ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

There is a lack of studies examining whether mechanism-based classification systems (CS) acknowledging biological, psychological and social dimensions of long-lasting low back pain (LBP) disorders can be performed in a reliable manner. The purpose of this paper was to examine the inter-tester reliability of clinicians' ability to independently classify patients with non-specific LBP (NSLBP), utilising a mechanism-based classification method. Twenty-six patients with NSLBP underwent an interview and full physical examination by four different physiotherapists. Percentage agreement and Kappa coefficients were calculated for six different levels of decision making. For levels 1-4, percentage agreement had a mean of 96% (range 75-100%). For the primary direction of provocation Kappa and percentage agreement had a mean between the four testers of 0.82 (range 0.66-0.90) and 86% (range 73-92%) respectively. At the final decision making level, the scores for detecting psychosocial influence gave a mean Kappa coefficient of 0.65 (range 0.57-0.74) and 87% (range 85-92%). The findings suggest that the inter-tester reliability of the system is moderate to substantial for a range of patients within the NSLBP population in line with previous research.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Original Article
Inter-examiner reliability of a classification system for patients
with non-specific low back pain
K. Vibe Fersum
a
,
*
, P.B. O’Sullivan
b
, A. Kvåle
a
, J.S. Skouen
a
,
c
a
Section for Physiotherapy Science, Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Bergen, Kalfarveien 31, 5018 Bergen, Norway
b
School of Physiotherapy, Curtin University, Bentley 6102, WA, Australia
c
The Outpatient Spine Clinic, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
article info
Article history:
Received 20 February 2008
Received in revised form 10 July 2008
Accepted 1 August 2008
Keywords:
Agreement
Classification
Low back pain
Reliability
abstract
There is a lack of studies examining whether mechanism-based classification systems (CS) acknowl-
edging biological, psychological and social dimensions of long-lasting low back pain (LBP) disorders can
be performed in a reliable manner. The purpose of this paper was to examine the inter-tester reliability of
clinicians’ ability to independently classify patients with non-specific LBP (NSLBP), utilising a mecha-
nism-based classification method. Twenty-six patients with NSLBP underwent an interview and full
physical examination by four different physiotherapists. Percentage agreement and Kappa coefficients
were calculated for six different levels of decision making. For levels 1–4, percentage agreement had
a mean of 96% (range 75–100%). For the primary direction of provocation Kappa and percentage
agreement had a mean between the four testers of 0.82 (range 0.66–0.90) and 86% (range 73–92%)
respectively. At the final decision making level, the scores for detecting psychosocial influence gave
a mean Kappa coefficient of 0.65 (range 0.57–0.74) and 87% (range 85–92%). The findings suggest that the
inter-tester reliability of the system is moderate to substantial for a range of patients within the NSLBP
population in line with previous research.
Ó2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
LBP represents a common and very costly health problem and
a definite diagnosis is difficult to achieve in most cases (85%)
(Waddell, 2004). As a result, uncertainty regarding treatment of
this group of patients is common (Cherkin et al., 1998).
A number of studies have shown little or no difference between
various physiotherapy treatments for chronic LBP (Delitto et al.,
1995; Petersen et al., 1999; Ferreira et al., 2007). Several authors
have suggested that these results may reflect the heterogeneity of
the NSLBP group, with several distinct subgroups, including
psychosocial problems, each with its own potential set of beneficial
treatments (O’Sullivan, 2000; Petersen et al., 2002; O’Sullivan,
2005; Dankaerts et al., 2006b). There is growing evidence sug-
gesting that sub-classifying patients and offering them tailored
interventions matching their disorder improves patient outcome
(Frymoyer et al., 1985; Main and Watson, 1996; O’Sullivan, 1997;
Nachemson, 1999; Linton, 2000; Skouen et al., 2002; Fritz et al.,
2003; Stuge et al., 2004). It has been proposed that a classification
system (CS) for NSLBP should identify the underlying mechanisms
driving the disorder within a bio-psycho-social framework,
enabling specific therapies to be applied so as to favourably influ-
ence the outcome of the disorder (O’Sullivan, 2005).
A number of CS have been proposed (McKenzie, 1981; Spitzer,
1987;Maluf et al., 2000; Sahrmann, 2001). However, only a few are
found sufficiently reliable and valid (Petersen et al.,1999), and even
fewer consider the disorder from a bio-psycho-social perspective
(Petersen et al., 1999; Ford et al., 2003; McCarthy et al., 2004;
O’Sullivan, 2005; Dankaerts et al., 2006b).
The Quebec Task Force system was designed to classify all LBP
patients to help with clinical decision making, establishing prog-
nosis and evaluating treatment effectiveness (Spitzer, 1987).
However, it has not been tested for reliability and does not consider
the underlying mechanism (Dankaerts et al., 2006b), except for
differentiating somatic from radicular pain. Within this system
there is no subgrouping of NSLBP except on the basis of pain area,
and no specific treatment is advocated for this large group of
patients other than general exercise, therefore limiting its use for
physiotherapy assessment and treatment (Padfield et al., 2002).
The McKenzie (1981) system is based on information from
history taking, and symptom response to generated loading of the
lumbar spine. The system has been tested for reliability, and has
substantial inter-tester agreement when applied by trained
examiners (Kappa coefficients ranging from 0.6 to 0.7) (Kilpikoski
et al., 2002).
*Corresponding author: Tel.: þ47 55586711.
E-mail address: kjartan.fersum@isf.uib.no (K. Vibe Fersum).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Manual Therapy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/math
1356-689X/$ – see front matter Ó2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.math.2008.08.003
Manual Therapy 14 (2009) 555–561
Petersen and co-workers (2004) have proposed a McKenzie-
based CS with good inter-tester reliability, but it has a patho-
anatomical orientation and lacks clear guidelines for management.
Sahrmann and co-workers have developed another CS,
comprising five categories based on testing of muscular stability,
alignment, asymmetry, flexibility of the lumbar spine, pelvis, and
hip (Maluf et al., 2000). Reliability of the individual tests used for
classification has been shown to vary from fair to almost perfect
(Van Dillen et al., 1998, 2003). However, there are no reports on
reliability in classification of the patients into the five categories,
nor does this system consider patho-anatomical or psychosocial
dimensions.
Since 1997 Peter O’Sullivan has developed a novel system, based
on the Quebeck Task Force, incorporating multiple dimensions in
the classification of patients into subgroups based on proposed
underlying pain mechanisms. Initially, this mainly targeted
a subgroup of patients with localised NSLBP where provocative
movement behaviours and positions of the spine, associated with
a loss of spinal control, represent a mechanism for ongoing pain.
These patients are classified as LBP patients with motor control
impairment (MCI). The evidence validating this subgroup is
growing (O’Sullivan et al., 1997, 2005; O’Sullivan, 1997, 200 0, 2003;
Dankaerts et al., 2006a) and the reliability of clinicians to identify
these different subgroups has been established (Dankaerts et al.,
2006b). Lately, this approach has also incorporated classification of
patients with lumbo-pelvic pain and a wider range of pain mech-
anisms linked to their disorder (O’Sullivan, 2005; O’Sullivan and
Beales, 2007a). This system differentiates between specific LBP
versus NSLBP. NSLBP is further split into subgroups based on the
proposed driving mechanism behind the disorder (Fig. 1). The
classification is based on a systematic examination process
(subjective history, objective examination and available medical
information). Within this system psychosocial factors are accoun-
ted for, acknowledging their potential to amplify pain and drive
disability. To date the ability of clinicians to agree on this broad
classification process has not been formally tested.
