scholarly journals Correlation of PROMIS Physical Function and Pain CAT Instruments With Oswestry Disability Index and Neck Disability Index in Spine Patients

Spine ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (14) ◽  
pp. 1153-1159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark O. Papuga ◽  
Addisu Mesfin ◽  
Robert Molinari ◽  
Paul T. Rubery
BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e035736
Author(s):  
Ahmed Alalawi ◽  
Alejandro Luque-Suarez ◽  
Manuel Fernandez-Sanchez ◽  
Alessio Gallina ◽  
David Evans ◽  
...  

IntroductionNot all factors that predict persistent pain and disability following whiplash injury are known. In particular, few physical factors, such as changes in movement and muscle behaviour, have been investigated. The aim of this study is to identify predictive factors that are associated with the development of persistent pain and disability following a whiplash injury by combining contemporary measures of physical function together with established psychological and pain-related predictive factors.Methods and analysisA prospective observational study will recruit 150 consecutive eligible patients experiencing whiplash-related symptoms, admitted to a private physiotherapy clinic in Spain within 15 days of their whiplash injury. Poor outcome will be measured using the Neck Disability Index (NDI), defined as an NDI score of 30% or greater at 6 months post injury. Candidate predictors, including demographic characteristics, injury characteristics, pain characteristics, self-reported psychosocial factors and physical factors, will be collected at baseline (within 15 days of inception). Regression analyses will be performed to identify factors that are associated with persistent neck pain and disability over the study period.Ethics and disseminationThe project has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the province of Malaga, Spain (#30052019). The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals.


10.14444/7007 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-58
Author(s):  
DHRUV K.C. GOYAL ◽  
HAMADI A. MURPHY ◽  
DOUGLAS A. HOLLERN ◽  
SRIKANTH N. DIVI ◽  
KRISTEN NICHOLSON ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
I Rezaei ◽  
M Razeghi ◽  
S Ebrahimi ◽  
S Kayedi ◽  
A Rezaeian Zadeh

Background: Despite the potential benefits of virtual reality technology in physical rehabilitation, only a few studies have evaluated the efficacy of this type of treatment in patients with neck pain.Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of virtual reality training (VRT) versus conventional proprioceptive training (CPT) in patients with neck pain.Methods: Forty four participants with nonspecific chronic neck pain were randomly assigned to VRT or CPT in this assessor-blinded clinical trial. A novel videogame called Cervigame® was designed for VRT. It comprises of 50 stages divided into unidirectional and two-directional stages ordered from easy to hard. CPT consisted of eye-follow, gaze stability, eye-head coordination and position and movement sense training. Both groups completed 8 training sessions over 4 weeks. Visual analogue scale score, neck disability index and Y-balance test results were recorded at baseline, immediately after and 5 weeks post-intervention. Mixed repeated measure ANOVA was used to analyze differences between mean values for each variable at an alpha level of 0.05.Results: There were significant improvements in all variables in both groups immediately after and 5 weeks after the intervention. Greater improvements were observed in the visual analogue scale and neck disability index scores in VRT group, and the results for all directions in Y-balance test were similar in both groups. No side effects were reported.Conclusion: Improvements in neck pain and disability were greater in VRT than CPT group. Cervigame® is a potentially practical tool for rehabilitation in patients with neck pain.


2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahra Rezasoltani ◽  
Hanna Ehyaie ◽  
Reza Kazempour Mofrad ◽  
Fatemeh Vashaei ◽  
Reza Mohtasham ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives Granisetron and lidocaine injections have been used for the management of myofascial pain syndrome. This study was aimed to compare the efficacy of granisetron and lidocaine injections to trigger points of upper trapezius in the management of myofascial pain syndrome. Methods We performed a double-blind randomized clinical trial in an outpatient clinic of physical medicine and rehabilitation at a teaching hospital. A total of 40 patients aged ≥18 with neck pain due to myofascial pain syndrome were included. They had pain for at least one month with the intensity of at least 30 mm on a 100 mm visual analog scale. Each participant received a single dose of 1 mL lidocaine 2% or 1 mg (in 1 mL) granisetron. The solutions were injected into a maximum of three trigger points of the upper trapezius. We instructed all patients to remain active while avoiding strenuous activity for three or four days, and to perform stretch exercise and massage of their upper trapezius muscles. We assessed the patients before the interventions, and one month and three months post-injection. The primary outcome was the Neck Disability Index and the secondary outcome was the Neck Pain and Disability Scale. Results Both interventions were successful in reducing neck pain and disability (all p-values <0.001). However, the neck pain and disability responded more favorably to lidocaine than granisetron (p=0.001 for Neck Disability Index, and p=0.006 for Neck Pain and Disability Scale). No significant side-effect was recognized for both groups. Conclusions Both lidocaine and granisetron injections to trigger points are effective and safe for the management of the syndrome and the benefits remain at least for three months. However, lidocaine is more effective in reducing pain and disability. The injections are well-tolerated, although a transient pain at the site of injections is a common complaint. One mL of lidocaine 2% is more effective than 1 mg (in 1 mL) granisetron for injecting into the trigger points of the upper trapezius in myofascial pain syndrome.


Author(s):  
A. Rachid El Mohammad ◽  
Sree Koneru ◽  
Richard Staelin ◽  
Kenneth McLeod ◽  
Omar Tabbouche ◽  
...  

AbstractAssess treatment superiority of pulsed shortwave therapy (PSWT) against COX-2 NSAID therapy, in reducing disability and pain due to cervical osteoarthritis. Two hundred chronic pain suffers (average pain duration about 2 years) diagnosed with cervical osteoarthritis by radiological imaging were randomized into one of two treatment arms: COX-2 NSAID treatment; etoricoxib 60 mg/day for 4 weeks; or PSWT treatment worn 24 h/day for 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the 4-week score on the Neck Disability Index (NDI), a 10-question assessment on a 50-point scale. Secondary outcome measures included pain (at rest and during activity) measured on a visual analog scale (VAS) of 0–100 mm, dose count of rescue pain medication (paracetamol) use, and a treatment satisfaction rating. These 4-week scores were compared across the two arms to assess superiority. After 4 weeks of treatment, subjects in both study arms reported statistically significant (p < 0.0001) reductions in NDI, with final scores of 11.24-NSAID and 9.34-PSWT, VASrest, with final scores of 30.08-NSAID; 22.76-PSWT, and VASactivity, with final scores of 36.40-NSAID; 27.42-PSWT. The absolute reduction from baseline in NDI was significantly greater in the PSWT arm than NSAID arm (3.66 points; 95% CI 2.3 to 5.02; p < 0.0001). Similarly, the reductions from baseline in VASrest and VASactivity were significantly greater in the PSWT arm than NSAID arm (10.89 mm; 95% CI 6.90 to 14.87; p < 0.0001; and 12.05 mm; 95% CI 7.76 to 16.33; p < 0.0001, respectively). The PSWT arm used 50% less rescue pain medication. Eleven adverse effects were reported in the NSAID arm and zero in the PSWT arm. Both NSAID and PSWT treatments resulted in statistically significant improvements in quality of life (NDI) and reduction in pain (VAS) resulting from cervical osteoarthritis. However, the PSWT intervention showed superior improvements in all outcome measures when compared to the NSAID arm with no adverse effects. Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03542955).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document