Mintken Paul E, McDevitt Amy W, Michener Lori A, Boyles Robert E, Beardslee Amber R, Burns Scott A, Haberl Matthew D, Hinrichs Lauren A, Cleland Joshua A
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017 Apr;47(4):252-260. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2017.7100. Epub 2017 Mar 3.
Study Design Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Background Prognostic variables identifying patients with shoulder pain who are likely to respond to cervicothoracic manipulation have been reported; however, they have yet to be validated. Objective To examine the validity of previously reported prognostic variables in predicting which patients with shoulder pain will respond to cervicothoracic manipulation. Methods Participants (n = 140) with a report of shoulder pain were randomly assigned to receive either 2 sessions of range-of-motion exercises plus 6 sessions of stretching and strengthening exercises (exercise group), or 2 sessions of cervicothoracic manipulation and range-of-motion exercises followed by 6 sessions of stretching and strengthening exercise (manipulative-therapy-plus-exercise group). Outcomes of disability (Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire) and pain (numeric pain-rating scale) were collected at baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 6 months. Time, treatment group, status of predictor variables, and 2-way and 3-way interactions were analyzed using linear mixed models with repeated measures. Results There were no significant 3-way interactions for either disability (P = .27) or pain scores (P = .70) for time, group, and predictor status for any of the predictor variables. Conclusion The results of the current study did not validate the previously identified prognostic variables; therefore, we cannot support using these in clinical practice. Further updating of the existing prediction rule may be warranted and could potentially result in new prognostic variables and improved generalizability. Limitations of the study were a mean duration of symptoms of greater than 2 years and a loss to follow-up of 19% at 6 months. Level of Evidence Prognosis, level 1b. Trial prospectively registered March 30, 2012 at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01571674). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(4):252-260. Epub 3 Mar 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7100.
一项随机对照试验的二次分析。背景:已有研究报道了可识别可能对颈胸段手法治疗有反应的肩痛患者的预后变量;然而,这些变量尚未得到验证。目的:检验先前报道的预后变量在预测哪些肩痛患者会对颈胸段手法治疗有反应方面的有效性。方法:140例有肩痛报告的参与者被随机分配,分别接受2节活动度练习加6节伸展和强化练习(运动组),或2节颈胸段手法治疗和活动度练习,随后进行6节伸展和强化练习(手法治疗加运动组)。在基线、1周、4周和6个月时收集残疾情况(肩痛和残疾指数,上肢、肩部和手部功能障碍问卷简版)和疼痛情况(数字疼痛评分量表)的结果。使用重复测量的线性混合模型分析时间、治疗组、预测变量状态以及双向和三向交互作用。结果:对于任何预测变量,时间、组和预测变量状态在残疾(P = 0.27)或疼痛评分(P = 0.70)方面均无显著的三向交互作用。结论:本研究结果未验证先前确定的预后变量;因此,我们不支持在临床实践中使用这些变量。可能需要对现有的预测规则进行进一步更新,这可能会产生新的预后变量并提高可推广性。本研究的局限性在于症状的平均持续时间超过2年,以及6个月时19%的失访率。证据水平:预后,1b级。该试验于2012年3月30日在www.clinicaltrials.gov(NCT01571674)进行前瞻性注册。《骨科与运动物理治疗杂志》2017年;47(4):252 - 260。2017年3月3日在线发表。doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7100。