Search

Degenerative cervical radiculopathy (DCR) is a common condition which, due to the aging global population, is expected to worsen over time. For the majority of patients with DCR, surgical intervention is not required as nonoperative management is sufficient for symptom improvement. However, there are significant gaps within the literature as the majority of past systematic reviews assessing conservative interventions are outdated, or omit relevant studies due to strict inclusion/exclusion criteria. Therefore, an updated understanding of the effectiveness of noninvasive nonoperative management for DCR is required.We will search MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception, as well as hand-search reference lists of included studies and previous systematic reviews, to identify peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials on this topic.The results of this review will provide an understanding of the effectiveness of various nonoperative interventions. The quality of evidence will also be assessed using the GRADE approach.PROSPERO CRD42021249699.la radiculopathie cervicale dégénérative (DCR) est une affection courante qui, en raison du vieillissement de la population mondiale, devrait s’aggraver avec le temps. Pour la majorité des patients atteints de DCR, une intervention chirurgicale n’est pas nécessaire, car la prise en charge non opératoire est suffisante pour l’amélioration des symptômes. Cependant, il existe des lacunes importantes dans les publications scientifiques, car la majorité des examens systématiques antérieurs évaluant les interventions conservatrices sont obsolètes ou omettent des études pertinentes en raison de critères d’inclusion et exclusion stricts. Par conséquent, une compréhension actualisée de l’efficacité de la prise en charge non invasive et non opératoire de la DCR est nécessaire.nous effectuerons des recherches dans MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, PsycINFO et CINAHL depuis le début, et entreprendrons des recherches manuelles dans les listes de références des études incluses et des examens systématiques précédents, afin de déterminer les essais contrôlés randomisés et évalués par des pairs sur ce sujet.les résultats de cet examen permettront de comprendre l’efficacité de diverses interventions non opératoires. La qualité des preuves sera également évaluée à l’aide de l’approche GRADE.PROSPERO CRD42021249699.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) can impair blood flow to the spinal nerves giving rise to neurogenic claudication and limited walking ability. Reducing lumbar lordosis can increases the volume of the spinal canal and reduce neuroischemia. We developed a prototype LSS belt aimed at reducing lumbar lordosis while walking. PURPOSE The aim of this study was to assess the short-term effectiveness of a prototype LSS belt compared to a lumbar support in improving walking ability in patients with degenerative LSS. STUDY DESIGN This was a two-arm, double-blinded (participant and assessor) randomized controlled trial. PATIENT SAMPLE We recruited 104 participants aged 50 years or older with neurogenic claudication, imaging confirmed degenerative LSS, and limited walking ability. OUTCOME MEASURES The primary measure was walking distance measured by the self-paced walking test (SPWT) and the primary outcome was the difference in proportions among participants in both groups who achieved at least a 30% improvement in walking distance from baseline using relative risk with 95% confidence intervals. METHODS Within 1 week of a baseline SPWT, participants randomized to the prototype LSS belt group (n=52) and those randomized to the lumbar support group (n=52) performed a SPWT that was conducted by a blinded assessor. The Arthritis Society funded this study ($365,000 CAN) with salary support for principal investigator funded by the Canadian Chiropractic Research Foundation ($500,000 CAN for 5 years). RESULTS Both groups showed significant improvement in walking distance, but there was no significant difference between groups. The mean group difference in walking distance was −74 m (95% CI: −282.8 to 134.8, p=.49). In total, 62% of participants wearing the prototype LSS belt and 82% of participants wearing the lumbar support achieved at least 30% improvement in walking distance (relative risk, 0.7; 95% CI: 0.5–1.3, p=.43). CONCLUSIONS A prototype LSS belt demonstrated significant improvement in walking ability in degenerative LSS but was no better than a lumbar support.

Objectives: To develop an evidence-based guideline for the non-pharmacological management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain (i.e., tension-type or cervicogenic). Methods: This guideline is based on systematic reviews of high-quality studies. A multidisciplinary expert panel considered the evidence of clinical benefits, cost-effectiveness, societal and ethical values, and patient experiences when formulating recommendations. Target audience includes clinicians; target population is adults with persistent headaches associated with neck pain. Results: When managing patients with headaches associated with neck pain, clinicians should (a) rule out major structural or other pathologies, or migraine as the cause of headaches; (b) classify headaches associated with neck pain as tension-type headache or cervicogenic headache once other sources of headache pathology has been ruled out; (c) provide care in partnership with the patient and involve the patient in care planning and decision making; (d) provide care in addition to structured patient education; (e) consider low-load endurance craniocervical and cervicoscapular exercises for tension-type headaches (episodic or chronic) or cervicogenic headaches >3 months duration; (f) consider general exercise, multimodal care (spinal mobilization, craniocervical exercise and postural correction) or clinical massage for chronic tension-type headaches; (g) do not offer manipulation of the cervical spine as the sole form of treatment for episodic or chronic tension-type headaches; (h) consider manual therapy (manipulation with or without mobilization) to the cervical and thoracic spine for cervicogenic headaches >3 months duration. However, there is no added benefit in combining spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization and exercises; and (i) reassess the patient at every visit to assess outcomes and determine whether a referral is indicated. Conclusions: Our evidence-based guideline provides recommendations for the conservative management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain. The impact of the guideline in clinical practice requires validation. Significance: Neck pain and headaches are very common comorbidities in the population. Tension-type and cervicogenic headaches can be treated effectively with specific exercises. Manual therapy can be considered as an adjunct therapy to exercise to treat patients with cervicogenic headaches. The management of tension-type and cervicogenic headaches should be patient-centred.

