The orthopaedic manual therapy and McKenzie methods seemed to be only marginally more effective than was one session of assessment and advice-only.

No abstract

Many systems have been suggested for classifying low back pain (LBP); the most commonly used among physiotherapists involves a pathoanatomical/pathophysiological tissue classification system. Few studies have examined whether this form of classification of LBP disorders can be performed in a reliable manner between specialists with advanced training, or between specialists with advanced training and non-specialists who lack advanced training. The purpose of this paper was to examine the inter-tester reliability of two specialists, and the ability of a specialist and non-specialist to independently classify patients with LBP, utilizing clinical tests and history-based classification methods after a short educational course on the classification system. Subjects were acute or sub-acute patients with LBP who visited their occupational healthcare or municipal healthcare center. Inter-tester reliability between the specialist and non-specialists was at almost the same level: overall Kappa 0.60 (95%CI; 0.40 to 0.85), overall agreement 70%, as between the two specialists: overall Kappa 0.65 (95%CI; 0.33-0.86), overall agreement 77%. The findings suggest that a short educational course can provide rather reliable examination tools to allow non-specialized physiotherapists to classify patients according to tissue origination.

Our limited understanding of underlying conditions for back pain is reflected in the common use of pain-duration-based groupings. The aim of this paper was to investigate typical clinical tests used in examining low back pain (LBP) patients in order to discover how tests distinguish between chronic low back pain patients (CLBP) and subacute low back pain patients (SLBP) and if they distinguish these groups from those with no "patient status." CLBP patients in this study were from a university hospital and SLBP patients were from five occupational health care centers. Control subjects were recruited from a university. Determination of the best predictors between CLBP and SLBP patients and between CLBP and SLBP patients and non-patients was made by a forward stepwise logistic model. A total of 157 subjects were included in the study. Of all the clinical tests, several tests in each category had high odds ratio, differentiating CLBP patients from controls. Only a few tests differentiated between CLBP and SLBP patients. The only clinical differences between SLBP patients and controls were in the mobility test and in one test of muscle tightness. The best predictor for CLBP was the lumbar spine flexion test. SLBP patients seemed to differ from the control group in lumbar flexion, in a specific anterior-posterior mobility test, and in tightness of hip flexor muscles. CLBP patients differed from SLBP patients in functional tests, in the presence of sensation in the feet, and in different pain provocation tests. Whether these tests are sufficiently sensitive to classify a more specific diagnostic or clinical subgroup remains untested, and further studies with clinical tests to differentiate among pathological conditions are necessary.

No abstract