PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Anthony Delitto

Publications and source records attributed to Anthony Delitto.

17 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Identifying subgroups of patients with acute/subacute "nonspecific" low back pain: results of a randomized clinical trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: Compare outcomes of patients with low back pain receiving treatments matched or unmatched to their subgrouping based on initial clinical presentation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Patients with "nonspecific" low back pain are often viewed as a homogeneous group, equally likely to respond to any particular intervention. Others have proposed methods for subgrouping patients as a means for determining the treatment most likely to benefit patients with particular characteristics. METHODS: Patients with low back pain of less than 90 days' duration referred to physical therapy were examined before treatment and classified into one of three subgroups based on the type of treatment believed most likely to benefit the patient (manipulation, stabilization exercise, or specific exercise). Patients were randomly assigned to receive manipulation, stabilization exercises, or specific exercise treatment during a 4-week treatment period. Disability was assessed in the short-term (4 weeks) and long-term (1 year) using the Oswestry. Comparisons were made between patients receiving treatment matched to their subgroup, versus those receiving unmatched treatment. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients participated (mean age, 37.7 +/- 10.7 years; 45% female). Patients receiving matched treatments experienced greater short- and long-term reductions in disability than those receiving unmatched treatments. After 4 weeks, the difference favoring the matched treatment group was 6.6 Oswestry points (95% CI, 0.70-12.5), and at long-term follow-up the difference was 8.3 points (95% CI, 2.5-14.1). Compliers-only analysis of long-term outcomes yielded a similar result. CONCLUSIONS: Nonspecific low back pain should not be viewed as a homogenous condition. Outcomes can be improved when subgrouping is used to guide treatment decision-making.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2006

Spinal stenosis: surgical versus nonsurgical treatment.

UNLABELLED: Lumbar spinal stenosis is being diagnosed increasingly in older people as advanced imaging studies become more widely available and clinicians become more familiar with the presentation of this common condition. For symptomatic patients, the goal of treatment is pain relief and improved function, but there is little empiric evidence to support many of the common interventions used. The relative risks and benefits of various surgical and nonsurgical treatments are poorly understood, and the result has been wide variations in the evaluation and treatment of spinal stenosis across geographic regions. Current practice recommendations are based on expert opinion that incorporates available evidence into existing clinical and biologic paradigms. For most individuals, initial treatment should focus on patient education, medications to control pain, and exercise and physical treatments to regain or maintain activities of daily living. Surgical treatment most commonly is considered in patients not improving with nonsurgical care. Decompressive laminectomy is the standard surgical procedure for patients with spinal stenosis. The addition of fusion with or without instrumentation is considered when spinal stenosis is accompanied by degenerative spondylolisthesis or related to concerns about instability. We review the available evidence for nonsurgical and surgical interventions, and highlight comparative results wherever applicable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V (expert opinion). See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Anti-Infective Agents↗
PubMed2005

A description of physical therapists' knowledge in managing musculoskeletal conditions.

