Search

Background: The CROM-VAS Test is a novel method to quantify immediate hypoalgesic treatment effects for neck pain by measuring the reduction in pain intensity (using a VAS) at the same (sub)maximal neck position (using a CROM device) before and after treatment. It is a novel test designed to quantify immediate pain relief following treatment, without the potentially confounding effects of simultaneous improvements in function., Objectives: (1) To describe the CROM-VAS Test, (2) To assess reliability and absolute agreement of the CROM-VAS Test, and (3) To evaluate its distinctiveness by comparing it to changes in pressure pain threshold (PPT) and baseline pain scores., Design: Cross-sectional study., Methods: The CROM-VAS Test was assessed in 58 people with non-specific neck pain treated with cervical mobilisation and cervicothoracic manipulation. Inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 1.1 )) and absolute agreement (standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC) and Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LoA)) were determined., Results: Reliability was high (ICC 1.1 : 0.91 (95%CI: 0.85-0.95) for the CROM-VAS Test in the painful direction and 0.73 (95%CI: 0.54-0.85) in the non/least painful direction). Agreement was good (CROM-VAS Test (painful direction): SEM: 2.3 mm; MDC: 6.4 mm; LoA: 13.5 to 16.6 mm; CROM-VAS Test (non/least painful direction): SEM: 4.0 mm; MDC: 11.1 mm; LoA: 14.7 to 22.0 mm). Low or negative correlations were observed between CROM-VAS Test scores and changes in PPT and baseline neck pain scores., Conclusion: The CROM-VAS Test has good clinimetric properties. It measures a distinct dimension of pain relief compared to PPTs and baseline pain scores., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

We conducted an explorative prospective cohort study with 6 months follow-up to 1) identify different pain and disability trajectories following an episode of acute neck pain, and 2) assess whether neuroimmune/endocrine, psychological, behavioral, nociceptive processing, clinical outcome, demographic and management-related factors differ between these trajectories. Fifty people with acute neck pain (ie, within 2 weeks of onset) were included. At baseline, and at 2, 4, 6, 12, and 26 weeks follow-up, various neuroimmune/endocrine (eg, inflammatory cytokines and endocrine factors), psychological (eg, stress symptoms), behavioral (eg, sleep disturbances), nociceptive processing (eg, condition pain modulation), clinical outcome (eg, trauma), demographic factors (eg, age), and management-related factors (eg, treatment received) were assessed. Latent class models were performed to identify outcome trajectories for neck pain and disability. Linear mixed models or the Pearson chi-square test were used to evaluate differences in these factors between the trajectories at baseline and at each follow-up assessment and over the entire 6 months period. For pain, 3 trajectories were identified. The majority of patients were assigned to the "Moderate pain - Favourable recovery" trajectory (n = 25; 50%) with smaller proportions assigned to the "Severe pain - Favourable recovery" (n = 16; 32%) and the "Severe pain - Unfavourable recovery" (n = 9; 18%) trajectories. For disability, 2 trajectories were identified: "Mild disability - Favourable recovery" (n = 43; 82%) and "Severe disability - Unfavourable recovery" (n = 7; 18%). Ongoing systemic inflammation (increased high-sensitive C-reactive protein), sleep disturbances, and elevated psychological factors (such as depression, stress and anxiety symptoms) were mainly present in the unfavorable outcome trajectories compared to the favorable outcome trajectories. PERSPECTIVE: Using exploratory analyses, different recovery trajectories for acute neck pain were identified based on disability and pain intensity. These trajectories were influenced by systemic inflammation, sleep disturbances, and psychological factors., (Copyright © 2024 United States Association for the Study of Pain, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Spinal mobilisation/manipulation is a common intervention for spinal pain, yet the working mechanisms are largely unknown. A randomised placebo-controlled trial was conducted to (1) compare the immediate neuroimmune responses following spinal mobilisation/manipulation and placebo spinal mobilisation/manipulation; (2) compare the immediate neuroimmune responses of those with a good outcome with those of a poor outcome following spinal mobilisation/manipulation; and (3) explore the association between neuroimmune responses and pain reduction. One hundred patients were randomly allocated to spinal mobilisation/manipulation or a placebo mobilisation/manipulation. Primary outcomes were whole blood in-vitro evoked released concentrations of IL-1β and TNF-α measured 10 min and 2 h after the intervention. Immediate effects were studied because successful mobilisation/manipulation is often associated