Validating the system has been a multi-step process, in which
establishing inter-tester reliability is crucial. The aim of this study
was therefore to examine the inter-tester reliability of clinicians’
ability to independently classify a wide range of patients with
NSLBP, utilising an extended mechanism-based classification
method lately developed by O’Sullivan.
2. Methods
The study was conducted from March 2006 to June 2006, and
was approved by the regional ethics committee of medical research
in western Norway.
2.1. Patients
Patients were recruited consecutively from physiotherapy
clinics around Bergen and from The Outpatient Multidisciplinary
Spine Clinic, Haukeland University Hospital. After recruitment,
a telephone screening was performed, and the first 30 patients that
fit the inclusion criteria, were tested (Table 1). Since the patients
were tested twice on each occasion, a 0–10 pain numerical rating
scale was conducted prior to each testing. If a patient’s pain score
changed 2 levels between two examinations on the same day, this
was considered to be a threat to the classification validity and the
patient would then be excluded. Four patients were excluded after
further examination: three did not fulfil the inclusion criteria and
one reported a two-level change in pain between examinations on
the given day.
This left 26 patients participating in the study. See Table 2 for the
patients’ characteristics. Prior to the study, design and possible
risks were fully explained to each subject, and all signed a consent
form.
2.2. Examiners
There were four physiotherapists, each with several years of
experience in examination and treatment of LBP patients (mean
12 years, range 7–20 years). Three of the four examiners were
physiotherapists with a masters degree in manual therapy. One was
the developer of the system.
2.3. Training
All the examiners had been educated in the CS during several
workshops with the developer, and were using it in their clinical
practice. Prior to the study, O’Sullivan explained procedures and
classifications were discussed using a series of case studies. The
examiners also underwent a pilot training period where O’Sullivan
examined and classified six patients, while the three others
observed. The aim was to refine the specific criteria for assessment,
as well as making testers more familiar with the system. The esti-
mated training time for each therapist ranged from 69 to 140 h, the
average being 106.3 h (workshops and pilot study included).
2.4. Clinical procedure
A test–retest design was utilised. A classification manual was
developed by O’Sullivan prior to the study. The patients underwent
acomprehensive interview and full physical examination by each of
the four physiotherapists. Rather than assess the reliability of
individual tests, this system involved making a disorder classifica-
tion based on compilation of subjective and physical examination
findings in relation to other medical tests and radiological imaging.
The subjective assessment included pain area (pain drawing),
intensity and nature, pain behaviour (aggravating/easing move-
ments), identification of primary impairments, disability levels,
avoidance behaviours, pain coping and pain beliefs. The examina-
tion involved assessment of spinal range of movement, analysis of
the patient’s primary physical impairments (pain provocative and
easing postures, movements and functional tasks). Specific muscle
and movement tests were performed to identify the relationship
between the control of the lumbo-pelvic region and the pain
disorders (O’Sullivan, 2000), as well as specific articular tests for the
lumbar spine and pelvic region as indicated to identify the struc-
tural source of pain and the presence of movement impairments
(MI). These are important elements in the classification of the pain
disorder and in determining whether the habitual movements or
postures are provocative or protective (O’Sullivan, 2000, 2005;
O’Sullivan and Beales, 2007a,b). The process consists of several
stages before reaching a classification (Fig. 1):
1. The first part involves screening; determining if the condition
is specific LBP or NSLBP (O’Sullivan, 2005).
2. The second stage considers whether specific LBP disorders have
an adaptive or maladaptive response to the disorder (O’Sulli-
van, 2005). If the disorder is classified as non-specific, then
consideration of whether the disorder is predominantly cen-
trally or peripherally mediated is made. The presence of
localised and anatomically defined pain, associated with
specific and consistent mechanical aggravating and easing
factors, suggests that physical/mechanical factors are likely to
dominate the disorder resulting in a peripheral nociceptive
drive. Constant, non-remitting widespread pain, not influenced
by mechanical factors, could on the other hand indicate
inflammatory or centrally driven pain (O’Sullivan, 2005).
K. Vibe Fersum et al. / Manual Therapy 14 (2009) 555–561556
3. Centrally mediated pain can then be further sub-classified into
the presence of non-dominant or dominant psychosocial
factors. Peripherally mediated disorders are sub-classified into
either LBP or a pelvic girdle pain disorders.
4. Peripherally mediated lumbar spine pain disorders are divided
into MI or MCI disorders and peripherally mediated pelvic
girdle pain into excessive or deficit of force closure. Both these
classifications have been described in detail elsewhere
(O’Sullivan, 2005; O’Sullivan and Beales, 2007a,b).
5. If the lumbar spine is the source of pain, the primary directional
provocation bias as well as the symptomatic spinal level is
noted.
Classification process adapted from Peter O’ Sullivan
Chronic back pain disorders
- Spondylolisthesis
- disc herniation + radicular pain
- degenerative disc + modic
changes
- foraminal and central stenosis
- Multi-
disciplinary
management
Psychological
(CBT), medical,
functional
rehabilitation
Non-specific back pain disordersSpecific back pain disorders
Dominant
psycho-
social
factors
Non-
dominant
psycho-
social factors
- Medical
management
- Functional
rehabilitation
Control
impairment
(directional
subgroups)
- Motor
learning
within
cognitive
framework
(enhance
control)
- Functional
restoration
Red flag disorders
Cancer
Infection
Inflammatory disorder
Fracture
Adaptive response
Patients response to
disorder is adaptive /
protective
Mal-adaptive
Patients response to
disorder is mal-adaptive
Management
Advise, medical,
surgical – as
appropriate
Management
- Cognitive / Motor
learning
- Medical
Pelvic girdle pain Low Back Pain
Reduced
force closure
Excessive
force closure
- Motor
learning
within
cognitive
framework
(reduce force
closure/
relaxation)
- Functional
restoration
- Motor
learning
within
cognitive
framework
(enhance
force closure)
- Functional
restoration
+/- central pain modulation based on contribution of
psycho-social factors
Directional
subgroups
(+ level of
dysfunction)
Directional
subgroups
(+ level of
dysfunction)
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
Level 5
Level 6
Movement
impairment
(directional
subgroups)
Level 1
Centrally mediated back pain Peripherally mediated back pain
Fig. 1. Classification process adapted from Peter O’Sullivan (O’Sullivan, 2005; O’Sullivan and Beales, 2007a,b).
K. Vibe Fersum et al. / Manual Therapy 14 (2009) 555–561 557
6. The final decision is to indicate if significant psychosocial
factors are associated with the disorder, based on all informa-
tion from the examination process. The evaluation of psycho-
social factors considers the presence of underlying fear
avoidance behaviour, as well as psychological and social drivers
considered to contribute to the pain disorder. Within this
reasoning process, consideration is given to whether the
patient has adapted in a positive (confrontation, active coping
and minimal avoidance behaviours) or negative manner
(passive coping and fear avoidance).
