Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (8) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (8)
Keywords
- Beschäftigungsfähigkeit (1)
- Employability (1)
- Nackenflexion (1)
- Neurodynamik (1)
- OMT (1)
- Rekrutierung (1)
- manual therapy (1)
- muskuloskelettale Therapie (1)
- muskuläre (1)
- neurodynamics (1)
- orthopädische manuelle/manipulative Therapie (1)
- pain neuroscience education (1)
- soft tissue (1)
- temporomandibular disorders (1)
- untere Extremität (1)
Institute
- Fakultät WiSo (8)
Objectives
The aim of this Delphi survey was to establish an international consensus on the most useful outcome measures for research on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for migraine. This is important, since guidelines for pharmacological trials recommend measuring the frequency of headaches with 50% reduction considered a clinically meaningful effect. It is unclear whether the same recommendations apply to complementary (or adjunct) non-pharmacological approaches, whether the same cut-off levels need to be considered for effectiveness when used as an adjunct or stand-alone intervention, and what is meaningful to patients.
Setting
University-initiated international survey.
Participants
The expert panel was chosen based on publications on non-pharmacological interventions in migraine populations and from personal contacts. 35 eligible researchers were contacted, 12 agreed to participate and 10 completed all 3 rounds of the survey. To further explore how migraine patients viewed potential outcome measures, four migraine patients were interviewed and presented with the same measurement tools as the researchers.
Procedures
The initial Delphi round was based on a systematic search of the literature for outcome measures used in non-pharmacological interventions for headache. Suggested outcome measures were rated by each expert, blinded towards the other members of the panel, for its usefulness on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from definitely not useful to extremely useful. Results were combined using median values and IQRs. Tools rated overall as definitely or probably not useful were excluded from subsequent rounds. Experts further suggested additional outcome measures that were presented to the panel in subsequent rounds. Additionally, experts were asked to rank the most useful tools and provide information on feasible cut-off levels for effectiveness for the three highest ranked tools.
Results
Results suggest the use of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and headache frequency as primary outcome measures. Patient experts suggested the inclusion of a measure of quality of life and evaluation of associated symptoms and fear of attacks.
Conclusions
Recommendations are for the use of the MIDAS, the HIT-6 and headache frequency, in combination with an outcome measure for quality of life. Associated symptoms and fear of attacks should also be considered as secondary outcomes, if relevant for the individual target population. The cut-off level for effectiveness should be lower for non-pharmacological interventions, especially when used as an adjunct to medication.
The current narrative literature review aims to discuss clinical reasoning based on nociceptive pain mechanisms for determining the most appropriate assessment and therapeutic strategy and to identify/map the most updated scientific evidence in relation to physical therapy interventions for patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). We will also propose an algorithm for clinical examination and treatment decisions and a pain model integrating current knowledge of pain neuroscience. The clinical examination of patients with TMDs should be based on nociceptive mechanisms and include the potential identification of the dominant, central, or peripheral sensitization driver. Additionally, the musculoskeletal drivers of these sensitization processes should be assessed with the aim of reproducing symptoms. Therapeutic strategies applied for managing TMDs can be grouped into tissue-based impairment treatments (bottom-up interventions) and strategies targeting the central nervous system (top-down interventions). Bottom-up strategies include joint-, soft tissue-, and nerve-targeting interventions, as well as needling therapies, whereas top-down strategies include exercises, grade motor imagery, and also pain neuroscience education. Evidence shows that the effectiveness of these interventions depends on the clinical reasoning applied, since not all strategies are equally effective for the different TMD subgroups. In fact, the presence or absence of a central sensitization driver could lead to different treatment outcomes. It seems that multimodal approaches are more effective and should be applied in patients with TMDs. The current paper also proposes a clinical decision algorithm integrating clinical diagnosis with nociceptive mechanisms for the application of the most appropriate treatment approach.
Objective
To identify assessment tools used to evaluate patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) considered to be clinically most useful by a panel of international experts in TMD physical therapy (PT).
Methods
A Delphi survey method administered to a panel of international experts in TMD PT was conducted over three rounds from October 2017 to June 2018. The initial contact was made by email. Participation was voluntary. An e-survey, according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES), was posted using SurveyMonkey for each round. Percentages of responses were analysed for each question from each round of the Delphi survey administrations.
Results
Twenty-three experts (completion rate: 23/25) completed all three rounds of the survey for three clinical test categories: 1) questionnaires, 2) pain screening tools and 3) physical examination tests. The following was the consensus-based decision regarding the identification of the clinically most useful assessments. (1) Four of 9 questionnaires were identified: Jaw Functional Limitation (JFL-8), Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia for Temporomandibular disorders (TSK/TMD) and the neck disability index (NDI). (2) Three of 8 identified pain screening tests: visual analog scale (VAS), numeric pain rating scale (NRS) and pain during mandibular movements. (3) Eight of 18 identified physical examination tests: physiological temporomandibular joint (TMJ) movements, trigger point (TrP) palpation of the masticatory muscles, TrP palpation away from the masticatory system, accessory movements, articular palpation, noise detection during movement, manual screening of the cervical spine and the Neck Flexor Muscle Endurance Test.
Conclusion
After three rounds in this Delphi survey, the results of the most used assessment tools by TMD PT experts were established. They proved to be founded on test construct, test psychometric properties (reliability/validity) and expert preference for test clusters. A concordance with the screening tools of the diagnostic criteria of TMD consortium was noted. Findings may be used to guide policymaking purposes and future diagnostic research.
Als Jane mit ihrer kleinen Schwester tobt, schießt ihr plötzlich ein starker Schmerz in Nacken und Kopf. So weit nicht ungewöhnlich und eine Indikation für Physiotherapie. Doch als die junge Studentin erzählt, dass der Kopfschmerz pulsierend ist, wird ihr Therapeut hellhörig und stellt die entscheidenden Fragen.
Eine Nackenflexion beeinflusst nachweislich die Mechanosensibilität von neurodynamischen Testungen der unteren Extremität. In der Literatur wird diskutiert, ob sich dieses Phänomen durch eine erhöhte (intraneurale) Spannung des Nervengewebes und/oder einen protektiven Reflexmechanismus des motorischen Systems erklären lässt. Bislang konnte kein protektiver Mechanismus in Form einer modifizierten muskulären Rekrutierung als mechanosensibler Parameter zwischen der passiven Nackenflexion und der unteren Extremität gemessen werden.
Alle in diese Querschnittsstudie eingeschlossenen 30 asymptomatischen, männlichen Probanden führten den neurodynamischen Straight-Leg-Raise-Test und Slump-Test durch. Um einen möglichen Einfluss der passiven Nackenflexion auf die muskuläre Rekrutierung der unteren Extremität festzustellen, wurden während dieser sensibilisierenden Bewegung die muskuläre Rekrutierung und das Bewegungsausmaß mittels Elektromyografie und Inertialsensorik (kinematische Messtechnik) gemessen.
Die Studienergebnisse bestätigten einen segmentübergreifenden Einfluss der passiven Nackenflexion auf die muskuläre Rekrutierung der unteren Extremität. Deren Muster deuten möglicherweise auf einen protektiven muskulären Mechanismus in endgradigen neurodynamischen Positionen hin.
In dieser Online-Befragung wird erforscht, ob eine OMT-Weiterbildung (orthopädische manuelle/manipulative Physiotherapie) die Employability (Beschäftigungsfähigkeit) verbessert und woran man eine Verbesserung erkennen könnte. Veränderungen durch die OMT-Weiterbildung, deren Vor- und Nachteile und weitere Themen waren Bestandteile der Befragung. Die statistische Auswertung erfolgte deskriptiv. 190 Fragebögen wurden ausgewertet, die Rücklaufquote lag bei 44,6 %.
Die Befragung zeigte, dass die OMT-Weiterbildung teilweise Vorteile mit sich bringt. Die Vorteile sind laut den Befragten eine verbesserte Behandlung und Beratung von Patienten, mehr Spaß und Motivation bei der Arbeit und eine erhöhte Patientenzufriedenheit. Keine Vorteile sind hingegen in Bezug auf eine bessere professionelle Position, Mehrverdienst oder eine verbesserte Zusammenarbeit mit den Krankenkassen zu erkennen. Zudem ist die Zufriedenheit mit dem Dachverband OMT-Deutschland eher gering. Dennoch würden über 90 % die OMT-Weiterbildung weiterempfehlen.
Es sollten weitere Studien in Bezug auf die Employability von Physiotherapeuten mit bestimmten Fort-/Weiterbildungen durchgeführt werden. Nach Aussagen der OMT-zertifizierten Physiotherapeuten nimmt die Employability nach der OMT-Weiterbildung zu. Die Beziehung zu dem Dachverband OMT-Deutschland scheint eher schwierig oder nicht vorhanden zu sein.