44
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Spinal and sacroiliac assessment and treatment techniques used by osteopathic physicians in the United States

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Osteopathic manipulative medicine texts and educators advocate a range of approaches for physical assessment and treatment, but little is known about their use by osteopathic physicians in the United States.

          Methods

          A web-based survey using a 5-point Likert scale was developed and e-mailed to 777 practicing osteopathic physician members of the American Academy of Osteopathy. Responses in the "frequently" and "always" categories were combined for reporting purposes. Friedman tests were used to analyze the reported usage of each item. The effect of gender was analyzed using Mann-Whitney tests.

          Results

          One hundred seventy-one osteopathic physicians completed the survey (22%). For the assessment of spinal somatic dysfunction, paraspinal tissue texture (98%), transverse process asymmetry (89%), and tenderness (85%) were most commonly reported. Myofascial release (78%), soft tissue technique (77%), and patient self-stretches (71%) were most commonly used for treatment of the spine. For assessment of pelvic landmark asymmetry, the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS, 87%), sacral base (82%), posterior superior iliac spine (81%), sacral sulci (78%), iliac crests (77%), and inferior lateral angle of the sacrum (74%) were commonly palpated. For assessment of sacroiliac joint motion, ASIS compression (68%) was most commonly used. Sacroiliac pain provocation tests were also employed although their use was less common than asymmetry or motion tests. Muscle energy (70%), myofascial release (67%), patient self-stretches (66%), osteopathy in the cranial field (59%), muscle strengthening exercises (58%), soft tissue technique (58%), and articulatory technique (53%) were most commonly used for treatment of the pelvis and sacroiliac. The effect of gender was significant for many of the treatment procedures, with females using more soft tissue and muscle energy and males more high-velocity techniques. The majority of respondents document the types of osteopathic manipulative techniques used (83%), document somatic dysfunction with Fryette nomenclature (64%), and bill for osteopathic manipulative treatment (92%).

          Conclusion

          Respondents reported the use of a broad range of assessment and treatment approaches. Results suggest a higher use of myofascial release and cranial technique and lower use of high-velocity techniques in this group of physicians compared to previous studies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Reliability of spinal palpation for diagnosis of back and neck pain: a systematic review of the literature.

          A systematic review. To determine the quality of the research and assess the interexaminer and intraexaminer reliability of spinal palpatory diagnostic procedures. Conflicting data have been reported over the past 35 years regarding the reliability of spinal palpatory tests. The authors used 13 electronic databases and manually searched the literature from January 1, 1966 to October 1, 2001. Forty-nine (6%) of 797 primary research articles met the inclusion criteria. Two blinded, independent reviewers scored each article. Consensus or a content expert reconciled discrepancies. The quality scores ranged from 25 to 79/100. Subject description, study design, and presentation of results were the weakest areas. The 12 highest quality articles found pain provocation, motion, and landmark location tests to have acceptable reliability (K = 0.40 or greater), but they were not always reproducible by other examiners under similar conditions. In those that used kappa statistics, a higher percentage of the pain provocation studies (64%) demonstrated acceptable reliability, followed by motion studies (58%), landmark (33%), and soft tissue studies (0%). Regional range of motion is more reliable than segmental range of motion, and intraexaminer reliability is better than interexaminer reliability. Overall, examiners' discipline, experience level, consensus on procedure used, training just before the study, or use of symptomatic subjects do not improve reliability. The quality of the research on interreliability and intrareliability of spinal palpatory diagnostic procedures needs to be improved. Pain provocation tests are most reliable. Soft tissue paraspinal palpatory diagnostic tests are not reliable.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee of the American College of Physicians American College of Physicians American Pain Society Low Back Pain Guidelines Panel. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Clinical tests of the sacroiliac joint. A systematic methodological review. Part 1: Reliability.

              In the literature concerning the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) there are numerous specific tests used to detect joint mobility or pain provocation. In this article the authors have reviewed 11 studies which investigated the reliability of these tests. The methodological quality of the studies was tested by a list of criteria developed by the authors. This list consisted of three categories: (1) study population, (2) test procedures and (3) test results. To each criterion a weighting was attached. The methodological score for nine out of the 11 studies was found to be acceptable. The results of this review, however, could not demonstrate reliable outcomes and therefore no evidence on which to base acceptance of mobility tests of the SIJ into daily clinical practice. There are no indications that 'upgrading' of methodological quality would have improved the final conclusions. With respect to pain provocation tests, the findings did not show the same trend. Two studies demonstrated reliable results using the Gaenslen test and the Thigh thrust test. One study showed acceptable reliability for five other pain provocation tests; however, since other authors have described contradictory results, there is a necessity for further research in this area with an emphasis on multiple test scores and pain provocation tests of the SIJ. Copyright 2000 Harcourt Publishers Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Osteopath Med Prim Care
                Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care
                BioMed Central
                1750-4732
                2009
                14 April 2009
                : 3
                : 4
                Affiliations
                [1 ]AT Still Research Institute, AT Still University, Kirksville, MO, USA
                [2 ]Department of Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine, Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine, Kirksville, MO, USA
                [3 ]School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia
                Article
                1750-4732-3-4
                10.1186/1750-4732-3-4
                2676310
                19366458
                d25dc51a-0349-4e95-9602-1c63fd6ee8f1
                Copyright © 2009 Fryer et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 24 December 2008
                : 14 April 2009
                Categories
                Research

                Complementary & Alternative medicine
                Complementary & Alternative medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article