTs)., Design: A methods review., Literature Search: Articles indexed in MEDLINE and published between January 2016 and July 2020 were included., Study Selection Criteria: Two independent blinded reviewers identified the RCTs using Covidence. We included RCTs related to musculoskeletal interventions that were published in International Society of Physiotherapy Journal Editors member journals., Data Synthesis: Data were extracted independently for the variables of interest from the identified RCTs by 2 blinded reviewers. The data were presented descriptively or in frequency tables., Results: One hundred thirty-eight RCTs were identified. One third of RCTs were consistent with their prospectively registered intent (49/138); consistency with prospectively registered intent could not be determined for two thirds (89/138) of the RCTs. Four RCTs (8%)reported inconsistent results with the primary aims and 7 (14%) with the outcomes from the prospective clinical trial registry, despite high methodological quality (Physiotherapy Evidence Database [PEDro] scale score). Differences between prospectively registered and non-prospectively registered RCTs for PEDro scale scores had a medium effect size ( r = 0.30). Two of 15 journals followed their clinical trial registration policy 100% of the time; in 1 journal, the published RCTs were consistent with the clinical trial registration., Conclusion: Postrandomization bias in musculoskeletal physical therapy RCTs could not be ruled out, due to the lack of prospective clinical trial registration and detailed data analysis plans. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(11):542-550. Epub 21 Sep 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10491 .

Objectives: To identify the most common type and timing of interventions used to initially manage patellofemoral pain (PFP), and whether exercise therapy as an initial treatment was associated with a decreased likelihood of recurrence of PFP., Design: Retrospective cohort., Methods: Active-duty military service members (n = 74 408) aged 18 to 50 years and diagnosed with PFP between 2010 and 2011 were included. We identified the type and timing of interventions from electronic medical records and insurance payer claims, and studied the influence of early exercise therapy use on injury recurrence rates., Results: In this cohort of patients with PFP, 62.3% (n = 46 338) sought no additional care after the initial visit. The most common initial pharmacological interventions were nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (4.1%), corticosteroid injections (0.4%), and muscle relaxers (0.3%). The most common initial nonpharmacological treatments were exercise therapy (7.6%), passive modalities (eg, hot packs, electrical stimulation, ultrasound; 0.6%), and manual therapy (joint manipulation and mobilization; 0.5%). Common specialty referrals were to physical therapy (3.3%) and orthopaedic providers (0.8%). If patients received at least 6 exercise therapy visits during the initial episode of care, they were less likely to have a recurrence of knee pain (odds ratio = 0.46; 95% confidence interval: 0.42, 0.49)., Conclusion: Two in every 3 patients did not seek additional care after PFP diagnosis. For those who sought additional care, exercise therapy was the most common intervention, and higher doses of exercise therapy were associated with a reduced likelihood of having a recurrent episode of knee pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(6):305-313. Epub 10 May 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10076 .

Objective: To examine the short- and long-term effectiveness of dry needling on disability, pain, and patient-perceived improvements in patients with mechanical neck pain when added to a multimodal treatment program that includes manual therapy and exercise., Design: Randomized controlled trial., Methods: Seventy-seven adults (mean ± SD age, 46.68 ± 14.18 years; 79% female) who were referred to physical therapy with acute, subacute, or chronic mechanical neck pain were randomly allocated to receive 7 multimodal treatment sessions over 4 weeks of (1) dry needling, manual therapy, and exercise (needling group); or (2) sham dry needling, manual therapy, and exercise (sham needling group). The primary outcome of disability (Neck Disability Index score) and secondary outcomes of pain (current and 24-hour average) and patient-perceived improvement were assessed at baseline and follow-ups of 4 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year by blinded assessors. Between-group differences were analyzed with a 2-way, repeated-measures analysis of variance. Global rating of change was analyzed with a Mann-Whitney U test., Results: There were no group-by-time interactions for disability (Neck Disability Index: F 2.37,177.47 = 0.42, P = .69), current pain (visual analog scale: F 2.84,213.16 = 1.04, P = .37), or average pain over 24 hours (F 2.64,198.02 = 0.01, P = .10). There were no between-group differences for global rating of change at any time point ( P ≥.65). Both groups improved over time for all variables (Neck Disability Index: F 2.37,177.47 = 124.70, P <.001; current pain: F 2.84,213.16 = 64.28, P <.001; and average pain over 24 hours: F 2.64,198.02 = 76.69, P <.001)., Conclusion: There were no differences in outcomes between trigger point dry needling and sham dry needling when added to a multimodal treatment program for neck pain. Dry needling should not be part of a first-line approach to managing neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(1):37-45. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.9864 .

Objective: To (1) evaluate whether exercise therapy is effective for managing neck pain, and (2) investigate the relationship between exercise therapy dosage and treatment effect., Design: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression., Literature Search: An electronic search of 6 databases was completed for trials assessing the effects of exercise therapy on neck pain., Study Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials that compared exercise therapy to a no-exercise therapy control for treating neck pain. Two reviewers screened and selected studies, extracted outcomes, assessed article risk of bias, and rated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach., Data Synthesis: Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. We used meta-regression to analyze the effect of exercise dosage on neck pain and disability., Results: Fourteen trials were included in the review. Seven trials were at high risk of bias, 4 were at unclear risk of bias, and 3 were at low risk of bias. Exercise therapy was superior to control for reducing pain (visual analog scale mean difference, -15.32 mm) and improving disability (Neck Disability Index mean difference, -3.64 points). Exercise dosage parameters did not predict pain or disability outcomes., Conclusion: Exercise was beneficial for reducing pain and disability, regardless of exercise therapy dosage. Therefore, optimal exercise dosage recommendations remain unknown. We encourage clinicians to use exercise when managing mechanical neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(11):607-621. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.9155 .

Objective: To determine the immediate and short-term effects of adding cervical spine high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust (HVLAT) to behavioral education, soft tissue mobilization, and a home exercise program on pain and dysfunction for people with a primary complaint of temporomandibular disorder (TMD) with myalgia., Design: Randomized clinical trial., Methods: Fifty individuals with TMD were randomly assigned to receive cervical HVLAT or sham manipulation for 4 visits over 4 weeks. Participants in both groups received other treatments, including standardized behavioral education, soft tissue mobilization, and a home exercise program. Primary outcomes included maximal mouth opening, the numeric pain-rating scale, the Jaw Functional Limitation Scale (JFLS), the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia for TMD (TSK-TMD), and a global rating of change (GROC). Self-report and objective measurements were taken at baseline, immediately after initial treatment, and follow-ups of 1 week and 4 weeks. A 2-by-4 mixed-model analysis of variance was used, with intervention group as the between-subjects factor and time as the within-subject factor. Separate analyses of variance were performed for dependent variables, and the hypothesis of interest was the group-by-time interaction., Results: There was no significant interaction for maximal mouth opening, the numeric pain-rating scale, or secondary measures. There were significant 2-way interactions for the JFLS ( d = 0.60) and TSK-TMD ( d = 0.80). The HVLAT group had lower fear at 4 weeks and improved jaw function earlier (1 week). The GROC favored the HVLAT group, with significant differences in successful outcomes noted immediately after baseline treatment (thrust, 6/25; sham, 0/25) and at 4 weeks (thrust, 17/25; sham, 10/25)., Conclusion: Both groups improved over time; however, differences between groups were small. There were significant differences between groups for the JFLS, TSK-TMD, and GROC. The additive clinical effect of cervical HVLAT to standard care remains unclear for treating TMD. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(8):455-465. Epub 6 Jan 2020. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.9175 .

Objective: To determine the short-term effectiveness of thoracic manipulation when compared to sham manipulation for individuals with low back pain (LBP)., Design: Randomized controlled trial., Methods: Patients with LBP were stratified based on symptom duration and randomly assigned to a thoracic manipulation or sham manipulation treatment group. Groups received 3 visits that included manipulation or sham manipulation, core stabilization exercises, and patient education. Factorial repeated-measures analysis of variance and multiple regression were performed for pain, disability, and fear avoidance. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze patient-perceived improvement, via the global rating of change scale, at follow-up., Results: Ninety participants completed the study (mean ± SD age, 38 ± 11.5 years; 70% female; 72% with chronic LBP). The overall group-by-time interaction was not significant for the Modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, numeric pain-rating scale, and Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire outcomes. The global rating of change scale was not significantly different between groups., Conclusion: Three sessions of thoracic manipulation, education, and exercise did not result in improved outcomes when compared to a sham manipulation, education, and exercise in individuals with chronic LBP. Future studies are needed to identify the most effective management strategies for the treatment of LBP., Level of Evidence: Therapy, level 1b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(1):24-32. Epub 6 Dec 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.8928 .