Each testing took about 1 h. The patient was examined inde-
pendently twice on two days, within a 1-week period. Each ther-
apist filled out a classification form (see Supplementary Appendix
A.1) and put it in a sealed opaque envelope after their patient
assessment. After examination the patient completed several
questionnaires to formally assess their disorder. This included
a pain drawing, a functional assessment chart from the Dartmouth
Primary Care Cooperative Information Project (COOP/WONCA),
Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Hopkins Symptoms Check List
(HSCL), Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and Ørebro
Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (Ørebro MSPSQ).
2.5. Analysis
After completed examinations, the results were compared and
logged. The developer’s classification of each patient was used as
the gold standard to which the other results were compared. Kappa
coefficients and percentage of agreement were calculated using
SPSS 13.0 for Windows. Cohen’s Kappa statistic was used to
calculate inter-tester reliability and Landis and Koch’s (1977) values
for interpretation of the reliability scores were used. Kappa values
<0.20 indicate poor agreement, 0.21–0.40 fair, 0.41–0.60 moderate,
0.61–0.80 substantial, and 0.81–1.00 indicate almost perfect
agreement. The data was analysed based on agreement of overall
classification (specific LBP vs NSLBP), centrally or peripherally
mediated, adaptive or maladaptive movement disorders, and
whether it was considered to be a pelvic girdle pain or LBP disorder.
Kappa agreement of the primary directional pain provocation, the
spinal level of pain provocation and the presence of psychosocial
influence on their LBP disorder was calculated.
3. Results
In the first part of the classification process, all patients were
classified with NSLBP with 98% agreement for this level. All patients
in the study had pain arising from a peripheral pain source, with
99% agreement for this. One patient was classified by all four testers
as having pelvic girdle pain (100% agreement); the rest were clas-
sified as LBP disorders (99% agreement). The fourth level consid-
ered increased or decreased force closure for pelvic pain (one
patient, 100% agreement), MCI (24 patients, 99% agreement) or MI
(one patient, 75% agreement) for low back. In the fifth level, Kappa
agreement could be calculated, deciding the directional pattern of
provocation (Fig. 2). For the primary direction of provocation,
Kappa (K) and percentage agreement had a mean between the four
testers of 0.82 (range 0.66–0.90) and 86% (range 73–92%) respec-
tively. Increased familiarity with the system also increased the
reliability results (<100 h K¼0.66, >100 h K¼0.90). In the final
level of decision making, the mean Kappa coefficient for detecting
psychosocial influence was 0.65 (range 0.57–0.74) and the mean
agreement 87% (range 85–92%).
4. Discussion
The principal finding of our study suggests that therapists with
substantial training in this CS (O’Sullivan, 2005) demonstrated fair
to excellent agreement (Landis and Koch, 1977) in primary classi-
fication of the disorder, identification of directional patterns of
provocation and the presence of psychosocial factors associated
with the disorder, when applied to a range of NSLBP patients. Our
findings are in accordance with a recent study (Dankaerts et al.,
2006b), who also found moderate to excellent agreement between
testers examining patients within the MCI subgroup. Their study
consisted of two separate parts. The first part demonstrated almost
perfect agreement between two expert clinicians when classifying
35 patients with MCI identified from a clinical case load, into the
various directional patterns (K¼0.96, agreement 97%). In the
second part, 25 out of 35 patients with MCI in the first study were
randomly selected. These were videotaped and classified into
directional groups by 13 other therapists based on the video and
subjective complaints of the patients. The agreement between the
13 different raters was moderate to excellent (mean Kappa 0.61,
agreement 70%).
As in Dankaerts et al.’s study (2006b), familiarity with the CS
also influenced the reliability results, demonstrating higher
agreement among raters with more CS training. These findings are
in line with Strender’s study (1997), concluding that reliability of
clinical tests requires sufficient time for examination and confor-
mity of performance, definitions and evaluations. The protocol of
our study followed a similar examination procedure as the first part
of Dankaerts et al.’s (2006b) study. By including any patient with
localised low back pain in our study, we anticipated a more het-
erogenic NSLBP population with the inclusion of patients with back
pain associated with MI as well as pelvic girdle pain disorders.
However, 24 out of the 26 patients were classified as having MCI,
which is in line with the findings of Dankaerts et al. (2006b).
Furthermore, the current study involved four therapists examining
the patients versus two in the first part of Dankaerts study (2006b).
Table 1
Inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
Patients with non-specific LBP
(NSLBP) (6 weeks)
Sick-listed for more than 4 months
continuous duration during last year
Male or female Acute exacerbation of LBP
Age between 18 and 65 years Radicular pain. Positive neural tissue
provocation tests (primary peripheral
symptoms)
Localised LBP: primarily in the area
from T12 to gluteal folds
Any low limb surgery on the last 3 months
Moderate ongoing LBP, VAS >2/10
and Oswestry >14 %
Surgery involving the lumbar spine (fusion)
Mechanical provocation of pain:
postures, movement and activities
Pregnancy
Psychiatric disorders
Widespread non-specific pain disorder (no
primary LBP focus)
Specific diagnoses: active rheumatologic
disease, progressive neurological disease,
serious cardiac or other internal medical
disease
Table 2
Patients’ characteristics.
Number of patients 26
Female 11
Male 15
Mean age (years) 32.4
Mean pain intensity 6/10
Mean duration (years) 4.9
Mean Oswestry 21.2/100
Mean HSCL 1.53/4
Mean Ørebro score 87.5/210
K. Vibe Fersum et al. / Manual Therapy 14 (2009) 555–561558
Flexion pattern n =24
79,1
04,2 4,2 8,3
04,2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Flexion
Lateral shift
Active Extension
Passive Extension
Multidirectional
Sacroiliac
Movement
Impairment
Correct
Incorrect
Classification per
pattern (%)
Flexion
Lateral shift
Active Extension
Passive Extension
Multidirectional
Sacroiliac
Movement
Impairment
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Classification per
pattern (%)
Lateral shift n= 8
75
00000
12,5 12,5
Active extension n=8
25
0
25
00
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Flexion
Lateral Shift
Active Extension
Passive Extension
Multidirectional
Sacroiliac
Movement Impairment
Classification per
pattern (%)
Passive extension n=12
000 000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 100
Flexion
Lateral Shift
Active Extension
Passive Extension
Multidirectional
Sacroiliac
Movement Impairment
Classification per
pattern (%)
Multidirectional n=44
75
11,4
04,5 2,3 2,3 4,5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Flexion
Lateral Shift
Active Extension
Passive Extension
Multidirectional
Sacroiliac
Movement Impairment
Classification per
pattern (%)
Classification per
pattern (%)
Classification per
pattern (%)
Sacroiliac n=4
75
25
00 00 0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Flexion
Lateral Shift
Active Extension
Passive Extension
Multidirectional
Sacroiliac
Movement Impairment
Movement impairment n=4
75
00
25
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Flexion
Lateral Shift
Active Extension
Passive Extension
Multidirectional
Sacroiliac
Movement Impairment
Correct
Incorrect
Correct
Incorrect
Correct
Incorrect
Correct
Incorrect
Correct
Incorrect
Correct
Incorrect
0
00
Fig. 2. Classification per different pattern (in %) by all examiners; n¼total number of that specific pattern included 4 (total number of examiners).
