Search

IntroductionThere is weak relationship between the presence of lumbar spondylolisthesis [SPL] and low back pain that is not always associated with instability, either at the involved lumbar segment or at different spinal levels. Therefore patients with lumbar symptomatic SPL can be divided into stable and unstable, based on the level of mobility during flexion and extension movements as general classifications for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Different opinions persist about best treatment (conservative vs. surgical) and among conservative treatments, on the type, dosage, and progression of physical therapy procedures.Purpose and importance to practiceThe aim of this Masterclass is to provide clinicians evidence-based indications for assessment and conservative treatment of SPL, taking into consideration some subgroups related to specific clinical presentations.Clinical implicationsThis Masterclass addresses the different phases of the assessment of a patient with SPL, including history, imaging, physical exam, and questionnaires on disability and cognitive-behavioral components. Regarding conservative treatment, self- management approaches and graded supervised training, including therapeutic relationships, information and education, are explained. Primary therapeutic procedures for pain control, recovery of the function and the mobility through therapeutic exercise, passive mobilization and antalgic techniques are suggested. Moreover, some guidance is provided on conservative treatment in specific clinical presentations (lumbar SPL with radiating pain and/or lumbar stenosis, SPL complicated by other factors, and SPL in adolescents) and the number/duration of sessions.Future research prioritiesSome steps to improve the diagnostic-therapeutic approach in SPL are to identify the best cluster of clinical tests, define different lumbar SPL subgroups, and investigate the effects of treatments based on that classification, similarly to the approach already proposed for non-specific LBP.

Background Only 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. Methods We 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. Results Three 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. Conclusions With 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.

Objective Lumbar radiculopathy (LR) is a pain syndrome caused by compression/irritation of the lumbar nerve root(s). Traction is a well-known and commonly used conservative treatment for LR, although its effectiveness is disputed. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was to evaluate the effects of different types of traction added to or compared with conservative treatments on pain and disability. Methods Data were obtained from CENTRAL, PUBMED, CINAHL, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, and PEDro from their inception to April 2020. All randomized controlled trials on adults with LR, using mechanical traction, and without any restriction regarding publication time or language were considered. Two reviewers selected the studies, evaluated the quality assessment, and extracted the results. Meta-analysis used a random-effects model. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, and 5 were meta-analyzed. Results Meta-analyses of results from low-quality studies indicated that supine mechanical traction added to physical therapist treatments had significant effects on pain (g = −0.58 [95% confidence interval = −0.87 to −0.29]) and disability (g = −0.78 [95% confidence interval = −1.45 to −0.11]). Analyses of results from high-quality studies of prone mechanical traction added to physical therapist intervention for pain and disability were not significant. These results were also evident at short-term follow-up (up to 3 months after intervention). Conclusion The literature suggests that, for pain and disability in LR, there is short-term effectiveness of supine mechanical traction when added to physical therapist intervention. Impact This systematic review may be relevant for clinical practice due to its external validity because the treatments and the outcome measures are very similar to those commonly used in a clinical context.

Purpose: The aim of this qualitative study is to investigate, from patient’s perspective, the aspects of the relationship between low back pain and sexual life on physical, psychological and social aspects of individual’s life. In addition, this study aims to explore patients’ opinions on the role of health care providers in addressing and treating low back pain-related sexual problems. Materials and Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 26 outpatients referred to physical therapy for subacute or chronic non-specific low back pain; the questions investigated the presence of sexual disability and aspects related to patient’s behaviour. Two independent physical therapists, supervised by a third expert physical therapist and a clinical psychologist proficient in qualitative methodology, performed thematic content analysis to identify categories and themes. Results: Patients with low back pain consider sexual disability severely limiting and correlated to pain. This study emphasized the perception of invalidity, the importance of the relationship with the partner, the emotions and gender roles in the couple, and the relevance for health care providers to take part in the clinical management. The physical therapist is believed to be a qualified figure to address this issue and specific suggestions on sexual activity could be useful. Conclusion: Sexual disability in patients with subacute or chronic LBP acquires an important and individual meaning that can be investigated within the therapeutic context, especially by physical therapists.Implications for Rehabilitation Sexual disability related to low back pain is considered an important and meaningful topic from the patient’s perspective. This reflects the importance of the emotional relationship with the partner. Within the therapeutic context, it is important to provide information to help manage pain during sexual activity. The physical therapist is seen to be a qualified figure to address this issue.