Objectives Objective of this study is to develop an evidence-based guideline for the noninvasive management of soft tissue disorders of the shoulder (shoulder pain), excluding major pathology. Methods This guideline is based on high-quality evidence from seven systematic reviews. Multidisciplinary experts considered the evidence of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, societal and ethical values, and patient experiences when formulating recommendations. Target audience is clinicians; target population is adults with shoulder pain. Results When managing patients with shoulder pain, clinicians should (a) rule out major structural or other pathologies as the cause of shoulder pain and reassure patients about the benign and self-limited nature of most soft tissue shoulder pain; (b) develop a care plan in partnership with the patient; (c) for shoulder pain of any duration, consider low-level laser therapy; multimodal care (heat/cold, joint mobilization, and range of motion exercise); cervicothoracic spine manipulation and mobilization for shoulder pain when associated pain or restricted movement of the cervicothoracic spine; or thoracic spine manipulation; (d) for shoulder pain >3-month duration, consider stretching and/or strengthening exercises; laser acupuncture; or general physician care (information, advice, and pharmacological pain management if necessary); (e) for shoulder pain with calcific tendinitis on imaging, consider shock-wave therapy; (f) for shoulder pain of any duration, do not offer ultrasound; taping; interferential current therapy; diacutaneous fibrolysis; soft tissue massage; or cervicothoracic spine manipulation and mobilization as an adjunct to exercise (i.e., range of motion, strengthening and stretching exercise) for pain between the neck and the elbow at rest or during movement of the arm; (g) for shoulder pain >3-month duration, do not offer shock-wave therapy; and (h) should reassess the patient's status at each visit for worsening of symptoms or new physical, mental, or psychological symptoms, or satisfactory recovery. Conclusions Our evidence-based guideline provides recommendations for non-invasive management of shoulder pain. The impact of the guideline in clinical practice requires further evaluation. Significance Shoulder pain of any duration can be effectively treated with laser therapy, multimodal care (i.e., heat/cold, joint mobilization, range of motion exercise), or cervicothoracic manipulation and mobilization. Shoulder pain (>3 months) can be effectively treated with exercises, laser acupuncture, or general physician care (information, advice, and pharmacological pain management if necessary).

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to evaluate: the proportion of people reporting symptoms associated with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in primary care programs for knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) or persistent low back pain (LBP) and; the prevalence of self-reported clinical LSS in these three cohorts, according to two sets of adapted criteria.METHOD: A cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark primary care programs. Self-report LSS symptom questions were administered to participants with knee OA, hip OA, and persistent LBP. The prevalence of eleven LSS symptoms and clinical LSS were calculated for each cohort.RESULTS: A total of 10,234 participants were included in the analysis. A similar proportion of participants in each cohort were female (69%), with a 6- and 7-year older mean age in the knee and hip cohorts compared to the back cohort. A greater proportion of participants with LBP reported LSS symptoms (range 11-71%) than in the hip (11-50%) and knee (8-40%) cohorts. This pattern was observed for all but one symptom. The same pattern was observed for the prevalence of clinical LSS with less than 10% of people in each cohort satisfying the clinical criteria.CONCLUSION: Self-reported LSS symptoms are commonly reported by people treated in primary care for knee or hip OA, although not as frequently as reported by those with LBP. Despite symptoms of LSS being common, only a small proportion of people were classified as having self-reported clinical LSS.

The authors assessed the responsiveness of the Self-Paced Walking Test (SPWT), Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire (SSS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in non-surgical Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (LSS) patients. They found that the SPWT, SSS, and ODI are similarly responsive in non-surgical LSS patients, being useful instruments for clinicians and researchers., Study Design. Secondary analysis from a randomized controlled trial on nonsurgical interventions for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Objective. The aim of this study was to assess the responsiveness of the Self-Paced Walking Test (SPWT), Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire (SSS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and determine their minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in nonsurgical LSS patients. Summary of Background Data. Limited information is available about the responsiveness of these tests in nonsurgical LSS population. Methods. A total of 180 participants completed the SPWT, SSS, and ODI at baseline, 2, and 6 months. Responsiveness was assessed by distribution-based method, including effect size and standardized response mean, and anchor-based method, using the patient global index of change (PGIC) as the external anchor to distinguish responders and non-responders. Areas under the curve (AUC) were calculated along with MCIDs for “minimal” and “moderate improvement” subgroups. Results. The following values represent 2- and 6-month analyses of each outcome measure, respectively. Standard effect sizes: 0.48 and 0.50 for SPWT, −0.42 and −0.36 for SSS, and −0.29 and −0.25 for ODI. Spearman correlation coefficients between PGIC and outcomes were: 0.44 and 0.39 for SPWT, −0.53 and −0.55 for SSS, and −0.46 and −0.54 for ODI. MCIDs for the “minimal improvement” subgroup were: 375.9 and 319.3 ms for SPWT, −5.3 and −5.8 points for SSS, and −9.3 and −10.8 points for ODI. AUCs was 0.68 to 0.76. MCIDs for the “moderate improvement” subgroup were: 344.2 and 538.2 m for SPWT, −5.5 and −7.5 points for SSS, and −9.1 and −13.6 points for ODI. AUCs ranged from 0.68 to 0.76. Conclusion. The SPWT, SSS, and ODI are responsive outcome measures to assess nonsurgical patients with LSS. This finding, along with the reported MCIDs, can help clinicians to monitor changes in their patients’ walking and physical function over time and make clinical decisions. They also provide researchers with reference for future studies in LSS. Level of Evidence: 2