K. Vibe Fersum et al. / Manual Therapy 14 (2009) 555–561 559
This may explain the greater reliability in this aspect of Dankaerts
study, in comparison to ours. With regards to the second part of
Dankaerts et al.’s study (2006b), it was acknowledged that the use
of previously collected information (both subjective and video)
represented a bias for the 13 clinicians. In our study, the testers did
not have any prior information regarding the patient’s disorder as
this could influence the classification reliability, as different raters
may gather information from patients in different ways.
Eight subjects in our study out of 26 with disorders classified as
peripherally mediated NSLBP were also identified as having
moderate, but significant psychosocial factors contributing to their
disorders. Analysis of the questionnaire data collected after all
assessments, confirmed that these eight patients scored signifi-
cantly higher on HSCL and Ørebro MSPSQ (p<0.05). Linton and
Hallden (1998) identified potential psychosocial risk factors asso-
ciated with future sick absenteeism in a study, using the Ørebro as
the screening instrument. High total scores were related to
outcome and to cut-off points that correctly identified the prog-
nosis of nearly 80% of the patients. Psychosocial factors can
modulate pain behaviour, which then can increase disability via
fear avoidance, as well as promoting pain levels via central mech-
anisms (Vlaeyen and Linton, 2000). However there is little evidence
to date that physiotherapists can identify these subjects at risk,
based on subjective examination.
It has been emphasised (Dankaerts et al., 2006b) that the
development of a multi-dimensional mechanism-based CS based
on a bio-psycho-social framework should be seen as a critical
development of a CS. The Quebeck Task Force has been considered
by many as the first CS that included biomedical, psychological and
social considerations in the classification process (McCarthy et al.,
2004). The system used in our study, developed by O’Sullivan,
utilises the Quebeck Task Force as an underlying framework, by
classifying specific LBP versus NSLBP, the stage of the disorder, and
the presence of red and dominant yellow flags. However, patients
are sub-classified further, identifying the primary direction of
provocation and the proposed underlying mechanism of the
disorder. Furthermore, very specific interventions are indicated for
the different classifications (O’Sullivan, 2005; O’Sullivan and Beales,
2007a,b).
In contrast, the McKenzie CS is a bio-system that lacks validity
within a chronic LBP population, as only about 40% of patients have
a directional pain preference (Donelson et al., 1990). Consistent
with our findings, 45% of the subjects were classified as having MCI
with multi-directional pain provocation, suggesting that a uni-
directional preference was not present. This lack of uni-directional
preference limits the use of directional treatment methods as
advocated by McKenzie.
Interestingly, 25 of the patients in our study had MCI, and only
one had MI. This finding is consistent with reports that impair-
ments of range of motion are often not present in chronic low back
pain disorders (Nattrass et al., 1999). However the lack of subjects
with MI disorders in this study limits the ability to confirm the
reliability of physiotherapists when identifying this subgroup.
The Sahrmann CS for NSLBP proposes a single mechanism for
LBP (movement dysfunction), but does not consider specific diag-
nosis of LBP, CNS mediated pain, MIs or psychosocial factors,
limiting its application within a chronic LBP setting. Petersen et al.
(2004) in contrast proposed a system that demonstrated substan-
tial reliability, but it lacked clear guidelines for management.
Reliability can be influenced by many different factors. The
participants seemed representative of the population normally
seen in primary health care, but the small sample may not be
representative of the chronic LBP population. The first part of the
classification process in this study was to determine whether the
patient’s condition was specific or non-specific. Secondly, an
assessment was made to classify the source of the underlying
mechanism as being centrally or peripherally driven. Our study’s
inclusion criteria were aimed at subjects with localised NSLBP that
was mechanically provoked, making it more likely that they had
a peripheral pain disorder. None of our subjects were classified
with neurogenic pain. This fits with Bogduk’s study (1995), which
concluded that most NSLBP disorders are peripherally mediated,
having a pain source that most likely is discogenic or from the facet
joint and less commonly from the sacroiliac joint.
It can be argued that the Kappa scores could have been higher if
all the testing procedures had been standardised. However, the
study’s intention was to evaluate the reliability as a result of the
whole examination as performed in clinical practice, and stand-
ardising the examination for this heterogenic group of patients
could have influenced the validity.
5. Conclusion
The findings provide evidence that the inter-tester reliability of
O’Sullivan’s CS is substantial for a range of patients within the
NSLBP population in line with previous research. Using a mecha-
nism-based CS has implications in terms of treatment being
directed towards identified subgroups. The use of the CS is
currently being evaluated in a randomised controlled trial in order
to compare the efficacy of different interventions for any given
category.
Appendix A. Supplemental material
Supplementary information for this manuscript can be down-
loaded at doi: 10.1016/j.math.2008.08.003.
References
Bogduk N. The anatomical basis for spinal pain syndromes. Journal of Manipulative
and Physiological Therapeutics 1995;18(9):603–5.
Cherkin D, Deyo R, Battie M, Street J, Barlow W. A comparison of physical therapy,
chiropractic manipulation, and provision of an educational booklet for the
treatment of patients with low back pain. New England Journal of Medicine
1998;339:1021–9.
Dankaerts W, O’Sullivan PB, Burnett AF, Straker LM. Differences in sitting posture
are associated with non-specific chronic low back pain disorders when patients
are sub-classified. Spine 2006a;31(6):698–704.
Dankaerts W, O’Sullivan PB, Straker LM, Burnett AF, Skouen JS. The inter-examiner
reliability of a classification method for non-specific chronic low back pain
patients with motor control impairment. Manual Therapy 2006b;11(1):28–39.
Delitto A, Erhard RE, Bowling RW. A treatment-based classification approach to low
back syndrome: identifying and staging patients for conservative treatment.
Physical Therapy 1995;75(6):470–85.
Donelson R, Silva G, Murphy K. Centralization phenomenon. Its usefulness in
evaluating and treating referred pain. Spine 1990;15(3):211–3.
Ferreira ML, Ferreira PH, Latimer J, Herbert RD, Hodges PW, Jennings MD, et al.
Comparison of general exercise, motor control exercise and spinal manipulative
therapy for chronic low back pain: a randomized trial. Pain 2007;131(1-2):31–7.
Ford J, Story I, McKeenen J. A systematic review on methodology of classification
system research for low back pain. Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy Australia
13th Biennial Conference, Sydney, Australia, 2003.
Fritz JM, Delitto A, Erhard RE. Comparison of classification-based physical therapy
with therapy based on clinical practice guidelines for patients with acute low
back pain – a randomized clinical trial. Spine 2003;28(13):1363–71.
Frymoyer J, Rosen J, Clements J, Pope M. Psychological factors in low back pain
disability. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1985;May;(195):178–84.
Kilpikoski S, Airaksinen O, Kankaanpaa M, Leminien P, Viderman T, Alen M. Inter-
examiner reliability of low back pain assessment using the Mckenzie method.
Spine 2002;27(8):207–14.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.
Biometrics 1977;33(1):159–74.
Linton SJ. A review of psychological risk factors in back and neck pain. Spine
2000;25(9):1148–56.