Background: Patients with lateral elbow pain are often diagnosed with lateral epicondylalgia. Lateral elbow pain is often associated with dysfunction of the wrist extensor muscles; however, in some cases, it can also mimic signs and symptoms of radial nerve dysfunction., Case Description: In this case report, a 43-year-old man, who was originally referred with a diagnosis of lateral epicondylalgia as a result of playing table tennis and who previously responded favorably to manual therapy and exercise, presented to the clinic for treatment. An exacerbation while participating in a table tennis match resulted in a return of his lateral epicondylalgia symptoms, which did not respond favorably to the same interventions used in his prior course of therapy. Further examination revealed sensitization of the radial nerve, which was treated with 2 sessions of ultrasound-guided percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and 4 weeks of a low-load, concentric/eccentric exercise program for the wrist extensors., Outcomes: Following this intervention, the patient experienced clinically meaningful improvement in pain intensity (numeric pain-rating scale), function (Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation), and related disability (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire). The patient progressively exhibited complete resolution of pain and function, which was maintained at 2 years., Discussion: This case report demonstrates the outcomes of a patient with lateral elbow pain who did not respond to manual therapy and exercise. Once radial nerve trunk sensitivity was identified and the intervention, consisting of ultrasound-guided percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation targeting the radial nerve combined with a low-load exercise program, was applied, a full resolution of pain and function occurred rapidly. Future clinical trials should examine the effect of percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in the management of nerve-related symptoms associated with musculoskeletal pain conditions., Level of Evidence: Therapy, level 5. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(5):347-354. Epub 18 Jan 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8570 .

Background: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) results in substantial societal costs and can be treated either by nonsurgical or surgical approaches., Objective: To evaluate differences in cost-effectiveness of manual physical therapy versus surgery in women with CTS., Methods: In this randomized clinical trial, 120 women with a clinical and an electromyographic diagnosis of CTS were randomized through concealed allocation to either manual physical therapy or surgery. Interventions consisted of 3 sessions of manual physical therapy, including desensitization maneuvers of the central nervous system, or decompression/release of the carpal tunnel. Societal costs and health-related quality of life (estimated by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions [EQ-5D] scale) over 1 year were used to generate incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year ratios for each treatment., Results: The analysis was possible for 118 patients (98%). Incremental quality-adjusted life years showed greater cost-effectiveness in favor of manual physical therapy (difference, 0.135; 95% confidence interval: 0.134, 0.136). Manual therapy was significantly less costly than surgery (mean difference in cost per patient, €2576; P<.001). Patients in the surgical group received a greater number of other treatments and made more visits to medical doctors than those receiving manual physical therapy (P = .02). Absenteeism from paid work was significantly higher in the surgery group (P<.001). The major contributors to societal costs were the treatment protocol (surgery versus manual therapy mean difference, €106 980) and absenteeism from paid work (surgery versus manual physical therapy mean difference, €42 224)., Conclusion: Manual physical therapy, including desensitization maneuvers of the central nervous system, has been found to be equally effective but less costly (ie, more cost-effective) than surgery for women with CTS. From a cost-benefit perspective, the proposed CTS manual physical therapy intervention can be considered., Level of Evidence: Economic and decision analyses, level 1b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(2):55-63. Epub 30 Nov 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8483.

Study Design Systematic review. Background Therapeutic exercise is commonly used to treat individuals with knee disorders, but dosing parameters for optimal outcomes are unclear. Large variations exist in exercise prescription, and research related to specific dosing variables for knee osteoarthritis, patellar tendinopathy, and patellofemoral pain is sparse. Objectives To identify specific doses of exercise related to improved outcomes of pain and function in individuals with common knee disorders, categorized by effect size. Methods Five electronic databases were searched for studies related to exercise and the 3 diagnoses. Means and standard deviations were used to calculate effect sizes for the exercise groups. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. Results Five hundred eighty-three studies were found after the initial search, and 45 were included for analysis after screening. Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale scores were "fair" quality and ranged from 3 to 8. For knee osteoarthritis, 24 total therapeutic exercise sessions and 8- and 12-week durations of exercise were parameters most often associated with large effects. An exercise frequency of once per week was associated with no effect. No trends were seen with exercise dosing for patellar tendinopathy and patellofemoral pain. Conclusion This review suggests that there are clinically relevant exercise dosing variables that result in improved pain and function for patients with knee osteoarthritis, but optimal dosing is still unclear for patellar tendinopathy and patellofemoral pain. Prospective studies investigating dosing parameters are needed to confirm the results from this systematic review. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1a. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(3):146-161. Epub 10 Jan 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7637.

Study Design Randomized clinical trial. Background The comparative effectiveness between nonthrust manipulation (NTM) and thrust manipulation (TM) for mechanical neck pain has been investigated, with inconsistent results. Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness of concordant cervical and thoracic NTM and TM for patients with mechanical neck pain. Methods The Neck Disability Index (NDI) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), numeric pain-rating scale (NPRS), deep cervical flexion endurance (DCF), global rating of change (GROC), number of visits, and duration of care. The covariate was clinical equipoise for intervention. Outcomes were collected at baseline, visit 2, and discharge. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either NTM or TM directed at the cervical and thoracic spines. Techniques and dosages were selected pragmatically and applied to the most symptomatic level. Two-way mixed-model analyses of covariance were used to assess clinical outcomes at 3 time points. Analyses of covariance were used to assess between-group differences for the GROC, number of visits, and duration of care at discharge. Results One hundred three patients were included in the analyses (NTM, n = 55 and TM, n = 48). The between-group analyses revealed no differences in outcomes on the NDI (P = .67), PSFS (P = .26), NPRS (P = .25), DCF (P = .98), GROC (P = .77), number of visits (P = .21), and duration of care (P = .61) for patients with mechanical neck pain who received either NTM or TM. Conclusion NTM and TM produce equivalent outcomes for patients with mechanical neck pain. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02619500). Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(3):137-145. Epub 6 Feb 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7738.

Study Design Randomized controlled trial. Background Evidence suggests that multimodal interventions that include exercise therapy may be effective for patellofemoral pain (PFP); however, no study has investigated the effects of trigger point (TrP) dry needling (DN) in people with PFP. Objectives To compare the effects of adding TrP DN to a manual therapy and exercise program on pain, function, and disability in individuals with PFP. Methods Individuals with PFP (n = 60) recruited from a public hospital in Valencia, Spain were randomly allocated to manual therapy and exercises (n = 30) or manual therapy and exercise plus TrP DN (n = 30). Both groups received the same manual therapy and strengthening exercise program for 3 sessions (once a week for 3 weeks), and 1 group also received TrP DN to active TrPs within the vastus medialis and vastus lateralis muscles. The pain subscale of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS; 0-100 scale) was used as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included other subscales of the KOOS, the Knee Society Score, the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form (IKDC), and the numeric pain-rating scale. Patients were assessed at baseline and at 15-day (posttreatment) and 3-month follow-ups. Analysis was conducted with mixed analyses of covariance, adjusted for baseline scores. Results At 3 months, 58 subjects (97%) completed the follow-up. No significant between-group differences (all, P>.391) were observed for any outcome: KOOS pain subscale mean difference, -2.1 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.6, 0.4); IKDC mean difference, 2.3 (95% CI: -0.1, 4.7); knee pain intensity mean difference, 0.3 (95% CI: -0.2, 0.8). Both groups experienced similar moderate-to-large within-group improvements in all outcomes (standardized mean differences of 0.6 to 1.1); however, only the KOOS function in sport and recreation subscale surpassed the prespecified minimum important change. Conclusion The current clinical trial suggests that the inclusion of 3 sessions of TrP DN in a manual therapy and exercise program did not result in improved outcomes for pain and disability in individuals with PFP at 3-month follow-up. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1b. Prospectively registered July 27, 2015 at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02514005). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(6):392-401. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7389.

