Search

Purpose To develop a self-administered diagnostic screening questionnaire for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) consisting of items with high content validity and to investigate the diagnostic value of the questionnaire and the items. Patients and Methods A self-reported diagnostic LSS screening questionnaire was developed based on items from the existing literature describing key symptoms of LSS. The screening questionnaire (index test) was to be tested in a cohort of patients with persistent lumbar and/or leg pain recruited from a Danish publicly funded outpatient secondary care spine clinic with clinicians performing the reference test. However, to avoid unnecessary collection of data if the screening questionnaire proved to be of limited value, a case-control design was incorporated into the cohort design including an interim analysis. Additional cases for the case-control study were recruited at two Danish publicly funded spine surgery departments. Prevalence, sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (OR) were calculated for each individual item, and AUC (area under the curve) was calculated to examine the performance of the full questionnaire. Results A 13-item Danish questionnaire was developed and tested in 153 cases and 230 controls. The interim analysis was not in favour of continuing the cohort study, and therefore, only results from the case-control study are reported. There was a positive association for all items except the presence of back pain. However, the association was only moderate with ORs up to 3.3. When testing the performance of the whole questionnaire, an AUC of 0.72 was reached with a specificity of 20% for a fixed sensitivity of 95%. Conclusion The items were associated with LSS and therefore have some potential to identify LSS patients. However, the association was not strong enough to provide sufficient accuracy for a diagnostic tool. Additional dimensions of symptoms of LSS need identification to obtain a reliable questionnaire for screening purposes.

Introduction: Heavy-load strength training (HLT) is generally considered the Gold Standard exercise modality for inducing gains in skeletal muscle strength. However, use of heavy external exercise loads may be contraindicative in frail individuals. Low-load resistance exercise combined with partial blood-flow restriction (LL-BFR exercise) may offer an effective alternative for increasing mechanical muscle strength and size. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of LL-BFR training to HLT on maximal muscle strength gains. Prospero registration-id (CRD42014013382). Materials and methods: A systematic search in six healthcare science databases and reference lists was conducted. Data selected for primary analysis consisted of post-intervention changes in maximal muscle strength. A random-effects meta-analysis with standardized mean differences (SMD) was used. Results: Of 1413 papers identified through systematic search routines, sixteen papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria, totalling 153 participants completing HLT and 157 completing LL-BFR training. The magnitude of training-induced gains in maximal muscle strength did not differ between LL-BFR training and HLT (SMD of −0.17 (95% CI: −0.40; 0.05)). Low between-study heterogeneity was noted (I2 = 0.0%, Chi2 P = 9.65). Conclusion: Low-load blood-flow-restricted training appears equally effective of producing gains in maximal voluntary muscle strength compared to HLT in 20- to 80-year-old healthy and habitually active adults.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of musculoskeletal dysfunctions based on a standardized clinical examination of patients with chronic pelvic pain (CPP) who were referred to a specialized tertiary care center for laparoscopic examination. In addition, we stratified levels of self-reported pelvic pain, self-rated health, education, and work status based on musculoskeletal dysfunction status.METHODS: This study used a cross-sectional design to determine the prevalence of musculoskeletal dysfunctions in women with CPP who were referred to a tertiary care center specializing in care of women with CPP. The women completed a questionnaire and underwent a blinded systematic objective clinical examination of the musculoskeletal system by a doctor of chiropractic who then categorized the patients as having or not having musculoskeletal dysfunction.RESULTS: Ninety-four patients returned the questionnaire, completed the clinical examination, and fulfilled the inclusion criteria. More than half of the referred patients with CPP (48 out of 94) had musculoskeletal dysfunctions in the lumbar/pelvic region. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups with respect to self-rated health, education, work status, and pain level. Pain location was significantly different after Bonferroni correction in 1 out of the 36 aspects.CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of CPP patients, 51% were categorized as having a musculoskeletal dysfunction. Overall, CPP patients were similar with respect to certain characteristics, such as age, body mass index, and pain level, regardless of their classification; however, patients with musculoskeletal dysfunction tended to report more pain in the front and back of the lower limbs.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship in change scores between regional lumbar motion and patient-rated pain of the previous week and back-related function in chronic low back pain patients enrolled in a randomized clinical trial and treated with either exercise therapy or spinal manipulation using 6 different motion parameters.METHODS: Regional lumbar motions were sampled using a 6 degrees of freedom instrumented spatial linkage system in 199 participants at baseline and 12-week follow-up. The regional lumbar motion data were analyzed as a total cohort as well as relative to subgroup stratifications; back pain only vs back and leg pain, and treatment modality. For identifying clinically meaningful improvements in the measurements of back pain and back-related function, we used a 30% threshold.RESULTS: The relationship between change scores in patient-rated outcomes and objective measures of regional lumbar motion was found to be weak. In contrast, distribution of pain and treatment received affected associations between motion parameters and patient-rated outcomes. Thus, stronger correlation coefficients and significant differences between clinically relevant improved vs no clinical relevant change were found in some motion parameters in the subgroup with back pain only and the treatment group receiving spinal manipulation.CONCLUSION: Overall, changes in regional lumbar motion were poorly associated with patient-rated outcomes measured by back-related function and back pain intensity scores. However, associations between regional lumbar motion vs patient-rated pain and back-related function were different in relative subgroups (back pain only vs back and leg pain and treatment).