Over 70% of people in industrialized countries suffer from low back pain at some time, and it is one of the main reasons for visits to physicians. Risk factors include heavy physical work, smoking, stress, depression, and job dissatisfaction. In more than 90% of cases the exact anatomical source of back pain cannot be determined, and the preferred diagnostic label is ‘non-specific low back pain’. Investigation should be restricted to patients with red flags and clinical suspicion of serious disease, with magnetic resonance imaging the best imaging modality for the diagnosis of lumbar disorders. In the absence of red flags, patients with acute low back pain should receive non pharmacological care as first treatment option including reassurance, advise to remain active, massage and spinal manipulation followed by non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and muscle relaxants if necessary.

Background Context The effectiveness of treatments for chronic, degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine can be influenced by patient perceptions and expectations regarding treatment. Purpose The primary purpose of this study was to understand the factors that are important to individuals with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) regarding different nonsurgical treatments. These factors were considered within the context of each treatment received as a part of the parent randomized controlled trial (RCT). Study Design Focus group study of RCT participants. Patient Sample Convenience sample of 50 individuals with LSS (28 female, average age 73±7.7 years) from an RCT participated in one of six focus groups. Focus groups consisted of patients previously randomized to one of three nonsurgical treatments: (1) medical care; (2) community-based group exercise; and (3) clinic-based manual therapy and individualized exercise. Outcome Measures Experiences, opinions, and preferences of individuals with LSS who participated in an RCT. Inter-coder agreement for qualitative analysis was conducted with kappa statistics. Methods Participants discussed their experiences and perceptions regarding study treatment and their general experience with LSS using open-ended questions provided by a facilitator. Transcripts were coded according to modified grounded theory in an open approach, using codes that addressed the primary focus group discussion topics (primary coding) and codes for emerging topics (secondary coding). Secondary coding sought to identify themes concerning living with LSS and seeking treatment that were emergent from the focus groups. This study was funded by the Patient-Centered Research Outcomes Institute. The authors report no conflicts of interest. Results Three themes related to medical treatment and symptom management arose from analyses: (1) an emotional response to LSS; (2) a desire for education about LSS and motivation to pursue education from any available source; and (3) a desire for individualized care based on self-management techniques and lifestyle changes. Emotional responses were more evident in individuals receiving medical care, whereas the other two themes were consistent across all three treatment groups. Conclusions The chronic pain associated with LSS may result in negative emotional responses. Individuals with LSS may believe misinformation and information from nonmedical sources, especially when medical providers do not spend sufficient time explaining the disease process and the reasoning behind treatment strategies. Receiving individualized care focused on self-management led to fewer negative emotions toward care and the disease process. Clinicians should be prepared to address all three of these aspects when providing care to individuals with LSS.

Background Context Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a highly prevalent disease in older adults that causes significant limitations in walking and other daily activities. Research into optimal nonsurgical treatment approaches for LSS is lacking. Purpose The purpose of this qualitative study is to assess the opinions of participants in a randomized clinical trial of nonsurgical LSS treatments regarding the interventions they received, factors contributing to adherence to the interventions, and methods of outcomes assessment. Study Design/Setting This study used a qualitative focus group design conducted at an academic research center. Patient Sample Individuals participating in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) for non-surgical LSS treatment were invited to discuss their study treatments and general experiences with LSS. The three treatment arms in the study were medical care, community-based group exercise, and clinic-based manual therapy and individual exercise. Outcome Measures Following coding of qualitative data, kappa statistic was used to calculate agreement between observers. Themes were identified and agreed upon by both coders. Methods This study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Fifty individuals (28 women, mean age 73±7.7 years) participated in a focus group. Two focus groups based on modified grounded theory were held for participants of each of the three treatment arms, for a total of six focus groups. Discussion topics included perceived effectiveness of the assigned treatment, suggestions for improvement, barriers and facilitators to completing treatment, and opinions of research outcome measures. Results Several themes were evident across all treatment groups. First, patients prefer individualized treatment that is tailored to their specific impairments and functional limitations. They also want to learn self-management strategies to rely less upon formal health care providers. Participants consistently stated that exercise improved their pain levels and physical function. However, they noted that these effects are temporary, so commitment to exercising long-term is important. Common barriers to completing the assigned LSS treatment included transportation issues and other comorbid health conditions. All three treatment groups cited perceived treatment benefit as a strong facilitator to continuing treatment. In addition, the ability of the health care provider to relate to the patient and listen to the patient's concerns was a common facilitator. Within the community-based group exercise treatment arm, most individuals continued group exercise after study completion, and social support was often mentioned as a facilitator to continuing treatment. Medical care was most often associated with minimal to no effect of treatment. Conclusions Many individuals with LSS report barriers to accessing non-surgical treatment, but may also be willing to commit to a long-term treatment strategy that includes exercise. Social support from others with LSS and from health care providers with good communication skills may facilitate compliance with treatment recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of passive physical modalities for the management of soft tissue injuries of the elbow. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1990 to 2015. Studies meeting our selection criteria were eligible for critical appraisal. Random pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria. We included studies with a low risk of bias in our best evidence synthesis. RESULTS: We screened 6618 articles; 21 were eligible for critical appraisal and nine (reporting on eight RCTs) had a low risk of bias. All RCTs with a low risk of bias focused on lateral epicondylitis. We found that adding transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation to primary care does not improve the outcome of patients with lateral epicondylitis. We found inconclusive evidence for the effectiveness of: (1) an elbow brace for managing lateral epicondylitis of variable duration; and (2) shockwave therapy or low level laser therapy for persistent lateral epicondylitis. DISCUSSION: Our review suggests that transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation provides no added benefit to patients with lateral epicondylitis. The effectiveness of an elbow brace, shockwave therapy, or low level laser therapy for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis is inconclusive. We found little evidence to inform the use of passive physical modalities for the management of elbow soft tissue injuries. Language: en