BackgroundHigh pain self-efficacy and low kinesiophobia seem related to a better prognosis in patients complaining of low back pain (LBP). The literature stresses the potential negative effects of anatomical defect diagnosis (e.g. lumbar spondylolisthesis) on the psychological profile. The aim of this study is to investigate the relationships between awareness of having a spondylolisthesis, pain self-efficacy and kinesiophobia.MethodsA secondary retrospective analysis was done. Ninety-eight subjects with subacute and chronic LBP were included: 49 subjects with diagnosed symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis and 49 subjects with diagnosed non-specific LBP. The pain self-efficacy measured with the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire and the fear of movement measured with the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia were considered variables to investigate, whereas diagnosis and demographic/clinical variables were considered predictors or potential confounders.ResultsBy comparing the two groups, the awareness of having a spondylolisthesis did not significantly influence neither pain self-efficacy (p = 0.82), nor kinesiophobia (p = 0.75). Higher perceived pain reduces pain self-efficacy and increases kinesiophobia in both groups (p = 0.002 and p = 0,031 respectively).ConclusionsIt seems that the awareness of an anatomical defect as spondylolisthesis does not significantly affect the beliefs of carry out activities and movements despite the pain. Other studies with wider samples are required, to confirm these preliminary results.

[Purpose] Oswestry Disability Index includes an item (Oswestry Disability Index-8) aiming to assess sexual disability associated to low back pain. The aim of this study is to investigate the percentage of participants who answered the Oswestry Disability Index-8, and the relevance and characteristics of sexual disability due to low back pain in Italian patients. [Participants and Methods] Design: multicenter retrospective analysis. Population: six hundred and ninety-seven outpatients with non-specific low back pain. Variables: pain characteristics (amount, localization, and duration of perceived pain), disability, and psychological variables (anxiety, depression, catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, pain acceptance, and pain vigilance and awareness). [Results] Seventy-seven participants (11.05%) did not answer the Oswestry Disability Index-8. The odds of being not responding to the Oswestry Disability Index-8 item appeared related to age (odds=7.50 for over 60), gender (odds=2.65 for females), and marital status (odds=2.33 for not married). Concerning the psychological variables, Activity Avoidance (coefficient=0.071), Depression (coefficient=0.068), and Rumination (coefficient=0.031) showed a positive impact on sexual disability. [Conclusion] In Italian patients, the percentage of not-responding to Oswestry Disability Index-8 was relatively low. In addition, sexual disability was related to depression, activity avoidance, and rumination.

Aim: Chronic low back pain represents a major problem throughout the world which is increasing largely because of the aging world population. Clinical practice Guidelines can be powerful tools for promoting evidence-based practice, as they integrate research findings in order to support decision making. This study aimed to review recommendations for the management of Chronic low Back Pain in primary care based on high-quality recent and recently updated Clinical practice Guidelines. Methods: CINHAL, PubMed, EMBASE, PEDro, Google Scholar, Government websites, Scientific Association websites were searched until April 2019. The retrieved documents underwent several consecutive selection steps: semi-automated duplicate screening, documents selection based on title and abstract screening. Finally, three independent investigators screened the documents for the selected inclusion criteria and reviewed the retrieved documents by means of the AGREE II instrument. Results: A total of 3055 records were retrieved, of which 10 Clinical practice Guidelines met the inclusion criteria. The overall quality of these Clinical practice Guidelines was moderately variable. The recommendations of four Clinical practice Guidelines deemed as "excellent" were extracted and summarized. Although we tried to implement the most comprehensive research strategies, some Clinical practice Guidelines may be missing due to publication bias or incomplete indexing. Conclusions: This study showed a partial progress in respect of the methodological quality of the Clinical practice Guidelines. Several AGREE II domains demonstrated low scores, particularly the "applicability" and "monitoring and auditing criteria" are the domains most susceptible to amendments in future. Implications for rehabilitation Clinicians should be aware that among recently published/updated clinical practice guidelines for the management of chronic low back pain in primary care only few were deemed to have high quality. Increasing evidence suggests the efficacy for self-management to improve low back pain outcome. Physical treatments are recommended in order to improve low back pain outcome while many physical modalities such as TENS, ultrasound, laser therapy are not. Psychological treatments are recommended and should be included as part of a broader treatment plan. Aim: Chronic low back pain represents a major problem throughout the world which is increasing largely because of the aging world population. Clinical practice Guidelines can be powerful tools for promoting evidence-based practice, as they integrate research findings in order to support decision making. This study aimed to review recommendations for the management of Chronic low Back Pain in primary care based on high-quality recent and recently updated Clinical practice Guidelines. Methods: CINHAL, PubMed, EMBASE, PEDro, Google Scholar, Government websites, Scientific Association websites were searched until April 2019. The retrieved documents underwent several consecutive selection steps: semi-automated duplicate screening, documents selection based on title and abstract screening. Finally, three independent investigators screened the documents for the selected inclusion criteria and reviewed the retrieved documents by means of the AGREE II instrument. Results: A total of 3055 records were retrieved, of which 10 Clinical practice Guidelines met the inclusion criteria. The overall quality of these Clinical practice Guidelines was moderately variable. The recommendations of four Clinical practice Guidelines deemed as “excellent” were extracted and summarized. Although we tried to implement the most comprehensive research strategies, some Clinical practice Guidelines may be missing due to publication bias or incomplete indexing. Conclusions: This study showed a partial progress in respect of the methodological quality of the Clinical practice Guidelines. Several AGREE II domains demonstrated low scores, particularly the “applicability” and “monitoring and auditing criteria” are the domains most susceptible to amendments in future.Implications for rehabilitation Clinicians should be aware that among recently published/updated clinical practice guidelines for the management of chronic low back pain in primary care only few were deemed to have high quality. Increasing evidence suggests the efficacy for self-management to improve low back pain outcome. Physical treatments are recommended in order to improve low back pain outcome while many physical modalities such as TENS, ultrasound, laser therapy are not. Psychological treatments are recommended and should be included as part of a broader treatment plan.

Walking is commonly recommended to relieve pain and improve function in chronic low back pain. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials concerning the effectiveness of walking interventions compared to other physical exercise on pain, disability, quality of life and fear-avoidance, in chronic low back pain.Randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of walking alone compared to exercise and to exercise with added walking on adults with chronic low back pain were identified using the MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsychINFO, and SPORT DiscusMeta-analysis of five randomized controlled trials meeting inclusion criteria was performed. The effectiveness of walking and exercise at short-, mid-, and long-term follow-ups appeared statistically similar. Adding walking to exercise did not induce any further statistical improvement, at short-term.Pain, disability, quality of life and fear-avoidance similarly improve by walking or exercise in chronic low back pain. Walking may be considered as an alternative to other physical activity. Further studies with larger samples, different walking dosages, and different walking types should be conducted. Implications for Rehabilitation Walking is commonly recommended as an activity in chronic low back pain. Pain, disability, and fear-avoidance similarly improve by walking or exercise. Adding walking to exercise does not induce greater improvement in the short-term. Walking may be a less-expensive alternative to physical exercise in chronic low back pain.

Summary Purpose Pain-related self-efficacy is defined as "the beliefs held by people with chronic pain that were able to carry out certain activities, even when experiencing pain", and it is considered a relevant mediator in the relationship between pain and disability in chronic low back pain. This case series describes a treatment aiming to improve pain self-efficacy in patients with symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis. Method Ten consecutive outpatients with lumbar spondylolisthesis and chronic LBP referred to a rehabilitative clinic participated in this study. Cognitive and behavioural principles were integrated with functional and graded approach in each individual physical therapy program. The outcome measures concerned clinical instability and endurance tests, pain, disability and self-efficacy. Results Pain self-efficacy and lumbar function improved in 7 out of 10 patients; clinical tests improved in 9 out of 10 patients. Conclusion A rehabilitation program carried out by a physical therapist, centred on cognitive and behavioural principles, appeared useful in improving pain self-efficacy and lumbar function. These results may be interesting for future controlled trials.

To date no study was made on the responsiveness of Bridge tests (BTs) in subjects with low back pain and spondylolisthesis (SPL) submitted to a physical therapy program. The objective of this study is to examine the responsiveness of the BTs in subjects with symptomatic lumbar SPL.One hundred twenty patients with symptomatic SPL received physical therapy treatments for a number of sessions depending on the individual patient's needs. Each session included supervised exercises and the teaching of home exercises aiming to improve the lumbar stability, for about 1 hr in total. At the beginning and immediately after the last session of treatment, participants completed the Oswestry Disability Index - Italian version and the Pain Numerical Rating Scale, and performed the supine bridging (SBT) and the prone bridging (PBT). The global perception of effectiveness was measured with a seven-point Likert scale Global Perceived Effect questionnaire.The mean post-treatment change score (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 18.2 s (14.5; 21.9) for the PBT and 43.9 s (35.1; 52.8) for the SBT, all p .001. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the PBT was 0.83 (95% CI 0.74-0.91) and for the SBT was 0.703 (95% CI 0.61-0.80). The optimal cutoff points were 19.5 s for the PBT and 62.5 s for the SBT. Logistic regression revealed that PBT (odds ratio = 0.952) was associated with the type of SPL. The final regression model explained 36.4% (RBridge maneuvers proved to be responsive, because their results were significantly related to pain and disability changes. BTs may be suggested to detect clinical changes after physical therapy treatment in symptomatic SPL. Copyright © 2017 John WileySons, Ltd.

Background: Prolo Scale (PS) is a widely accepted assessment tool to evaluate lumbar spine surgery. However, a lack of consensus is reported in literature about its application, threefold values and validity. Purpose: The purpose of this review is to investigate the evolution of the Prolo Scale (PS) from its introduction in 1986 to the present, including an analysis of different versions of the scale and a research of the existing studies which investigated its psychometric properties. Matherials and Methods: The main electronic databases were searched between July and December 2012. Studies in English, Italian, French, Spanish and German published from1986 to 2011 were analyzed. Results: The original lumbar surgery outcome scale consisted of two Likert-type scales (Economic and Functional). There are three more versions of the scale: Schnee proposed one consisting of 10 items, Brantigan made one with 20 items and introduced two more subscales (Pain and Medication), Davis adapted the scale for cervical spine. Conclusion: The PS is often mentioned without any specific reference as to the version used, therefore a homogeneous comparison of studies is difficult to achieve. Several authors agree on the needing to embrace a multidimensional measuring system to evaluate Low Back Pain (LBP), but there is still no consensus regarding the most reliable tool. To date, PS has been mostly used as secondary outcome measure, in association with validated primary measures for LBP. The PS has been adopted for clinical examination for twenty years because it is easy-to-administer and useful to compare significant amount of data from surgical studies carried out at different times. Albeit several authors demonstrated the scale sensibility among a battery of tests, no thorough validation study was found in current literature.

The Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) is a valid and reliable patient-reported instrument used to assess pain self-efficacy in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Recently, the 2-item (PSEQ-2) and the 4-item (PSEQ-4) short versions were developed showing satisfactory measurement properties in mixed populations with chronic pain. The aim of this study was to examine responsiveness and minimal important change (MIC) of PSEQ, PSEQ-2, and PSEQ-4 in patients with CLBP. We used a sample of 104 patients undergoing multimodal physical therapy designed to partly change pain self-efficacy beliefs. Responsiveness was assessed by testing 16 a priori formulated hypotheses regarding effect sizes, areas under the curve, and correlations with changes in other instruments measuring other constructs. The MIC was calculated using an external anchor specific for pain self-efficacy and the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) method. The PSEQ and the PSEQ-4 met all hypotheses, whereas the PSEQ-2 met all but 1. The MICs were 5.5 for the PSEQ (9% of the scale range) and 1.5 for PSEQ-2 (13% scale range) and PSEQ-4 (6% scale range). MIC values were different for patients with low or high baseline values for all 3 instruments. The PSEQ and its short versions are adequately responsive instruments in patients with CLBP. Perspective This study suggests that the PSEQ and its short versions are responsive measures of pain self-efficacy in patients with CLBP, adding to previous literature on their validity and reliability. Considering their similar responsiveness, the 4-item PSEQ could replace the original 10-item version in busy clinical or research settings.

Objective The aims of this study were (1) to investigate the relationship between clinical tests detecting spinal instability and the perceived pain and disability in nonspecific low back pain and (2) to investigate the relationship between endurance and instability tests. Methods Four instability tests (aberrant movements, active straight leg raising, prone instability test, and passive lumbar extension test) and 2 endurance tests (prone bridge test [PBT] and supine bridge test [SBT]) were performed on 101 participants. Their results were compared with the Numerical Rating Scale and the Oswestry Disability Index evaluating pain and disability, respectively. Results A low to moderate significant relationship between pain, disability, and all tests with the exception of PBT was observed. A low to moderate significant relationship between endurance tests and instability tests was also shown. The results of PBT and SBT were significantly related to the duration of symptoms ( P = .0014 and P = .0203, respectively). Conclusion The results of endurance and instability tests appear to be related to the amount of pain and the disability in nonspecific low back pain. The persistence of pain significantly reduces anterior and posterior core muscle endurance.

Spondylolisthesis is a pathological condition characterized by the slipping of a vertebral body, compared with the underlying one, following structural and/or degenerative changes of the spine. The purpose of this case series is to describe clinical presentations and the conservative physiotherapy management of 4 patients with low back pain and lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis.Four patients aged 25, 43, 36, and 50 years presented with low back pain of various duration. Radiographs confirmed the presence of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis. Outcome measures included numerical rating scale, disability outcome measure (Oswestry Disability Index), spinal instability tests (Prone Instability Test, Passive Lumbar Extension test), and muscle function tests (Aberrant Movement Patterns, Active Straight Leg Raising, Prone and Supine Bridge Tests).Treatment consisted of postural reeducation, stretching, and strengthening exercises. Over the course of individualized treatment, ranging from 8 to 10 treatment visits, outcomes improved for all 4 patients.This report describes varying clinical presentations and treatment of 4 patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis, suggesting that different pain generators could be managed by different conservative approaches.

