Eduardo B. Cruz

Prof. Eduardo B. Cruz

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

15Years (2012-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
8 September 2014 in Clinical Rehabilitation
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
DPDiogo Pires
Diogo Pires
ECEduardo B. Cruz
Eduardo B. Cruz
CCCarmen Caeiro
Carmen Caeiro
The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a combination of aquatic exercise and pain neurophysiology education with aquatic exercise alone in chronic low back pain patients. Single-blind randomized controlled trial. Outpatient clinic. Sixty-two chronic low back pain patients were randomly allocated to receive aquatic exercise and pain neurophysiology education (n = 30) or aquatic exercise alone (n = 32). Twelve sessions of a 6-week aquatic exercise programme preceded by 2 sessions of pain neurophysiology education. Controls received only 12 sessions of the 6-week aquatic exercise programme. The primary outcomes were pain intensity (Visual Analogue Scale) and functional disability (Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale) at the baseline, 6 weeks after the beginning of the aquatic exercise programme and at the 3 months follow-up. Secondary outcome was kinesiophobia (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia). Fifty-five participants completed the study. Analysis using mixed-model ANOVA revealed a significant treatment condition interaction on pain intensity at the 3 months follow-up, favoring the education group (mean SD change: −25.4± 26.7 vs −6.6 ± 30.7, P < 0.005). Although participants in the education group were more likely to report perceived functional benefits from treatment at 3 months follow-up (RR=1.63, 95%CI: 1.01–2.63), no significant differences were found in functional disability and kinesiophobia between groups at any time. This study’s findings support the provision of pain neurophysiology education as a clinically effective addition to aquatic exercise.

1 June 2012 in Manual Therapy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ECEduardo B. Cruz
Eduardo B. Cruz
AMAnn Moore
Ann Moore
VCVinette Cross
Vinette Cross

27 March 2022 in Sensors
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AMAna S. C. Melo
Ana S. C. Melo
ECEduardo B. Cruz
Eduardo B. Cruz
João Paulo Vilas-BoasJoão Paulo Vilas-Boas
João Paulo Vilas-Boas
Andreia S. P. S. P. SousaAndreia S. P. S. P. Sousa
Andreia S. P. S. P. Sousa
Several tools have been used to assess muscular stiffness. Myotonometry stands out as an accessible, handheld, and easy to use tool. The purpose of this review was to summarize the psychometric properties and methodological considerations of myotonometry and its applicability in assessing scapular muscles. Myotonometry seems to be a reliable method to assess several muscles stiffness, as trapezius. This method has been demonstrated fair to moderate correlation with passive stiffness measured by shear wave elastography for several muscles, as well as with level of muscle contraction, pinch and muscle strength, Action Research Arm Test score and muscle or subcutaneous thickness. Myotonometry can detect scapular muscles stiffness differences between pre- and post-intervention in painful conditions and, sometimes, between symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects.