Background Context In 2008, the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) found limited evidence on the effectiveness of manual therapies, passive physical modalities, or acupuncture for the management of whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) or neck pain and associated disorders (NAD). Purpose This review aimed to update the findings of the Neck Pain Task Force, which examined the effectiveness of manual therapies, passive physical modalities, and acupuncture for the management of WAD or NAD. Study Design/Setting This is a systematic review and best evidence synthesis. Sample The sample includes randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies comparing manual therapies, passive physical modalities, or acupuncture with other interventions, placebo or sham, or no intervention. Outcome Measures The outcome measures were self-rated or functional recovery, pain intensity, health-related quality of life, psychological outcomes, or adverse events. Methods We systematically searched five databases from 2000 to 2014. Random pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Studies with a low risk of bias were stratified by the intervention's stage of development (exploratory vs. evaluation) and synthesized following best evidence synthesis principles. Funding was provided by the Ministry of Finance. Results We screened 8,551 citations, and 38 studies were relevant and 22 had a low risk of bias. Evidence from seven exploratory studies suggests that (1) for recent but not persistent NAD grades I–II, thoracic manipulation offers short-term benefits; (2) for persistent NAD grades I–II, technical parameters of cervical mobilization (eg, direction or site of manual contact) do not impact outcomes, whereas one session of cervical manipulation is similar to Kinesio Taping; and (3) for NAD grades I–II, strain-counterstrain treatment is no better than placebo. Evidence from 15 evaluation studies suggests that (1) for recent NAD grades I–II, cervical and thoracic manipulation provides no additional benefit to high-dose supervised exercises, and Swedish or clinical massage adds benefit to self-care advice; (2) for persistent NAD grades I–II, home-based cupping massage has similar outcomes to home-based muscle relaxation, low-level laser therapy (LLLT) does not offer benefits, Western acupuncture provides similar outcomes to non-penetrating placebo electroacupuncture, and needle acupuncture provides similar outcomes to sham-penetrating acupuncture; (3) for WAD grades I–II, needle electroacupuncture offers similar outcomes as simulated electroacupuncture; and (4) for recent NAD grades III, a semi-rigid cervical collar with rest and graded strengthening exercises lead to similar outcomes, and LLLT does not offer benefits. Conclusions Our review adds new evidence to the Neck Pain Task Force and suggests that mobilization, manipulation, and clinical massage are effective interventions for the management of neck pain. It also suggests that electroacupuncture, strain-counterstrain, relaxation massage, and some passive physical modalities (heat, cold, diathermy, hydrotherapy, and ultrasound) are not effective and should not be used to manage neck pain.

BackgroundLumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a growing health problem and a leading cause of disability and loss of independence in older adults. It is usually caused by age-related degenerative narrowing of the spinal canals leading to compression and ischemia of the spinal nerves and symptoms of neurogenic claudication. Limited walking ability is the dominant functional impairment caused by LSS. Animal studies suggest increased blood flow to the spinal nerves and spinal cord with superficial paraspinal electrical stimulation. The purpose of this study is to assess the effectiveness of paraspinal transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) applied while walking on walking ability in patients with LSS.Methods/DesignWe propose to conduct a 2-arm double-blinded (participant and assessor) randomized controlled trial. We will recruit individuals who have limited walking ability due to degenerative LSS from hospital specialists, community physicians, and chiropractors located in the city of Toronto, Canada. Eligible consenting participants will be randomly assigned to either paraspinal TENS or placebo paraspinal TENS applied while walking. The primary outcome will be walking distance measured during a single self-paced walking test. We will calculate the differences in proportions among participants in both groups who achieve at least a 30% improvement in walking distance from baseline using Pearson χ2 test with 95% confidence intervals.DiscussionEffective nonoperative interventions for LSS are unknown. Interventions that can improve blood flow to the spinal nerves while walking may increase walking ability in this population. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation is a low-cost intervention that may have the potential to achieve this objective. To our knowledge, this study will be the first clinical trial to assess the effects of TENS on walking ability of patients with LSS.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02592642

PURPOSE: To develop an evidence-based guideline for the management of grades I-III neck pain and associated disorders (NAD).METHODS: This guideline is based on recent systematic reviews of high-quality studies. A multidisciplinary expert panel considered the evidence of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, societal and ethical values, and patient experiences (obtained from qualitative research) when formulating recommendations. Target audience includes clinicians; target population is adults with grades I-III NAD RECOMMENDATION 1: Clinicians should rule out major structural or other pathologies as the cause of NAD. Once major pathology has been ruled out, clinicians should classify NAD as grade I, II, or III.RECOMMENDATION 2: Clinicians should assess prognostic factors for delayed recovery from NAD.RECOMMENDATION 3: Clinicians should educate and reassure patients about the benign and self-limited nature of the typical course of NAD grades I-III and the importance of maintaining activity and movement. Patients with worsening symptoms and those who develop new physical or psychological symptoms should be referred to a physician for further evaluation at any time during their care.RECOMMENDATION 4: For NAD grades I-II ≤3 months duration, clinicians may consider structured patient education in combination with: range of motion exercise, multimodal care (range of motion exercise with manipulation or mobilization), or muscle relaxants. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer structured patient education alone, strain-counterstrain therapy, relaxation massage, cervical collar, electroacupuncture, electrotherapy, or clinic-based heat.RECOMMENDATION 5: For NAD grades I-II >3 months duration, clinicians may consider structured patient education in combination with: range of motion and strengthening exercises, qigong, yoga, multimodal care (exercise with manipulation or mobilization), clinical massage, low-level laser therapy, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer strengthening exercises alone, strain-counterstrain therapy, relaxation massage, relaxation therapy for pain or disability, electrotherapy, shortwave diathermy, clinic-based heat, electroacupuncture, or botulinum toxin injections.RECOMMENDATION 6: For NAD grade III ≤3 months duration, clinicians may consider supervised strengthening exercises in addition to structured patient education. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer structured patient education alone, cervical collar, low-level laser therapy, or traction. RECOMMENDATION 7: For NAD grade III >3 months duration, clinicians should not offer a cervical collar. Patients who continue to experience neurological signs and disability more than 3 months after injury should be referred to a physician for investigation and management. RECOMMENDATION 8: Clinicians should reassess the patient at every visit to determine if additional care is necessary, the condition is worsening, or the patient has recovered. Patients reporting significant recovery should be discharged.

To update findings of the 2000–2010 Bone and Joint Decade Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders and evaluate the effectiveness of non-invasive and non-pharmacological interventions for the management of patients with headaches associated with neck pain (i.e., tension-type, cervicogenic, or whiplash-related headaches). We searched five databases from 1990 to 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case–control studies comparing non-invasive interventions with other interventions, placebo/sham, or no interventions. Random pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria to determine scientific admissibility. Studies with a low risk of bias were synthesized following best evidence synthesis principles. We screened 17,236 citations, 15 studies were relevant, and 10 had a low risk of bias. The evidence suggests that episodic tension-type headaches should be managed with low load endurance craniocervical and cervicoscapular exercises. Patients with chronic tension-type headaches may also benefit from low load endurance craniocervical and cervicoscapular exercises; relaxation training with stress coping therapy; or multimodal care that includes spinal mobilization, craniocervical exercises, and postural correction. For cervicogenic headaches, low load endurance craniocervical and cervicoscapular exercises; or manual therapy (manipulation with or without mobilization) to the cervical and thoracic spine may also be helpful. The management of headaches associated with neck pain should include exercise. Patients who suffer from chronic tension-type headaches may also benefit from relaxation training with stress coping therapy or multimodal care. Patients with cervicogenic headache may also benefit from a course of manual therapy.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of a government-regulated rehabilitation guideline compared with education and activation by general practitioners, and to a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation programme on self-reported global recovery from acute whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) grade I–II.DesignPragmatic randomised clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment.SettingMultidisciplinary rehabilitation clinics and general practitioners in Ontario, Canada.Participants340 participants with acute WAD grade I and II. Potential participants were sampled from a large automobile insurer when reporting a traffic injury.InterventionsParticipants were randomised to receive one of three protocols: government-regulated rehabilitation guideline, education and activation by general practitioners or a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOur primary outcome was time to self-reported global recovery. Secondary outcomes included time on insurance benefits, neck pain intensity, whiplash-related disability, health-related quality of life and depressive symptomatology at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months postinjury.ResultsThe median time to self-reported global recovery was 59 days (95% CI 55 to 68) for the government-regulated guideline group, 105 days (95% CI 61 to 126) for the preferred-provider group and 108 days (95% CI 93 to 206) for the general practitioner group; the difference was not statistically significant (Χ2=3.96; 2 df: p=0.138). We found no clinically important differences between groups in secondary outcomes. Post hoc analysis suggests that the general practitioner (hazard rate ratio (HRR)=0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77) and preferred-provider groups (HRR=0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96) had slower recovery than the government-regulated guideline group during the first 80 days postinjury. No major adverse events were reported.ConclusionsTime-to-recovery did not significantly differ across intervention groups. We found no differences between groups with regard to neck-specific outcomes, depression and health-related quality of life.Trial registration numberNCT00546806.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Selecting a walking outcome measure for neurogenic claudication requires knowledge of its measurement properties. PURPOSE To systematically review and appraise the literature on the measurement properties of walking outcome measures for patients with neurogenic claudication. STUDY DESIGN A systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS A systematic search was conducted on the following seven databases: PubMed, PsychINFO, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Clinical studies that assessed a measurement property of a walking outcome measure for patients with neurogenic claudication were selected. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. Measurement property results were assessed using the adapted criteria from Terwee et al. (2007). RESULTS Twelve studies that evaluated 15 separate walking outcome measures were included. Out of the 12 studies included, half had poor methodological quality. Four measures had acceptable test-retest reliability: the self-paced walking test (intraclass correlation coefficient, or ICC was 0.98, 95% CI: 0.95–0.99), Physical Function Scale (PFS) (pooled analysis ICC = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.77–0.89), PFS walk item (ICC = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.68–0.89), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) walk item (ICC = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.76–0.92). Responsiveness was assessed on five walking outcome measures, and three had adequate responsiveness: the ODI walk item (Area under the Curve, or AUC, was 0.76, SD 0.15), Treadmill test (AUC = 0.70), and PFS (AUC = 0.77, SD 0.14). A meta-analysis demonstrated the PFS had adequate test retest reliability (pooled ICC = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.77–0.89) and internal consistency (pooled Cronbach's αlpha (α) = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.81–0.86), but not criterion validity (pooled correlation coefficient = -0.59, 95% CI: -0.71, -0.45). Measures that recorded adequate criterion validity were the ODI walk item (pooled correlation coefficient = -0.71, 95% CI: -0.80, -0.58), Treadmill test (pooled correlation coefficient = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.78–0.91), and self predicted walking item (pooled correlation coefficient = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.63–0.82). CONCLUSIONS The results of our systematic review demonstrated that high-quality studies that asses the measurement properties of walking outcome measures for patients with neurogenic claudication are lacking. There was only limited evidence available for each walking measure, which prevented any single outcome from being confirmed as the gold standard measure of neurogenic claudication. Clinicians and researchers are recommended to use the self-paced walking test and ODI walk item until further evidence is available. Future research should focus on producing high-quality studies with excellent methodology and larger sample sizes.

Objective The purpose of this study was to assess long-term outcomes of a 6-week multimodal program (manual therapy, exercises, and self-management strategies) in patients with neurogenic claudication due to degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods This study evaluated 49 patients with neurogenic claudication who completed a 6-week multimodal program between 2010 and 2013. Outcomes included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), and Numeric Rating Scale. Mean differences, paired t tests, and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to compare outcomes at baseline, 6 weeks, and long-term follow-up. Results Twenty-three patients completed the follow-up questionnaire (47% response rate). Median follow-up was 3.6 years (interquartile range: 3.3-4.6). The mean age was 73.5 years (standard deviation: 8.5). Between baseline and long-term follow-up, there were statistically significant and clinically important improvements in disability (ODI: -23.7 [95% confidence interval (CI): -15.7 to -31.6]; ODI walking item: -1.96 [95% CI: -1.34 to -2.57]; ZCQ function scale: -0.42 [95% CI: -0.10 to -0.70]) and pain (leg pain: -3.53 [95% CI: -1.80 to -5.20]; ZCQ symptom scale: -0.71 [95% CI: -0.30 to -1.10]), but not low back pain (Numeric Rating Scale: -1.03 [95% CI: -1.00 to 3.10]). There was no statistically significant change in any outcomes between 6 weeks and long-term follow-up. Conclusion In a sample of patients with neurogenic claudication participating in a 6-week multimodal program, clinically important improvements in leg pain and disability, but not low back pain while walking, were maintained in the long term (median duration of 3.6 years) when compared to baseline.

Objective The purpose of this preliminary study was to assess the effectiveness of a 6-week, nonsurgical, multimodal program that addresses the multifaceted aspects of neurogenic claudication. Methods In this retrospective study, 2 researchers independently extracted data from the medical records from January 2010 to April 2013 of consecutive eligible patients who had completed the 6-week Boot Camp Program . The program consisted of manual therapy twice per week (eg, soft tissue and neural mobilization, chiropractic spinal manipulation, lumbar flexion-distraction, and muscle stretching), structured home-based exercises, and instruction of self-management strategies. A paired t test was used to compare differences in outcomes from baseline to 6-week follow-up. Outcomes included self-reported pain, disability, walking ability, and treatment satisfaction. Results A total of 49 patients were enrolled, with a mean age of 70 years. The mean difference in the Oswestry Disability Index was 15.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.39-18.92), and that for the functional and symptoms scales of the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.26-0.56) and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.55-0.93), respectively. Numeric pain scores for both leg and back showed statistically significant improvements. Improvements in all outcomes were clinically important. Conclusions This study showed preliminary evidence for improved outcomes in patients with neurogenic claudication participating in a 6-week nonsurgical multimodal Boot Camp Program.