Study Design Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Background Prognostic variables identifying patients with shoulder pain who are likely to respond to cervicothoracic manipulation have been reported; however, they have yet to be validated. Objective To examine the validity of previously reported prognostic variables in predicting which patients with shoulder pain will respond to cervicothoracic manipulation. Methods Participants (n = 140) with a report of shoulder pain were randomly assigned to receive either 2 sessions of range-of-motion exercises plus 6 sessions of stretching and strengthening exercises (exercise group), or 2 sessions of cervicothoracic manipulation and range-of-motion exercises followed by 6 sessions of stretching and strengthening exercise (manipulative-therapy-plus-exercise group). Outcomes of disability (Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire) and pain (numeric pain-rating scale) were collected at baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 6 months. Time, treatment group, status of predictor variables, and 2-way and 3-way interactions were analyzed using linear mixed models with repeated measures. Results There were no significant 3-way interactions for either disability (P = .27) or pain scores (P = .70) for time, group, and predictor status for any of the predictor variables. Conclusion The results of the current study did not validate the previously identified prognostic variables; therefore, we cannot support using these in clinical practice. Further updating of the existing prediction rule may be warranted and could potentially result in new prognostic variables and improved generalizability. Limitations of the study were a mean duration of symptoms of greater than 2 years and a loss to follow-up of 19% at 6 months. Level of Evidence Prognosis, level 1b. Trial prospectively registered March 30, 2012 at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01571674). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(4):252-260. Epub 3 Mar 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7100.

Study Design Randomized parallel-group trial. Background Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a common pain condition that can be managed surgically or conservatively. Objective To compare the effectiveness of manual therapy versus surgery for improving self-reported function, cervical range of motion, and pinch-tip grip force in women with CTS. Methods In this randomized clinical trial, 100 women with CTS were randomly allocated to either a manual therapy (n = 50) or a surgery (n = 50) group. The primary outcome was self-rated hand function, assessed with the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included active cervical range of motion, pinch-tip grip force, and the symptom severity subscale of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire. Patients were assessed at baseline and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the last treatment by an assessor unaware of group assignment. Analysis was by intention to treat, with mixed analyses of covariance adjusted for baseline scores. Results At 12 months, 94 women completed the follow-up. Analyses showed statistically significant differences in favor of manual therapy at 1 month for self-reported function (mean change, -0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.1, -0.5) and pinch-tip grip force on the symptomatic side (thumb-index finger: mean change, 2.0; 95% CI: 1.1, 2.9 and thumb-little finger: mean change, 1.0; 95% CI: 0.5, 1.5). Improvements in self-reported function and pinch grip force were similar between the groups at 3, 6, and 12 months. Both groups reported improvements in symptom severity that were not significantly different at all follow-up periods. No significant changes were observed in pinch-tip grip force on the less symptomatic side and in cervical range of motion in either group. Conclusion Manual therapy and surgery had similar effectiveness for improving self-reported function, symptom severity, and pinch-tip grip force on the symptomatic hand in women with CTS. Neither manual therapy nor surgery resulted in changes in cervical range of motion. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1b. Prospectively registered September 3, 2014 at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02233660). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(3):151-161. Epub 3 Feb 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7090.

Study Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Background An increasing number of physical therapists in the United States and throughout the world are using dry needling to treat musculoskeletal pain. Objective To examine the short- and long-term effectiveness of dry needling delivered by a physical therapist for any musculoskeletal pain condition. Methods Electronic databases were searched. Eligible randomized controlled trials included those with human subjects who had musculoskeletal conditions that were treated with dry needling performed by a physical therapist, compared with a control or other intervention. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Results The initial search returned 218 articles. After screening, 13 were included. Physiotherapy Evidence Database quality scale scores ranged from 4 to 9 (out of a maximum score of 10), with a median score of 7. Eight meta-analyses were performed. In the immediate to 12-week follow-up period, studies provided evidence that dry needling may decrease pain and increase pressure pain threshold when compared to control/sham or other treatment. At 6 to 12 months, dry needling was favored for decreasing pain, but the treatment effect was not statistically significant. Dry needling, when compared to control/sham treatment, provides a statistically significant effect on functional outcomes, but not when compared to other treatments. Conclusion Very low-quality to moderate-quality evidence suggests that dry needling performed by physical therapists is more effective than no treatment, sham dry needling, and other treatments for reducing pain and improving pressure pain threshold in patients presenting with musculoskeletal pain in the immediate to 12-week follow-up period. Low-quality evidence suggests superior outcomes with dry needling for functional outcomes when compared to no treatment or sham needling. However, no difference in functional outcomes exists when compared to other physical therapy treatments. Evidence of long-term benefit of dry needling is currently lacking. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1a. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(3):133-149. Epub 3 Feb 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7096.

Study Design Multicenter randomized controlled trial. Background Cervicothoracic manual therapy has been shown to improve pain and disability in individuals with shoulder pain, but the incremental effects of manual therapy in addition to exercise therapy have not been investigated in a randomized controlled trial. Objectives To compare the effects of cervicothoracic manual therapy and exercise therapy to those of exercise therapy alone in individuals with shoulder pain. Methods Individuals (n = 140) with shoulder pain were randomly assigned to receive 2 sessions of cervicothoracic range-of-motion exercises plus 6 sessions of exercise therapy, or 2 sessions of high-dose cervicothoracic manual therapy and range-of-motion exercises plus 6 sessions of exercise therapy (manual therapy plus exercise). Pain and disability were assessed at baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 6 months. The primary aim (treatment group by time) was examined using linear mixed-model analyses and the repeated measure of time for the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), the numeric pain-rating scale, and the shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH). Patient-perceived success was assessed and analyzed using the global rating of change (GROC) and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), using chi-square tests of independence. Results There were no significant 2-way interactions of group by time or main effects by group for pain or disability. Both groups improved significantly on the SPADI, numeric pain-rating scale, and QuickDASH. Secondary outcomes of success on the GROC and PASS significantly favored the manual therapy-plus-exercise group at 4 weeks (P = .03 and P<.01, respectively) and on the GROC at 6 months (P = .04). Conclusion Adding 2 sessions of high-dose cervicothoracic manual therapy to an exercise program did not improve pain or disability in patients with shoulder pain, but did improve patient-perceived success at 4 weeks and 6 months and acceptability of symptoms at 4 weeks. More research is needed on the use of cervicothoracic manual therapy for treating shoulder pain. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1b. Prospectively registered March 30, 2012 at www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01571674). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(8):617-628. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.6319.

Study Design Secondary analysis of a randomized trial. Background A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) most likely to respond to manual physical therapy has been published but requires further testing to determine its validity. Objective To assess the validity of a clinical prediction rule proposed for the management of patients with CTS in a different group of patients with a variety of treating clinicians. Methods A preplanned secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial investigating the efficacy of manual physical therapies, including desensitization maneuvers of the central nervous system, in 120 women suffering from CTS was performed. Patients were randomized to receive 3 sessions of manual physical therapy (n = 60) or surgical release/decompression of the carpal tunnel (n = 60). Self-perceived improvement with a global rating of change was recorded at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Pain intensity (mean pain and worst pain on a 0-to-10 numeric pain-rating scale) and scores on the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (functional status and symptom severity subscales) were assessed at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. A baseline assessment of status on the clinical prediction rule was performed (positive status on the clinical prediction rule was defined as meeting at least 2 of the following criteria: pressure pain threshold of less than 137 kPa over the affected C5-6 joint; heat pain threshold of less than 39.6°C over the affected carpal tunnel; and general health score [Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey] of greater than 66 points). Linear mixed models with repeated measures were used to examine the validity of the rule. Results Participants with a positive status on the rule who received manual physical therapy did not experience greater improvements compared to those with a negative status on the rule for mean pain (P = .65), worst pain (P = .86), function (P = .99), or symptom severity (P = .85). Further, the clinical prediction rule performed no better than chance in identifying the individuals with CTS most likely to respond to manual physical therapy or surgery (mean pain, P = .87; worst pain, P = .91; function, P = .60; severity, P = .66). No differences in self-perceived improvement were observed at either 6 (P = .68) or 12 (P = .36) months, according to the rule. Conclusion The results of this study did not support the validity of the previously developed clinical prediction rule for manual physical therapy in women with CTS. Level of Evidence Prognosis, level 1b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(6):443-451. Epub 23 Mar 2016. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.6348.