27 March 2020 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ECEduardo B. Cruz
Eduardo B. Cruz
HCHelena Canhao
Helena Canhao
RFRita Fernandes
Rita Fernandes
CCCarmen Caeiro
Carmen Caeiro
Jaime BrancoJaime Branco
Jaime Branco
CNCarla Nunes
Carla Nunes
Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is the most prevalent musculoskeletal condition in western countries and is associated with persistent disability and high consumption of health care resources. NSLBP patients first seek primary health care services but the outcomes are often uncertain. This study aimed to examine the clinical course of the outcomes and to identify prognostic indicators for poor outcomes in NSLBP patients who consulted primary care. A prospective cohort study of 115 patients seeking treatment for NSLBP in primary care was conducted. Participants were consecutively recruited by their General Practitioners (GPs) and then assessed at baseline and 2 and 6 months later. Baseline assessment included socio-demographic and clinical data, psychosocial factors, pain, disability, and health related quality of life (HRQoL). Pain, disability, HRQoL and global perception of change were also assessed at 2 and 6-months’ follow-up. In addition, information regarding the GP’ practice was collected. Poor outcomes were determined according to the cut-off point used to define a persistent disabling condition and the minimal important change established for disability, pain and for global perception of change. The relationship between variables on baseline and poor outcomes was modulated through binary logistic regression analysis. The significance of associations was evaluated at ≤ 0.05 p-value with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and adjusted odds ratios (AOR). 110 (94.8%) and 104 (89.7%) participants completed the follow-up assessment at 2 and 6 months, respectively. The mean age (±SD) was 48.06 ± 11.41, with 53.9%, (N = 62) reporting an acute presentation of NSLBP. Six months after GP consultation, 53.8% (N = 56) of the participants reported a persistent disabling condition. An “LBP episode of less than 12 weeks” [AOR: 0.26; 95% CI (0.10, 0.65); AOR: 0.34; 95% CI (0.14, 0.81); AOR: 0.21; 95% CI (0.09, 0.53)],”maladaptive psychosocial factors” [AOR: 2.06; 95% CI (1.40, 3.04); AOR: 1.82; 95% CI (1.27, 2.59); AOR: 1.72; 95% CI (1.20, 2.47)] were significantly associated with poor outcomes on disability, pain and global perception of change, respectively. Besides these factors, being employed reduces the chances of poor outcomes on disability [AOR 0.31; 95% CI (0.11, 0.92)]. A large proportion of LBP patients seeking primary health care reported poor outcomes 6 months after GP consultation. Patients who report chronic LBP, maladaptive psychosocial factors and are unemployed have a significant increase in the risk of poor outcome. These findings suggest the need of implementing effective models of care able to provide early screening and appropriate treatment to those at greatest risk of a poor outcome. Current Controlled Trials NCT04046874 (August 6, 2019). Retrospectively registered.

24 September 2019 in Clinical Rehabilitation
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
LDLucia Domingues
Lucia Domingues
FPFernando Manuel Pimentel-Santos
Fernando Manuel Pimentel-Santos
ECEduardo B. Cruz
Eduardo B. Cruz
ASAna Cristina Sousa
Ana Cristina Sousa
ASAna Santos
Ana Santos
Jaime BrancoJaime Branco
Jaime Branco
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a combined intervention of manual therapy and exercise (MET) versus usual care (UC), on disability, pain intensity and global perceived recovery, in patients with non-specific chronic neck pain (CNP). Design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: Outpatient care units. Subjects: Sixty-four non-specific CNP patients were randomly allocated to MET ( n = 32) or UC ( n = 32) groups. Interventions: Participants in the MET group received 12 sessions of mobilization and exercise, whereas the UC group received 15 sessions of usual care in physiotherapy. Main measures: The primary outcome was disability (Neck Disability Index). The secondary outcomes were pain intensity (Numeric Pain Rating Scale) and global perceived recovery (Patient Global Impression Change). Patients were assessed at baseline, three weeks, six weeks (end of treatment) and at a three-month follow-up. Results: Fifty-eight participants completed the study. No significant between-group difference was observed on disability and pain intensity at baseline. A significant between-group difference was observed on disability at three-week, six-week and three-month follow-up (median (P25–P75): 6 (3.25–9.81) vs. 15.5 (11.28–20.75); P < 0.001), favouring the MET group. Regarding pain intensity, a significant between-group difference was observed at six-week and three-month follow-up (median (P25–P75): 2 (1–2.51) vs. 5 (3.33–6); P < 0.001), with superiority of effect in MET group. Concerning the global perceived recovery, a significant between-group difference was observed only at the three-month follow-up ( P = 0.001), favouring the MET group. Conclusion: This study’s findings suggest that a combination of manual therapy and exercise is more effective than usual care on disability, pain intensity and global perceived recovery.

1 December 2012 in Manual Therapy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ECEduardo B. Cruz
Eduardo B. Cruz
AMAnn P. Moore
Ann P. Moore
VCVinette Cross
Vinette Cross