The patient perspective regarding the impact of neurogenic claudication (NC) has not been well studied. The objectives of this study were to determine what is most bothersome among patients with NC and how it impacts their lives and expectations with surgical and non-surgical treatment.Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted, audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis categorized key findings based on relative importance and impact on participants.Twenty-eight individuals participated in this study. Participants were most bothered by the pain of NC, which dramatically impacted their lives. Inability to walk was the dominant functional limitation and this impacted the ability to engage in recreational and social activities. The most surprising finding was how frequently participants reported significant emotional effects of NC.From a patients' perspective NC has a significant multidimensional effects with pain, limited walking ability and emotional effects being most impactful to their lives.Le point de vue du patient concernant l’effet de la claudication neurogène (CN) n’a pas fait l’objet d’études poussées. Les objectifs de cette étude étaient de déterminer ce qui gêne le plus les patients atteints de CN, ainsi que les répercussions sur leur vie et leurs attentes vis-à-vis des traitements chirurgicaux et non chirurgicaux.Entrevues téléphoniques semistructurées avec enregistrement audio et transcription textuelle. Une analyse thématique a permis de catégoriser les principales conclusions selon l’importance relative et les répercussions sur les participants.Vingt-huit personnes ont participé à l’étude. Les participants étaient surtout gênés par la douleur de la CN, qui a d’énormes répercussions sur leur vie. L’incapacité à marcher constituait la limitation fonctionnelle dominante qui avait des conséquences sur la capacité à réaliser des activités récréatives et sociales. La conclusion la plus surprenante était la fréquence à laquelle les participants ont déclaré d’importantes séquelles émotionnelles associées à la CN.Du point de vue des patients, la CN présente d’importants effets multidimensionnels avec la douleur, la capacité de locomotion limitée et les séquelles émotionnelles comme répercussions les plus considérables sur la vie des patients.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to determine the prevalence and factors associated with injury in professional ballet and modern dancers, and assess if dancers are reporting their injuries and explore reasons for not reporting injuries.DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.SETTING: Participants were recruited from nine professional ballet and modern dance companies in Canada, Denmark, Israel, and Sweden.PARTICIPANTS: Professional ballet and modern dancers.INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: Sociodemographic variables included age, sex, height, weight, and before-tax yearly or monthly income. Dance specific characteristics included number of years in present dance company, number of years dancing professionally, number of years dancing total, and rank in the company.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported injury and Self-Estimated Functional Inability because of Pain.RESULTS: A total of 260 dancers participated in the study with an overall response rate of 81%. The point prevalence of self-reported injury in professional ballet and modern dancers was 54.8% (95% CI, 47.7-62.1) and 46.3% (95% CI, 35.5-57.1), respectively. Number of years dancing professionally (OR = 4.4, 95% CI, 1.6-12.3) and rank (OR = 2.4, 95% CI, 1.2-4.8) were associated with injury in ballet dancers. More than 15% of all injured dancers had not reported their injury and their reasons for not reporting injury varied.CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of injury is high in professional dancers with a significant percentage not reporting their injuries for a variety of reasons. Number of years dancing and rank are associated with injury in professional ballet dancers.

Background: Work disability is a major personal, financial and public health burden. Predicting future work success is a major focus of research. Objectives: To identify common prognostic factors for return-to-work across different health and injury conditions and to describe their association with return-to-work outcomes. Methods: Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, Cinahl, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the grey literature were searched from January 1, 2004 to September 1, 2013. Systematic reviews addressing return-to-work in various conditions and injuries were selected. Eligible studies were critically appraised using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria to identify low risk of bias reviews. Results: Of the 36,193 titles screened and the 94 eligible studies reviewed, 56 systematic reviews were accepted as low risk of bias. Over half of these focused on musculoskeletal disorders, which were primarily spine related (e.g., neck and low back pain). The other half of studies assessed workers with mental health or cardiovascular conditions, stroke, cancer, multiple sclerosis or other non-specified health conditions. Many factors have been assessed, but few consistently across conditions. Common factors associated with positive return-to-work outcomes were higher education and socioeconomic status, higher self-efficacy and optimistic expectations for recovery and return-to-work, lower severity of the injury/illness, return-to-work coordination, and multidisciplinary interventions that include the workplace and stakeholders. Common factors associated with negative return-to-work outcomes were older age, being female, higher pain or disability, depression, higher physical work demands, previous sick leave and unemployment, and activity limitations. Conclusions: Expectations of recovery and return-to-work, pain and disability levels, depression, workplace factors, and access to multidisciplinary resources are important modifiable factors in progressing return-to-work across health and injury conditions. Employers, healthcare providers and other stakeholders can use this information to facilitate return-to-work for injured/ill workers regardless of the specific injury or illness. Future studies should investigate novel interventions, and other factors that may be common across health conditions.

