No abstract

Background: Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) scores for outcome measures are frequently used evidence-based guides to gage meaningful changes. There are numerous outcome instruments used for analyzing pain, disability, and dysfunction of the low back; perhaps the most common of these is the Oswestry disability index (ODI). A single agreed-upon MCID score for the ODI has yet to be established. What is also unknown is whether selected baseline variables will be universal predictors regardless of the MCID used for a particular outcome measure. Objective: To explore the relationship between predictive models and the MCID cutpoint on the ODI. Setting: Data were collected from 16 outpatient physical therapy clinics in 10 states. Design: Secondary database analysis using backward stepwise deletion logistic regression of data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to create prognostic clinical prediction rules (CPR). Participants and Interventions: One hundred and forty-nine patients with low back pain (LBP) were enrolled in the RCT. All were treated with manual therapy, with a majority also receiving spine-strengthening exercises. Results: The resultant predictive models were dependent upon the MCID used and baseline sample characteristics. All CPR were statistically significant (P , 0.01). All six MCID cutpoints used resulted in completely different significant predictor variables with no predictor significant across all models. Limitations: The primary limitations include sub-optimal sample size and study design. Conclusions: There is extreme variability among predictive models created using different MCIDs on the ODI within the same patient population. Our findings highlight the instability of predictive modeling, as these models are significantly affected by population baseline characteristics along with the MCID used. Clinicians must be aware of the fragility of CPR prior to applying each in clinical practice.

No abstract

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

Background: The effectiveness of manipulation versus mobilization for the management of spinal conditions, including cervicogenic headache, is conflicting. However, a pragmatic approach comparing manipulation to mobilization has not been examined in a patient population with cervicogenic headache. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of manipulation compared to mobilization applied in a pragmatic fashion for patients with cervicogenic headache. Methods: Forty-five (26 females) patients with cervicogenic headache (mean age 47.8 ± SD 16.9 years) were randomly assigned to receive either pragmatically selected manipulation or mobilization. Outcomes were measured at baseline, the second visit, discharge, and 1-month follow-up and included the Neck Disability Index (NDI), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), the Global Rating of Change (GRC), the Patient Acceptable Symptoms Scale (PASS). The primary aim (effects of treatment on disability and pain were examined with a mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA), with treatment group (manipulation versus mobilization) as the between subjects variable and time (baseline, 48 hours, discharge and follow-up) as the within subjects variable. Results: The interaction for the mixed model ANOVA was not statistically significant for NDI (p = 0.91), NPRS (p = 0.81), or HIT (p = 0.89). There was no significant difference between groups for the GRC or PASS. Discussion and Conclusion: The results suggest that manipulation has similar effects on disability, pain, GRC, and cervical range of motion as mobilization when applied in a pragmatic fashion for patients with cervicogenic headaches. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03919630