The aim of this study was to create an Italian version of the Pain Catastrophising Scale (PCS-I) and evaluate its psychometric properties in a sample with chronic low back pain.The PCS was culturally adapted in accordance with international standards. The psychometric testing included factor analysis, reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and test-retest repeatability (intraclass coefficient correlations), and concurrent validity by comparing the PCS-I with a numerical rating scale (NRS), the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK), the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Positive Affect and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) (Pearson's correlation).It took 4 months to develop an agreed version of the PCS-I, which was satisfactorily administered to 180 subjects with chronic low back pain. Factor analysis revealed a three-factor 13-item solution (68% of explained variance). The questionnaire was internally consistent with one exception (α = 0.92 as a whole; 0.89 for Helplessness, 0.87 for Rumination and 0.56 for Magnification subscales) and showed a high degree of test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.842). Concurrent validity showed moderate correlations with the NRS (r = 0.44), TSK (r = 0.59), RMDQ (r = 0.45), HADS (Anxiety: r = 0.57; Depression r = 0.46) and PANAS (Negative Affect r = 0.54). The minimum detectable change was 10.45. The subscales were also psychometrically analysed.The successfully translated Italian version of the PCS has good psychometric properties replicating those of other versions.

INTRODUCTION: An ability to assess longitudinal changes in health status is crucial for the outcome measures used in treatment efficacy trials. The aim of this study was to verify the responsiveness of the Italian versions of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) in subjects with subacute or chronic low back pain (LBP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: At the beginning and end of an 8 week rehabilitation programme, 179 patients completed a booklet containing the ODI, the RMDQ, a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS), and the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). A global perception of change scale was also completed at the end of the programme, and collapsed to produce a dichotomous outcome (i.e. improved vs. not improved). Responsiveness was assessed by means of distribution methods [minimum detectable change (MDC); effect size (ES); standardised response mean (SRM)] and anchor-based methods (ROC curves). RESULTS: The MDC for the ODI and RMDQ was, respectively, 13.67 and 4.87; the ES was 0.53 and 0.68; and the SRM was 0.80 and 0.81. ROC analysis revealed an area under the curve of 0.71 for the ODI and 0.64 for the RMDQ, thus indicating discriminating capacity; the best cut-off point for the dichotomous outcome was 9.5 for the ODI (sensitivity 76% and specificity 63%) and 2.5 for the RMDQ (sensitivity 62% and specificity 55%). These estimates were comparable between the subacute and chronic subjects. Both the ODI and the RMDQ moderately correlated with the SF-36 and NRS (Spearman's and Pearson's correlation coefficients of >0.30). CONCLUSION: The Italian ODI and RMDQ proved to be sensitive in detecting clinical changes after conservative treatment for subacute and chronic LBP. Our findings are consistent with those published in the literature, thus allowing cross-cultural comparisons and stimulating cross-national studies.

STUDY DESIGN Evaluation of the psychometric properties of a translated, culturally adapted questionnaire. OBJECTIVE Translating, culturally adapting, and validating the Italian version of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI-I), allowing its use in Italian-speaking patients with low back pain inside and outside Italy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Growing attention is devoted to standardized outcome measures to improve interventions for low back pain. A translated form of the ODI in patients with low back pain has never been validated within the Italian population. METHODS The ODI-I questionnaire was developed involving forward-backward translation, final review by an expert committee and test of the prefinal version to establish as better as possible proper correspondence with the original English latest version (2.1a). Psychometric testing included factor analysis, reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach alpha) and test-retest repeatability (Intraclass Coefficient Correlation), concurrent validity by comparing the ODI-I to Visual Analogue Scale, (Pearson correlation), and construct validity by comparing the ODI-I to Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, RMDQ, and to Short Form Health Survey, Short Form Health Survey-36 (Pearson correlation). RESULTS The authors required a 3-month period before achieving a shared version of the ODI-I. The questionnaire was administered to 126 subjects, showing satisfying acceptability. Factor analysis demonstrated a 1-factor structure (45% of explained variance). The questionnaire showed high internal consistency (alpha = 0.855) and good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.961). Concurrent validity was confirmed by a high correlation with Visual Analogue Scale (r = 0.73, P < 0.001), Construct validity revealed high correlations with RMDQ (r = 0.819, P < 0.001), and with Short Form Health Survey-36 domains, highly significant with the exception of Mental Health (r = -0.139, P = 0.126). CONCLUSION The ODI outcome measure was successfully translated into Italian, showing good factorial structure and psychometric properties, replicating the results of existing language versions of the questionnaire. Its use is recommended in research practice.

[Purpose] The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the accuracy of qualitative pain drawings (PDs) in identifying psychological distress in subacute and chronic low back pain (LBP) patients. [Subjects and Methods] Data were obtained from searches of PubMed, EBSCO, Scopus, PsycINFO and ISI Web of Science from their inception to July 2014. Quality assessments of bias and applicability were conducted using the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). [Results] The summary estimates were: sensitivity=0.45 (95% CI 0.34, 0.61), specificity=0.66 (95% CI 0.53, 0.82), positive likelihood ratio=1.23 (95% CI 0.93, 1.62), negative likelihood ratio=0.84 (95% CI 0.70, 1.01), and diagnostic odds ratio=1.46 (95% CI 0.79, 2.68). The area under the curve was 78% (CI, 57 to 99%). [Conclusion] The results of this systematic review do not show broad and unqualified support for the accuracy of PDs in detecting psychological distress in subacute and chronic LBP.

