ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of physiotherapy intervention following lumbar spinal fusion.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis. 2 independent reviewers searched information sources, assessed studies for inclusion and evaluated risk of bias. Quantitative synthesis using standardised mean differences was conducted on comparable outcomes across trials with similar interventions.Information sourcesPredefined terms were employed to search electronic databases. Additional studies were identified from key journals, reference lists, authors and experts.Eligibility criteria for included studiesRandomised control trials published in English prior to 30 September 2011 investigating physiotherapy outpatient management of patients (>16 years), following lumbar spinal fusion, with measurements reported on one or more outcome of disability, function and health were included.Results2 Randomised control trials (188 participants) from two countries were included. Both trials included a behavioural and an exercise intervention. 1 trial was evaluated as high risk of bias and one as unclear. 159 participants were incorporated in the meta-analysis. Although evidence from both trials suggested that intervention might reduce back pain short term (6 months) and long term (12 months and 2 years), and a behavioural intervention might be more beneficial than an exercise intervention, the pooled effects (0.72, 95% CI −0.25 to 1.69 at 6 months; 0.52, 95% CI −0.45 to 1.49 at 12 months and 0.75, 95% CI −0.46 to 1.96 at 2 years) did not demonstrate statistically significant effects. There was no evidence that intervention changes pain in the short (6 months) or long term (12 months and 2 years). The wide CI for pooled effects indicated that intervention could be potentially beneficial or harmful. Considerable heterogeneity was evident.ConclusionsInconclusive, very low-quality evidence exists for the effectiveness of physiotherapy management following lumbar spinal fusion. Best practice remains unclear. Limited comparability of outcomes and retrieval of only two trials reflect a lack of research in this area that requires urgent consideration.
BackgroundThe Anteromedial Reach Test is a performance-based outcome measure for evaluating dynamic knee stability in patients with anterior cruciate ligament injury. No previously published study has adequately evaluated intrarater or interrater reliability of the Anteromedial Reach Test, so the purpose of this study was to assess these measurement properties in healthy participants prior to their investigation in patients with anterior cruciate ligament injury.MethodsTwo raters (A and B) tested 39 healthy university staff and students (20 men, 19 women). For the intrarater reliability investigation, rater A tested participants on three separate test occasions (days 1, 2, and 3) at the same time of day. For the interrater reliability investigation, raters A and B independently tested participants on the same test occasion (day 3).ResultsThere was no significant systematic bias between test occasions or raters. Values of the intraclass correlation coefficient (2,1) were 0.96 for intrarater reliability of both the dominant leg and nondominant leg and 0.97 (dominant leg) and 0.98 (nondominant leg) for interrater reliability. Values for the standard error of measurement were 1.46 (dominant leg) and 1.62 (nondominant leg) for the intrarater investigation, and 1.26 (dominant leg) and 1.04 (nondominant leg) for the interrater investigation. At the 90% confidence level, the minimum detectable change was 3.8% and the error in an individual’s score at a given point in time was ±2.7%.ConclusionThe Anteromedial Reach Test demonstrated excellent intrarater and interrater reliability in healthy participants. This provides a basis for future investigation of the measurement properties of the Anteromedial Reach Test in patients with anterior cruciate ligament injury.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.