Background context A basic premise for any instrument measuring spinal motion is that reliable outcomes can be obtained on a relevant sample under standardized conditions. Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess the overall reliability and measurement error of regional spinal sagittal plane motion in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP), and then to evaluate the influence of body mass index, examiner, gender, stability of pain, and pain distribution on reliability and measurement error. Study design/setting This study comprises a test-retest design separated by 7 to 14 days. Patient sample The patient cohort consisted of 220 individuals with chronic LBP. Outcome measures Kinematics of the lumbar spine were sampled during standardized spinal extension-flexion testing using a 6-df instrumented spatial linkage system. Methods Test-retest reliability and measurement error were evaluated using interclass correlation coefficients (ICC 1,1) and Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LOAs). Results The overall test-retest reliability (ICC 1,1) for various motion parameters ranged from 0.51 to 0.70, and relatively wide LOAs were observed for all parameters. Reliability measures in patient subgroups (ICC 1,1) ranged between 0.34 and 0.77. In general, greater (ICC 1,1) coefficients and smaller LOAs were found in subgroups with patients examined by the same examiner, patients with a stable pain level, patients with a body mass index less than below 30 kg/m 2, patients who were men, and patients in the Quebec Task Force classifications Group 1. Conclusions This study shows that sagittal plane kinematic data from patients with chronic LBP may be sufficiently reliable in measurements of groups of patients. However, because of the large LOAs, this test procedure appears unusable at the individual patient level. Furthermore, reliability and measurement error varies substantially among subgroups of patients.

BACKGROUND: Wireless, wearable, inertial motion sensor technology introduces new possibilities for monitoring spinal motion and pain in people during their daily activities of work, rest and play. There are many types of these wireless devices currently available but the precision in measurement and the magnitude of measurement error from such devices is often unknown. This study investigated the concurrent validity of one inertial motion sensor system (ViMove) for its ability to measure lumbar inclination motion, compared with the Vicon motion capture system.METHODS: To mimic the variability of movement patterns in a clinical population, a sample of 34 people were included - 18 with low back pain and 16 without low back pain. ViMove sensors were attached to each participant's skin at spinal levels T12 and S2, and Vicon surface markers were attached to the ViMove sensors. Three repetitions of end-range flexion inclination, extension inclination and lateral flexion inclination to both sides while standing were measured by both systems concurrently with short rest periods in between. Measurement agreement through the whole movement range was analysed using a multilevel mixed-effects regression model to calculate the root mean squared errors and the limits of agreement were calculated using the Bland Altman method.RESULTS: We calculated root mean squared errors (standard deviation) of 1.82° (±1.00°) in flexion inclination, 0.71° (±0.34°) in extension inclination, 0.77° (±0.24°) in right lateral flexion inclination and 0.98° (±0.69°) in left lateral flexion inclination. 95% limits of agreement ranged between -3.86° and 4.69° in flexion inclination, -2.15° and 1.91° in extension inclination, -2.37° and 2.05° in right lateral flexion inclination and -3.11° and 2.96° in left lateral flexion inclination.CONCLUSIONS: We found a clinically acceptable level of agreement between these two methods for measuring standing lumbar inclination motion in these two cardinal movement planes. Further research should investigate the ViMove system's ability to measure lumbar motion in more complex 3D functional movements and to measure changes of movement patterns related to treatment effects.