with immediate pain reduction, and immediate neuroimmune responses are less affected by potential confounders than long-term responses. Secondary outcomes included multiple systemic inflammatory marker concentrations, phenotypic analysis of white blood cells and clinical outcomes. Outcomes were compared between the experimental and placebo group, and between people with a good and poor outcome in the experimental group. Estimates of intervention effects were based on intention-to-treat analyses, by using linear mixed-effect models. Although there was a substantial difference in pain reduction between groups (mean (SD) difference visual analogue scale: 30 (21) mm at 10 min and 32 (21) mm at 2 h (p < 0.001) in favour of mobilisation/manipulation, there were no differences in primary outcomes between groups or between people with a good and poor outcome (p ≥ 0.10). In conclusion, possible neuroimmune responses following spinal mobilisations/manipulation cannot be identified at a systemic level. Future research may focus on longer treatment duration and more localised neuroimmune responses., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: Evidence is lacking to what extent patients with Whiplash-Associated Disorders (WAD), those with non-traumatic neck pain (NTNP), and pain-free individuals differ regarding type and severity of impairments, disability, and psychological factors., Objective: To compare clinical characteristics between patients with WAD, with NTNP, and pain-free individuals in primary care physiotherapy. Additionally, differences between patient groups for both acute and chronic symptoms were assessed., Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted including 168 patients with WAD, 336 matched patients with NTNP, and 336 pain-free individuals. Differences and prevalence rates were calculated for pain intensity, pain distribution, cervical range of motion, neck flexor muscle endurance, self-reported disability, and psychological factors., Results: Patients with WAD had higher pain intensity (median 6/10 vs. 5/10 p<.01), had a wider distribution of their neck pain (p=.02), more restricted cervical flexion-extension (-11.9°) and rotation (-12.4°), less muscle endurance (-5.5 seconds), and more disability (+14.0%), compared to patients with NTNP. More patients with WAD reported low back pain (+9.5%) and headache (+12.2%) as musculoskeletal comorbidities. Regarding anxiety, depression, and stress, most patients (>83%) scored in the normal range. No significant differences between the patient groups were observed (p>.16). Both patient groups scored significantly worse than pain-free individuals on all characteristics. Patients with WAD and NTNP experienced different types of activity limitations and participation restrictions., Conclusion: WAD is a more severe condition than NTNP and should be considered a separate subgroup. A different approach in clinical practice and research is required for WAD and NTNP.

Objective: Clinicians are recommended to use the clinical reasoning framework developed by the International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) to provide guidance regarding assessment of the cervical spine and potential for cervical artery dysfunction prior to manual therapy and exercise. However, the interexaminer agreement and reliability of this framework is unknown. This study aimed to estimate the interexaminer agreement and reliability of the IFOMPT framework among physical therapists in primary care., Methods: Ninety-six patients who consulted a physical therapist for neck pain or headache were included in the study. Each patient was tested independently by 2 physical therapists, from a group of 17 physical therapists (10 pairs) across The Netherlands. Patients and examiners were blinded to the test results. The overall interexaminer agreement, specific agreement per risk category (high-, intermediate-, and low-risk), and interexaminer reliability (weighted κ) were calculated., Results: Overall agreement was 71% (specific agreement in high-risk category = 63%; specific agreement in intermediate-risk category = 38%; specific agreement in low-risk category = 84%). Overall reliability was moderate (weighted κ = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.21-0.57) and varied considerably between pairs of physical therapists (κ = 0.14-1.00)., Conclusion: The IFOMPT framework showed an insufficient interexaminer agreement and fair interexaminer reliability among physical therapists when screening the increased risks for vascular complications following manual therapy and exercise prior to treatment., Impact: The IFOMPT framework contributes to the safety of manual therapy and exercise. It is widely adopted in clinical practice and educational programs, but the measurement properties are unknown. This project describes the agreement and reliability of the IFOMPT framework., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Physical Therapy Association.)