Linton SJ, Hallden K. Can we screen for problematic back pain? A screening ques-
tionnaire for predicting outcome in acute and subacute back pain. Clinical
Journal of Pain 1998;14(3):209–15.
Main C, Watson P. Guarded movements: development of chronicity. Journal of
Musculoskeletal Pain 1996;4(4):163–70.
Maluf KS, Sahrmann SA, Van Dillen LR. Use of a classification system to guide
nonsurgical management of a patient with chronic low back pain. Physical
Therapy 2000;80(11):1097–111.
K. Vibe Fersum et al. / Manual Therapy 14 (2009) 555–561560
McCarthy C, Arnall F, Strimpakos N, Freemont A, Oldham J. The biopsychosocial
classification of non-specific low back pain: a systematic review. Physical
Therapy Reviews 2004;9:17–30.
McKenzie R. The lumbar spine, mechanical diagnosis and treatment. Waikanae,
New Zealand: Spinal Publications Ltd; 1981.
Nachemson A. Back pain; delimiting the problem in the next millennium. Inter-
national Journal of Law Psychiatry 1999;22(5-6):473–80.
Nattrass CL, Nitsche JE, Disler PB, Chou MJ, Ooi KT. Lumbar spine range of motion as
a measure of physical and functional impairment: an investigation of validity.
Clinical Rehabilitation 1999;13:211–8.
O’Sullivan PB. Evaluation of specific stabilizing exercise in the treatment of chronic
low back pain with radiologic diagnosis of spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis.
Spine 1997;22(24):2959–67.
O’Sullivan PB. Lumbar segmental ’instability’: clinical presentation and specific
stabilizing exercise management. Manual Therapy 2000;5(1):2–12.
O’Sullivan PB. Lumbar repositioning deficit in a specific low back pain population.
Spine 2003;28(10):1074–9.
O’Sullivan P. Diagnosis and classification of chronic low back pain disorders: mal-
adaptive movement and motor control impairments as underlying mechanism.
Manual Therapy 2005;10(4):242–55.
O’Sullivan PB, Beales DJ. Diagnosis and classification of pelvic girdle pain disorders –
Part 1: a mechanism based approach within a biopsychosocial framework.
Manual Therapy 2007a;12(2):86–97.
O’Sullivan PB, Beales DJ. Diagnosis and classification of pelvic girdle pain disorders –
Part 2: illustration of the utility of a classification system via case studies.
Manual Therapy 2007b;12(2):1–12.
O’Sullivan P, Twomey L, Allison G, Sinclair J, Miller K, Knox J. Altered patterns of
abdominal muscle activation in patients with chronic back pain. Australian
Journal of Physiotherapy 1997;43(2):91–8.
Padfield B, Chesworth B, Butler R. Use of an outcome measurement system to
answer a clinical question: is the Quebec task force classification system useful
in an outpatient setting? Physiotherapy Canada 2002:254–60.
Petersen T, Kryger P, Ekdahl C, Olsen S, Jacobsen S. Theeffect of McKenzie therapy as
compared with that of intensive strengthening training for the treatment of
patients with subacute or chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.
Spine 2002;27(16):1702–9.
Petersen T, Olsen S, Laslett M, Thorse n H, Manniche C, Ekdahl C, et al . Inter-
tester reliability of a new diag nostic classificati on system for patients with
non-specific low back pain. Australian Journ al of Physiotherapy 2004; 50(2):
85–94.
Petersen T, Thorsen H, Manniche C, Ekhdahl C. Classification of non-specific low
back pain: a review of the literature on classification systems relevant to
physiotherapy. Physical Therapy Reviews 1999;4:265–81.
Sahrmann SA. Diagnosis and treatment of movement impairment syndromes.
Mosby: St Louis; 2001.
Skouen JS, Grasdal AL, Haldorsen EM, Ursin H. Relative cost-effectiveness of
extensive and light multidisciplinary treatment programs versus treatment as
usual for patients with chronic low back pain on long-term sick leave:
randomized controlled study. Spine 2002;27(9):901–9.
Spitzer WO. Scientific approach to the assessment and management of activity-
related spinal disorders. Spine 1987;7S:S1–55.
Strender LE, Sjoblom A, Sundell K, Ludwig R, Taube A. Interexaminer reliability in
physical examination of patients with low back pain. Spine 1997;22(7):
814–20.
Stuge B, Laerum E, Kirkesola G, Vollestad N. The efficacy of a treatment program
focusing on specific stabilizing exercises for pelvic girdle pain after pregnancy:
a randomized controlled trial. Spine 2004;29(4):351–9.
Van Dillen LR, Sahrmann SA, Norton BJ, Caldwell CA, Fleming DA, McDonnell MK,
et al. Reliability of physical examination items used for classification of patients
with low back pain. Physical Therapy 1998;78(9):979–88.
Van Dillen LR, Sahrmann SA, Norton BJ, Caldwell CA, McDonnell MK, Bloom NJ.
Movement system impairment-based categories for low back pain: stage 1
validation. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy 2003;33(3):
126–42.
Vlaeyen JW, Linton SJ. Fear-avoidance and its consequences in chronic musculo-
skeletal pain: a state of the art. Pain 200 0;85(3):317–32.
Waddell G. The back pain revolution. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone;
2004.
K. Vibe Fersum et al. / Manual Therapy 14 (2009) 555–561 561
... Movement control impairment is specific, either provoked by flexion, extension, rotation or multidirectional movements [4]. We used four outcome measures out of which the test battery of six tests for which acceptable reliability has been demonstrated in previous research, were they evaluated with ten movement control tests [11,12,13]. We refrained from testing six movements in random order because we assume that this procedure best represents clinical practice where routines are often developed [14]. ...
... Benefits of specific exercise were demonstrated in other subgroups of patients with LBP. Specific stabilizing exercises are more effective than general exercises [10,11]. Brennan et al (2006) showed that the outcomes are better if patients receive treatment adapted to their clinical presentation. ...
... O'Sullivan developed a classification system of LBP; the first distinction is between centrally evoked and peripherally evoked LBP. The centrally evoked pain is associated with psychological factors, such as fear avoidance, catastrophizing or depressive mood (approximately 30% of LBP patients) [11]. The peripherally evoked LBP is mechanically caused and includes movement impairment (each approximately 30%). ...
Article
Background: Low back pain is the most common condition that affects the majority of the population with up to 84% lifetime prevalence. A specific diagnosis of low back pain is only possible in 15% of patients and the majority of cases the pain is non – specific low back pain (NSLBP). The main objectives were to assess the effect of movement control spinal exercises (MVCSE) on NSLBP and to examine the effect of MCSE on mobility. Methods: The study was conducted in the physiotherapy out-patient department. After screening of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 35 individuals with NSLBP were selected. A pre-test assessment was done, the protocol included warmup sessions, exercise protocol and cool down sessions. Exercises were demonstrated to the patients according to the spinal movements control impairment, the total duration of the protocol was of 6 weeks with one session of 1 hour per day. Later the post- test assessment was done and further statistical analysis was done. Results: After 6 weeks post evaluation, patients with flexion movement control impairment (MVCI) had improvement in their movement control; extension, lateral and rotational movement control impairments were the same as before. Conclusion: The patient- specific functional complaints and disabilities improved significantly after implementation of the individual based specific exercise programme, along with the regular physiotherapeutic interventions. Movement Control Spinal Exercise treatment has shown results in improving mobility and disability in the short term and long term for individuals with NSLBP and MVCI to than other interventions.
