STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional cohort. OBJECTIVES: (1) To examine differences in clinical variables (demographics, knee impairments, and self-report measures) between those who return to preinjury level of sports participation and those who do not at 1 year following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, (2) to determine the factors most strongly associated with return-to-sport status in a multivariate model, and (3) to explore the discriminatory value of clinical variables associated with return to sport at 1 year postsurgery. BACKGROUND: Demographic, physical impairment, and psychosocial factors individually prohibit return to preinjury levels of sports participation. However, it is unknown which combination of factors contributes to sports participation status. METHODS: Ninety-four patients (60 men; mean age, 22.4 years) 1 year post–anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were included. Clinical variables were collected and included demographics, knee impairment measures, and self-report questionnaire responses. Patients were divided into “yes return to sports” or “no return to sports” groups based on their answer to the question, “Have you returned to the same level of sports as before your injury?” Group differences in demographics, knee impairments, and self-report questionnaire responses were analyzed. Discriminant function analysis determined the strongest predictors of group classification. Receiver-operating-characteristic curves determined the discriminatory accuracy of the identified clinical variables. RESULTS: Fifty-two of 94 patients (55%) reported yes return to sports. Patients reporting return to preinjury levels of sports participation were more likely to have had less knee joint effusion, fewer episodes of knee instability, lower knee pain intensity, higher quadriceps peak torque-body weight ratio, higher score on the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, and lower levels of kinesiophobia. Knee joint effusion, episodes of knee instability, and score on the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form were identified as the factors most strongly associated with self-reported return-to-sport status. The highest positive likelihood ratio for the yes-return-to-sports group classification (14.54) was achieved when patients met all of the following criteria: no knee effusion, no episodes of instability, and International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form score greater than 93. CONCLUSION: In multivariate analysis, the factors most strongly associated with return-to-sport status included only self-reported knee function, episodes of knee instability, and knee joint effusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognosis, level 2b.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2012;42(11):893-901, Epub 2 August 2012. doi:10.2519/jospt.2012.4077

KEY WORDS: ACL, kinesiophobia, return to sports

In remembrance of Dennis L. Hart, PT, PhD.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2012;42(6):489-490. doi:10.2519/jospt.2012.0109

The Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) has an ongoing effort to create evidence-based practice guidelines for orthopaedic physical therapy management of patients with musculoskeletal impairments described in the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). The purpose of these low back pain clinical practice guidelines, in particular, is to describe the peer-reviewed literature and make recommendations related to (1) treatment matched to low back pain subgroup responder categories, (2) treatments that have evidence to prevent recurrence of low back pain, and (3) treatments that have evidence to influence the progression from acute to chronic low back pain and disability.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(4):A1-A57. doi:10.2519/jospt.2012.0301

KEY WORDS: clinical practice guidelines, ICD, ICF, LBP, Orthopaedic Section

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal, observational cohort design. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim was to examine the association between changes in psychosocial distress (PD), and functional status (FS) and pain intensity at discharge from physical therapy. BACKGROUND: Patients with lumbar impairments seeking physical therapy commonly demonstrate elevated PD. However, it is not clear if PD changes that occur during physical therapy management are associated with improved clinical outcomes. METHODS: Data from adults (n = 692) with lumbar impairment were analyzed. Patients were screened using the Symptom Checklist Back Pain Prediction Model questionnaire (SCL BPPM) to identify patients at intake and discharge into 3 levels of risk for persistent disability (high, intermediate, or low). SCL BPPM classifications allowed for 5 patterns of change in PD during therapy (decreased, stable low, stable intermediate, stable high, or increased). Associations between PD change patterns and discharge FS and pain intensity were assessed using multivariable linear regression models, controlling for selected risk-adjustment variables. RESULTS: Proportions of patients classified by patterns of PD change for decreased, stable low, stable intermediate, stable high, and increased were 0.34, 0.52, 0.05, 0.06, and 0.03, respectively. Compared to the decreased PD group, (1) increased, stable high, and stable intermediate PD patterns were associated with worse discharge FS scores (–7.9 [95% CI: –13.5, –2.21], –10.9 [95% CI: –15.25, –6.49], and –8.9 [95% CI: –13.65, –4.21] units, respectively), and (2) stable high and stable intermediate PD patterns were associated with higher pain intensity (2.59 [95% CI: 1.81, 3.56] and 2.14 [95% CI: 1.25, 3.04] units, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Lower FS and higher pain intensity outcomes were associated in similar but not identical patterns with patients whose SCL BPPM classification of PD increased, or remained at high or intermediate levels during physical therapy. Serial assessments of change in PD during rehabilitation are recommended as a possible treatment-monitoring tool.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2011;41(12):969-980. doi:10.2519/jospt.2011.3814

KEY WORDS: computerized adaptive testing, depression, functional and pain outcomes, lumbar spine, psychosocial distress, somatization

STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive bibliometric analysis. BACKGROUND: Content and bibliometric studies are useful for describing the publication patterns of a given profession, such as physical therapy, within the medical and allied health fields. However, few studies have conducted these analyses on specialty physical therapy journals. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a content and bibliometric assessment of publications within the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT) and report publication and citation trends over multiple years. METHODS: All available JOSPT manuscripts published from 1980 through 2009 were reviewed. Only research reports, topical reviews, and case reports were included in the current analysis. Articles were coded by 2 independent reviewers based on type, participant characteristics, research design, purpose, clinical condition, and intervention. We obtained additional citation information (eg, authors and institutions) from a subset of articles published from 1992 through 2009 using bibliometric software. RESULTS: Of the 2233 available JOSPT publications, 1732 (77.6%) met criteria for inclusion. Of these, 1172 (67.7%) were research reports, 351 (20.3%) topical reviews, and 209 (12.1%) case reports. Over the last 30 years there has been a significant increase in the number of articles published and the percentage of research reports, systematic reviews, articles focused on prognosis, and articles including symptomatic participants. Percentage decreases were observed for topical or nonsystematic reviews and articles focused on anatomy/physiology. Top institutions, authors, and cited papers from 1992 through 2009 were identified in the bibliometric analyses. CONCLUSION: JOSPT has shown publication trends for increased percentage of experimental and clinically relevant research. However, there may be a need for increased publication of randomized controlled trials and studies focused on diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment, if goals of evidence-based practice are to be met.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2011;41(12):920-931. doi:10.2519/jospt.2011.3808

KEY WORDS: citation analysis, publication trends, research

STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis, cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVES: To (1) compare differences in individual comorbidity rates among patients with cervical, lumbar, and extremity pain complaints and (2) compare rates based on total number and severity in these same patient groups. BACKGROUND: Comorbidities can impact recovery, prognosis, and potentially hinder participation in rehabilitation. Few studies have compared comorbidity rates among patients with different anatomical region of pain, to determine whether specific screening is warranted in physical therapy settings. METHODS: Included in the analyses were 2375 patients who reported complete demographic, clinical, and comorbidity information using Patient Inquiry software. Comorbidity data were collected from the Functional Comorbidity Index (18 items) and 6 additional comorbidities, to assess the presence of medical disease across multiple body systems. Comorbidities were further classified as “nonsevere” or “severe,” based on inclusion in the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Chi-square analyses investigated differences in the rates of total number and severe comorbidities. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated on rates with statistically significant differences (P<.001), using the lumbar spine as the reference group. RESULTS: Of the 24 comorbid conditions included in this analysis, 3 nonsevere medical conditions (degenerative disc disease, obesity, and headache) had different rates among anatomical region. A lower rate for degenerative disc disease was associated with the extremity conditions (Χ² = 66.3; OR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.32, 0.50). Higher rate of headache (Χ² = 115.3; OR = 3.01; 95% CI: 2.45, 3.70) and lower rate of obesity (Χ² = 16.2; OR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.51, 0.80) were associated with cervical conditions. There were no differences among the 3 anatomical regions for total number or severe comorbidities. CONCLUSION: Focused screening for degenerative disc disease, obesity, and headache may be warranted. However, the same strategy was not supported for total number or severe comorbidities, at least when considering comparative rates from this cohort. Physical therapists should consider the potential influence of total number and severe comorbidities equally for all anatomical regions of musculoskeletal pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Differential diagnosis/symptom prevalence, level 3b.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2011;41(7):477-485, Epub 7 June 2011. doi:10.2519/jospt.2011.3686

KEY WORDS: comorbidity, medical screening, musculoskeletal pain

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of 30 858 patients being treated for a lumbar spine dysfunction in outpatient physical therapy. OBJECTIVES: To determine effect of adding a single-item screening variable classifying patients with elevated versus not-elevated scores of fear-avoidance beliefs of physical activities at intake, on a model predicting risk-adjusted functional status (FS) outcomes. BACKGROUND: Outcomes must be risk-adjusted before making meaningful interpretations. Elevated fear-avoidance beliefs scores have been predictive of poor outcomes. But the importance of elevated fear-avoidance scores in a multivariable model predicting FS outcomes needs further study. METHODS: Using retrospective analyses, predictive ability (R²) of multivariable linear regression models of discharge FS with and without classification by elevated versus not-elevated fear-avoidance scores were compared, while controlling for intake FS, age, symptom acuity, surgical history, gender, number of comorbidities, and payer. Percent variance controlled and beta coefficients (95% confidence intervals) of each variable in both models were compared. A split-half design was used for model cross-validation. Predictive ratios (predicted FS, divided by actual discharge FS) were assessed. RESULTS: Adding fear-avoidance beliefs classification to the discharge FS model improved (P<.001) model predictive ability but only slightly (R² without, and with, fear-avoidance classification, 0.2997 and 0.3010, respectively). Variables impacted models similarly (95% confidence intervals not different). Fear-avoidance classification added 0.2% data variance control to the existing model. Cross-validation was supported. Predictive ratios were 1.09 and 1.10, without and with fear-avoidance, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although screening for elevated fear-avoidance beliefs of physical activities significantly improves the FS outcomes predictive model, the amount of additional meaningful interpretation of FS outcomes was minimal. Exploration of other clinically relevant variables designed to improve outcomes prediction is warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognosis, level 2c.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2011;41(5):336-345, Epub 6 April 2011. doi:10.2519/jospt.2011.3534

