Chad Cook

The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether occurrences of within- and between-session changes were significantly associated with functional outcomes, pain, and self-report of recovery in patients at discharge who were treated with manual therapy for mechanical neck pain. A secondary purpose was to determine the extent of change needed for the within- and between-session change in association to function. This secondary data analysis examined 56 patients who demonstrated a positive response to manual therapy during the initial assessment within a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that examined manual therapy techniques and a home exercise program (HEP). Within- and between-session findings were defined as 'changes in pain report during the initial session (within)' and 'changes in pain from baseline to 48-hours post initial assessment (between)'. Outcomes were analyzed for associations with the global rating of change (GRoC), self-report activity scale (SRAS), and a 50% reduction of the neck disability index (NDI) by discharge at 96 hours. Findings indicate that within-session pain changes of 36.7% are strongly associated with a 50% change in NDI at 96 hours. Between-session changes in pain were associated with 50% change in NDI and a ≧3-point change in GRoC at 96 hours. Both within- and between-session measures may be useful to predict success levels at 96 hours for NDI; however, between-session changes are more useful to predict success in GRoC. Measures used during clinical examination may help guide clinicians in identification of candidates best suited for the treatment.

The objective of this study was to examine and identify risk factors associated with the development of sacral stress fractures in order to improve diagnosis in clinical practice. Electronic search strategies in PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus were combined with a hand search to identify articles for inclusion. Studies were considered if they described patient cases in which imaging confirmed diagnosis of a sacral stress fracture, and the diagnosis included whether the fracture was a sacral insufficiency or sacral fatigue stress fracture. In those that developed sacral insufficiency fractures, the risk factors that were most prevalent included osteoporosis, pelvic radiation therapy, rheumatoid arthritis, long-term corticosteroid therapy, and postmenopausal, each with a prevalence of 100%. Risk factors with 100% prevalence in those diagnosed with sacral fatigue fractures included recent increase in training intensity and deficient diet. A pattern of signs and symptoms are consistent among subjects with sacral stress fractures. Patients being unsuccessfully treated for low-back and buttock pain who fit the risk factor profiles for sacral stress fractures should be referred to a physician for further diagnostic workup.

Background and Purpose: Characteristically, sciatica involves radiating leg pain that follows a dermatomal pattern along the distribution of the sciatic nerve. To our knowledge, there are no studies that have investigated risk factors associated with first time incidence sciatica. The purpose of the systematic review was to identify the longitudinal risk factors associated with first time incidence sciatica and to report incidence rates for the condition. For the purposes of this review, first time incidence sciatica was defined as either of the following: 1) no prior history of sciatica or 2) transition from a pain‐free state to sciatica. Studies included subjects of any age from longitudinal, observational, cohort designs.Methods: The study was a systematic review. Eight of the 239 articles identified by electronic search strategies met the inclusion criteria.Results: Risk factors and their respective effect estimates were reported using descriptive analysis and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses guidelines. Modifiable risk factors included smoking, obesity, occupational factors and health status. Non‐modifiable factors included age, gender and social class. Incidence rates varied among the included studies, in part reflecting the variability in the operationalized definition of sciatica but ranged from <1% to 37%.Discussion: A majority of the identified risk factors associated with first time sciatica are modifiable, suggesting the potential benefits of primary prevention. In addition, those risk factors are also associated with unhealthy lifestyles, which may function concomitantly toward the development of sciatica. Sciatica as a diagnosis is inconsistently defined among studies. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Background: The utility of a dedicated clinical test is dependent on the diagnostic accuracy values and the quality of the study in which the test was examined. Scales allow a summative scoring of bias within a study. At present, there are no scales advocated to measure the bias of diagnostic accuracy studies. Objective: The objective of this study was to create a new diagnostic accuracy quality scale (DAQS) that provides a quantitative summary of the methodological quality of studies evaluating clinical tests and measures. Design: The study used a four-round Delphi survey designed to create, revise, and develop consensus for a quality scale. Methods: The four-round Delphi involved a work team and a respondent group of experts. An initial round among the work team created a working document, which was then modified and revised, with opportunities to create new items threaded in the second round. Rounds III and IV involved voting on the importance of each of the proposed items and consensus development from the respondent group. Consensus for the selection of an item required a 75% approval for the importance of that item. Results: Sixteen individuals with a variety of research/professional backgrounds made up the respondent group. Modification and revision of the initial work team instrument created a scale with 21 items that reflected potential areas of methodological bias. Limitations: The new scale needs validation through weighted assessment. In addition, there was a large proportion of physical therapist/researchers on the work team and the respondent group. Conclusions: Systematic reviews allow summation of evidence for clinical tests and scales are essential to critique the quality of the articles included in the review. The DAQS may serve this role for diagnostic accuracy studies.

The aim of this study was to identify the minimal clinically important threshold score for rate of recovery (RoR) using the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) as an anchor measure, and to measure the association of the RoR with the raw and percentage change scores of the QuickDASH and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Threshold measures for RoR and the PASS were examined using a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve. Participants were dichotomized to those who stated "yes" and those who stated "no" on the PASS. Pearson correlation coefficients were performed to determine the relationship between the NPRS and QuickDASH raw and percentage change scores and the RoR at discharge. ROC curve statistics suggest that a cut-point of greater than 87% on the self-report RoR (SN=0.62, SP=0.73; +LR=2.26: -LR=0.56) corresponded to the patient considering their state acceptable. No significant associations existed between either the raw NPRS or the raw QuickDASH, and the RoR scores although percentage change scores were associated with the RoR (QuickDASH r=0.29; p=0.02; NPRS = r=0.30; p=0.02). Patients reporting greater than or equal to 87% on RoR are likely to have met the Patient Acceptable Symptom State. Although statistically significant, the lack of strong association between RoR and change scores for the NPRS and QuickDASH suggests that the measures capture different constructs. Level 2C.

A variety of self-report and physical performance-based outcome measures are commonly used to assess progress and recovery in the lower leg, ankle, and foot. A requisite attribute of any outcome measure is its ability to detect change in a condition, a construct known as "responsiveness". There is a lack of consistency in how responsiveness is defined in all outcome measures. The purpose of this study was to review the currently used recovery outcome measures for lower leg, ankle and foot conditions in order to determine and report recommended responsiveness values. A systematic literature search that included electronic searches of PubMed, CINAHL and SportDiscus as well extensive cross-referencing was performed in January, 2013. Studies were included if each involved: 1) a prospective, longitudinal study of any design; 2) any condition associated with the lower leg, ankle or foot; 3) a measure of responsiveness; and 4) was an acceptable type of outcome measure (eg. self-report, physical performance, or clinician report). The quality of the included articles was assessed by two independent authors using the responsiveness sub-component of the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). Sixteen different studies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The most commonly used outcome measures were the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure and the Lower Extremity Functional Scale. Responsiveness was calculated in a variety of methods including effect size, standardized response mean, minimal clinically important difference/importance, minimal detectable change, and minimal important change. Based on the findings of this systematic review there is a lack of consistency for reporting responsiveness among recovery measures used in the lower leg, ankle or foot studies. It is possible that the variability of conditions that involve the lower leg, ankle and foot contribute to the discrepancies found in reporting responsiveness values. Further research must be conducted in order to standardize reporting measures for responsiveness. 2a.