Dataset Information

Manual unloading of the lumbar spine: can it identify immediate responders to mechanical traction in a low back pain population? A study of reliability and criterion referenced predictive validity.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To date, no research has examined the reliability or predictive validity of manual unloading tests of the lumbar spine to identify potential responders to lumbar mechanical traction.

Purpose

To determine: (1) the intra and inter-rater reliability of a manual unloading test of the lumbar spine and (2) the criterion referenced predictive validity for the manual unloading test.

Methods

Ten volunteers with low back pain (LBP) underwent a manual unloading test to establish reliability. In a separate procedure, 30 consecutive patients with LBP (age 50·86±11·51) were assessed for pain in their most provocative standing position (visual analog scale (VAS) 49·53±25·52 mm). Patients were assessed with a manual unloading test in their most provocative position followed by a single application of intermittent mechanical traction. Post traction, pain in the provocative position was reassessed and utilized as the outcome criterion.

Results

The test of unloading demonstrated substantial intra and inter-rater reliability K = 1·00, P = 0·002, K = 0·737, P = 0·001, respectively. There were statistically significant within group differences for pain response following traction for patients with a positive manual unloading test (P<0·001), while patients with a negative manual unloading test did not demonstrate a statistically significant change (P>0·05). There were significant between group differences for proportion of responders to traction based on manual unloading response (P = 0·031), and manual unloading response demonstrated a moderate to strong relationship with traction response Phi = 0·443, P = 0·015.

Discussion and conclusion

The manual unloading test appears to be a reliable test and has a moderate to strong correlation with pain relief that exceeds minimal clinically important difference (MCID) following traction supporting the validity of this test.

SUBMITTER: Swanson BT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4984809 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Manual unloading of the lumbar spine: can it identify immediate responders to mechanical traction in a low back pain population? A study of reliability and criterion referenced predictive validity.

Swanson Brian T BT Riley Sean P SP Cote Mark P MP Leger Robin R RR Moss Isaac L IL Carlos John J

The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy 20160501 2

<h4>Background</h4>To date, no research has examined the reliability or predictive validity of manual unloading tests of the lumbar spine to identify potential responders to lumbar mechanical traction.<h4>Purpose</h4>To determine: (1) the intra and inter-rater reliability of a manual unloading test of the lumbar spine and (2) the criterion referenced predictive validity for the manual unloading test.<h4>Methods</h4>Ten volunteers with low back pain (LBP) underwent a manual unloading test to esta ...[more]

PMID: 27559274

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMusculoskeletal physiotherapists routinely assess lumbar segmental motion during the clinical examination of a patient with low back pain. The validity of manual assessment of segmental motion has not, however, been adequately investigated.MethodsIn this prospective, multi-centre, pragmatic, diagnostic validity study, 138 consecutive patients with recurrent or chronic low back pain (R/CLBP) were recruited. Physiotherapists with post-graduate training in manual therapy performed passive accessory intervertebral motion tests (PAIVMs) and passive physiological intervertebral motion tests (PPIVMs). Consenting patients were referred for flexion-extension radiographs. Sagittal angular rotation and sagittal translation of each lumbar spinal motion segment was measured from these radiographs, and compared to a reference range derived from a study of 30 asymptomatic volunteers. Motion beyond two standard deviations from the reference mean was considered diagnostic of rotational lumbar segmental instability (LSI) and translational LSI. Accuracy and validity of the clinical assessments were expressed using sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsOnly translation LSI was found to be significantly associated with R/CLBP (p < 0.05). PAIVMs were specific for the diagnosis of translation LSI (specificity 89%, CI 83-93%), but showed poor sensitivity (29%, CI 14-50%). A positive test results in a likelihood ratio (LR+) of 2.52 (95% CI 1.15-5.53). Flexion PPIVMs were highly specific for the diagnosis of translation LSI (specificity 99.5%; CI 97-100%), but showed very poor sensitivity (5%; CI 1-22%). Likelihood ratio statistics for flexion PPIVMs were not statistically significant. Extension PPIVMs performed better than flexion PPIVMs, with slightly higher sensitivity (16%; CI 6-38%) resulting in a likelihood ratio for a positive test of 7.1 (95% CI 1.7 to 29.2) for translation LSI.ConclusionThis study provides the first evidence reporting the concurrent validity of manual tests for the detection of abnormal sagittal planar motion. PAIVMs and PPIVMs are highly specific, but not sensitive, for the detection of translation LSI. Likelihood ratios resulting from positive test results were only moderate. This research indicates that manual clinical examination procedures have moderate validity for detecting segmental motion abnormality.

