Compared to previous assessments, the average quality of the guidelines dealing with chronic low back pain has improved. Furthermore, all guidelines are increasingly aligning in providing therapeutic recommendations that are clearly differentiated from those formulated for acute pain. However, there is still a need for improving quality and generating new evidence for this particular condition.

BackgroundThe aim of this non-randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of a Global Postural Reeducation (GPR) program as compared to a Stabilization Exercise (SE) program in subjects with persistent low back pain (LBP) at short- and mid-term follow-up (ie. 3 and 6 months).MethodsAccording to inclusion and exclusion criteria, 100 patients with a primary complaint of persistent LBP were enrolled in the study: 50 were allocated to the GPR group and 50 to the SE group. Primary outcome measures were Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcome measures were lumbar Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Fingertip-to-floor test (FFT). Data were collected at baseline and at 3/6 months by health care professionals unaware of the study. An intention to treat approach was used to analyze participants according to the group to which they were originally assigned.ResultsOf the 100 patients initially included in the study, 78 patients completed the study: 42 in the GPR group and 36 in the SE group. At baseline, the two groups did not differ significantly with respect to gender, age, BMI and outcome measures. Comparing the differences between groups at short- and mid-term follow-up, the GPR group revealed a significant reduction (from baseline) in all outcome measures with respect to the SE group.The ordered logistic regression model showed an increased likelihood of definitive improvement (reduction from baseline of at least 30% in RMDQ and VAS scores) for the GPR group compared to the SE group (OR 3.9, 95% CI 2.7 to 5.7).ConclusionsOur findings suggest that a GPR intervention in subjects with persistent LBP induces a greater improvement on pain and disability as compared to a SE program. These results must be confirmed by further studies with higher methodological standards, including randomization, larger sample size, longer follow-up and subgrouping of the LBP subjects.Trial registrationNCT00789204

Background Freezing of gait (FOG) is one of the most disabling symptoms of Parkinson disease (PD). Different land-based rehabilitation approaches based on motor and cognitive strategies can be effective in treating FOG. Although there are data about the efficacy of aquatic therapy in ameliorating this phenomenon, no study has explored the combined effect of land-based therapies plus aquatic therapy in patients with PD who have FOG. Objective The objective was to investigate the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary, intensive, motor-cognitive rehabilitation treatment (MIRT) in improving FOG and whether implementation with aquatic therapy (MIRT-AT) adds further benefits. Design The design consisted of a single-blind, parallel-group, 1:1 allocation ratio, randomized trial. Setting The Department of Parkinson Disease, Movement Disorders and Brain Injury Rehabilitation at “Moriggia-Pelascini” Hospital (Gravedona ed Uniti, Como, Italy) was used as the setting. Participants Sixty hospitalized patients with PD who had FOG in Hoehn and Yahr stage 2 or 5-3 were included. Intervention Sixty patients with PD + FOG were randomly assigned to 2 groups: 30 underwent a 4-week MIRT and 30 underwent a 4-week MIRT-AT. Measurements The primary outcome measure was the Freezing of Gait Questionnaire; secondary outcome measures were total Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), UPDRS II, UPDRS III, Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up and Go Test, and 6-Minute Walk Test. These measures were assessed both at admission and discharge. Results Participants in the 2 groups had similar age, sex distribution, Hoehn and Yahr stage, and most-affected side. At baseline, no difference in outcome measures was observed between the 2 groups. After treatment, a significant time effect was observed for all variables in both groups. No significant time × group interaction was observed. A between-group analysis showed nonsignificant differences between values at T1 and values at T0 for all variables. Limitations The limitations were the lack of a control group and follow-up. Conclusions We showed that a multidisciplinary, intensive, and goal-based rehabilitation treatment, such as MIRT, improves FOG in patients with PD. Although aquatic therapy could be considered a useful approach for treating FOG, it does not add further benefits to this kind of motor-cognitive rehabilitation.

BackgroundSeveral clinical tests have been proposed on low back pain (LBP), but their usefulness in detecting lumbar instability is not yet clear. The objective of this literature review was to investigate the clinical validity of the main clinical tests used for the diagnosis of lumbar instability in individuals with LBP and to verify their applicability in everyday clinical practice.MethodsWe searched studies of the accuracy and/or reliability of Prone Instability Test (PIT), Passive Lumbar Extension Test (PLE), Aberrant Movements Pattern (AMP), Posterior Shear Test (PST), Active Straight Leg Raise Test (ASLR) and Prone and Supine Bridge Tests (PB and SB) in Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PubMed, and Scopus databases. Only the studies in which each test was investigated by at least one study concerning both the accuracy and the reliability were considered eligible. The quality of the studies was evaluated by QUADAS and QAREL scales.ResultsSix papers considering 333 LBP patients were included. The PLE was the most accurate and informative clinical test, with high sensitivity (0.84, 95% CI: 0.69 - 0.91) and high specificity (0.90, 95% CI: 0.85 -0.97).The diagnostic accuracy of AMP depends on each singular test. The PIT and the PST demonstrated by fair to moderate sensitivity and specificity [PIT sensitivity = 0.71 (95% CI: 0.51 - 0.83), PIT specificity = 0.57 (95% CI: 039 - 0.78); PST sensitivity = 0.50 (95% CI: 0.41 - 0.76), PST specificity = 0.48 (95% CI: 0.22 - 0.58)].The PLE showed a good reliability (k = 0.76), but this result comes from a single study. The inter-rater reliability of the PIT ranged by slight (k = 0.10 and 0.04), to good (k = 0.87).The inter-rater reliability of the AMP ranged by slight (k = −0.07) to moderate (k = 0.64), whereas the inter-rater reliability of the PST was fair (k = 0.27).ConclusionsThe data from the studies provided information on the methods used and suggest that PLE is the most appropriate tests to detect lumbar instability in specific LBP. However, due to the lack of available papers on other lumbar conditions, these findings should be confirmed with studies on non-specific LBP patients.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12998-015-0058-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The PTPSQ-I(15) showed good psychometric properties, and its use can be recommended with Italian-speaking outpatient populations.