Rationale: Cervical radiculopathy is initially typically managed conservatively. Surgery is indicated when conservative management fails or with severe/progressive neurological signs. Personalised multimodal physiotherapy could be a promising conservative strategy. However, aggregated evidence on the (cost‐)effectiveness of personalised multimodal physiotherapy compared to surgery with/without post‐operative physiotherapy is lacking. Aim/Objectives: To systematically summarise the literature on the (cost‐)effectiveness of personalised multimodal physiotherapy compared to surgery with or without post‐operative physiotherapy in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Methods: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science were searched from inception to 1st of March 2023. Primary outcomes were effectiveness regarding costs, arm pain intensity and disability. Neck pain intensity, perceived recovery, quality of life, neurological symptoms, range‐of‐motion, return‐to‐work, medication use, (re)surgeries and adverse events were considered secondary outcomes. Randomised clinical trials comparing personalised multimodal physiotherapy versus surgical approaches with/without post‐operative physiotherapy were included. Two independent reviewers performed study selection, data‐extraction, and risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane RoB 2 and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement. Certainty of the evidence was determined using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. Results: From 2109 records, eight papers from two original trials, with 117 participants in total were included. Low certainty evidence showed there were no significant differences on arm pain intensity and disability, except for the subscale 'heavy work' related disability (12 months) and disability at 5–8 years. Cost‐effectiveness was not assessed. There was low certainty evidence that physiotherapy improved significantly less on neck pain intensity, sensory loss and perceived recovery compared to surgery with/without physiotherapy. Low certainty evidence showed there were no significant differences on numbness, range of motion, medication use, and quality of life. No adverse events were reported. Conclusion: Considering the clinical importance of accurate management recommendations and the current low level of certainty, high‐quality cost‐effectiveness studies are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neuroimmune responses remain understudied in people with neck pain. This study aimed to (1) compare a broad range of systemic neuroimmune responses in people with non-specific neck pain (N = 112), cervical radiculopathy (N = 25), and healthy participants (N = 23); and (2) explore their associations with clinical, psychological and lifestyle factors. Quantification of systemic neuroimmune responses involved ex vivo serum and in vitro evokedrelease levels of inflammatory markers, and characterization of white blood cell phenotypes. Inflammatory indices were calculated to obtain a measure of total immune status and were considered the main outcomes. Differences between groups were tested using analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) and multivariable regression models. Compared to healthy participants, the ex vivo pro-inflammatory index was increased in people with non-specific neck pain (β = 0.70, p = 0.004) and people with cervical radiculopathy (β = 0.64, p = 0.04). There was no difference between non-specific neck pain and cervical radiculopathy (β = 0.23, p = 0.36). Compared to non-specific neck pain, people with cervical radiculopathy showed lower numbers of monocytes (β D -59, p = 0.01). There were no differences between groups following in vitro whole blood stimulation (p > 0.23) or other differences in the number and phenotype of white blood cells (p > 0.07). The elevated ex vivo neuroimmune responses in people with non-specific neck pain and radiculopathy support the contention that these conditions encompass inflammatory components that can be measured systemically. There were multiple significant associations with clinical, psychological and lifestyle factors, such as pain intensity (β = 0.25) and anxiety (β = 0.23) in non-specific neck pain, visceral adipose tissue (β = 0.43) and magnification (β = 0.59) in cervical radiculopathy, and smoking (β = 0.59) and visceral adipose tissue (β = 0.52) in healthy participants. These associations were modified by sex, indicating different neuroimmune associations for females and males. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The association between low-grade systemic inflammation and musculoskeletal pain may be influenced by multiple factors. However, little is known about the relative importance of these factors, and few studies account for them. This Delphi study aimed to reach consensus on the most important confounders which influence the association between low-grade systemic inflammation and musculoskeletal pain. Methods The panel consisted of 48 experts. In Round 1, the experts proposed what they believed were important confounders. In Round 2, the experts indicated for each confounder whether they believed it was important (yes/no). At least 50% of experts had to indicate the confounder was important to be considered in the final round. In Round 3, the experts rated the importance of each confounder on a 7-point Likert scale. Consensus was reached if ≥75% of the experts considered the factor either extremely or moderately important. Results In Round 1, 120 confounders were proposed, which were synthesized into 38 distinct factors. In Round 2, 33 confounders met the criterion to be considered important. In Round 3, consensus was reached for 14 confounders: acute illness/trauma, immune disease, medication use, endocrine, nutritional, or metabolic disease, other musculoskeletal conditions, age, handling of blood samples, sex, cancer, body composition, pregnancy, cardiovascular disease, physical activity, and pain characteristics. Conclusions These findings provide insight in the complexity of the association between low-grade systemic inflammation and musculoskeletal pain. Some factors currently listed as confounders may be re-classified as moderators or mediators as insights progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Clinicians are recommended to use the clinical reasoning framework developed by the International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) to provide guidance regarding assessment of the cervical spine and potential for cervical artery dysfunction prior to manual therapy and exercise. However, the interexaminer agreement and reliability of this framework is unknown. This study aimed to estimate the interexaminer agreement and reliability of the IFOMPT framework among physical therapists in primary care. Methods Ninety-six patients who consulted a physical therapist for neck pain or headache were included in the study. Each patient was tested independently by 2 physical therapists, from a group of 17 physical therapists (10 pairs) across The Netherlands. Patients and examiners were blinded to the test results. The overall interexaminer agreement, specific agreement per risk category (high-, intermediate-, and low-risk), and interexaminer reliability (weighted κ) were calculated. Results Overall agreement was 71% (specific agreement in high-risk category = 63%; specific agreement in intermediate-risk category = 38%; specific agreement in low-risk category = 84%). Overall reliability was moderate (weighted κ = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.21–0.57) and varied considerably between pairs of physical therapists (κ = 0.14–1.00). Conclusion The IFOMPT framework showed an insufficient interexaminer agreement and fair interexaminer reliability among physical therapists when screening the increased risks for vascular complications following manual therapy and exercise prior to treatment. Impact The IFOMPT framework contributes to the safety of manual therapy and exercise. It is widely adopted in clinical practice and educational programs, but the measurement properties are unknown. This project describes the agreement and reliability of the IFOMPT framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]