No registrations found.
ID
Source
Health condition
centralization phenomenon
low back pain
stability tests
centralisatiefenomeen
lage rugpijn
stabiliteitstesten
Sponsors and support
and Therapy Research Foundation
www.imdtrf.org
Intervention
Outcome measures
Primary outcome
The proportion of positive instability tests measured before and after the MDT session will be calculated for all patients as will their classification as a centralizer or non-centralizer. The differences between instability results pre and post-MDT will be reported as a percentage and investigated with X2 tests between the two groups.
Secondary outcome
As a secondary analysis, patients with a directional preference will be regarded centralizers and the same statistical tests will be used.
Background summary
For clinicians, positive clinical tests for identification of lumbar spine instability are indicators for the use of stabilization exercises. However, in our clinical experience these tests frequently become negative after the patient has demonstrated a centralization response assessed with Mechanical Diagnosis & Therapy (MDT). Given that this response is commonly elicited during MDT assessment, it may be that instability tests should be preceded by a MDT assessment to ensure appropriate interpretation. The aim of this study will be to assess the influence of the centralization response on the outcome of instability tests in patients with low back pain.
Design: Observational study
Methods:
Patients will be recruited from a private physical therapy clinic. Each patient will be assessed by two examiners on the same day. The first examiner will conduct a standardized set of tests to identify signs of lumbar spine instability before and directly after a MDT session which is conducted by the second examiner. This second examiner will classify each patient as a centralizer or non-centralizer. The assessments of instability tests and the MDT assessment will be conducted independently and the examiners will be blinded to each other’s results. At least 100 patients will be included. The differences between pre-test and post-test results on the instability test will be described in percentages and via X2 tests for the two groups (centralizers and non-centralizers). Analyses will be performed to investigate whether selected baseline characteristics have an influence on the outcomes.
The present study will contribute to our knowledge about the influence of MDT, and more specifically the centralization response, on clinical lumbar spine stabilization measures in patients with low back pain.
Study objective
For clinicians, positive clinical tests for identification of lumbar spine instability are indicators for the use of stabilization exercises. However, it is our clinical experience that these tests frequently become negative after the patient has demonstrated a centralization response assessed with Mechanical Diagnosis & Therapy (MDT). Given that this response is commonly elicited during MDT assessment, it may be that instability tests should be preceded by a MDT assessment to ensure appropriate interpretation. The aim of this study will be to assess the influence of the centralization response on the outcome of instability tests in patients with low back pain. We hypothesize that the number of positive tests will reduce in patients whose pain centralizes, but that this will not be the case for patients who do not centralize.
Study design
NA
Intervention
Patients will be recruited from a private physical therapy clinic. Each patient will be assessed by two examiners on the same day. The first examiner will conduct a standardized set of tests to identify signs of lumbar spine instability before and directly after a MDT session which is conducted by the second examiner. This second examiner will classify each patient as a centralizer or non-centralizer. The assessments of instability tests and the MDT assessment will be conducted independently and the examiners will be blinded to each other’s results. At least 100 patients will be included.
A. Apeldoorn
EMGO+ Instituut, VUmc
Amsterdam 1081 BT
The Netherlands
+31 (0)20 4446011
a.apeldoorn@vumc.nl
A. Apeldoorn
EMGO+ Instituut, VUmc
Amsterdam 1081 BT
The Netherlands
+31 (0)20 4446011
a.apeldoorn@vumc.nl
Inclusion criteria
Low back pain (LBP) as primary complaint, with or without associated leg pain, age over 17 years, and able to read and write Dutch
Exclusion criteria
known or suspected specific LBP (e.g., cauda equina compression, fractures), severe radiculopathy, spondylolisthesis (grade 2 or more), serious co-morbidity (e.g., metastases, AIDS, cerebrovascular accident), psychopathology, currently pregnant or given birth in the past three months, lumbar spinal surgery in the previous 6 months, increase of pain due to clinical instability tests by the first examiner or inability to demonstrate any LBP symptoms during mechanical examination
Design
Recruitment
Followed up by the following (possibly more current) registration
No registrations found.
Other (possibly less up-to-date) registrations in this register
No registrations found.
In other registers
Register | ID |
---|---|
NTR-new | NL4100 |
NTR-old | NTR4246 |
Other | : METC VUmc 2013/16, WC2013-025 |
ISRCTN | ISRCTN wordt niet meer aangevraagd. |