BACKGROUND: Physical therapists increasingly provide direct access services to patients with musculoskeletal conditions, and growing evidence supports the cost-effectiveness of this mode of healthcare delivery. However, further evidence is needed to determine if physical therapists have the requisite knowledge necessary to manage musculoskeletal conditions. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe physical therapists' knowledge in managing musculoskeletal conditions. METHODS: This study utilized a cross-sectional design in which 174 physical therapist students from randomly selected educational programs and 182 experienced physical therapists completed a standardized examination assessing knowledge in managing musculoskeletal conditions. This same examination has been previously been used to assess knowledge in musculoskeletal medicine among medical students, physician interns and residents, and across a variety of physician specialties. RESULTS: Experienced physical therapists had higher levels of knowledge in managing musculoskeletal conditions than medical students, physician interns and residents, and all physician specialists except for orthopaedists. Physical therapist students enrolled in doctoral degree educational programs achieved significantly higher scores than their peers enrolled in master's degree programs. Furthermore, experienced physical therapists who were board-certified in orthopaedic or sports physical therapy achieved significantly higher scores and passing rates than their non board-certified colleagues. CONCLUSION: The results of this study may have implications for health and public policy decisions regarding the suitability of utilizing physical therapists to provide direct access care for patients with musculoskeletal conditions.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Development of a clinical prediction rule for the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a clinical prediction rule (CPR) and to assess the reliability and diagnostic accuracy of individual clinical examination items for the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). DESIGN: Prospective diagnostic test study with blind comparison to a reference criterion of a compatible clinical presentation and abnormal electrophysiologic findings. SETTING: Multicenter medical center and community hospital with patient referrals from ambulatory primary care and specialty practice settings. PARTICIPANTS: Eight-two consecutively referred patients (50% men; mean age, 45+/-12 y) with suspected cervical radiculopathy or CTS referred for electrophysiologic examination. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. RESULTS: The CPR identified in this study consisted of 1 question (shaking hands for symptom relief), wrist-ratio index greater than .67, Symptom Severity Scale score greater than 1.9, reduced median sensory field of digit 1, and age greater than 45 years. The likelihood ratio for the CPR was 18.3 when all 5 tests were positive. Interrater reliability was acceptable for all but 2 clinical examination items. CONCLUSIONS: The CPR identified was more useful for the diagnosis of CTS than any single test item and resulted in posttest probability changes of up to 56%. Further investigation is required both to validate the test-item cluster and to improve point-estimate precision.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Preliminary development of a clinical prediction rule for determining which patients with low back pain will respond to a stabilization exercise program.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a clinical prediction rule to predict treatment response to a stabilization exercise program for patients with low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: A prospective, cohort study of patients with nonradicular LBP referred to physical therapy (PT). SETTING: Outpatient PT clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-four patients with nonradicular LBP. INTERVENTION: A standardized stabilization exercise program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Treatment response (success or failure) was categorized based on changes in the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire scores after 8 weeks. RESULTS: Eighteen subjects were categorized as treatment successes, 15 as treatment failures, and 21 as somewhat improved. After using regression analyses to determine the association between standardized examination variables and treatment response status, preliminary clinical prediction rules were developed for predicting success (positive likelihood ratio [LR], 4.0) and failure (negative LR, .18). The most important variables were age, straight-leg raise, prone instability test, aberrant motions, lumbar hypermobility, and fear-avoidance beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that the response to a stabilization exercise program in patients with LBP can be predicted from variables collected from the clinical examination. The prediction rules could be used to determine whether patients with LBP are likely to benefit from stabilization exercises.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Clinical examination variables discriminate among treatment-based classification groups: a study of construct validity in patients with acute low back pain.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Treatment-based classification (TBC) provides matched interventions for patients with acute low back pain (LBP) through key history and clinical findings. This study investigated the discriminant validity of TBC by determining whether commonly used clinical examination variables discriminated among TBC groups. SUBJECTS: The mean age of the 131 participants was 37.7 years (SD=10.1), 66 participants (50.4%) were female, mean duration of LBP was 16.5 days (SD=16.1), and 60 participants (45.8%) had a prior history of LBP. Fifty-one study participants (38.9%) were classified for specific exercise, 42 (32.1%) for mobilization, 28 (21.4%) for immobilization, and 10 (7.6%) for traction. METHODS: One-way analyses of variance and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to investigate differences in clinical variables by TBC group. Then, discriminant function analysis (DFA) predicted TBC group membership. RESULTS: The TBC groups differed on present pain intensity, duration of LBP, and history of LBP. Present pain intensity, duration of LBP, total lumbar flexion, presence of leg pain, and history of LBP produced 2 statistically significant discriminant functions that predicted TBC group membership. These functions correctly classified (cross-validation value in parentheses) 65% (65%) for specific exercise, 45% (40%) for mobilization, and 32% (32%) for immobilization. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This study provided evidence supporting the discriminant validity of TBC. Additional diagnostic information related to TBC groups was generated.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2004

A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain most likely to benefit from spinal manipulation: a validation study.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting evidence exists about the effectiveness of spinal manipulation. OBJECTIVE: To validate a manipulation clinical prediction rule. DESIGN: Multicenter randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Physical therapy clinics. PATIENTS: 131 consecutive patients with low back pain, 18 to 60 years of age, who were referred to physical therapy. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to receive manipulation plus exercise or exercise alone by a physical therapist for 4 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: Patients were examined according to the clinical prediction rule criteria (symptom duration, symptom location, fear-avoidance beliefs, lumbar mobility, and hip rotation range of motion). Disability and pain at 1 and 4 weeks and 6 months were assessed. RESULTS: Outcome from spinal manipulation depends on a patient's status on the prediction rule. Treatment effects are greatest for the subgroup of patients who were positive on the rule (at least 4 of 5 criteria met); health care utilization among this subgroup was decreased at 6 months. Compared with patients who were negative on the rule and received exercise, the odds of a successful outcome among patients who were positive on the rule and received manipulation were 60.8 (95% CI, 5.2 to 704.7). The odds were 2.4 (CI, 0.83 to 6.9) among patients who were negative on the rule and received manipulation and 1.0 (CI, 0.28 to 3.6) among patients who were positive on the rule and received exercise. A patient who was positive on the rule and received manipulation has a 92% chance of a successful outcome, with an associated number needed to treat for benefit at 4 weeks of 1.9 (CI, 1.4 to 3.5). LIMITATIONS: The response rate for the 6-month follow-up resulted in inadequate power to detect statistically significant differences for some comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: The spinal manipulation clinical prediction rule can be used to improve decision making for patients with low back pain.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

Comparison of classification-based physical therapy with therapy based on clinical practice guidelines for patients with acute low back pain: a randomized clinical trial.

STUDY DESIGN: A randomized clinical trial was conducted. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of classification-based physical therapy with that of therapy based on clinical practice guidelines for patients with acute, work-related low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Clinical practice guidelines recommend minimal intervention during the first few weeks after acute low back injury. However, studies supporting this recommendation have not attempted to identify which patients are likely to respond to particular interventions. METHODS: For this study, 78 subjects with work-related low back pain of less than 3 weeks duration were randomized to receive therapy based on a classification system that attempts to match patients to specific interventions or therapy based on the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research guidelines. The subjects were followed for 1 year. Outcomes included the impairment index, Oswestry scale, SF-36 component scores, satisfaction, medical costs, and return to work status. RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline factors, subjects receiving classification-based therapy showed greater change on the Oswestry (P = 0.023) and the SF-36 physical component (P = 0.029) after 4 weeks. Patient satisfaction was greater (P = 0.006) and return to full-duty work status more likely (P = 0.017) after 4 weeks in the classification-based group. After 1 year, there was a trend toward reduced Oswestry scores in the classification-based group (P = 0.063). Median total medical costs for 1 year after injury were 1003.68 dollars for the guideline-based group and 774.00 dollars for the classification-based group (P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with acute, work-related low back pain, the use of a classification-based approach resulted in improved disability and return to work status after 4 weeks, as compared with therapy based on clinical practice guidelines. Further research is needed on the optimal timing and methods of intervention for patients with acute low back pain.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2003

Reliability and diagnostic accuracy of the clinical examination and patient self-report measures for cervical radiculopathy.

STUDY DESIGN: A blinded, prospective diagnostic test study was conducted. OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability and accuracy of individual clinical examination items and self-report instruments for the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy, and to identify and assess the accuracy of an optimum test-item cluster for the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although cervical radiculopathy remains largely a clinical diagnosis, the reliability and diagnostic accuracy of clinical examination items, individually or in combination, for cervical radiculopathy is largely unknown. METHODS: Patients with suspected cervical radiculopathy or carpal tunnel syndrome received standardized electrophysiologic examination of the symptomatic upper quarter followed by a standardized clinical examination by physical therapist examiners blinded to diagnosis. Diagnostic properties were assessed using a neural impairment reference criterion standard. RESULTS: The study involved 82 patients. More than two thirds of 34 clinical examination items had reliability coefficients rated at least fair or better, and 13 items had likelihood ratio point estimates above 2 or below 0.50. A single diagnostic test item cluster of four variables was identified and produced a positive likelihood ratio point estimate of 30.3. The 95% confidence intervals for all likelihood ratio point estimates in this study were wide. CONCLUSIONS: Many items of the clinical examination were found to be reliable and to have acceptable diagnostic properties, but the test item cluster identified was more useful for indicating cervical radiculopathy than any single test item. Upper limb tension Test A was the most useful test for ruling out cervical radiculopathy. Further investigation is required both to validate the test item cluster and to improve point estimate precision.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Interrater reliability of clinical examination measures for identification of lumbar segmental instability.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the interrater reliability of common clinical examination procedures proposed to identify patients with lumbar segmental instability. DESIGN: Single group repeated-measures interrater reliability study. SETTING: Outpatient physical therapy (PT) clinic and university PT department. PARTICIPANTS: A consecutive sample of 63 subjects (38 women, 25 men; 81% with previous episodes of low back pain [LBP]) with current LBP was examined by 3 pairs of raters. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Repeat measurements of clinical signs and tests proposed to identify lumbar segmental instability. RESULTS: Kappa values for the trunk range of motion (ROM) findings varied (range,.00-.69). The prone instability test (kappa=.87) showed greater reliability than the posterior shear test (kappa=.22). The Beighton Ligamentous Laxity Scale (LLS) for generalized ligamentous laxity showed high reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=.79). Judgments of pain provocation (kappa range,.25-.55) were generally more reliable than judgments of segmental mobility (kappa range, -.02 to.26) during passive intervertebral motion testing. CONCLUSIONS: The results agree with previous studies suggesting that segmental mobility testing is not reliable. The prone instability test, generalized LLS, and aberrant motion with trunk ROM demonstrated higher levels of reliability.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Systematic review of the quality of randomized controlled trials for patellofemoral pain syndrome.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature. OBJECTIVES: To develop a grading scale to judge the quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and conduct a systematic review of the published RCTs that assess nonoperative treatments for patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS). BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of the quality and usefulness of clinical trials allow for efficient synthesis and dissemination of the literature, which should facilitate clinicians' efforts to incorporate principles of evidence-based practice in the clinical decision-making process. METHODS AND MEASURES: Using a scale based on criteria in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook, we sought to critically appraise the methodology used in RCTs related to the nonoperative management of PFPS, synthesize and interpret our results, and report our findings in a user-friendly fashion. A scale to assess the methodological quality of trials was designed and pilot tested for its content and reliability. Published RCTs identified during a literature search were then selected and rated by 6 raters. We used predefined cutoff scores to identify specific weaknesses in the clinical research process that need to be improved in future clinical trials. RESULTS: The quality scale we developed was demonstrated to be sufficiently reliable to warrant interpretation of the reviewers' findings. The percentage of trials that met a minimum level of quality for each specific criterion ranged from a low of 25% for the adequacy of the description of the randomization procedure to a high of 95% for the description and standardization of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of trials exhibiting a sufficient level of quality, treatments that were effective in decreasing pain and improving function in patients with PFPS were acupuncture, quadriceps strengthening, the use of a resistive brace, and the combination of exercises with patellar taping and biofeedback. The use of soft foot orthotics in patients with excessive foot pronation appeared useful in decreasing pain. In addition, at a short-term follow-up, patients who received exercise programs were discharged earlier from physical therapy. Unfortunately, most RCTs reviewed contained qualitative flaws that bring the validity of the results into question, thus diminishing the ability to generalize the results to clinical practice. These flaws were primarily in the areas of randomization procedures, duration of follow-up, control of cointerventions, assurance of blinding, accountability and proper analysis of dropouts, number of subjects, and the relevance of outcomes. Also, given the limited number of high-quality clinical trials, recommendations about supporting or refuting specific treatment approaches may be premature and can only be made with caution.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗
PubMed2002

Management of the athlete with low back pain.

The evaluation of an athlete with LBP using the classification system proposed by Delitto et al has been outlined. For outpatient orthopaedic practice, evidence in the literature is available documenting the reliability and the effectiveness of treatment guided by TBC. This classification system provides framework for the clinician to evaluate athletes with LBP because it investigates the presence of serious pathology, considers the severity of the disease process, and provides matched treatment based on the athlete's clinical presentation. When treating athletes with episodes of acute LBP, pain modulation and return to daily function are the primary treatment goals. When treating athletes with episodes of chronic LBP, return to sport and prevention of recurrence are the primary treatment goals.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

The role of fear-avoidance beliefs in acute low back pain: relationships with current and future disability and work status.

Fear-avoidance beliefs have been identified as an important psychosocial variable in patients with chronic disability doe to low back pain. The importance of fear-avoidance beliefs for individuals with acute low back pain has not been explored. Seventy-eight subjects with work-related low back pain of less than 3 weeks'duration were studied. Measurements of pain intensity, physical impairment, disability, nonorganic signs and symptoms, and depression were taken at the initial evaluation. Fear-avoidance beliefs were measured with the work and physical activity subscales of the Fear-avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire. Disability and work status were re-assessed after 4 weeks of physical therapy. Patterns of correlation between fear-avoidance beliefs and other concurrently-measured variables were similar to those reported in patients with chronic low back pain. Fear-avoidance beliefs did not explain a significant amount of the variability in initial disability levels after controlling for pain intensity and physical impairment. Fear-avoidance beliefs about work were significant predictors of 4-week disability and work status even after controlling for initial levels of pain intensity, physical impairment, and disability, and the type of therapy received. Fear-avoidance beliefs are present in patients with acute low back pain, and may be an important factor in explaining the transition from acute to chronic conditions. Screening for fear-avoidance beliefs may be useful for identifying patients at risk of prolonged disability and work absence.

Acute Disease↗