The patient was a 64-year-old man who was referred to a physical therapist 3 weeks following a right L3 hemilaminectomy and an L3-4 facetectomy. At the time of the initial evaluation, the patient was ambulating with a rolling walker due to low back and anterolateral right hip pain, as well as a giving-way sensation of the right hip with weight bearing. The patient was referred to his surgeon, where radiographs revealed collapse/dissolution of the femoral head that was consistent with avascular necrosis.

Study Design: A retrospective cohort design was conducted using data from an electronic survey and an existing commercial outcomes database., Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of patients with musculoskeletal conditions treated by physical therapists who had completed residency or fellowship programs versus those who had not., Background: There is an increasing focus on specialization through postprofessional education in physical therapy residency and fellowship programs. Scant evidence exists that evaluates the influence of postprofessional clinical education on actual patient outcomes., Methods: Physical therapists using a national outcomes database were surveyed to determine their level of postprofessional education. Survey responders were categorized into 1 of 3 groups that included no residency or fellowship training, residency trained, or fellowship trained. Outcomes for 25 843 patients with musculoskeletal conditions treated by 363 therapists from June 2012 to June 2013 were extracted from the database. These data were analyzed to identify any differences in functional status change and efficiency achieved between the 3 groups. Potentially confounding variables were controlled for statistically., Results: The fellowship-trained group of physical therapists achieved functional status changes and efficiency that were greater than those of the other groups. No difference in functional status change was observed between the residency group and the therapists without residency or fellowship training. The group without residency or fellowship training was more efficient than the residency-trained group. Fellowship-trained therapists were more likely to achieve greater treatment effect sizes than therapists without residency or fellowship training. Residency-trained therapists were less likely to achieve greater treatment effect sizes than the therapists without residency or fellowship training., Conclusion: These data demonstrate that fellowship training may contribute to statistically greater patient outcomes. Residency training did not appear to contribute to improved patient functional status change or efficiency. It is unknown whether the statistical differences observed would be clinically meaningful for patients.

Study Design: Randomized clinical study., Objectives: To compare the effects of trigger point (TrP) dry needling (DN) and TrP manual therapy (MT) on pain, function, pressure pain sensitivity, and cervical range of motion in subjects with chronic mechanical neck pain., Background: Recent evidence suggests that TrP DN could be effective in the treatment of neck pain. However, no studies have directly compared the outcomes of TrP DN and TrP MT in this population., Methods: Ninety-four patients (mean ± SD age, 31 ± 3 years; 66% female) were randomized into a TrP DN group (n = 47) or a TrP MT group (n = 47). Neck pain intensity (11-point numeric pain rating scale), cervical range of motion, and pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) over the spinous process of C7 were measured at baseline, postintervention, and at follow-ups of 1 week and 2 weeks after treatment. The Spanish version of the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire was used to measure disability/function at baseline and the 2-week follow-up. Mixed-model, repeated-measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to determine if a time-by-group interaction existed on the effects of the treatment on each outcome variable, with time as the within-subject variable and group as the between-subject variable., Results: The ANOVA revealed that participants who received TrP DN had outcomes similar to those who received TrP MT in terms of pain, function, and cervical range of motion. The 4-by-2 mixed-model ANOVA also revealed a significant time-by-group interaction (P<.001) for PPT: patients who received TrP DN experienced a greater increase in PPT (decreased pressure sensitivity) than those who received TrP MT at all follow-up periods (between-group differences: posttreatment, 59.0 kPa; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 40.0, 69.2; 1-week follow-up, 69.2 kPa; 95% CI: 49.5, 79.1; 2-week follow-up, 78.9 kPa; 95% CI: 49.5, 89.0)., Conclusion: The results of this clinical trial suggest that 2 sessions of TrP DN and TrP MT resulted in similar outcomes in terms of pain, disability, and cervical range of motion. Those in the TrP DN group experienced greater improvements in PPT over the cervical spine. Future trials are needed to examine the effects of TrP DN and TrP MT over long-term follow-up periods., Level of Evidence: Therapy, level 1b.

Study Design: Cross-sectional study., Objective: To examine the associations between clinical (pain), physical (cervical range of motion [ROM] and pinch grip force), and neurophysiological (pressure pain thresholds) outcomes and self-reported function and disability in women with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS)., Background: The association of physical and physiological variables with self-rated function and disability in patients with CTS has not been fully determined. A better understanding of the association between potentially modifiable risk factors, such as limited cervical ROM, could assist clinicians in optimizing therapeutic programs for this group of patients., Methods: One hundred fifty-four women with CTS were recruited. Demographic information and data on duration of symptoms, pain intensity, depression, cervical ROM, pinch grip force, and pressure pain thresholds over the neck, hand, and leg were collected. Self-reported function and disability were measured with the functional status subscale of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire. Correlation and regression analyses were performed to determine associations between variables., Results: There were significant positive correlations between the functional status subscale score and pain intensity (r = 0.36, P<.001), depression (r = 0.32, P<.001), and duration of symptoms (r = 0.23, P = .005). Significant negative correlations were also observed between the functional status subscale score and pinch grip force of the index finger (r = -0.25, P = .002) and little finger (r = -0.28, P<.001), ROM in cervical flexion (r = -0.22, P = .003) and lateral flexion away from the side of CTS (r = -0.24, P = .002) and toward the side of CTS (r = -0.16, P = .045), and pressure pain threshold over C5-6 (r = -0.34, P<.001), the carpal tunnel (r = -0.35, P<.001), and the tibialis anterior muscle (r = -0.26, P<.001). Stepwise regression analyses revealed that pain intensity, thumb and little finger pinch grip force, severity of depression, and cervical ROM in lateral flexion away from the side of CTS explained 38.2% of the variance in functional status (R2 = 0.411, adjusted R2 = 0.382, F = 15.42, P<.001). CONCLUSION This study found that a number of modifiable factors are associated with self-reported function in women with CTS. Future longitudinal studies will help to determine the clinical implications of these findings.

Study Design: Planned secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial comparing neural tissue management (NTM) to advice to remain active., Objective: To develop a model that predicts the likelihood of patient-reported improvement following NTM., Background: Matching patients to an intervention they are likely to benefit from potentially improves outcomes. However, baseline characteristics that predict patients' responses to NTM are unknown., Methods: Data came from 60 consecutive adults who had nontraumatic, nerve-related neck and unilateral arm pain for at least 4 weeks. Participants were assigned to a group that received NTM (n = 40), which involved brief education, manual therapy, and nerve gliding exercises for 4 treatments over 2 weeks, or to a group that was given advice to remain active (n = 20), which involved instruction to continue their usual activities. The participants' global rating of change at a 3- to 4-week follow-up defined improvement. Penalized regression of NTM data identified the best prediction model. A medical nomogram was created for prediction model scoring. Post hoc analysis determined whether the model predicted a specific response to NTM., Results: Absence of neuropathic pain qualities, older age, and smaller deficits in median nerve neurodynamic test range of motion predicted improvement. Prediction model cutoffs increased the likelihood of improvement from 53% to 90% (95% confidence interval: 56%, 98%) or decreased the likelihood of improvement to 9% (95% confidence interval: 1%, 42%). The model did not predict the outcomes of the advice to remain active group., Conclusion: Baseline characteristics of patients with nerve-related neck and arm pain predicted the likelihood of improvement with NTM. Model performance needs to be validated in a new sample using different comparison interventions and longer follow-up. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN 12610000446066)., Level of Evidence: Prognosis, level 2b-.

