Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2005 Sep;86(9):1745-52.
doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.03.028.

Lumbar spine segmental mobility assessment: an examination of validity for determining intervention strategies in patients with low back pain

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Lumbar spine segmental mobility assessment: an examination of validity for determining intervention strategies in patients with low back pain

Julie M Fritz et al. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Sep.

Abstract

Objective: To examine the predictive validity of posterior-anterior (PA) mobility testing in a group of patients with low back pain (LBP).

Design: Randomized controlled trial.

Setting: Outpatient physical therapy clinics.

Participants: Patients with LBP (N=131; mean age +/- standard deviation, 33.9+/-10.9 y; range, 19-59 y), and a median symptom duration of 27 days (range, 1-5941 d). Patients completed a baseline examination, including PA mobility testing, and were categorized with respect to both hypomobility and hypermobility (present or absent), and treated for 4 weeks.

Intervention: Seventy patients were randomized to an intervention involving manipulation and 61 to a stabilization exercise intervention.

Main outcome measures: Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) scores were collected at baseline and after 4 weeks. Three-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were performed to assess the effect of mobility categorization and intervention group on the change on the ODQ with time. Number-needed-to-treat (NNT) statistics were calculated.

Results: Ninety-three (71.0%) patients were judged to have hypomobility present and 15 (11.5%) were judged with hypermobility present. The ANOVAs resulted in significant interaction effects. Pairwise comparisons showed greater improvements among patients receiving manipulation categorized with hypomobility present versus absent (mean difference, 23.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1%-42.4%), and among patients receiving stabilization categorized with hypermobility present versus absent (mean difference, 36.4%; 95% CI, 10.3%-69.3%). For patients with hypomobility, failure rates were 26% with manipulation and 74.4% with stabilization (NNT=2.1; 95% CI, 1.6-3.5). For patients with hypermobility, failure rates were 83.3% and 22.2% for manipulation and stabilization, respectively (NNT=1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-10.2).

Conclusions: Patients with LBP judged to have lumbar hypomobility experienced greater benefit from an intervention including manipulation; those judged to have hypermobility were more likely to benefit from a stabilization exercise program.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources