TY - JOUR
T1 - Baseline characteristics of patients with nerve-related neck and arm pain predict the likely response to neural tissue management
AU - Nee, R.J.
AU - Vicenzino, B.
AU - Jull, G.A.
AU - Cleland, J.A.
AU - Coppieters, M.W.
PY - 2013
Y1 - 2013
N2 - STUDY DESIGN: Planned secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial comparing neural tissue management (NTM) to advice to remain active. TTOBJECTIVE: To develop a model that predicts the likelihood of patient-reported improvement following NTM. BACKGROUND: Matching patients to an intervention they are likely to benefit from potentially improves outcomes. However, baseline characteristics that predict patients' responses to NTM are unknown. METHODS: Data came from 60 consecutive adults who had nontraumatic, nerve-related neck and unilateral arm pain for at least 4 weeks. Participants were assigned to a group that received NTM (n = 40), which involved brief education, manual therapy, and nerve gliding exercises for 4 treatments over 2 weeks, or to a group that was given advice to remain active (n = 20), which involved instruction to continue their usual activities. The participants' global rating of change at a 3- to 4-week follow-up defined improvement. Penalized regression of NTM data identified the best prediction model. A medical nomogram was created for prediction model scoring. Post hoc analysis determined whether the model predicted a specific response to NTM. RESULTS: Absence of neuropathic pain qualities, older age, and smaller deficits in median nerve neurodynamic test range of motion predicted improvement. Prediction model cutoffs increased the likelihood of improvement from 53% to 90% (95% confidence interval: 56%, 98%) or decreased the likelihood of improvement to 9% (95% confidence interval: 1%, 42%). The model did not predict the outcomes of the advice to remain active group. CONCLUSION: Baseline characteristics of patients with nerve-related neck and arm pain predicted the likelihood of improvement with NTM. Model performance needs to be validated in a new sample using different comparison interventions and longer follow-up. Copyright © 2013 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy®. All rights reserved.
AB - STUDY DESIGN: Planned secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial comparing neural tissue management (NTM) to advice to remain active. TTOBJECTIVE: To develop a model that predicts the likelihood of patient-reported improvement following NTM. BACKGROUND: Matching patients to an intervention they are likely to benefit from potentially improves outcomes. However, baseline characteristics that predict patients' responses to NTM are unknown. METHODS: Data came from 60 consecutive adults who had nontraumatic, nerve-related neck and unilateral arm pain for at least 4 weeks. Participants were assigned to a group that received NTM (n = 40), which involved brief education, manual therapy, and nerve gliding exercises for 4 treatments over 2 weeks, or to a group that was given advice to remain active (n = 20), which involved instruction to continue their usual activities. The participants' global rating of change at a 3- to 4-week follow-up defined improvement. Penalized regression of NTM data identified the best prediction model. A medical nomogram was created for prediction model scoring. Post hoc analysis determined whether the model predicted a specific response to NTM. RESULTS: Absence of neuropathic pain qualities, older age, and smaller deficits in median nerve neurodynamic test range of motion predicted improvement. Prediction model cutoffs increased the likelihood of improvement from 53% to 90% (95% confidence interval: 56%, 98%) or decreased the likelihood of improvement to 9% (95% confidence interval: 1%, 42%). The model did not predict the outcomes of the advice to remain active group. CONCLUSION: Baseline characteristics of patients with nerve-related neck and arm pain predicted the likelihood of improvement with NTM. Model performance needs to be validated in a new sample using different comparison interventions and longer follow-up. Copyright © 2013 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy®. All rights reserved.
U2 - 10.2519/jospt.2013.4490
DO - 10.2519/jospt.2013.4490
M3 - Article
SN - 0190-6011
VL - 43
SP - 379
EP - 391
JO - Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy
JF - Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy
IS - 6
ER -