Study Design: Randomized clinical trial., Objective: To compare the effects of thrust and nonthrust manipulation and exercises with and without the addition of myofascial therapy for the treatment of acute inversion ankle sprain., Background: Studies have reported that thrust and nonthrust manipulations of the ankle joint are effective for the management of patients post-ankle sprain. However, it is not known whether the inclusion of soft tissue myofascial therapy could further improve clinical and functional outcomes., Methods: Fifty patients (37 men and 13 women; mean ± SD age, 33 ± 10 years) post-acute inversion ankle sprain were randomly assigned to 2 groups: a comparison group that received a thrust and nonthrust manipulation and exercise intervention, and an experimental group that received the same protocol and myofascial therapy. The primary outcomes were ankle pain at rest and functional ability. Additionally, ankle mobility and pressure pain threshold over the ankle were assessed by a clinician who was blinded to the treatment allocation. Outcomes of interest were captured at baseline, immediately after the treatment period, and at a 1-month follow-up. The primary analysis was the group-by-time interaction., Results: The 2-by-3 mixed-model analyses of variance revealed a significant group-by-time interaction for ankle pain (P<.001) and functional score (P = .002), with the patients who received the combination of nonthrust and thrust manipulation and myofascial intervention experiencing a greater improvement in pain and function than those who received the nonthrust and thrust manipulation intervention alone. Significant group-by-time interactions were also observed for ankle mobility (P<.001) and pressure pain thresholds (all, P<.01), with those in the experimental group experiencing greater increases in ankle mobility and pressure pain thresholds. Between-group effect sizes were large (d>0.85) for all outcomes., Conclusion: This study provides evidence that, in the treatment of individuals post-inversion ankle sprain, the addition of myofascial therapy to a plan of care consisting of thrust and nonthrust manipulation and exercise may further improve outcomes compared to a plan of care solely consisting of thrust and nonthrust manipulation and exercise. However, though statistically significant, the difference in improvement in the primary outcome between groups was not greater than what would be considered a minimal clinically important difference. Future studies should examine the long-term effects of these interventions in this population., Level of Evidence: Therapy, level 1b-.

Study Design: Case series., Objectives: To use blood oxygenation level-dependent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to determine if supraspinal activation in response to noxious mechanical stimuli varies pre- and post-thrust manipulation to the thoracic spine., Background: Recent studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of thoracic thrust manipulation in reducing pain and improving function in some individuals with neck and shoulder pain. However, the mechanisms by which manipulation exerts such effects remain largely unexplained. The use of fMRI in the animal model has revealed a decrease in cortical activity in response to noxious stimuli following manual joint mobilization. Supraspinal mediation contributing to hypoalgesia in humans may be triggered following spinal manipulation., Methods: Ten healthy volunteers (5 women, 5 men) between the ages of 23 and 48 years (mean, 31.2 years) were recruited. Subjects underwent fMRI scanning while receiving noxious stimuli applied to the cuticle of the index finger at a rate of 1 Hz for periods of 15 seconds, alternating with periods of 15 seconds without stimuli, for a total duration of 5 minutes. Subjects then received a supine thrust manipulation directed to the midthoracic spine and were immediately returned to the scanner for reimaging with a second delivery of noxious stimuli. An 11-point numeric pain rating scale was administered immediately after the application of noxious stimuli, premanipulation and postmanipulation. Blood oxygenation level-dependent fMRI recorded the cerebral hemodynamic response to the painful stimuli premanipulation and postmanipulation., Results: The data indicated a significant reduction in subjects' perception of pain (P<.01), as well as a reduction in cerebral blood flow as measured by the blood oxygenation level-dependent response following manipulation to areas associated with the pain matrix (P<.05). There was a significant relationship between reduced activation in the insular cortex and decreased subjective pain ratings on the numeric pain rating scale (r = 0.59, P<.05)., Conclusion: This study provides preliminary evidence that suggests that supraspinal mechanisms may be associated with thoracic thrust manipulation and hypoalgesia. However, because the study lacked a control group, the results do not allow for the discernment of the causative effects of manipulation, which may also be related to changes in levels of subjects' fear, anxiety, or expectation of successful outcomes with manipulation. Future investigations should strive to elicit more conclusive findings in the form of randomized clinical trials.

Study Design: Double-blind, randomized controlled trial., Objective: To examine the effectiveness of a manual therapy and exercise approach relative to a placebo intervention in individuals with carpometacarpal (CMC) joint osteoarthritis (OA)., Background: Recent studies have reported the outcomes of exercise, joint mobilization, and neural mobilization interventions used in isolation in patients with CMC joint OA. However, it is not known if using a combination of these interventions as a multimodal approach to treatment would further improve outcomes in this patient population., Methods: Sixty patients, 90% female (mean ± SD age, 82 ± 6 years), with CMC joint OA were randomly assigned to receive a multimodal manual treatment approach that included joint mobilization, neural mobilization, and exercise, or a sham intervention, for 12 sessions over 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure was pain. Secondary outcome measures included pressure pain threshold over the first CMC joint, scaphoid, and hamate, as well as pinch and strength measurements. All outcome measures were collected at baseline, immediately following the intervention, and at 1 and 2 months following the end of the intervention. Mixed-model analyses of variance were used to examine the effects of the interventions on each outcome, with group as the between-subject variable and time as the within-subject variable., Results: The mixed-model analysis of variance revealed a group-by-time interaction (F = 47.58, P<.001) for pain intensity, with the patients receiving the multimodal intervention experiencing a greater reduction in pain compared to those receiving the placebo intervention at the end of the intervention, as well as at 1 and 2 months after the intervention (P<.001; all group differences greater than 3.0 cm, which is greater than the minimal clinically important difference of 2.0 cm). A significant group-by-time interaction (F = 3.19, P = .025) was found for pressure pain threshold over the hamate bone immediately after the intervention; however, the interaction was no longer significant at 1 and 2 months postintervention., Conclusion: This clinical trial provides evidence that a combination of joint mobilization, neural mobilization, and exercise is more beneficial in treating pain than a sham intervention in patients with CMC joint OA. However, the treatment approach has limited value in improving pressure pain thresholds, as well as pinch and grip strength. Future studies should include several therapists, a measure of function, and long-term outcomes., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37143779., Level of Evidence: Therapy, level 1b.

Study Design: Randomized clinical trial., Objective: To investigate the short-term effects of thoracic spine thrust manipulation combined with cervical spine nonthrust manipulation (experimental group) versus cervical spine nonthrust manipulation alone (comparison group) in individuals with mechanical neck pain., Background: Research has demonstrated improved outcomes with both nonthrust manipulation directed at the cervical spine and thrust manipulation directed at the thoracic spine in patients with neck pain. Previous studies have not determined if thoracic spine thrust manipulation may increase benefits beyond those provided by cervical nonthrust manipulation alone., Methods: Sixty-four participants with mechanical neck pain were randomized into 1 of 2 groups, an experimental or comparison group. Both groups received 2 treatment sessions of cervical spine nonthrust manipulation and a home exercise program consisting of active range-of-motion exercises, and the experimental group received additional thoracic spine thrust manipulations. Outcome measures were collected at baseline and at a 1-week follow-up, and included the numeric pain rating scale, the Neck Disability Index, and the global rating of change., Results: Participants in the experimental group demonstrated significantly greater improvements (P<.001) on both the numeric pain rating scale and Neck Disability Index at the 1-week follow-up compared to those in the comparison group. In addition, 31 of 33 (94%) participants in the experimental group, compared to 11 of 31 participants (35%) in the comparison group, indicated a global rating of change score of +4 or higher at the 1-week follow-up, with an associated number needed to treat of 2., Conclusion: Individuals with neck pain who received a combination of thoracic spine thrust manipulation and cervical spine nonthrust manipulation plus exercise demonstrated better overall short-term outcomes on the numeric pain rating scale, the Neck Disability Index, and the global rating of change.

Study Design: Randomized clinical trial., Objective: To compare the effectiveness of manual therapy and exercise (MTEX) to a home exercise program (HEP) in the management of individuals with an inversion ankle sprain., Background: An in-clinic exercise program has been found to yield similar outcomes as an HEP for individuals with an inversion ankle sprain. However, no studies have compared an MTEX approach to an HEP., Methods: Patients with an inversion ankle sprain completed the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) activities of daily living subscale, the FAAM sports subscale, the Lower Extremity Functional Scale, and the numeric pain rating scale. Patients were randomly assigned to either an MTEX or an HEP treatment group. Outcomes were collected at baseline, 4 weeks, and 6 months. The primary aim (effects of treatment on pain and disability) was examined with a mixed-model analysis of variance. The hypothesis of interest was the 2-way interaction (group by time)., Results: Seventy-four patients (mean ± SD age, 35.1 ± 11.0 years; 48.6% female) were randomized into the MTEX group (n = 37) or the HEP group (n = 37). The overall group-by-time interaction for the mixed-model analysis of variance was statistically significant for the FAAM activities of daily living subscale (P<.001), FAAM sports subscale (P<.001), Lower Extremity Functional Scale (P<.001), and pain (P ≤.001). Improvements in all functional outcome measures and pain were significantly greater at both the 4-week and 6-month follow-up periods in favor of the MTEX group., Conclusion: The results suggest that an MTEX approach is superior to an HEP in the treatment of inversion ankle sprains. Registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00797368)., Level of Evidence: Therapy, level 1b-.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort., Objectives: The objectives of this study were (1) to examine patients' general expectations for treatment by physical therapists and specific expectations for common interventions in patients with neck pain, and (2) to assess the extent to which the patients' general and specific expectations for treatment, particularly spinal manipulation, affect clinical outcomes., Background: Patient expectations can have a profound influence on the magnitude of treatment outcome across a broad variety of patient conditions., Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of data from a clinical trial of interventions for neck pain. Prior to beginning treatment for neck pain, 140 patients were asked about their general expectations of benefit as well as their specific expectations for individual interventions. Next, we examined how these expectations related to the patients' ratings of the success of treatment at 1 and 6 months after treatment., Results: Patients had positive expectations for treatment by a physical therapist, with more than 80% of patients expecting moderate relief of symptoms, prevention of disability, the ability to do more activity, and to sleep better. The manual therapy interventions of massage (87%) and manipulation (75%) had the highest proportion of patients who expected these interventions to significantly improve neck pain. These were followed by strengthening (70%) and range-of-motion (54%) exercises. Very few patients thought surgery would improve their neck pain (less than 1%). At 1 month, patients who were unsure of experiencing complete pain relief had lower odds of reporting a successful outcome than patients expecting complete relief (odds ratio [OR] = 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11, 0.99). Believing that manipulation would help and not receiving manipulation lowered the odds of success (OR = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.72) compared to believing manipulation would help and receiving manipulation. Six months after treatment, having unsure expectations for complete pain relief lowered the odds of success (OR = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.7), whereas definitely expecting to do more exercise increased the odds of success (OR = 11.4; 95% CI: 1.7, 74.7). Regarding self-reported disability assessed with the Neck Disability Index, patients who believed manipulation would help and received manipulation reported less disability than those who did not believe manipulation would help and both received manipulation (mean difference, -3.8; 95% CI: -5.9, -1.5; P = .006) and did not receive manipulation (mean difference, -5.7; 95% CI: -9.3, -2.1; P = .014). There was also an interaction between time and the expectation for complete relief., Conclusion: General expectations of benefit have a strong influence on clinical outcomes for patients with neck pain., Level of Evidence: Prognosis, level 2b-.

Study Design: Randomized clinical trial., Objectives: To compare the effects of cervical versus thoracic thrust manipulation in patients with bilateral chronic mechanical neck pain on pressure pain sensitivity, neck pain, and cervical range of motion (CROM)., Background: Evidence suggests that spinal interventions can stimulate descending inhibitory pain pathways. To our knowledge, no study has investigated the neurophysiological effects of thoracic thrust manipulation in individuals with bilateral chronic mechanical neck pain, including widespread changes on pressure sensitivity., Methods: Ninety patients (51% female) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: cervical thrust manipulation on the right, cervical thrust manipulation on the left, or thoracic thrust manipulation. Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) over the C5-6 zygapophyseal joint, lateral epicondyle, and tibialis anterior muscle, neck pain (11-point numeric pain rating scale), and cervical spine range of motion (CROM) were collected at baseline and 10 minutes after the intervention by an assessor blinded to the treatment allocation of the patients. Mixed-model analyses of covariance were used to examine the effects of the treatment on each outcome variable, with group as the between-subjects variable, time and side as the within-subject variables, and gender as the covariate. The primary analysis was the group-by-time interaction., Results: No significant interactions were found with the mixed-model analyses of covariance for PPT level (C5-6, P>.210; lateral epicondyle, P>.186; tibialis anterior muscle, P>.268), neck pain intensity (P = .923), or CROM (flexion, P = .700; extension, P = .387; lateral flexion, P>.672; rotation, P>.192) as dependent variables. All groups exhibited similar changes in PPT, neck pain, and CROM (all, P<.001). Gender did not influence the main effects or the interaction effects in the analyses of the outcomes (P>.10)., Conclusion: The results of the current randomized clinical trial suggest that cervical and thoracic thrust manipulation induce similar changes in PPT, neck pain intensity, and CROM in individuals with bilateral chronic mechanical neck pain. However, changes in PPT and CROM were small and did not surpass their respective minimal detectable change values. Further, because we did not include a control group, we cannot rule out a placebo effect of the thrust interventions on the outcomes., Level of Evidence: Therapy, level 1b.J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2012;42(9):806-814, Epub 18 June 2012. doi:10.2519/jospt.2012.4151.

Study Design: Randomized clinical trial., Objective: To compare the effectiveness of cervical spine thrust manipulation to that of Kinesio Taping applied to the neck in individuals with mechanical neck pain, using self-reported pain and disability and cervical range of motion as measures., Background: The effectiveness of cervical manipulation has received considerable attention in the literature. However, because some patients cannot tolerate cervical thrust manipulation, alternative therapeutic options should be investigated., Methods: Eighty patients (36 women) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: the manipulation group, which received 2 cervical thrust manipulations, and the tape group, which received Kinesio Taping applied to the neck. Neck pain (11-point numeric pain rating scale), disability (Neck Disability Index), and cervical-range-of-motion data were collected at baseline and 1 week after the intervention by an assessor blinded to the treatment allocation of the patients. Mixed-model analyses of variance were used to examine the effects of the treatment on each outcome variable, with group as the between-subjects variable and time as the within-subjects variable. The primary analysis was the group-by-time interaction., Results: No significant group-by-time interactions were found for pain (F = 1.892, P = .447) or disability (F = 0.115, P = .736). The group-by-time interaction was statistically significant for right (F = 7.317, P = .008) and left (F = 9.525, P = .003) cervical rotation range of motion, with the patients who received the cervical thrust manipulation having experienced greater improvement in cervical rotation than those treated with Kinesio Tape (P<.01). No significant group-by-time interactions were found for cervical spine range of motion for flexion (F = 0.944, P = .334), extension (F = 0.122, P = .728), and right (F = 0.220, P = .650) and left (F = 0.389, P = .535) lateral flexion., Conclusion: Patients with mechanical neck pain who received cervical thrust manipulation or Kinesio Taping exhibited similar reductions in neck pain intensity and disability and similar changes in active cervical range of motion, except for rotation. Changes in neck pain surpassed the minimal clinically important difference, whereas changes in disability did not. Changes in cervical range of motion were small and not clinically meaningful. Because we did not include a control or placebo group in this study, we cannot rule out a placebo effect or natural changes over time as potential reasons for the improvements measured in both groups., Level of Evidence: Therapy, level 1b.

Study Design: Prospective cohort/predictive validity study., Objective: To determine the predictive validity of selected clinical examination items and to develop a clinical prediction rule to determine which patients with neck pain may benefit from cervical thrust joint manipulation (TJM) and exercise., Background: TJM to the cervical spine has been shown to be effective in patients presenting with a primary report of neck pain. It would be useful for clinicians to have a decision-making tool, such as a clinical prediction rule, that could accurately identify which subgroup of patients would respond positively to cervical TJM., Methods: Consecutive patients who presented to physical therapy with a primary complaint of neck pain completed a series of self-report measures, then received a detailed standardized history and physical examination. After the clinical examination, all patients received a standardized treatment regimen consisting of cervical TJM and range-of-motion exercise. Depending on response to treatment, patients were treated for 1 or 2 sessions over approximately 1 week. At the end of their participation in the study, patients were classified as having experienced a successful outcome based on a score of +5 ("quite a bit better") or higher on the global rating of change scale. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated for all potential predictor variables. Univariate techniques and stepwise logistic regression were used to determine the most parsimonious set of variables for prediction of treatment success. Variables retained in the regression model were used to develop a multivariate clinical prediction rule., Results: Eighty-two patients were included in data analysis, of whom 32 (39%) achieved a successful outcome. A clinical prediction rule with 4 attributes (symptom duration less than 38 days, positive expectation that manipulation will help, side-to-side difference in cervical rotation range of motion of 10° or greater, and pain with posteroanterior spring testing of the middle cervical spine) was identified. If 3 or more of the 4 attributes (positive likelihood ratio of 13.5) were present, the probability of experiencing a successful outcome improved from 39% to 90%., Conclusion: The clinical prediction rule may improve decision making by providing the ability to a priori identify patients with neck pain who are likely to benefit from cervical TJM and range-of-motion exercise. However, this is only the first step in the process of developing and testing a clinical prediction rule, as future studies are necessary to validate the results and should include long-term follow-up and a comparison group., Level of Evidence: Prognosis, level 2b.

