Background: Physical therapy is regarded an effective treatment for temporomandibular disorders (TMD). Patients with TMD often report concomitant headache. There is, however, no overview of the effect of physical therapy for TMD on concomitant headache complaints. Objectives: The aim of this study is to systematically evaluate the literature on the effectiveness of physical therapy on concomitant headache pain intensity in patients with TMD. Data sources: PubMed, Cochrane and PEDro were searched. Study eligibility criteria: Randomized or controlled clinical trials studying physical therapy interventions were included. Participants: Patients with TMD and headache. Appraisal: The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess risk of bias. Synthesis methods: Individual and pooled between-group effect sizes were calculated according to the standardized mean difference (SMD) and the quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Results: and manual therapy on both orofacial region and cervical spine. There is a very low level of certainty that TMD-treatment is effective on headache pain intensity, downgraded by high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. Limitations: The methodological quality of most included articles was poor, and the interventions included were very different. Conclusions: Physical therapy interventions presented small effect on reducing headache pain intensity on subjects with TMD, with low level of certainty. More studies of higher methodological quality are needed so better conclusions could be taken.
INTRODUCTION: Functional capacity tests are standardized instruments to evaluate patients' capacities to execute work-related activities. Functional capacity test results are associated with biopsychosocial factors, making it unclear what is being measured in capacity testing. An overview of these factors was missing. The objective of this review was to investigate the level of evidence for factors that are associated with functional capacity test results in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain.METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed identifying relevant studies from an electronic journal databases search. Candidate studies employed a cross-sectional or RCT design and were published between 1980 and October 2010. The quality of these studies was determined and level of evidence was reported for factors that were associated with capacity results in at least 3 studies.RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included. The level of evidence was reported for lifting low, lifting high, carrying, and static lifting capacity. Lifting low test results were associated with self-reported disability and specific self-efficacy but not with pain duration. There was conflicting evidence for associations of lifting low with pain intensity, fear of movement/(re)injury, depression, gender and age. Lifting high was associated with gender and specific self-efficacy, but not with pain intensity or age. There is conflicting evidence for the association of lifting high with the factors self-reported disability, pain duration and depression. Carrying was associated with self-reported disability and not with pain intensity and there is conflicting evidence for associations with specific self-efficacy, gender and age. Static lifting was associated with fear of movement/(re)injury.CONCLUSIONS: Much heterogeneity was observed in investigated capacity tests and candidate associated factors. There was some evidence for biological and psychological factors that are or are not associated with capacity results but there is also much conflicting evidence. High level evidence for social factors was absent.
LINK
BACKGROUND: The predictive validity of the Low Back Pain Perception Scale is determined in two studies in general practice and showed sufficient discriminative ability, although the psychometric properties of the scale have never been established until now.OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability and validity of the Low Back Pain Perception Scale in acute nonspecific low back pain patients.METHODS: The Low Back Pain Perception Scale has been authorized translated into Dutch by two bilingual content experts. A sample of 84 acute low back pain patients in physiotherapy primary care, mean age (SD) age 42 (12) years participated in this study. Internal reliability and a test-retest procedure within one-week interval were evaluated.RESULTS: The internal consistency Cronbach α=0.38 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.56) and test - retest reliability within one week Intra Class Correlation coefficient=0.50 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.64). Minimal Detectable Change was measured 1.95. The concurrent validity demonstrates Pearson's r=0.35 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.53).CONCLUSIONS:The Low Back Pain Perception Scale demonstrates poor internal consistency and reliability and moderate concurrent validity. Extreme high or low scores may be clinical relevant therefore the scale can be used as a first screening instrument.
LINK