[Purpose] The purpose of this review was to investigate the types of exercises that can improve the tropism of the multifidus muscles, based on clinical evidence. [Methods] Following to the PICO (Problem, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) model, we considered studies of subjects with specific or non-specific LBP that used exercises aimed at activating the lumbar multifidus muscle and measured its cross-sectional area or thickness with ultrasound, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. [Results] This review found that most studies compared different types of exercises for lumbar muscles, but without specifically investigating the multifidus muscle. However, a few studies showed that the cross-sectional area and thickness of the multifidus muscle can be increased by activating this muscle, and they progressed from motor control to increased static and dynamic loads. [Conclusion] A review of the literature revealed that specific supervised and home exercises may improve the symmetry of the multifidus muscle.

The Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) is a patient self-reported measurement instrument that evaluates pain self-efficacy beliefs in patients with chronic pain. The measurement properties of the PSEQ have been tested in its original and translated versions, showing satisfactory results for validity and reliability. The aims of this study were 2 fold as follows: (1) to translate the PSEQ into Italian through a process of cross-cultural adaptation, (2) to test the measurement properties of the Italian PSEQ (PSEQ-I). The cross-cultural adaptation was completed in 5 months without omitting any item of the original PSEQ. Measurement properties were tested in 165 patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) (65% women, mean age 49.9 years). Factor analysis confirmed the one-factor structure of the questionnaire. Internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.94) and test-retest reliability (ICCagreement = 0.82) of the PSEQ-I showed good results. The smallest detectable change was equal to 15.69 scale points. The PSEQ-I displayed a high construct validity by meeting more than 75% of a priori hypotheses on correlations with measurement instruments assessing pain intensity, disability, anxiety, depression, pain catastrophizing, fear of movement, and coping strategies. Additionally, the PSEQ-I differentiated patients taking pain medication or not. The results of this study suggest that the PSEQ-I can be used as a valid and reliable tool in Italian patients with CLBP.

Objective The aim of this study was to construct PubMed search strings that could efficiently retrieve studies on manual therapy (MT), especially for time-constrained clinicians. Methods Our experts chose 11 Medical Subject Heading terms describing MT along with 84 additional potential terms. For each term that was able to retrieve more than 100 abstracts, we systematically extracted a sample of abstracts from which we estimated the proportion of studies potentially relevant to MT. We then constructed 2 search strings: 1 narrow (threshold of pertinent articles ≥ 40%) and 1 expanded (including all terms for which a proportion had been calculated). We tested these search strings against articles on 2 conditions relevant to MT (thoracic and temporomandibular pain). We calculated the number of abstracts needed to read (NNR) to identify 1 potentially pertinent article in the context of these conditions. Finally, we evaluated the efficiency of the proposed PubMed search strings to identify relevant articles included in a systematic review on spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain. Results Fifty-five search terms were able to extract more than 100 citations. The NNR to find 1 potentially pertinent article using the narrow string was 1.2 for thoracic pain and 1.3 for temporomandibular pain, and the NNR for the expanded string was 1.9 and 1.6, respectively. The narrow search strategy retrieved all the randomized controlled trials included in the systematic review selected for comparison. Conclusion The proposed PubMed search strings may help health care professionals locate potentially pertinent articles and review a large number of MT studies efficiently to better implement evidence-based practice.

Background Taping is a widely used therapeutic tool for the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders, nevertheless its effectiveness is still uncertain. Purpose The purpose of this study was to conduct a current review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning the effects of elastic and nonelastic taping on spinal pain and disability. Data Sources MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PEDro, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, ISI Web of Knowledge, and SPORTDiscus databases were searched. Study Selection All published RCTs on symptomatic adults with a diagnosis of specific or nonspecific spinal pain, myofascial pain syndrome, or whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) were considered. Data Extraction Two reviewers independently selected the studies and extracted the results. The quality of individual studies was assessed using the PEDro scale, and the evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria. Data Synthesis Eight RCTs were included. Meta-analysis of 4 RCTs on low back pain demonstrated that elastic taping does not significantly reduce pain or disability immediately posttreatment, with a standardized mean difference of −0.31 (95% confidence interval=−0.64, 0.02) and −0.23 (95% confidence interval=−0.49, 0.03), respectively. Results from single trials indicated that both elastic and nonelastic taping are not better than placebo or no treatment on spinal disability. Positive results were found only for elastic taping and only for short-term pain reduction in WAD or specific neck pain. Generally, the effect sizes were very small or not clinically relevant, and all results were supported by low-quality evidence. Limitations The paucity of studies does not permit us to draw any final conclusions. Conclusion Although different types of taping were investigated, the results of this systematic review did not show any firm support for their effectiveness.