Study Design: Randomized clinical trial., Objective: To compare the short-term effects of upper cervical and upper thoracic high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) thrust manipulation to nonthrust mobilization in patients with neck pain., Background: Although upper cervical and upper thoracic HVLA thrust manipulation and nonthrust mobilization are common interventions for the management of neck pain, no studies have directly compared the effects of both upper cervical and upper thoracic HVLA thrust manipulation to nonthrust mobilization in patients with neck pain., Methods: Patients completed the Neck Disability Index, the numeric pain rating scale, the flexion-rotation test for measurement of C1-2 passive rotation range of motion, and the craniocervical flexion test for measurement of deep cervical flexor motor performance. Following the baseline evaluation, patients were randomized to receive either HVLA thrust manipulation or nonthrust mobilization to the upper cervical (C1-2) and upper thoracic (T1-2) spines. Patients were reexamined 48-hours after the initial examination and again completed the outcome measures. The effects of treatment on disability, pain, C1-2 passive rotation range of motion, and motor performance of the deep cervical flexors were examined with a 2-by-2 mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA)., Results: One hundred seven patients satisfied the eligibility criteria, agreed to participate, and were randomized into the HVLA thrust manipulation (n = 56) and nonthrust mobilization (n = 51) groups. The 2-by-2 ANOVA demonstrated that patients with mechanical neck pain who received the combination of upper cervical and upper thoracic HVLA thrust manipulation experienced significantly (P<.001) greater reductions in disability (50.5%) and pain (58.5%) than those of the nonthrust mobilization group (12.8% and 12.6%, respectively) following treatment. In addition, the HVLA thrust manipulation group had significantly (P<.001) greater improvement in both passive C1-2 rotation range of motion and motor performance of the deep cervical flexor muscles as compared to the group that received nonthrust mobilization. The number needed to treat to avoid an unsuccessful outcome was 1.8 and 2.3 at 48-hour follow-up, using the global rating of change and Neck Disability Index cut scores, respectively., Conclusion: The combination of upper cervical and upper thoracic HVLA thrust manipulation is appreciably more effective in the short term than nonthrust mobilization in patients with mechanical neck pain., Level of Evidence: Therapy, level 1b.

Study Design: Randomized clinical trial., Objective: To determine if patients who met the clinical prediction rule (CPR) criteria for the success of thoracic spine thrust joint manipulation (TJM) for the treatment of neck pain would have a different outcome if they were treated with a cervical spine TJM., Background: A CPR had been proposed to identify patients with neck pain who would likely respond favorably to thoracic spine TJM. Research on validation of that CPR had not been completed when this trial was initiated. In our clinical experience, though many patients with neck pain responded favorably to thoracic spine TJM, they often reported that their symptomatic cervical spine area had not been adequately addressed., Methods: Twenty-four consecutive patients, who presented to physical therapy with a primary complaint of neck pain and met 4 out of 6 of the CPR criteria for thoracic TJM, were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups. The thoracic group received thoracic TJM and a cervical range-of-motion (ROM) exercise for the first 2 sessions, followed by a standardized exercise program for an additional 3 sessions. The cervical group received cervical TJM and the same cervical ROM exercise for the first 2 sessions, and the same exercise program given to the thoracic group for the next 3 sessions. Outcome measures collected at 1 week, 4 weeks, and 6 months from start of treatment included the Neck Disability Index, numeric pain rating scale, and Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire., Results: Patients who received cervical TJM demonstrated greater improvements in Neck Disability Index (P ≤.001) and numeric pain rating scale (P ≤.003) scores at all follow-up times. There was also a statistically significant improvement in the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire physical activity subscale score at all follow-up times for the cervical group (P ≤.004). The number needed to treat to avoid an unsuccessful overall outcome was 1.8 at 1 week, 1.6 at 4 weeks, and 1.6 at 6 months., Conclusion: Patients with neck pain who met 4 of 6 of the CPR criteria for successful treatment of neck pain with a thoracic spine TJM demonstrated a more favorable response when the TJM was directed to the cervical spine rather than the thoracic spine. Patients receiving cervical TJM also demonstrated fewer transient side-effects., Level of Evidence: Therapy, level 1b.

Study Design: A randomized controlled clinical trial., Objective: To investigate the effects of trigger point (TrP) manual therapy combined with a self-stretching program for the management of patients with plantar heel pain., Background: Previous studies have reported that stretching of the calf musculature and the plantar fascia are effective management strategies for plantar heel pain. However, it is not known if the inclusion of soft tissue therapy can further improve the outcomes in this population., Methods: Sixty patients, 15 men and 45 women (mean ± SD age, 44 ± 10 years) with a clinical diagnosis of plantar heel pain were randomly divided into 2 groups: a self-stretching (Str) group who received a stretching protocol, and a self-stretching and soft tissue TrP manual therapy (Str-ST) group who received TrP manual interventions (TrP pressure release and neuromuscular approach) in addition to the same self-stretching protocol. The primary outcomes were physical function and bodily pain domains of the quality of life SF-36 questionnaire. Additionally, pressure pain thresholds (PPT) were assessed over the affected gastrocnemii and soleus muscles, and over the calcaneus, by an assessor blinded to the treatment allocation. Outcomes of interest were captured at baseline and at a 1-month follow-up (end of treatment period). Mixed-model ANOVAs were used to examine the effects of the interventions on each outcome, with group as the between-subjects variable and time as the within-subjects variable. The primary analysis was the group-by-time interaction., Results: The 2 × 2 mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant group-by-time interaction for the main outcomes of the study: physical function (P = .001) and bodily pain (P = .005); patients receiving a combination of self-stretching and TrP tissue intervention experienced a greater improvement in physical function and a greater reduction in pain, as compared to those receiving the self-stretching protocol. The mixed ANOVA also revealed significant group-by-time interactions for changes in PPT over the gastrocnemii and soleus muscles, and the calcaneus (all P<.001). Patients receiving a combination of self-stretching and TrP tissue intervention showed a greater improvement in PPT, as compared to those who received only the self-stretching protocol., Conclusions: This study provides evidence that the addition of TrP manual therapies to a self-stretching protocol resulted in superior short-term outcomes as compared to a self-stretching program alone in the treatment of patients with plantar heel pain., Level of Evidence: Therapy, level 1b.

Study Design: Case-control study with blinded examiner., Objective: To investigate if pressure pain sensitivity is related to specific nerve trunks in the upper extremity of patients with either unilateral lateral epicondylalgia (LE) or carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS)., Background: In the clinical setting, patients with LE tend to exhibit radial nerve trunk tenderness, whereas patients with CTS exhibit median nerve tenderness. No studies have investigated if specific nerve pressure pain hypersensitivity exists in patients with either LE or CTS., Methods: Sixteen women with unilateral LE (mean±SD age, 43±7 years), 17 women with unilateral CTS (43±6 years), and 17 healthy women (43±6 years) were included in this study. Pressure pain thresholds (PPT) were bilaterally assessed over the median, ulnar, and radial nerve trunks, as well as over the C5-6 zygapophyseal joints, by an examiner blinded to the subjectsí condition. A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to evaluate differences in PPT among groups (LE, CTS, or controls) and between sides (affected/nonaffected or dominant/nondominant)., Results: The individuals in both the LE and CTS groups demonstrated lower PPT bilaterally over the median (group, P<.001; side, P=.437), radial (group, P<.001; side, P=.556), and ulnar (group, P<.001; side, P=.938) nerve trunks as compared to controls. Additionally, radial (P<.001) and ulnar (P=.005) nerves were more sensitive bilaterally in patients with LE than in patients with CTS. The median nerve was more sensitive bilaterally in patients with CTS than patients with LE (P=.002). Lower PPT over the cervical spine (group, P<.001; side, P=.233) were found bilaterally in both the LE and CTS groups. Further, patients with CTS exhibited lower cervical PPT than patients with LE (P<.001). PPT was negatively correlated with both pain intensity and duration of symptoms in both the LE and CTS groups (P<.001)., Conclusions: Bilateral mechanical nerve pain hypersensitivity is related to specific and particular nerve trunks in women with either unilateral LE or CTS. Our results suggest the presence of central and peripheral sensitization mechanisms in individuals with either LE or CTS.

