Search

What is the diagnostic accuracy of the International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) framework to assess the risk of vascular complications in patients seeking physiotherapy care for neck pain and/or headache? Cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study. One hundred and fifty patients seeking physiotherapy for neck pain and/or headache in primary care. Nineteen physiotherapists performed the index test according to the IFOMPT framework. Patients were classified as having a high, intermediate or low risk of vascular complications, following manual therapy and/or exercise, derived from the estimated risk of the presence of vascular pathology. The reference test was a consensus medical decision reached by a vascular neurologist and an interventional neurologist, with input from a neuroradiologist. The neurologists had access to clinical data and magnetic resonance imaging of the cervical spine, including an angiogram of the cervical arteries. Diagnostic accuracy measures were calculated for 'no contraindication' (ie, the low-risk category) and 'contraindication' (ie, the high-risk and intermediate-risk categories) for manual therapy and/or exercise. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios and the area under the curve were calculated. Manual therapy and/or exercise were contraindicated in 54.7% of the patients. The sensitivity of the IFOMPT framework was low (0.50, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.61) and its specificity was moderate (0.63, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.75). The positive and negative likelihood ratios were weak at 1.36 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.99) and 0.79 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.05), respectively. The area under the curve was poor (0.57, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.65). The IFOMPT framework has poor diagnostic accuracy when compared with a reference standard consisting of a consensus medical decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An international taskforce of clinician-scientists was formed by specialty groups of World Physiotherapy – International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) & International Organisation of Physiotherapists in Paediatrics (IOPTP) – to develop evidence-based practice position statements directing physiotherapists clinical reasoning for the safe and effective use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for paediatric populations (<18 years) with varied musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal conditions. A three-stage guideline process using validated methodology was completed: 1. Literature review stage (one scoping review, two reviews exploring psychometric properties); 2. Delphi stage (one 3-Round expert Delphi survey); and 3. Refinement stage (evidence-to-decision summative analysis, position statement development, evidence gap map analyses, and multilayer review processes). Evidence-based practice position statements were developed to guide the appropriate use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for paediatric populations. All were predicated on clinicians using biopsychosocial clinical reasoning to determine when the intervention is appropriate. 1. It is not recommended to perform: • Spinal manipulation and mobilisation on infants. • Cervical and lumbar spine manipulation on children. •Spinal manipulation and mobilisation on infants, children, and adolescents for non-musculoskeletal paediatric conditions including asthma, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, breastfeeding difficulties, cerebral palsy, infantile colic, nocturnal enuresis, and otitis media. 2. It may be appropriate to treat musculoskeletal conditions including spinal mobility impairments associated with neck-back pain and neck pain with headache utilising: • Spinal mobilisation and manipulation on adolescents; • Spinal mobilisation on children; or • Thoracic manipulation on children for neck-back pain only. 3. No high certainty evidence to recommend these interventions was available. Reports of mild to severe harms exist; however, risk rates could not be determined. Specific directives to guide physiotherapists' clinical reasoning on the appropriate use of spinal manipulation or mobilisation were identified. Future research should focus on trials for priority conditions (neck-back pain) in children and adolescents, psychometric properties of key outcome measures, knowledge translation, and harms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF) issued a clinical practice guideline for physical therapists that addresses the assessment and treatment of patients with nonspecific neck pain, including cervical radiculopathy, in Dutch primary care. Recommendations were based on a review of published systematic reviews. During the intake, the patient is screened for serious pathologies and corresponding patterns. Patients with cervical radiculopathy can be included or excluded through corresponding signs and symptoms and possibly diagnostic tests (Spurling test, traction/ distraction test, and Upper Limb Tension Test). History taking is done to gather information about patients' limitations, course of pain, and prognostic factors (eg, coping style) and answers to health-related questions. In case of a normal recovery (treatment profile A), management should be hands-off, and patients should receive advice from the physical therapist and possibly some simple exercises to supplement "acting as usual." In case of a delayed/deviant recovery (treatment profile B), the physical therapist is advised to use, in addition to the recommendations for treatment profile A, forms of mobilization and/or manipulation in combination with exercise therapy. Other interventions may also be considered. The physical therapist is advised not to use dry needling, low-level laser, electrotherapy, ultrasound, traction, and/or a cervical collar. In case of a delayed/deviant recovery with clear and/or dominant psychosocial prognostic factors (treatment profile C), these factors should first be addressed by the physical therapist, when possible, or the patient should be referred to a specialist, when necessary. In case of neck pain grade 111 (treatment profile D), the therapy resembles that for profile B, but the use of a cervical collar for pain reduction may be considered. The advice is to use it sparingly: only for a short period per day and only for a few weeks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature. • OBJECTIVES: To review and assess the peer-reviewed literature on the effectiveness of physical therapy interventions in treating lumbopelvic pain during pregnancy. • BACKGROUND: Current guidelines on interventions for lumbopelvic pain during pregnancy differ in their recommendations for assessment and intervention. Recent publications may allow revising current recommendations for the treatment of this complex problem. • METHODS: An electronic search strategy was conducted in PubMed, PEDro, Scopus, and CINAHL of literature published from January 1992 to November 2013. Two authors independently assessed all abstracts for eligibility. Articles were independently rated for quality by 2 authors, using the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria for methodological quality. Where possible, effect sizes were calculated for the different interventions. • RESULTS: A total of 22 articles (all randomized controlled trials) reporting on 22 independent studies were included. Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was moderate. Data for 4 types of interventions were considered: a combination of interventions (7 studies, n = 1202), exercise therapy (9 studies, n = 2149), manual therapy (5 studies, n = 360), and material support (1 study, n = 115). • CONCLUSION: All included studies on exercise therapy, and most of the studies on interventions combined with patient education, reported a positive effect on pain, disability, and/or sick leave. Evidence-based recommendations can be made for the use of exercise therapy for the treatment of lumbopelvic pain during pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to establish international consensus regarding the use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation among infants, children, and adolescents among expert international physiotherapists. Twenty-six international expert physiotherapists in manual therapy and paediatrics voluntarily participated in a 3-Round Delphi survey to reach a consensus via direct electronic mail solicitation using Qualtrics®. Consensus was defined a-priori as ≥75% agreement on all items with the same ranking of agreement or disagreement. Round 1 identified impairments and conditions where spinal mobilisation and manipulation might be utilised. In Rounds 2 and 3, panelists agreed or disagreed using a 4-point Likert scale. Eleven physiotherapists from seven countries representing five continents completed all three Delphi rounds. Consensus regarding spinal mobilisation or manipulation included: Manipulation is not recommended: (1) for infants across all conditions, impairments, and spinal levels; and (2) for children and adolescents across most conditions and spinal levels. Manipulation may be recommended for adolescents to treat spinal region-specific joint hypomobility (thoracic, lumbar), and pain (thoracic). Mobilisation may be recommended for children and adolescents with hypomobility, joint pain, muscle/myofascial pain, or stiffness at all spinal levels. Consensus revealed spinal manipulation should not be performed on infants regardless of condition, impairment, or spinal level. Additionally, the panel agreed that manipulation may be recommended only for adolescents to treat joint pain and joint hypomobility (limited to thoracic and/or lumbar levels). Spinal mobilisation may be recommended for joint hypomobility, joint pain, muscle/myofascial pain, and muscle/myofascial stiffness at all spinal levels among children and adolescents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To identify factors and barriers, which affect the utilisation of spinal manipulation and mobilisation among infants, children, and adolescents. Twenty-six international expert physiotherapists in manual therapy and paediatrics were invited to participate in a Delphi investigation using QualtricsⓇ. In Round-1 physiotherapists selected from a list of factors and barriers affecting their decision to use spinal manipulation and mobilisation in the paediatric population and had opportunity to add to the list. Round-2 asked respondents to select as many factors and barriers that they agreed with, resulting in a frequency count. The subset of responses to questions around barriers and facilitators are the focus of this study. Twelve physiotherapists completed both rounds of the survey. Medical diagnosis, mechanism of injury, patient presentation, tolerance to handling, and therapist's knowledge of techniques were the dominant deciding factors to use spinal manipulation and mobilisation among infants, children, and adolescents across spinal levels. More than 90% of the respondents selected manipulation as inappropriate among infants as their top barrier. Additional dominant barriers to using spinal manipulation among infants and children identified by ≥ 75% of the respondents included fear of injuring the patient, fear of litigation, lack of communication, lack of evidence, lack of guardian consent, and precision of the examination to inform clinical reasoning. This international survey provides much needed insight regarding the factors and barriers physiotherapists should consider when contemplating the utilisation of spinal mobilisation and manipulation in the paediatric population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study compared socio-demographic characteristics, health problem characteristics, and primary process data between database samples of patients referred to physical therapy (PT) versus a sample of patients referred to manual physical therapy (MPT) in the Netherlands. Statistical analysis indicated that that the MPT sample was significantly (P<0.01) different from the PT samples with regards to the socio-demographic data in that the patients in the MPT sample were younger, had attended post-secondary education to a greater degree, and were more often gainfully employed. The MPT sample was significantly (P ≤0.01) different from the PT samples in that health problem data in the MPT sample indicated mainly acute, non-surgical orthopaedic or neurological, spine-related complaints of recent occurrence. Recurrence was significantly (P<0.01) more common and complaints were significantly (P<0.01) more often non-traumatic in the MPT sample. MPT referrals were significantly (P<0.01) different from PT referrals in that the MPT referral originated more frequently with a general practitioner but not with a medical specialist and that referral occurred within three months of occurrence. Primary treatment goals and interventions are discussed, as are study limitations, suggestions for future research, and relevance to the international situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]