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) causing neurogenic claudication is a leading cause of pain, disability and loss of independence in older adults. The prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis is growing rapidly due to an aging population. The dominant limitation in LSS is walking ability. Postural, physical and psychosocial factors can impact symptoms and functional ability. LSS is the most common reason for spine surgery in older adults yet the vast majority of people with LSS receive non-surgical treatment. What constitutes effective non-surgical treatment is unknown. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-modal and self-management training program, known as the Boot Camp Program for LSS aimed at improving walking ability and other relevant patient-centred outcomes. We will use a pragmatic two-arm randomized controlled single blinded (assessor) study design. Eligible and consenting participants will be randomized to receive from licensed chiropractors either a 6-week (twice weekly) self-management training program (manual therapy, education, home exercises) with an instructional workbook and video and a pedometer or a single instructional session with an instructional workbook and video and pedometer. The main outcome measure will be the self-paced walking test measured at 6 months. We will also assess outcomes at 8 weeks and 3 and 12 months. Symptoms and functional limitations in LSS are variable and influenced by changes in spinal alignment. Physical and psychological factors result in chronic disability for patients with LSS. The Boot Camp Program is a 6-week self-management training program aimed at the multi-faceted aspects of LSS and trains individuals to use self-management strategies. The goal is to provide life-long self-management strategies that maximize walking and overall functional abilities and quality of life. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02592642 .

Importance Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most common reason for spine surgery in older US adults. There is an evidence gap about nonsurgical LSS treatment options. Objective To explore the comparative clinical effectiveness of 3 nonsurgical interventions for patients with LSS. Design, Setting, and Participants Three-arm randomized clinical trial of 3 years’ duration (November 2013 to June 2016). Analysis began in August 2016. All interventions were delivered during 6 weeks with follow-up at 2 months and 6 months at an outpatient research clinic. Patients older than 60 years with LSS were recruited from the general public. Eligibility required anatomical evidence of central canal and/or lateral recess stenosis (magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography) and clinical symptoms associated with LSS (neurogenic claudication; less symptoms with flexion). Analysis was intention to treat. Interventions Medical care, group exercise, and manual therapy/individualized exercise. Medical care consisted of medications and/or epidural injections provided by a physiatrist. Group exercise classes were supervised by fitness instructors in senior community centers. Manual therapy/individualized exercise consisted of spinal mobilization, stretches, and strength training provided by chiropractors and physical therapists. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcomes were between-group differences at 2 months in self-reported symptoms and physical function measured by the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire (score range, 12-55) and a measure of walking capacity using the self-paced walking test (meters walked for 0 to 30 minutes). Results A total of 259 participants (mean [SD] age, 72.4 [7.8] years; 137 women [52.9%]) were allocated to medical care (88 [34.0%]), group exercise (84 [32.4%]), or manual therapy/individualized exercise (87 [33.6%]). Adjusted between-group analyses at 2 months showed manual therapy/individualized exercise had greater improvement of symptoms and physical function compared with medical care (−2.0; 95% CI, −3.6 to −0.4) or group exercise (−2.4; 95% CI, −4.1 to −0.8). Manual therapy/individualized exercise had a greater proportion of responders (≥30% improvement) in symptoms and physical function (20%) and walking capacity (65.3%) at 2 months compared with medical care (7.6% and 48.7%, respectively) or group exercise (3.0% and 46.2%, respectively). At 6 months, there were no between-group differences in mean outcome scores or responder rates. Conclusions and Relevance A combination of manual therapy/individualized exercise provides greater short-term improvement in symptoms and physical function and walking capacity than medical care or group exercises, although all 3 interventions were associated with improvements in long-term walking capacity. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT01943435

Objectives To compare the effectiveness of a comprehensive nonsurgical training program to a self-directed approach in improving walking ability in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Design Randomized controlled trial. Setting Academic hospital outpatient clinic. Participants Participants (N=104) with neurogenic claudication and imaging confirmed LSS were randomized. The mean age was 70.6 years, 57% were women, 84% had leg symptoms for >12 months, and the mean maximum walking capacity was 328.7 m. Interventions A 6-week structured comprehensive training program or a 6-week self-directed program. Main Outcome Measures Continuous walking distance in meters measured by the Self-Paced Walk Test (SPWT) and proportion of participants achieving at least 30% improvement (minimally clinically important difference [MCID]) in the SPWT at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), ODI walk score, and the Short-Form General Health Survey subscales. Results A total of 48 versus 51 participants who were randomized to comprehensive (n=51) or self-directed (n=53) treatment, respectively, received the intervention and 89% of the total study sample completed the study. At 6 months, the adjusted mean difference in walking distance from baseline was 421.0 m (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 181.4-660.6), favoring the comprehensive program and 82% of participants in the comprehensive group and 63% in the self-directed group achieved the MCID (adjusted relative risk, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.7; P=.03). Both primary treatment effects persisted at 12 months favoring the comprehensive program. At 6 months, the ODI walk score and at 12 months the ZCQ, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey-physical function and -bodily pain scores showed greater improvements favoring the comprehensive program. Conclusions A comprehensive conservative program demonstrated superior, large, and sustained improvements in walking ability and can be a safe nonsurgical treatment option for patients with neurogenic claudication due to LSS.