BACKGROUND: In order for measurements to be clinically useful, data on psychometric conditions such as reliability should be available in the population for which the measurements are intended to be used. This study comprises a test-retest design separated by 7 to 14 days, and evaluates the intra and interrater reliability of regional frontal and horizontal spinal motion in 219 chronic LBP patients using the CA6000 Spine Motion Analyzer. In addition, it compares these results on the frontal and horizontal plane with previously published results on the sagittal plane. 219 individuals with chronic mechanical LBP, classified as either Quebec Task Force group 1, 2, 3 or 4 were included, and kinematics of the lumbar spine were sampled during standardized spinal lateral flexion and rotation motion using a 6-df instrumented spatial linkage system. Test-retest reliability and measurement error were evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients ICC(1,1) and Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LOAs).RESULTS: The reliability analysis based on the whole study sample showed ICC(1,1) coefficients varying between 0.68 and 0.73 for the frontal plane and 0.33 and 0.49 for the horizontal plane. Relatively wide LOAs were observed for all parameters. Reliability measures in patient subgroups ICC(1,1) ranged between 0.55 and 0.81 for the frontal plane and 0.28 and 0.69 for the horizontal plane. Greater ICC(1,1) coefficients and smaller LOA were observed when patients were examined by the same examiner, had a stable pain level between tests, and were male. ROM measurements were more reliable in patients with a BMI higher than 30, and measurements on patients with LBP and leg pain showed higher reliability and smaller measurement error in all parameters except for the jerk index.CONCLUSION: Frontal plane measurements obtained using the CA6000 Spine Motion Analyzer are sufficiently reliable to be used for group comparisons but not individual comparisons. Measurements in the horizontal plane can be used for neither group nor individual comparisons.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Several therapies have been used in the treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP), including various exercise strategies and spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). A common belief is that spinal motion changes in particular ways in direct response to specific interventions, such as exercise or spinal manipulation.PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess changes in lumbar region motion for more than 12 weeks by evaluating four motion parameters in the sagittal plane and two in the horizontal plane in LBP patients treated with either exercise therapy or spinal manipulation. Study design/setting Secondary analysis of a subset of participants from a randomized clinical trial.PATIENT SAMPLE: One hundred ninety-nine study participants with LBP of more than 6 weeks' duration who had spinal motion measures obtained before and after the period of intervention.OUTCOME MEASURES: Lumbar region spinal kinematics sampled using a six-degree-of-freedom instrumented spatial linkage system.METHODS: Trained therapists collected regional lumbar spinal motion data at baseline and 12 weeks of follow-up. The lumbar region spinal motion data were analyzed as a total cohort and relative to treatment modality (high dose, supervised low-tech trunk exercise, SMT, and a short course of home exercise and self-care advice). The study was supported by grants from Health Resources and Services Administration, Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation, Danish Chiropractors Research Foundation, and the University of Southern Denmark. No conflicts of interest reported.RESULTS: For the cohort as a whole, lumbar region motion parameters were altered over the 12-week period, except for the jerk index parameter. The group receiving spinal manipulation changed significantly in all, and the exercise groups in half, the motion parameters included in the analysis. The spinal manipulation group changed to a smoother motion pattern (reduced jerk index), whereas the exercise groups did not.CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that spinal motion changes can occur in chronic LBP patients over a 12-week period and that these changes are associated with the type of treatment.

Objective The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature on reproducibility (reliability and/or measurement error) of 3-dimensional (3D) regional lumbar motion measurement systems. Methods Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Cumulative Index of the Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, and Mantis databases. To be included, original studies had to report on the reproducibility of a 3D computerized regional lumbar spinal motion analysis system in human subjects. A detailed checklist was developed based on guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies, the standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy, and quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies and used for data extraction and quality assessment. The checklist consisted of descriptive items divided into 4 domains: study population, testing circumstances, equipment, and data analysis and presentation. The descriptive items were used as foundation for the quality assessment reflecting the reporting level of the included articles. Results A total of 15 articles were included in this study. We found incomplete reporting in 1 or more domains in all articles. A varying amount of measurement error was reported in 8 of the 15 articles. Because of incomplete reporting, these reliability and measurement error estimates are difficult to interpret. Conclusions The current literature on the reliability and measurement error of measures created by regional 3D spinal instruments contains uncertainties especially in relevant clinical populations. There is uncertainty with respect to the degree that repeated measurements by 3D regional spinal motion instruments are reproducible. However, limited to the studies where reliability estimates were provided, most instruments used under standardized conditions may be considered reliable enough to be used for research purposes on the group level, but it is uncertain if they can be used on the individual patient level.