... 34,35 For health-care practitioners, gaining insight into pain mechanisms can be achieved through careful clinical examination, quantitative sensory testing and validated questionnaires. 27,36 Cognitive factors such as negative LBP beliefs, catastrophizing and fear of movement are predictive of disability and are linked to PLBP. [37][38][39][40] Many of these negative beliefs gain their origins from health-care practitioners and can have a devastating impact on LBP trajectories. ...
... [56][57][58] There is growing evidence that they can be characterized based on the presence of functional impairments and directional pain sensitization, providing an opportunity for targeted interventions. 36,59 Deconditioning may also occur secondary to activity avoidance, sedentary lifestyles and habitual postures, and may act to reinforce maladaptive movement behaviours associated with the disorder. 37,60 In contrast, endurance copers may present as overconditioned through 'over activity'. ...
... Underpinning research has assessed the inter-tester reliability of different aspects of the CRF and shown substantial agreement between trained health-care professionals. 36,59 The effi cacy of CFT in patients with PLBP, has been compared with physiotherapy-led exercise and manual therapy in a randomized trial, in primary care, demonstrating long-term benefi ts. 12 Further research is underway to assess CFT in different care and geographical settings. ...
... The methodological approach of each included study is depicted in Tables 2 and 3. Of the 22 included studies, 5 investigated inter-rater reliability [26][27][28][29], with one study reporting both intra-and inter-rater reliability [27] (Table 2). Validity was assessed in 17 studies; 15 studies evaluated O'Sullivan's Classification System (OCS) [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44], one assessed the 10-item Motor Control Impairment (MCI) test battery [45], and one investigated the Pain Behavior Assessment (PBA) classification system [46]. ...
... Participant mean age ranged from 28.4 [41] to 55.1 years [27]. The mean body mass index (BMI) ranged from 20.8 [42,43] to 26.9 kg/m 2 [45], although four studies did not report BMI [26,27,29,46]. ...
... OCS also includes a psychosocial assessment step and separates pain presumed from lumbar and pelvic origin. Functional testing of lumbar and pelvic girdle pain evaluates presumed motor control impairment by identifying specific postural and movement characteristics [26] (Appendix 3). 2. MCI Test Battery (n = 3 studies) used specific movements/positions to differentiate participants with MCI from normal individuals. This battery consists of 10 individual tests that identify possible flexion, extension and rotational dysfunction. ...
Article
Full-text available
Objectives To identify and critically appraise studies evaluating psychometric properties of functionally oriented diagnostic classification systems for Non-Specific Chronic Low Back Pain (NS-CLBP).Methods This review employed methodology consistent with PRISMA guidelines. Electronic databases and journals: (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, PEDro, CINAHL, Index to chiropractic literature, ProQuest, Physical Therapy, Journal of Physiotherapy, Canadian Physiotherapy and Physiotherapy Theory and Practice) were searched from inception until January 2020. Included studies evaluated the validity and reliability of NS-CLBP diagnostic classification systems in adults. Risk of bias was assessed using a Critical Appraisal Tool.ResultsTwenty-two studies were eligible: Five investigated inter-rater reliability, and 17 studies analyzed validity of O’Sullivan’s classification system (OCS, n = 15), motor control impairment (MCI) test battery (n = 1), and Pain Behavior Assessment (PBA, n = 1). Evidence from multiple low risk of bias studies demonstrates that OCS has moderate to excellent inter-rater reliability (kappa > 0.4). Also, two low risk of bias studies support of OCS-MCI subcategory. Three tests within the MCI test battery show acceptable inter- and intra-rater reliability for clinical use (the "sitting knee extension," the “one leg stance,” and the “pelvic tilt” tests). Evidence for the reliability and validity of the PBA is limited to one high bias risk study.Conclusions Multiple low risk of bias studies demonstrate strong inter-rater reliability for OCS classification specifically OCS-MCI subcategory. Future studies with low risk of bias are needed to evaluate reliability and validity of the MCI test battery and the PBA.
... Instead, clinical guidelines recommend self-management and exercise tailored to individual needs [5]. Individually tailoring exercises to patients with NSLBP is a major clinical and diagnostic challenge [6]. This is because of the high complexity, biopsychosocial nature and extreme heterogeneity of the dominant factors driving the disorder. ...
... It has been suggested that professionals need to undertake more than 100 hours of training for an inter-examiner agreement level of kappa coefficient 0.82 (i.e. almost perfect level of agreement kappa 0.82-1) [6]. For professionals who had completed less than 100 training hours, the inter-examiner agreement level was kappa coefficient 0.66 (i.e. ...
... However, the accuracies discerning between AEP and PEP in this study (79%) exceeded that of the accuracy achieved in [8] (70.27%) when discerning between these subgroups. In Table 3, it was evident that the most useful MTw2 IMU tracker / assessment test combinations for each subgroup show clinically promising results as all binary classification subgroup combinations produced the same accuracy as inter-examiner agreement between clinicians undergoing more than 100 training hours (accuracy range 73-100%) [6] without the complexities of manual diagnosis. ...
Article
Full-text available
Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem that has now become leading cause of disability worldwide. The majority of LBP has no specific pathological cause. Classification of non-specific LBP (NSLBP) into subgroups corresponding to the reported symptoms has been identified as an essential step towards the provision of personalised management and rehabilitation plans. Currently, clinicians classify low back pain patients into clinical subgroups based on clinical judgement and expertise, which is a time-consuming process open to human error. This paper introduces a novel approach for automatic classification of NSLBP patients into clinical subgroups on the basis of the MTw2 inertial measurement unit (MTw2 IMU tracker) motion data, which are portable units and thus desirable for clinical use. Four MTw2 IMU trackers tracking movement during a number of physical assessment tests were investigated in their ability to distinguish between clinically recognized NSLBP subgroups. Simple motion features such as the angular range of displacement were used in classification experiments to reflect how clinicians make decisions when classifying NSLBP. The achieved results were comparable to the state of art results in automatic NSLBP classification using optical motion capture data and demonstrated the feasibility of developing an automatic classification system on the basis of the MTw2 IMU tracker motion data obtained with an individual performing a battery of standard physical assessment tests. Further developments could address gaps in current medical and engineering literature and improve clinical outcomes.