KEY WORDS: computerized adaptive testing, outpatient rehabilitation, patient demographics, prediction models

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: To investigate fear-avoidance beliefs across different anatomical regions for patients with musculoskeletal pain. BACKGROUND: Fear-avoidance beliefs were first widely studied in patients with low back pain. The early results of studies involving patients with cervical spine, knee, and shoulder disorders suggest that fear-avoidance beliefs have the potential to influence pain and function in different anatomical regions. However, very few prospective studies of fear-avoidance beliefs involve multiple anatomical regions. METHODS: The sample of this study consisted of 313 patients (mean age, 45.5 years; 115 males, 198 females) seeking outpatient physical therapy for cervical spine (n = 63), upper extremity (n = 58), lumbar spine (n = 79), or lower extremity (n = 113) complaints. During the intake session, patients completed the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire physical activity scale (FABQ-PA), modified for the appropriate anatomical location. Patients also rated pain intensity and function on the Therapeutic Associates Outcomes System (TAOS) Functional Index at intake and discharge. The collection of treatment-related parameters included the number of visits, calendar days of physical therapy, and treatment received. FABQ-PA scores were compared across anatomical regions. Elevated FABQ-PA scores and anatomical regions were also investigated for association with intake pain and function, clinical outcomes, and treatment utility parameters. RESULTS: Similar FABQ-PA levels were observed across the 4 anatomical regions (P>.05). Number of visits, calendar days of physical therapy, and treatment received did not differ between elevated and lower fear-avoidance belief levels (P>.05). Findings for pain intensity and function were similar for each anatomical region. Patients with elevated fear-avoidance beliefs had higher intake scores (P<.05), larger improvements (P<.05), but similar discharge scores (P>.05), compared to those with lower fear-avoidance beliefs. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that, in patients with cervical, upper extremity, lumbar, or lower extremity complaints, fear-avoidance beliefs may have a similar influence on intake and change scores for pain intensity and function. General assessment of fear-avoidance beliefs using the FABQ-PA, especially to predict change scores, may be appropriate for use in patients with various musculoskeletal pain conditions.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2011;41(4):249-259, Epub 18 February 2011. doi:10.2519/jospt.2011.3488

KEY WORDS: cervical spine, chronic low back pain, pain intensity, upper extremity

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. BACKGROUND: In the examination of patients with unilateral shoulder pain, pain provocation testing to compare the involved and uninvolved sides has been considered useful. However, side-to-side comparisons of experimental pain sensitivity in patients with unilateral shoulder pain are not widely reported in the literature. OBJECTIVES: To compare experimental pain sensitivity between the involved and uninvolved sides in patients with unilateral shoulder pain. METHODS: In consecutive patients seeking operative treatment for shoulder pain, sensitivity measures of bilateral pressure pain threshold at the shoulder and forearm, and thermal pain threshold, tolerance, and temporal summation at the forearm, were examined. Pressure sensitivity was tested with a Fischer pressure algometer, and thermal sensitivity with a computer-controlled Medoc neurosensory analyzer. The involved and uninvolved sides were compared with an analysis of variance. Influence of sex and location of testing were considered as covariates in the analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-nine consecutively recruited participants completed experimental pain sensitivity testing. Participants reported significantly lower pressure pain thresholds in the involved side compared to the uninvolved side (F_1,56 = 4.96, P = .030). In addition, female compared to male participants demonstrated lower pressure pain thresholds in the bilateral shoulder regions (F_1,56 = 10.84, P = .002). There was no difference in thermal pain sensitivity between sides. Average clinical pain intensity was negatively correlated with pressure pain threshold at the involved local site (r = –0.284, P = .029), indicating an influence of clinical pain intensity on local pressure pain. CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide evidence for higher experimental pressure pain sensitivity in the involved side of patients with unilateral shoulder pain and no difference between sides for thermal pain sensitivity. Females demonstrated higher pain sensitivity than males to pressure stimuli at the local shoulder region but not at the distal regions. Future studies should incorporate multiple stimuli when describing the pain profile of clinical populations.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2011;41(3):165-173, Epub 10 November 2010. doi:10.2519/jospt.2011.3416

KEY WORDS: clinical examination, pain, shoulder pain

STUDY DESIGN: Quasi-experimental clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: This study compared outcomes from graded exercise and graded exposure activity prescriptions for patients participating in a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program for chronic low back pain. Our primary purpose was to investigate whether pain and disability outcomes differed based on treatment received (graded exercise or graded exposure). Our secondary purpose was to investigate if changes in selected psychological factors were associated with pain and disability outcomes. BACKGROUND: Behavioral interventions have been advocated for decreasing pain and disability from low back pain, yet relatively few comparative studies have been reported in the literature. METHODS: Consecutive sample with chronic low back pain recruited over a 16-month period from an outpatient chronic pain clinic. Patients received physical therapy supplemented with either graded exercise (n = 15) or graded exposure (n = 18) principles. Graded exercise included general therapeutic activities and was progressed with a quota-based system. Graded exposure included specific activities that were feared due to back pain and was progressed with a hierarchical exposure paradigm. Psychological measures were pain-related fear (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, Fear of Pain Questionnaire), pain catastrophizing (Coping Strategies Questionnaire), and depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory). Primary outcome measures were pain intensity (visual analog scale) and self-report of disability (modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire). RESULTS: Statistically significant improvements (P<.01) were observed for pain intensity and disability at discharge. The rate of improvement did not differ based on behavioral intervention received (P>.05 for these comparisons). Overall, 50% of patients met criterion for minimally important change for pain intensity, while 30% met this criterion for disability. Change in depressive symptoms was associated with change in pain intensity, while change in pain catastrophizing was associated with change in disability. CONCLUSIONS: Physical therapy supplemented with graded exercise or graded exposure resulted in equivalent clinical outcomes for pain intensity and disability. The overall treatment effects were modest in this setting. Instead of being associated with a specific behavioral intervention, reductions in pain and disability were associated with reductions in depressive symptoms and pain catastrophizing, respectively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 2b–.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2010;40(11):694-704, Epub 22 October 2010. doi:10.2519/ jospt.2010.3396

KEY WORDS: behavioral intervention, fear-avoidance model, pain catastrophizing

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy with which physical therapists identify fear-avoidance beliefs in patients with low back pain by comparing therapist ratings of perceived patient fear-avoidance to the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia 11-item (TSK-11), and Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). To compare the concurrent validity of therapist ratings of perceived patient fear-avoidance and a 2-item questionnaire on fear of physical activity and harm, with clinical measures of fear-avoidance (FABQ, TSK-11, PCS), pain intensity as assessed with a numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), and disability as assessed with the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ). BACKGROUND: The need to consider psychosocial factors for identifying patients at risk for disability and chronic low back pain has been well documented. Yet the ability of physical therapists to identify fear-avoidance beliefs using direct observation has not been studied. METHODS: Eight physical therapists and 80 patients with low back pain from 3 physical therapy clinics participated in the study. Patients completed the FABQ, TSK-11, PCS, ODQ, NPRS, and a dichotomous 2-item fear-avoidance screening questionnaire. Following the initial evaluation, physical therapists rated perceived patient fear-avoidance on a 0-to-10 scale and recorded 2 influences on their ratings. Spearman correlation and independent t tests determined the level of association of therapist 0-to-10 ratings and 2-item screening with fear-avoidance and clinical measures. RESULTS: Therapist ratings of perceived patient fear-avoidance had fair to moderate interrater reliability (ICC_2,1 = 0.663). Therapist ratings did not strongly correlate with FABQ or TSK-11 scores. Instead, they unexpectedly had stronger associations with ODQ and PCS scores. Both 2-item screening questions were associated with FABQ-physical activity scores, while the fear of physical activity question was also associated with FABQ-work, TSK-11, PCS, and ODQ scores. CONCLUSION: Therapists’ ratings of perceived patient fear-avoidance were not associated with self-reported fear-avoidance scores, showing a potential disconnect between therapist judgments and commonly used fear-avoidance measures. Instead, therapist ratings had small but statistically significant correlations with pain catastrophizing and disability, findings that may support therapists’ inability to discriminate fear-avoidance from these other factors. The 2-item screening questions based on fear of physical activity and harm showed potential to identify elevated FABQ physical activity scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Differential diagnosis, level 2b.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2010;40(12):774-783, Epub 22 October 2010. doi:10.2519/jospt.2010.3381

KEY WORDS: FABQ, low back pain, screening

Traditionally, placebo has been associated with using an inert substance, in part so the subsequent response could
be attributed to the target treatment, controlling for the confound of a “placebo effect.” Placebo’s link with inert substances is so strong that “sham treatment” is a common synonym, and widespread placebo use is discouraged—even when there is supporting evidence for its effectiveness. Recent research has helped to redefine placebo, and this editorial will highlight key information supporting a contemporary view of placebo.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2010;40(8):452-454. doi:10.2519/jospt.2010.0107

KEY WORDS: placebo effect, study design

STUDY DESIGN: Validity and test-retest reliability of questionnaires related to the fear-avoidance model (FAM). OBJECTIVE: To investigate test-retest reliability, construct redundancy, and criterion validity for 4 commonly used FAM measures. BACKGROUND: Few studies have reported psychometric properties for more than 2 FAM measures within the same cohort, making it difficult to determine which specific measures should be implemented in outpatient physical therapy settings. METHODS: Fifty-three consecutive patients (mean age, 44.3 ± 18.5 years) with chronic low back pain participated in this study. Data were collected with validated measures for FAM constructs, including the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), Fear of Pain Questionnaire (FPQ), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, and Pain Catastrophizing Scale. Validated measures were used to investigate criterion validity of the FAM measures, including the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression, the numerical rating scale for pain intensity, the Physical Impairment Scale for physical impairment, and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire for self-report of disability. Test-retest reliability of the FAM measures was determined with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC_2,1) for total questionnaire scores at baseline and 48 hours later. Construct redundancy was determined with Pearson correlation coefficients for FAM measures. Criterion validity was assessed by 4 separate multiple regression models that included age, sex, and employment status as covariates. Depression, pain intensity, physical impairment, and disability were the dependent variables for these analyses. RESULTS: Test-retest ICC coefficients ranged from 0.90 to 0.96 for all FAM questionnaires. The FAM measures were significantly correlated with each other, with the only exception being that the FPQ was not correlated with the FABQ work scale. In the multiple regression models, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale contributed additional variance to depression. The FABQ physical activity scale contributed additional variance to pain intensity and disability. The FABQ work scale contributed additional variance to physical impairment and disability. No other FAM measures contributed to these regression models. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that 4 commonly used FAM measures have similar test-retest reliability, with varying amounts of construct redundancy. The criterion validity analyses suggest that measurement of fear-avoidance constructs for patients seeking outpatient physical therapy with chronic low back pain should include the Pain Catastrophizing Scale and the FABQ.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2010;40(4):197-205, Epub 12 March 2010. doi:10.2519/jospt.2010.3298

KEY WORDS: chronic pain, lumbar spine, pain catastrophizing

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the believability of a novel sham intervention for a neurodynamic technique (NDT) in participants with signs and symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Additionally, we wished to assess a potential mechanism of NDT (hypoalgesia) and to compare outcomes related to clinical pain and upper extremity disability between NDT and a sham intervention. BACKGROUND: Preliminary evidence suggests that NDT is effective in the treatment of CTS. A sham-controlled study is lacking from the literature and could provide insight to the efficacy of NDT, as well as the corresponding mechanisms. METHODS: Participants with signs and symptoms consistent with CTS provided baseline measures of expectation, clinical pain intensity, upper extremity disability, and experimental pain sensitivity. Participants were then randomly assigned to receive either a NDT known to anatomicallystress the median nerve or a sham technique intended to minimize stress to the median nerve. Following brief exposure to the assigned technique, expectation was reassessed to observe for group-dependent changes. Participants received the assigned intervention over 3 weeks. Additionally, all participants received a prefabricated wrist splint for their involved hands, with instructions to sleep in the splint and to wear it during painful activities when awake. Following 3 weeks of the assigned intervention and splint wear, baseline measures were reassessed and participants were asked which intervention they believed they had received. RESULTS: Forty females agreed to participate. Expectations for pain relief and perceived group assignment were similar between the groups. Within-session decreases in clinical pain intensity and pressure pain sensitivity were observed independent of group assignment. Reduction of temporal summation was observed only in participants receiving NDT. Significant improvements in clinical pain intensity and upper extremity disability were observed at 3 weeks, independent of group assignment. CONCLUSION: The sham intervention was successful in blinding the participants. Immediate changes in pain sensitivity and intensity and 3-week changes in clinical pain intensity and upper extremity disability associated with NDT were equivalent to a sham intervention to which the participants were adequately blinded. Conversely, reduction of temporal summation was only observed in participants receiving the NDT, suggesting the potential of a favorable neurophysiological effect. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 1b.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2009;39(10):709-723. doi:10.2519/jospt.2009.3117

KEY WORDS: central sensitization, manual therapy, musculoskeletal pain, placebo

STUDY DESIGN: A single-blinded, quasi-experimental, within- and between-sessions assessment. OBJECTIVES: To investigate potential mechanisms of neural mobilization (NM), using tensioning techniques in comparison to sham NM on a group of asymptomatic volunteers between the ages of 18 and 50. BACKGROUND: NM utilizing tensioning techniques is used by physical therapists in the treatment of patients with cervical and/or upper extremity symptoms. The underlying mechanisms of potential benefits associated with NM tensioning techniques are unknown. METHODS AND MEASURES:  Participants (n = 62) received either a NM or sham NM intervention 2 to 3 times a week for a total of 9 sessions, followed by a 1-week period of no intervention to assess carryover effects. A-delta (first pain response) and C-fiber (temporal summation) mediated pain perceptions were tested via thermal quantitative sensory testing procedures. Elbow extension range of motion (ROM) and sensory descriptor ratings were obtained during a neurodynamic test for the median nerve. Data were analyzed with repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: No group differences were seen for A-delta mediated pain perception at either immediate or carryover times. Group differences were identified for immediate C-fiber mediated pain perception (P = .032), in which hypoalgesia occurred for the NM group but not the sham NM group. This hypoalgesic effect was not maintained at carryover (P = .104). Group differences were also identified for the 3-week and carryover periods for elbow extension ROM (P = .004), and for the participant sensory descriptor ratings (P = .018), in which increased ROM and decreased sensory descriptor ratings were identified in participants in the NM group but not the sham NM group. CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary evidence that mechanistic effects of tensioning NM differ from sham NM for asymptomatic participants. Specifically, NM resulted in immediate, but not sustained, C-fiber mediated hypoalgesia. Also, NM was associated with increased elbow ROM and a reduction in sensory descriptor ratings at 3-week and carryover assessment times. These differences provide potentially important information on the mechanistic effects of NM, as well as the description of a sham NM for use in future clinical trials. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 2b.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2009;39(6):428-438, Epub 19 March 2009. doi:10.2519/jospt.2009.2954

KEY WORDS: manual therapy, neurodynamic testing, temporal summation

SYNOPSIS: The fear-avoidance model of musculoskeletal pain suggests that elevated pain-related fear is a precursor to chronic low back pain. Recent prospective studies support the predictive validity of this model, and treatment approaches based on the model have also been reported in the literature. Graded exercise/activity is one treatment approach that has been well described in the literature, with reports describing physical-therapy-specific application. Graded exposure is another intervention with the potential to reduce pain-related fear, yet physical-therapy-specific application of graded exposure has not been widely described in the literature. The purpose of this clinical commentary was to provide information on the theoretical aspects of graded exposure, to briefly review available evidence for graded exposure, and to describe physical therapy application of graded exposure for 2 patients enrolled in a physical therapy clinical trial. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 5.

J Orthop Sport Phys Ther 2009;39(7):496-505, Epub 24 February 2009. doi:10.2519/jospt.2009.2983

KEY WORDS: behavioral intervention, biopsychosocial, disability, fear-avoidance, kinesiophobia, secondary prevention

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. OBJECTIVES: This study examined the baseline relationship of pain intensity, physical impairment, and pain-related fear to shoulder function. BACKGROUND: There is no consensus regarding the influence psychological variable have on function and recovery in individuals with shoulder pathologies. While pain-related fear has been shown to predict disability for patients with low-back and cervical pain, this relationship has not been consistently reported for patients with shoulder pain. METHODS AND MEASURES: One hundred forty-two subjects (78 male, 64 female; mean age, 41.4 years) with nonoperative unilateralshoulder disorders were identified from a clinical database of impairment and outcome measures.Demographic information, duration of symptoms, mechanism of injury, pain intensity, pain-related
fear, and range-of-motion (ROM) measures were collected. Self-report of function was measured with the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI). Hierarchical regression analysis determinedthe proportions of explained variance in function. RESULTS: Demographic variables (durationof symptoms, sex, age, and mechanism of injury) collectively contributed approximately 9% (P = .003) of the variance in function scores. Average pain intensity and flexion ROM contributed an additional 22% (P<.001) of the variance, and Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-11) scores contributed an additional 3% (P<.001). In the final parsimonious model, presence of symptoms longer than 3 months (ß = .23, P = .003), pain intensity (ß = .25, P = .002), shoulder flexion ROM index (ß = –.35, P = .001), and kinesiophobia (ß = .17, P = .026) explained 33% of the variance in SPADI function score (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Presence of symptoms longer than 3 months, average pain intensity, flexion ROM index (strongest contributor in multivariate model), and fear-of-pain scores all contributed to baseline shoulder function. The immediate clinical relevance of these findings is unclear but they do provide direction for prospective studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognosis, level 2b.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2009;39(4):270-277, Epub 15 December 2008. doi:10.2519/jospt.2009.2879

KEY WORDS: disability, kinesiophobia, psychological, physical therapy, shoulder flexion

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. OBJECTIVES: To measure fear of movement/reinjury levels and determine the association with function at different timeframes during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction rehabilitation. We hypothesized that fear of movement/reinjury would decrease during rehabilitation and be inversely related with function. BACKGROUND: Fear of movement/reinjury can prevent return to sports after ACL reconstruction, but it has not been studied during rehabilitation. METHODS AND MEASURES: Demographic data and responses on the shortened version of Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK-11), 8-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-8), and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective form were extracted from a clinical database for 97 patients in the first year after ACL reconstruction. Three groups were formed: group 1, less than or equal to 90 days; group 2, 91 to 180 days; group 3: 181 to 372 days post-ACL reconstruction. Group differences in TSK-11 score, SF-8 bodily pain rating, and IKDC scores were determined. Hierarchical linear regression models were created for each group, with IKDC score as the dependent variable and demographic factors, SF-8 bodily pain rating, and TSK-11 score as independent variables. RESULTS: TSK-11 score was higher in group 1 than in group 3 (P < .05). Across the groups, SF-8 bodily pain rating decreased (P < .001) and IKDC score increased (P < .001). SF-8 bodily pain rating was a significant factor in the regression model for all groups, whereas TSK-11 score only contributed to the regression model in group 3 (partial correlation, -0.529). CONCLUSIONS: Pain was consistently associated with function across the timeframes studied. Fear of movement/reinjury levels appear to decrease during ACL reconstruction rehabilitation and are associated with function in the timeframe when patients return to sports. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognosis, level 4.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38(12):746-753, published online 19 September 2008. doi:10.2519/jospt.2008.2887

KEY WORDS: ACL, knee injury, outcomes, psychosocial

For some patients, spinal manipulative therapy is an effective treatment for spine pain, yet we really don't fully understand how or why. The mechanisms of spinal manipulative therapy are not well defined, and common explanations for why spinal manipulative therapy works lack supporting evidence. Traditionally, the decision to incorporate spinal manipulative therapy into a plan of care is based on a seductively plausible biomechanical theory. Examination techniques, sometimes quite elaborate in nature, are used to determine painful structures and associated abnormalities related to alignment and mobility. The appropriately matched spinal manipulative therapy treatment techniques are then implemented to correct "pathological" findings. The underlying implication of these approacheds is that success of spinal manipulative therapy is dependent upon correction of biomechanical faults detected on examination.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38(6):293-295. doi:10.2519/jospt.2008.0118

KEY WORDS: biomechanics, spine

Letters to the Editor-in-Chief of the JOSPT as follows:

• Regional Interdependence: A Musculoskeletal Examination Model Whose Time Has Come. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38(3):159-161. doi:10.2519/jospt.2008.0201
• Authors' response. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38(3):159-161. doi:10.2519/jospt.2008.0202
• Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis in a Patient Referred to Physical Therapy for Knee Pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38(3):159-161. doi:10.2519/jospt.2008.0203
• Authors' response. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38(3):159-161. doi:10.2519/jospt.2008.0204

Letters to the Editor-in-Chief of the JOSPT as follows:

• Letter regarding the editorial, Risk and Physical Therapy?. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007:37(9):570-572. doi:10.2519/jospt.2007.0209.
• Authors' Response. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007:37(9):571-572. doi:10.2519/jospt.2007.0210.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. OBJECTIVES: To (1) determine the association between pain severity and pain drawing area for men and women; (2) determine if sex differences exist in pain severity or pain drawing area; (3) determine the relative influence of pain sever­ity, anatomical location of pain, personality, and psychological coping factors on pain drawing area for men and women. BACKGROUND: Pain drawings have been pos­tulated to assist in clinical decision making regard­ing classification and treatment of musculoskeletal pain. Prior studies have been ambiguous on this topic, possibly because they have not considered if sex differences exist for pain drawing area. METHODS AND MEASURES: One hundred twenty-six subjects referred to a multidisciplinary chronic pain clinic with chronic musculoskeletal pain were included in this study. Subjects com­pleted a pain drawing, the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI), the Coping Strategies Question­naire (CSQ), and the Minnesota Multiphasic Per­sonality Inventory (MMPI-2). Pearson correlations investigated the associations of pain severity and pain drawing area, independent t tests investigated sex differences in pain severity and pain drawing area, and multiple regression investigated factors that influenced pain drawing area. RESULTS: Pain severity was positively corre­lated with pain drawing area for men (r = 0.38, P = .003) and women (r = 0.23, P = .052), account­ing for approximately 14% and 5% of the total variance, respectively. There was no significant sex difference in pain severity ratings, but women reported a significantly larger area of symptoms on the pain drawings (effect size, 0.61; P = .002). The sex difference in pain drawing area was consistent across different anatomical locations of pain. In women, the final regression model accounted for 39% (P<.001) of the variance in pain drawing area, with anatomical location of pain (β = .42, P<.001) and hypochondriasis (β = .31, P = .005) as the only unique predictors in the final model. In men, the regression model accounted for 27% (P = .003) of the variance in pain drawing area, with pain severity (β = .32, P = .021) and a coping style of ignoring pain (β = –.32, P = .018) as the only unique predictors in the final model. CONCLUSIONS: Women had larger pain draw­ing area and this area was significantly associated with anatomical location of pain and hypochon­driasis. Men had smaller pain drawing area and this area was associated with pain severity and a coping style of ignoring pain. These findings sug­gest that clinicians interpreting pain diagram area should consider the sex of the individual. 

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37(3):115-121. doi:1.2519/jospt.2007.2399 

KEY WORDS: chronic pain, coping styles, personality style, pain drawing, sex difference, yellow flags

The process of differential diagnosis involves the development of working hypotheses concerning dysfunction. These working hypotheses are revised, if necessary, based on the results of a physical examination. Some of the hypotheses to consider for a patient with symptoms involving the posterior thigh include lumbar radiculopathy, hamstring strain or tear, and sciatic nerve irritation. Involvement of the lumbar spine is assessed by evaluating the range and pattern of active lumbar movements. For example, a patient with asymmetrical lumbar sidebending may have facet joint restriction. In addition to range of motion, lumbar movements that centralize or peripheralize lower extremity symptoms are determined. Centralization of symptoms is defined as lumbar spine movements that abolish lower extremity symptoms, or make the symptoms move towards the spine. Peripheralization of symptoms is defined as lumbar spine movements that produce lower extremity symptoms or make the symptoms move farther away from the spine. The purpose of this case problem is to highlight the decision making process involved in determining the treatment of a patient with posterior thigh symptoms. In addition, the method of treatment will be described, and the patient's response to the treatment will be included in this article.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2000;30(8):468-472.

Key Words: lumbar, posterior thigh symptoms

Study Design: Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort of patients with acute low back pain (LBP). Objectives: To determine if the centralization phenomenon and fear-avoidance beliefs predict measurement of pain and disability 6 months after entering the study. Background: The centralization phenomenon and fear-avoidance are predictive of future pain and disability. However, previous prognostic studies have not routinely included both measures in homogenous subgroups of patients with acute LBP. Methods and Measures: Patients completed self-report questionnaires and were evaluated and treated with treatment-based classification guidelines. Only the patients classified for specific exercise were included in this analysis (n = 28). Measures of disability and pain intensity were reassessed at 6 months by mail. Separate hierarchical regression models predicted measures of disability and pain intensity with the centralization phenomenon, fear-avoidance beliefs, and prespecified covariates. Results: There were no significant differences in duration of symptoms, fear-avoidance beliefs, and history of LBP based on the centralization phenomenon (P>.05). Patients reporting the centralization phenomenon were significantly more likely to have leg pain (P<.01). A regression model including initial disability, the centralization phenomenon, and fear-avoidance beliefs about work significantly predicted 6-month disability, explaining 49% of the total variance (P<.001). A regression model that included initial pain intensity and the centralization phenomenon significantly predicted 6-month pain intensity, explaining 29% of the total variance (P<.016). These factors also appeared to be clinically meaningful predictors of outcome, but lacked precision for immediate use in clinical settings. The following covariates were not included in the final regression models: presence of leg pain, history of LBP, and duration of LBP. Conclusions: Baseline elevation in fear-avoidance beliefs about work and lack of centralization phenomenon predicted higher disability. Baseline lack of centralization phenomenon predicted higher pain intensity. These results can only be generalized to patients with acute LBP classified for specific exercise. It will be necessary to independently validate these prediction models before they can be implemented in clinical settings.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2005;35(9):580-588. doi:10.2519/jospt.2005.2073

Key Words: McKenzie, pain intensity, physical therapy, treatment-based classification

For certain patients, fear of pain can be as disabling as pain itself. Clinicians and researchers interested in reducing the societal impact of chronic musculoskeletal pain must work together to manage relevant psychological influences like fear of pain. Collaborative efforts are necessary to address the following issues in a wide range of musculoskeletal pain conditions: (1) refine current screening techniques to make them more efficient and accurate, and (2) develop and test interventions that effectively reduce pain-related fear. Otherwise, an important contributor to our patients' pain and disability will continue to be mismanaged by the same professionals trying to prevent chronic conditions.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006; 36(5):264-266. doi:10.2519/jospt.2006.0106

Study Design: Secondary analysis of pooled data from 3 randomized trials. Objective: This study investigated sex differences in response to physical therapy intervention for acute low back pain. Background: Sex differences in experimental pain sensitivity have been consistently described in the literature. However, clinical consequences of these sex differences have not been widely reported. Methods and Measures: Subjects (n = 165) were participants in 3 randomized trials of physical therapy interventions from outpatient physical therapy clinics in the general and military communities. Subjects were randomly assigned spinal manipulation with range-of-motion exercise, lumbar stabilization exercise, or directional-preference exercise. Outcomes were measured at 4 weeks through self-report of pain intensity and pain-related disability. Sex differences were investigated with independent t tests (baseline data), 2 x 3 analysis of variance (4-week reductions in pain and pain-related disability), and regression models (predictors of outcome). Results: Men and women had similar reductions of pain intensity (raw mean difference, 0.5; 95% CI, -1.4 to 0.4) and pain-related disability (raw mean difference, 5.3; 95% CI, -0.1 to 10.7) over 4 weeks. Baseline pain intensity, duration of symptoms, and baseline pain-related disability significantly predicted change in pain intensity for women (r² = 26%, P<.01). Baseline pain intensity and stabilization exercise predicted change in pain intensity for men (r² = 33%; P<.01). Baseline pain-related disability, duration of pain, and pain intensity predicted change in disability for women (r² = 24%, P<.01). Baseline pain-related disability, fear-avoidance beliefs, stabilization exercise, and leg pain predicted change in disability for men (r² = 32%, P<.01). Conclusion: For patients with acute low back pain, men and women had similar physical therapy outcomes for reductions in pain intensity and pain-related disability. However, men and women had different factors that predicted treatment outcome.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006; 36(6):354-363. doi:10.2519/jospt.2006.2270

Key Words: acute pain, gender differences, lumbar spine, rehabilitation, treatment response

Objectives: The purpose of this case series was to describe the criteria used to determine if patients were to receive slump stretch treatment within a treatment-based classification system and to describe selected symptom characteristics associated with these patients.

Background: Previous reports from the literature suggest that the slump test position may be a useful treatment and evaluation technique. However, little information has been presented regarding how to identify patients who are appropriate to treat with slump stretching and the symptom characteristics associated with these patients.

Methods and Measures: Prior to recruitment, criteria were established to identify patients who would be considered appropriate to treat with slump stretching. Consecutive patients referred with low back diagnosis or low–back-related diagnoses were then evaluated using a treatment-based classification system. Selected symptom characteristics were collected from patients treated with slump stretching.

Results: Out of 88 consecutive patients with low back diagnoses or low–back-related diagnoses, 6 met the study’s inclusion criteria and were treated with slump stretching. All pain diagrams were classified as ‘‘organic’’ or ‘‘possibly organic,’’ and the most common symptom descriptor was ‘‘deep ache.’’ At the discharge session of physical therapy, 5 of 6 patients had symptoms that were more proximally located and all patients reported a decrease in symptom intensity.

Conclusion: Favorable changes in symptom intensity and location were observed for this case series, but definitive conclusions cannot be drawn from this study design. Additional research needs to be completed to determine if the slump test position is an effective evaluation and treatment technique.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2002; 32(8):391–398.

Key Words: classification, slump test, symptoms