ArticleThe Journal of manual & manipulative therapy2018
A preliminary analysis of outcomes and end range procedures used to achieve centralization in people with low back pain.
Article in The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the relationship between clinical outcome and the types of end range procedures used to achieve centralization in a sample of patients with low back pain (LBP) and/or peripheral symptoms.
methodsSmall sample retrospective analysis of an observational cohort. Patients with LBP who centralized during initial visit at two physical therapy clinics were recruited to participate. The types of end range procedures used to achieve centralization were documented during each office visit and a chart review was performed after 4 weeks. Outcomes were determined by improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score after 4 weeks. Statistical analysis determined the association between the types of end range procedures and outcomes.
resultsThirty-one patients gave consent to participate. Nineteen patients met inclusion criteria and were included in data analysis. After 4 weeks, the improvement in mean ODI scores was 15.89 ± 16.28. Differing end range procedures were used to achieve centralization within this cohort. The types of end range procedures used to achieve centralization were not significantly associated with outcomes. DISCUSSION: The results observed in this study promote exhausting many different types of end range procedures to determine if centralization can be achieved. Limiting the end range procedures used to assess centralization may fail to identify patients who can achieve centralization and subsequently have positive clinical outcomes. Larger cohort studies investigating relationships between outcomes and the types of end range procedures used to achieve centralization would contribute to management of people with LBP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.