... The STarT (Subgroups for Targeted Treatment) Back Screening Tool has attracted considerable attention in recent years and can be used, among other tools, to create subgroups of patients with NSCLBP [16,17]. Furthermore, O'Sullivan et al. developed a CLBP classification system with sufficient interrater reliability and validity [11,[18][19][20][21]. Based on clinical patterns, this system classifies patients into three subgroups [11]: ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: Nonspecific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) is a heterogeneous condition that is associated with complex neuromuscular adaptations. Exercise is a widely administered treatment, but its effects are small to moderate. Tailoring patient-specific exercise treatments based on subgroup classification may improve patient outcomes. Objective: In this randomised controlled pilot study, our objective was to compare the feasibility and possible effects of a specific sensorimotor treatment (SMT) with those of a general exercise (GE) programme on patients with NSCLBP and control impairment (CI). Methods: Patients with NSCLBP and CI were randomised into an SMT or a GE programme spanning 6 sessions each. The feasibility criteria included the study design, assessments, interventions and magnitudes of effects, and costs. Adverse events were documented. Primary (pain, physical function, and quality of life) and secondary outcomes were assessed three times: twice at baseline (t1a and t1b) to estimate parameter stability and once after the intervention (t2). Results: Two-hundred and twenty-seven patients were screened to include 34 participants with NSCLBP and CI. Both treatment programmes and the assessments seemed feasible because their durations and contents were perceived as adequate. The total cost per participant was €321. Two adverse events occurred (one not likely related to the SMT, one likely related to the GE intervention). The SMT showed a tendency for superior effects in terms of pain severity (SMT t1a 3.5, t2 1.1; GE t1a 3.0, t2 2.0), pain interference (SMT t1a 1.9, t2 0.4; GE t1a 1.5, t2 0.9), physical component of quality of life (SMT t1a 39, t2 46; GE t1a 45, t2 48), and movement control. Conclusions: The SMT approach proposed in this study is feasible and should be tested thoroughly in future studies, possibly as an addition to GE. To ensure the detection of differences in pain severity between SMT and GE in patients with NSCLBP with 80% power, future studies should include 110 patients. If the current results are confirmed, SMT should be considered in interventions for patients with NSCLBP and CI. Trial registration: Registered in the German Register for Clinical Trials (Trial registration date: November 11, 2016; Trial registration number: DRKS00011063; URL of trial registry record); retrospectively registered.
... 26,29,30 An individualized multidimensional clinical reasoning framework (CRF) acknowledges that for each individual there is a unique contribution of behaviors across different domains (pathoanatomical, physical, neurophysiological, psychological, social, and lifestyle) that act to maintain a vicious cycle of pain and disability. 31,32 This CRF has shown good reliability 33,34 and has been described in detail elsewhere. 31,35,36 On the basis of this CRF, a targeted cognitive functional therapy (CFT) intervention has been suggested. ...
Article
Objective: Persistent low back pain (PLBP) is a common and costly health problem worldwide. Better strategies to manage it are required. The purpose of this study was to longitudinally evaluate absenteeism, pain, and disability in nurses with PLBP following a cognitive functional therapy (CFT) intervention. Methods: In this case-series pilot study, 33 eligible nurses with PLBP were recruited. During the baseline phase A (no intervention) outcome measures were collected on 2 occasions 6 months apart (A1 and A2). During phase B, subjects participated in an individualized CFT intervention for 14 weeks. During phase C (no intervention), outcomes were measured immediately after the intervention, as well as 3, 6, 9, 12 and 36 months after the intervention (secondary outcomes only until 12 months). LBP-related work absenteeism, pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale) and disability (Oswestry Disability Index) were the primary outcomes. Health care seeking, a range of psychological and lifestyle variables, and global perceived effect were secondary outcomes. Results: Days of absenteeism due to LBP were significantly reduced in the first and second calendar year after the CFT intervention, but not the third and fourth. Disability was significantly reduced immediately after (-4.4; 95%CI = -6.5 to -2.2) and at 3 months (-4.3; 95%CI = -6.6 to -2.0), 9 months (-6.0; 95%CI = -8.1 to -3.9), and 12 months (-4.9; 95%CI = -7.0 to -2.8) after the intervention. Pain was significantly reduced immediately after (-1.2; 95%CI = -1.7 to -0.8) and at 3 months (-1.5; 95%CI = -2.0 to -0.9), 9 months (-1.1; 95%CI = -1.9 to -0.3) and 12 months (-0.9; 95%CI = -1.5 to -0.2) after the intervention. Total health care seeking (consults and proportion of participants) was significantly reduced after the intervention. All psychosocial variables, except for 1, demonstrated significant improvements at all follow-ups. Conclusions: This case-series pilot study demonstrated significant reductions in LBP-related absenteeism, pain intensity, disability, health care seeking, and several psychological and lifestyle behaviors until 1 year follow-up among nurses with PLBP following an individualized CFT intervention. Further evaluation of the efficacy.
Article
Full-text available
Objective: To determine if classification systems improve patient-reported outcomes for people with low back pain (LBP). Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Literature search: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection and CENTRAL were searched from inception to 21 June, 2021. Reference lists of prior systematic reviews and included trials were screened. Study selection criteria: We included randomized trials comparing a classification system (e.g. McKenzie and STarT Back Tool) to any comparator. Studies evaluating participants with specific spinal conditions (e.g. fractures and tumors) were excluded. Data synthesis: Outcomes were patient-reported LBP intensity, leg pain intensity and disability. We used the Cochrane RoB2 tool to assess risk of bias, and the GRADE approach to judge the certainty of evidence. We used random effects meta-analysis with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment to estimate standardized mean differences (Hedges g) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Sub-group analyses explored classification systems, comparator type, pain type and duration. Results: Twenty-four trials assessing classification systems and 34 assessing sub classes were included. There was low certainty of a small effect at end of intervention for LBP intensity (-0.31[-0.54,-0.07], p=0.014, n=4416, trials=21) and disability (0.27[ 0.46,-0.07], p=0.011, n=4809, trials=24) favoring classified treatments compared to generalized interventions, but not for leg pain intensity. At the end of intervention, no specific type of classification system was superior to generalized interventions for improving pain intensity and disability. None of the estimates exceeded the effect size that one would consider clinically meaningful. Conclusions: For patient-reported pain intensity and disability, there is insufficient evidence supporting the use of classification systems above generalized interventions when managing LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, Epub 15 Nov 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10761.
Article
Full-text available
Persistence of low back pain is thought to be associated with different underlying pain mechanisms, including ongoing nociceptive input and central sensitisation. We hypothesised that primary motor cortex (M1) representations of back muscles (a measure of motor system adaptation) would differ between pain mechanisms, with more consistent observations in individuals presumed to have an ongoing contribution of nociceptive input consistently related to movement/posture. We tested 28 participants with low back pain sub‐grouped by the presumed underlying pain mechanisms: nociceptive pain, nociplastic pain, and a mixed group with features consistent with both. Transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to study M1 organization of back muscles. M1 maps of multifidus (deep & superficial), and longissimus erector spinae were recorded with fine‐wire electromyography and thoracic erector spinae with surface electromyography. The nociplastic pain group had greater variability in M1 map location (centre of gravity) than other groups (p<0.01), which may suggest less consistency, and perhaps relevance, of motor cortex adaptation for that group. The mixed group had greater overlap of M1 representations between deep/superficial muscles than nociceptive pain (deep multifidus/longissimus: p=0.001, deep multifidus/thoracic erector spinae: p=0.008), and nociplastic pain (deep multifidus/longissimus: p=0.02, deep multifidus/thoracic erector spinae: p= 0.02) groups. This study provides preliminary evidence of differences in M1 organisation in subgroups of low back pain classified by likely underlying pain mechanisms. Despite the sample size, differences in cortical re‐organisation between subgroups were detected. Differences in M1 organisation in subgroups of low back pain supports tailoring of treatment based on pain mechanism and motor adaptation.