Project description:BackgroundOnly low-quality evidence is currently available to support the effectiveness of different traction modalities in the treatment of lumbar radiculopathy (LR). Yet, traction is still very commonly used in clinical practice. Some authors have suggested that the subgroup of patients presenting signs and symptoms of nerve root compression and unresponsive to movements centralizing symptoms may benefit from lumbar traction. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of vertical traction (VT) on pain and activity limitation in patients affected by LR.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, ISI Web of Science and PEDro from their inception to March 31, 2019 to retrieve RCTs on adults with LR using VT to reduce pain and activity limitation. We considered only trials reporting complete data on outcomes. Two reviewers selected the studies, extracted the results, and performed the quality assessment using the Risk of Bias and GRADE tools.ResultsThree studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the included studies. We found very low quality evidence for a large effect of VT added to bed rest when compared to bed rest alone (g = - 1.01; 95% CI = -2.00 to - 0.02). Similarly, VT added to medication may have a large effect on pain relief when compared to medication alone (g = - 1.13; 95% CI = -1.72 to - 0.54, low quality evidence). Effects of VT added to physical therapy on pain relief were very small when compared to physical therapy without VT (g = - 0.14; 95% CI = -1.03 to 0.76, low quality evidence). All reported effects concerned short-term effect up to 3 months post-intervention.ConclusionsWith respect to short-term effects, VT may have a positive effect on pain relief if added to medication or bed rest. Long-term effects of VT are currently unknown. Future higher quality research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change these conclusions.

Project description:BackgroundMeasurement of lumbar spine range of motion (ROM) is often considered to be an essential component of lumbar spine physiotherapy and orthopedic assessment. The measurement can be carried out through various instruments such as inclinometers, goniometers, and etc. Recent smartphones have been equipped with accelerometers and magnetometers, which, through specific software applications (apps) can be used for inclinometric functions.PurposeThe main purpose was to investigate the reliability and validity of an iPhone(®) app (TiltMeter(©) -advanced level and inclinometer) for measuring standing lumbar spine flexion-extension ROM in asymptomatic subjects.DesignA cross-sectional study was carried out.SettingThis study was conducted in a physiotherapy clinic located at School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Science and Health Services, Tehran, Iran.SubjectsA convenience sample of 30 asymptomatic adults (15 males; 15 females; age range = 18-55 years) was recruited between August 2015 and December 2015.MethodsFollowing a 2-minute warm-up, the subjects were asked to stand in a relaxed position and their skin was marked at the T12-L1 and S1-S2 spinal levels. From this position, they were asked to perform maximum lumbar flexion followed by maximum lumbar extension with their knees straight. Two blinded raters each used an inclinometer and the iPhone (®) app to measure lumbar spine flexion-extension ROM. A third rater read the measured angles. To calculate total lumbar spine flexion-extension ROM, the measurement from S1-S2 was subtracted from T12-L1. The second (2 hours later) and third (48 hours later) sessions were carried out in the same manner as the first session. All of the measurements were conducted 3 times and the mean value of 3 repetitions for each measurement was used for analysis. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) models (3, k) and (2, k) were used to determine the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability, respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficients were used to establish concurrent validity of the iPhone(®) app. Furthermore, minimum detectable change at the 95% confidence level (MDC95) was computed as 1.96 × standard error of measurement × [Formula: see text].ResultsGood to excellent intra-rater and inter-rater reliability were demonstrated for both the gravity-based inclinometer with ICC values of ≥0.84 and ≥0.77 and the iPhone(®) app with ICC values of ≥0.85 and ≥0.85, respectively. The MDC95 ranged from 5.82°to 8.18°for the intra-rater analysis and from 7.38°to 8.66° for the inter-rater analysis. The concurrent validity for flexion and extension between the 2 instruments was 0.85 and 0.91, respectively.ConclusionsThe iPhone(®)app possesses good to excellent intra-rater and inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity. It seems that the iPhone(®) app can be used for the measurement of lumbar spine flexion-extension ROM.Level of evidenceIIb.

Dataset Information

Manual unloading of the lumbar spine: can it identify immediate responders to mechanical traction in a low back pain population? A study of reliability and criterion referenced predictive validity.

Background

Purpose

Methods

Results

Discussion and conclusion

Publications

Manual unloading of the lumbar spine: can it identify immediate responders to mechanical traction in a low back pain population? A study of reliability and criterion referenced predictive validity.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets