Refine
Document Type
- Article (4) (remove)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Keywords
- manual therapy (1)
- musicians (1)
- musicians health (1)
- musicians medicine (1)
- osteopathy (1)
- performing artists (1)
- physiotherapy (1)
Institute
- Fakultät WiSo (4)
Abstract
Background
The clinical presentation of neck-arm pain is heterogeneous with varying underlying pain types (nociceptive/neuropathic/mixed) and pain mechanisms (peripheral/central sensitization). A mechanism-based clinical framework for spinally referred pain has been proposed, which classifies into (1) somatic pain, (2) neural mechanosensitivity, (3) radicular pain, (4) radiculopathy and mixed pain presentations. This study aims to (i) investigate the application of the clinical framework in patients with neck-arm pain, (ii) determine their somatosensory, clinical and psychosocial profile and (iii) observe their clinical course over time.
Method
We describe a study protocol. Patients with unilateral neck-arm pain (n = 180) will undergo a clinical examination, after which they will be classified into subgroups according to the proposed clinical framework. Standardized quantitative sensory testing (QST) measurements will be taken in their main pain area and contralateral side. Participants will have to complete questionnaires to assess function (Neck Disability Index), psychosocial factors (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Depression, anxiety and stress scale), neuropathic pain (Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions, PainDETECT Questionnaire) and central sensitization features (Central Sensitization Inventory). Follow-ups at three, six and 12 months include the baseline questionnaires. The differences of QST data and questionnaire outcomes between and within groups will be analyzed using (M)AN(C)OVA and/or regression models. Repeated measurement analysis of variance or a linear mixed model will be used to calculate the differences between three, six, and 12 months outcomes. Multiple regression models will be used to analyze potential predictors for the clinical course.
Conclusion
The rationale for this study is to assess the usability and utility of the proposed clinical framework as well as to identify possible differing somatosensory and psychosocial phenotypes between the subgroups. This could increase our knowledge of the underlying pain mechanisms. The longitudinal analysis may help to assess possible predictors for pain persistency.
Currently, the treatment of musicians is an interprofessional approach. Playing-related health complaints may impact the performance of a musician. In Germany, a medical consulting hour for musicians exists, but those for athletes in sports medicine are not so common. The diagnosing and treatment procedure within the physiotherapy consultation for musicians follows a specific concept-b and requires knowledge of instruments and musician-specific complaints. Based on the consulting hour in a clinic in Osnabrueck, 614 case reports were part of this sample, of which 558 data sets were complete. The focus of the analysis is the instrument and the primary complaint. Also, the type of therapy is characterized, and the amount is calculated. Primary complaints of musicians, in general, are found most frequently in the spine and upper extremity. Musician complaints are different between instruments. Instrumentalists have a significantly higher chance to suffer from a primary complaint in the area of the upper extremity. Furthermore, the groups without an instrument (e.g., singing or dancing) are developing complaints in the anatomical area which they primarily use. Therefore, these types of therapy were used: physiotherapy, manual therapy, and osteopathy with an average of 5.9 treatment units. This study underpinned the importance of musician-specific physiotherapy as a profession to treat musicians. Also, an interdisciplinary approach is necessary to treat all aspects of complaints.
BACKGROUND: The Craniofacial Pain and Disability Inventory (CF-PDI) is a cross-culturally adapted instrument designed from a biopsychosocial perspective to measure pain, disability, and function in orofacial head and neck pain with shown psychometric properties; however, the German cross-cultural adaption is lacking.
OBJECTIVES: To carry out a transcultural translation of CF-PDI into German and assess its psychometric properties in patients with painful temporomandibular disorders (TMD) with respect to construct and clinical validity, internal consistency and reproducibility.
STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional design.
SETTING: Patients (n = 398) were recruited from dental and physical therapy clinics in middle and south Germany.
METHODS: Structural validity was assessed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We investigated know-group validity by means of the scale’s potential to discriminate between affected and unaffected subjects. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to estimate convergent validity. We tested test-retest reliability by the intraclass correlation coefficient and the Internal consistency by Cronbach’s alpha, or each dimension separately, and the total score. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to estimate convergent validity.
RESULTS: Two hundred forty-six heterogeneous chronic craniofacial pain patients and 152 patients without complaints were recruited from the middle and south of Germany. The German version CF-PDI-G presents 21 items, 4 factors, and adequate psychometric properties. The test-retest reliability and internal consistency of the CF-PDI-G were both excellent for the entire instrument and also for all sub-scales (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] > 0.90) except for the comorbidities and interference with work which was acceptable (ICC = 0.69). Standard error of the measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change values are sufficiently low. Assessment of clinical validity shows good potential of discrimination and classification into categories “no,” “mild,” “moderate,” and “severe.” The multiple linear regression model showed a strong association between neck disability index, Visual Analog Scale, and anamnestic questionnaire (supporting the scale’s convergent validity).
LIMITATIONS: Our sample has a higher prevalence of women and the sample was not recruited consecutively, which may lead to a biased estimation of psychometric properties.
CONCLUSIONS: The CF-PDI-G represents valid and reliable instrument to assess pain and disability in patients with orofacial pain and headache suitable for research and clinical practice.
Objectives
To develop a time-efficient motor control (MC) test battery while maximising diagnostic accuracy of both a two-level and three-level classification system for patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP).
Design
Case–control study.
Setting
Four private physiotherapy practices in northern Germany.
Participants
Consecutive males and females presenting to a physiotherapy clinic with non-specific LBP (n=65) were compared with 66 healthy-matched controls.
Primary outcome measures
Accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, Youden index, positive/negative likelihood ratio, area under the curve (AUC)) of a clinically driven consensus-based test battery including the ideal number of test items as well as threshold values and most accurate items.
Results
For both the two and three-level categorisation system, the ideal number of test items was 10. With increasing number of failed tests, the probability of having LBP increases. The overall discrimination potential for the two-level categorisation system of the test is good (AUC=0.85) with an optimal cut-off of three failed tests. The overall discrimination potential of the three-level categorisation system is fair (volume under the surface=0.52). The optimal cut-off for the 10-item test battery for categorisation into none, mild/moderate and severe MC impairment is three and six failed tests, respectively.
Conclusion
A 10-item test battery is recommended for both the two-level (impairment or not) and three-level (none, mild, moderate/severe) categorisation of patients with non-specific LBP.