Study Design: Case report., Background: Differential diagnosis for patients with radial wrist pain requires consideration of systemic disease, referred pain to the radial aspect of the wrist, and local dysfunction. The list of possible local dysfunctions should include De Quervain syndrome, as well as entrapment neuropathy of the superficial radial nerve., Case Description: The patient was a 57-year-old man with right radial wrist pain of 6 months' duration. The referral diagnosis was De Quervain syndrome, but a previous course of electrophysical agents-based physical therapy management had been unsuccessful. The physical examination ruled out the cervical, shoulder, elbow, and wrist joints as possible sources of pain. In this case, the diagnosis of entrapment neuropathy of the superficial radial nerve, rather than De Quervain syndrome, was primarily based on the symptom provocation resulting from a modified radial bias upper limb nerve tension test. Based on this diagnosis, treatment consisted of active and passive exercises using neurodynamic techniques., Outcomes: After 1 treatment session, the patient noted changes with regard to current pain intensity and function that exceeded the minimal clinically important difference and the minimal detectable change, respectively. After only 2 treatment sessions, the patient reported a complete resolution of symptoms and a full return to work., Discussion: This case report critically evaluates the diagnostic process for patients with radial wrist pain and suggests neuropathy of the superficial sensory branch of the radial nerve as a differential diagnostic option., Level of Evidence: Therapy, level 4.J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2010;40(6):361-368, Epub 22 April 2010. doi:10.2519/jospt.2010.3210.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Objectives: To describe the clinical outcomes following outpatient physical therapy for postoperative rehabilitation in 4 categories of shoulder surgery. Furthermore, we sought to determine if differences in outcomes between genders existed., Background: Improving the quality of care for patients following shoulder surgery requires an understanding of the clinical outcomes resulting from current clinical practice., Methods: This study included 856 patients (43.7% female; mean +/- SD age, 51.8 +/- 14.2 years) who received outpatient physical therapy following shoulder surgery. Standardized methods for classification of patients to type of shoulder surgery and collection of outcome variables were used. Data were gathered from 57 therapists working in 12 clinics. Patients included had been classified into 1 of 4 surgical categories: repair of a unidirectional instability, rotator cuff repair, rotator cuff repair with a subacromial decompression, or subacromial decompression alone. Descriptive statistics were calculated for baseline characteristics of patients in each surgical category. For all patients, scores on the Disability of the Arm Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and a numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) were obtained at the initial and final physical therapy visits, and the change between visits was calculated. Data on number of physical therapy sessions and length of stay (LOS) were collected. For each surgical category, independent-samples t tests were used to determine differences between genders for each initial and final clinical outcome of pain and disability, change scores, utilization of visits, and LOS. The percentage of patients who achieved a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) on the DASH was also determined for each surgical group. For each gender in each surgical category, paired t tests were used to determine if patients achieved significant change in pain and disability., Results: Means for each clinical outcome for the initial and final pain and disability scores, change scores, and the percentage of patients that achieved an MCID are provided. Significant differences were observed between genders for clinical outcomes. In the group treated with unilateral instability repair, women reported significantly greater initial disability than men, and their DASH change scores were significantly greater. In the group that had rotator cuff repairs, women reported significantly greater disability initially and at the final follow-up. In the group that had rotator cuff repairs combined with subacrominal decompression, women reported significantly greater disability initially and greater change in DASH scores. Females also reported greater change in their pain scores than males (P<.05). There were no significant differences between men and women in the subacromial decompression group (P<.05). There were no significant differences between genders for number of physical therapy visits or LOS. Men and women in each surgical category achieved clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement for pain and disability during treatments (P<.01). Greater than 75% of patients achieved an MCID (15 points) on the DASH score in each surgical category (range, 75.6%-94.5%)., Conclusions: Differences were observed between men and women in 4 postoperative surgical categories in each of the clinical outcomes but not for number of physical therapy visits or LOS. Statistically significant and clinically meaningful pain and disability improvements were reported for each gender within each shoulder category. Results from this study may help therapists estimate the prognosis of males and females receiving nonstandardized postoperative physical therapy in 4 different shoulder surgical categories., Level of Evidence: Therapy, level 2b.

Study Design: Case control study., Objectives: To compare the amount of forward head posture (FHP) and cervical range of motion between patients with moderate carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and healthy controls. We also sought to assess the relationships among FHP, cervical range of motion, and clinical variables related to the intensity and temporal profile of pain due to CTS., Background: It is plausible that the cervical spine may be involved in patients with CTS. No studies have investigated the possible associations among FHP, cervical range of motion, and symptoms related to CTS., Methods: FHP and cervical range of motion were assessed in 25 women with CTS and 25 matched healthy women. Side-view pictures were taken in both relaxed-sitting and standing positions to measure the craniovertebral angle. A CROM device was used to assess cervical range of motion. Posture and mobility measurements were performed by an experienced therapist blinded to the subjects' condition. Differences in cervical range of motion were examined using the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test. A 2-way mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate differences in FHP between groups and positions., Results: The ANOVA revealed significant differences between groups (F = 30.4; P<.001) and between positions (F = 6.5; P<.01) for FHP assessment. Patients with CTS had a smaller craniovertebral angle (greater FHP) than controls (P<.001) in both standing and sitting. Additionally, patients with CTS showed decreased cervical range of motion in all directions when compared to controls (P<.001). Only cervical flexion (rs = -0.43; P = .02) and lateral flexion contralateral to the side of the CTS (rs = -0.51; P = .01) were associated with the reported lowest pain experienced in the preceding week. A positive association between FHP and cervical range of motion was identified in both groups: the smaller the craniovertebral angle (reflective of a greater FHP), the smaller the range of motion (r values between 0.27 and 0.45; P<.05). Finally, cervical range of motion and FHP were negatively associated with age in the control group but not in the group with CTS., Conclusions: Patients with mild/moderate CTS exhibited a greater FHP and less cervical range of motion, as compared to healthy controls. Additionally, a greater FHP was associated with a reduction in cervical range of motion. However, a cause-and-effect relationship cannot be inferred from this study. Future research should investigate if FHP and restricted cervical range of motion is a consequence or a causative factor of CTS and related symptoms (eg, pain).

Study Design: Randomized clinical trial., Objective: To compare the effectiveness of 2 different conservative management approaches in the treatment of plantar heel pain., Background: There is insufficient evidence to establish the optimal physical therapy management strategies for patients with heel pain, and little evidence of long-term effects., Methods: Patients with a primary report of plantar heel pain underwent a standard evaluation and completed a number of patient self-report questionnaires, including the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Patients were randomly assigned to be treated with either an electrophysical agents and exercise (EPAX) or a manual physical therapy and exercise (MTEX) approach. Outcomes of interest were captured at baseline and at 4-week and 6-month follow-ups. The primary aim (effects of treatment on pain and disability) was examined with a mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA). The hypothesis of interest was the 2-way interaction (group by time)., Results: Sixty subjects (mean [SD] age, 48.4 [8.7] years) satisfied the eligibility criteria, agreed to participate, and were randomized into the EPAX (n = 30) or MTEX group (n = 30). The overall group-by-time interaction for the ANOVA was statistically significant for the LEFS (P = .002), FAAM (P = .005), and pain (P = .043). Between-group differences favored the MTEX group at both 4-week (difference in LEFS, 13.5; 95% CI: 6.3, 20.8) and 6-month (9.9; 95% CI: 1.2, 18.6) follow-ups., Conclusion: The results of this study provide evidence that MTEX is a superior management approach over an EPAX approach in the management of individuals with plantar heel pain at both the short- and long-term follow-ups. Future studies should examine the contribution of the different components of the exercise and manual physical therapy programs., Level of Evidence: Therapy, level 1b.