Article
Mechanism-based classification of pain has been advocated widely to aid tailoring of interventions for individuals experiencing persistent musculoskeletal pain. Three pain mechanism categories are defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain: nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic pain. Discrimination between them remains challenging. This study aimed to: build on a framework developed to converge the diverse literature of pain mechanism categories to systematically review methods purported to discriminate between them; synthesise and thematically analyse these methods to identify convergence and divergence of opinion; and report validation, psychometric properties and strengths/weaknesses of these methods. The search strategy identified papers discussing methods to discriminate between mechanism-based categories of pain experienced in the musculoskeletal system. Studies that assessed validity of methods to discriminate between categories were assessed for quality. Extraction and thematic analysis were undertaken on 184 papers. Data synthesis identified 200 methods in five themes: clinical examination, quantitative sensory testing, imaging, diagnostic and laboratory testing, and pain-type questionnaires. Few methods have been validated for discrimination between pain mechanism categories. There was general convergence but some disagreement regarding findings that discriminate between pain mechanism categories. A combination of features and methods, rather than a single method, was generally recommended to discriminate between pain mechanism categories. Two major limitations were identified: overlap of findings of methods between categories due to mixed presentations, and many methods considered discrimination between two pain mechanism categories but not others. The results of this review provide a foundation to refine methods to differentiate mechanisms for musculoskeletal pain.
Article
Objective Long-term sitting triggers movement-related disorders. We used a movement control impairment (MCI) system to investigate lumbar movement dysfunction in those who did and did not develop transient low back pain (LBP) during prolonged sitting. Methods Twelve patients who did and did not develop transient LBP during sitting for 2 hours were enrolled. We tested the movement control abilities of the 2 groups using 6 MCI tests (12 test items). Results The mean MCI test score in the transient LBP developer group was significantly higher than that in the LBP non-developer group (P = .03). Lumbar flexion movement control as the backward rocking test was significantly more common in the transient LBP developer than in the LBP non-developer group (P < .027). Pelvic shifting and asymmetry during side-bending of the trunk were evident in both groups (all P > .05). However, pelvic shifting during side-bending of the trunk was evident only in the LBP group (33%; P = .093). Conclusion The group exhibiting transient LBP had higher positive MCI test scores and exhibited more asymmetry than the other group. Even the non-LBP group exhibited poor lumbar flexion and rotation. Therefore, subjects with subclinical dysfunction caused by prolonged sitting may require homogenous subgroups classification for the early detection of mechanical risk factors and health and functional interventions.
Article
Full-text available
Study design: Numerous authors have attempted to sub-classify low back pain in order that valid homogenous subsets of low back pain presentations might be recognised. This review systematically appraises these papers. Methods: Medline, Embase, Cinahl, AMED and PEDro electronic databases were searched with subsequent hand searching of bibliographies. Papers were included between June 1983 and June 2003. Two reviewers independently reviewed 32 papers using a standard scoring criteria for assessment. A third reviewer mediated disagreements. Results: Thirty-two papers were reviewed, with classification systems being grouped by method of classification. Classification has been attempted by implication of patho-anatomical source, by clinical features, by psychological features, by health and work status and in one case by a biopsychosocial weighting system. Scores were generally higher for systems using a statistical cluster analysis approach to classification than a judgemental approach. Both approaches have specific advantages and disadvantages with a synthesis of both methodologies being most likely to generate an optimal classification system. Conclusions: The classification of NSLBP has traditionally involved the use of one paradigm. In the present era of biopsychosocial management of NSLBP, there is a need for an integrated classification system that will allow rational assessment of NSLBP from biomedical, psychological and social constructs.
Article
In patients with low-back and radiating leg pain, a clinical phenomenon has been described known as "centralization," which occurs during a mechanical evaluation protocol described by McKenzie. Relocation of the most distal pain in a proximal or central direction characterizes the pain behavior when patients are assessed in this fashion.
Article
A literature search identified eight classification systems that subdivide non-specific low back pain. These eight systems were selected on the basis of the following criteria: they were all developed for the purpose of guiding choice of physiotherapeutic treatments, and they were all based on symptoms and clinical tests. A critical appraisal was performed using a systematic approach including evaluation of validity, reliability, feasibility, and generalizability. None of the classification systems fulfilled all of the requirements and none were considered to have included all relevant categories separated in a way suitable for the purpose. Studies concerning reliability and validity were rarely reported. Generally aspects of validity and reliability were only tested for a few of the criteria used for categorizing patients and construct validity and reliability of the classification systems as a whole were not tested. Future studies ought to focus on the evaluation of existing classification systems and/or the development of new ones, which are capable of meeting basic measurement criteria.
Article
Background: Diagnoses and treatments based on movement system impairment syndromes were developed to guide physical therapy treatment. Objectives: This masterclass aims to describe the concepts on that are the basis of the syndromes and treatment and to provide the current research on movement system impairment syndromes. Results: The conceptual basis of the movement system impairment syndromes is that sustained alignment in a non-ideal position and repeated movements in a specific direction are thought to be associated with several musculoskeletal conditions. Classification into movement system impairment syndromes and treatment has been described for all body regions. The classification involves interpreting data from standardized tests of alignments and movements. Treatment is based on correcting the impaired alignment and movement patterns as well as correcting the tissue adaptations associated with the impaired alignment and movement patterns. The reliability and validity of movement system impairment syndromes have been partially tested. Although several case reports involving treatment using the movement system impairment syndromes concept have been published, efficacy of treatment based on movement system impairment syndromes has not been tested in randomized controlled trials, except in people with chronic low back pain.
Article
Despite increasing advances in medical technology, the cost of musculoskeletal incapacity, particularly low-back pain, in terms of sickness benefits, invalidity benefits and associated allowances has led to a fundamental reconsideration of the nature of chronic incapacity. Recent reports from the United Kingdom and the United States of America, in their recommendations for a comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment for patients still symptomatic at six weeks, are based on the clear assumption that a significant proportion of chronic incapacity is preventable. Such a proposition represents a fundamental challenge to much of current medical practice.
Article
A literature search identified eight classification systems that subdivide non-specific low back pain. These eight systems were selected on the basis of the following criteria: they were all developed for the purpose of guiding choice of physiotherapeutic treatments, and they were all based on symptoms and clinical tests. A critical appraisal was performed using a systematic approach including evaluation of validity, reliability, feasibility, and generalizability. None of the classification systems fulfilled all of the requirements and none were considered to have included all relevant categories separated in a way suitable for the purpose. Studies concerning reliability and validity were rarely reported. Generally aspects of validity and reliability were only tested for a few of the criteria used for categorizing patients and construct validity and reliability of the classification systems as a whole were not tested. Future studies ought to focus on the evaluation of existing classification systems and/or the development of new ones, which are capable of meeting basic measurement criteria.
Article
This paper presents a general statistical methodology for the analysis of multivariate categorical data arising from observer reliability studies. The procedure essentially involves the construction of functions of the observed proportions which are directed at the extent to which the observers agree among themselves and the construction of test statistics for hypotheses involving these functions. Tests for interobserver bias are presented in terms of first-order marginal homogeneity and measures of interobserver agreement are developed as generalized kappa-type statistics. These procedures are illustrated with a clinical diagnosis example from the epidemiological literature.