Background Several 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. Methods We 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. Results Six 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). Conclusions The 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 material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12998-015-0058-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background The 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). Methods According 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. Results Of 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). Conclusions Our 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 registration NCT00789204

Background and Purpose To date no study was made on the responsiveness of Bridge tests (BTs) in subjects with low back pain and spondylolisthesis (SPL) submitted to a physical therapy program. The objective of this study is to examine the responsiveness of the BTs in subjects with symptomatic lumbar SPL. Methods One hundred twenty patients with symptomatic SPL received physical therapy treatments for a number of sessions depending on the individual patient's needs. Each session included supervised exercises and the teaching of home exercises aiming to improve the lumbar stability, for about 1 hr in total. At the beginning and immediately after the last session of treatment, participants completed the Oswestry Disability Index – Italian version and the Pain Numerical Rating Scale, and performed the supine bridging (SBT) and the prone bridging (PBT). The global perception of effectiveness was measured with a seven-point Likert scale Global Perceived Effect questionnaire. Results The mean post-treatment change score (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 18.2 s (14.5; 21.9) for the PBT and 43.9 s (35.1; 52.8) for the SBT, all p

Translating, culturally adapting and validating the Italian version of the Pain Stages of Change Questionnaire (PSOCQ-I) to allow its use with Italian-speaking patients with low back pain. The PSOCQ-I was developed by forward–backward translation, a final review by an expert committee and a test of the prefinal version to establish its correspondence with the original English version. Psychometric testing included confirmatory factor analysis, reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach’s a) and test–retest reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation), and construct validity by comparing PSOCQ-I with the Pain Catastrophising Scale (PCS), the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK), the Roland Morris Disability Scale (RMDQ), a pain Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (Pearson’s correlation). The questionnaire was administered to 308 patients with chronic low back pain. Factor analysis confirmed a four-factor solution (namely, Precontemplation, Contemplation, Action, and Maintenance), achieving an acceptable data-model fit. Internal consistency (a= 0.91–93) and test–retest reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation = 0.74–0.81) were satisfactory. Construct validity showed moderate correlations between Precontemplation and PCS (r= 0.318), TSK (r= 0.385), RMDQ (r =0.320) and NRS (r= 0.335); low correlations were found between the other PSOCQ subscales and PCS (r= – 0.062; 0.039), TSK (r = – 0.164; 0.024), RMDQ (r = – 0.073; 0.004) and NRS (r = – 0.170; 0.020). Low correlations were found between the PSOCQ-I subscales and anxiety (r= – 0.132; 0.150) and depression (r = – 0.113; 0.186). The PSOCQ was translated successfully into Italian, and proved to have a good factorial structure and psychometric properties that replicated the results of other versions. Its use is recommended for research purposes.

PURPOSE: To create an Italian version of the Pain Beliefs and Perceptions Inventory (PBAPI-I) and evaluate its psychometric properties. METHODS: The PBAPI was culturally adapted in accordance with international standards. The psychometric testing included factor analysis, investigating reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and test/retest stability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC), and exploring construct validity by comparing the PBAPI-I with a pain numerical rating scale (NRS), the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score (HADS) and the Chronic Pain Coping Inventory (Pearson's correlation). RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-seven subjects with chronic low back pain (83 % compliance) completed the tool. Factor analysis revealed a three-factor (Time, Mystery and Self-Blame), 16-item solution (explained variance: 80 %). The questionnaire was internally consistent (α = 0.91-0.96), and its stability was good (ICCs = 0.73-0.82). As expected, the construct validity estimates indicated that the Time and Mystery subscales moderately correlated with the NRS (r = 0.33-0.54), RMDQ (r = 0.34-0.47), PCS (r = 0.37-0.49) and TSK (r = 0.30-0.43), whereas the correlations between the Self-Blame subscale and the same measures were poorer. The correlations with the HADS were moderate and poor (anxiety: r = 0.37-0.05; depression: r = 0.39-0.07). Maladaptive coping strategies were more related to pain beliefs than adaptive strategies. CONCLUSION: The PBAPI-I has good psychometric properties that replicate those of other versions.

STUDY DESIGN: Evaluation of the psychometric properties of a translated and culturally adapted questionnaire. OBJECTIVE: Translating, culturally adapting, and validating the Italian version of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ-I) to allow its use with Italian-speaking patients with low-back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Growing attention is being given to standardized outcome measures to improve interventions for LBP. A translated form of the FABQ has never been validated in Italian patients with LBP. METHODS: The FABQ-I questionnaire was developed by means of forward-backward translation, a final review by an expert committee, and a test of the prefinal version to establish its correspondence with the original English version. The psychometric testing included factor analysis, reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach α) and test-retest reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation), convergent validity by comparing FABQ-I with the Italian version of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-I), and discriminant validity by comparing FABQ-I with a visual analogue scale, the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (Pearson correlation). RESULTS: It took 4 months to develop a shared version of the FABQ-I. The questionnaire was administered to 180 subjects and proved to be acceptable. Factor analysis revealed a 2-factor, 12-item solution (57% of explained variance). The questionnaire showed good internal consistency (α = 0.822) and high test-retest reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation = 0.869). Convergent validity showed a moderate correlation with TSK-I (r = 0.440), and discriminant validity showed moderate-poor correlations with a visual analogue scale (r = 0.335), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (r = 0.414), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (r = 0.258 for the Anxiety score and r = 0.246 for the Depression score). The results of the psychometric analyses of the subscales were similar to those of the scale as a whole. CONCLUSION: The FABQ outcome measure was successfully translated into Italian and proved to have a good factorial structure and psychometric properties that replicated the results of other existing versions. Its use is recommended for research purposes.

Objective: The aim of this retrospective study was to assess validity of the straight-leg raise (SLR) test using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results as a reference standard in a group of patients with L4-L5 and L5-S1 lumbar-herniated disks and sciatic pain. The relationship between diagnostic accuracy of this test, age classes, and grade of lumbar disk displacement was investigated. Methods: The charts of 2352 patients with sciatic pain with/without lumbar pain were examined. Results of the SLR were then compared with previous spinal MRI. A 2 × 2 contingency table was created, and analysis of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, diagnostic odds ratio, likelihood ratio (LR), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was carried out. Homogeneous age classes were created to compare them statistically. Results: Magnetic resonance imaging findings showed lumbar disk herniation (LDH) in 1305 patients. Of these subjects, 741 were positive on SLR testing. Sensitivity was 0.36, whereas specificity was 0.74. Positive and negative predictive values were 0.69 and 0.52, respectively. Positive LR was 1.38, and negative LR was 0.87. Diagnostic odds ratio was 1.59, and ROC analysis showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.596. The AUC decreased from 0.730 in the 16- to 25-year subgroup to 0.515 in the 76- to 85-year subgroup. Similar results were obtained in subjects with LDH and nerve root compression. Conclusions: Our results indicate low accuracy of the SLR in diagnosis of LDH if compared with MRI results. The discriminative power of the SLR seemed to decrease as age increased; thus, positive and negative results may be less conclusive in older patients. (J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2011;xx:1-8)

Background This study aims to investigate the responsiveness and the minimum important change of the Italian version of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI-I) in subjects with symptomatic specific low back pain associated with lumbar spondylolisthesis (SPL). Materials and methods One hundred and fifty-one patients with symptomatic SPL completed the ODI-I, a 0–100 numerical rating scale (NRS), and performed the prone and supine bridge tests. The global perception of effectiveness was measured with a 7-point Likert scale. Responsiveness was assessed by distribution methods (minimum detectable change [MDC], effect size [ES], standardized response mean [SRM]) and anchor-based methods (ROC curves). Results The MDC was 4.23, the ES was 0.95 and the SRM was 1.25. ROC analysis revealed an area under the curve of 0.76 indicating moderate discriminating capacity. The best cut-off point for the dichotomous outcome was 7.5 (sensitivity 90.3%, specificity 56.7%). . Conclusions The ODI-I proved to be responsive in detecting changes after conservative treatment in subjects with lumbar SPL. Level of evidence II.

Background: Low Back Pain (LBP) is a very common disorder in hospital workers. Several studies examined the efficacy of multimodal interventions for health care providers suffering from LBP; nevertheless their results did not appear to be consistent. Objective: The aim of the study was to determine the effect of a multimodal group programme (MGP) on pain and disability in a sample of hospital workers with persistent LBP. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted to compare baseline measurements with changes over an eight-month period. The study focused on 109 workers suffering from persistent LBP with or without radiating pain: 62 nurses and 47 blue collars not involved in health care. The MGP consisted of six group sessions including supervised exercises, an athome programme and ergonomic advice. The primary outcome measurement was the level of disability recorded with the Roland & Morris Disability Questionnaire, while the secondary outcome measurement was the evaluation of lumbar physical discomfort with the Visual Analogue Scale. Data were analyzed using the Multiple Imputation method for dropouts. Results: At the short-term follow-up participants showed a statistically significant reduction (from baseline) of all outcome measurements, particularly for the nurses group. Moreover, about a third of the subjects showed clinically significant improvement. No significant reduction in pain and disability (from baseline) was observed at the mid-term follow-up in either group. Conclusions: An MGP dedicated to hospital workers seems to be partially useful only for short-term follow-up, particularly for health care providers.