In the past decade many countries around the world have produced clinical practice guidelines to assist practitioners in providing a care that is aligned with the best evidence. The aim of this study was to present and compare the most established evidence-based recommendations for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain in primary care derived from current high-quality international guidelines. Guidelines published or updated since 2002 were selected by searching PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, guidelines databases, and the World Wide Web. The methodological quality of the guidelines was assessed by three authors independently, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Instrument. Guideline recommendations were synthesized into diagnostic and therapeutic approaches that were supported by strong, moderate or weak evidence. Thirteen guidelines were included. In general, the quality was satisfactory. Guidelines had highest scores on clarity and presentation and scope and purpose domains, and lowest scores on applicability. There was a strong consensus among all the guidelines particularly regarding the use of diagnostic triage and the assessment of prognostic factors. Consistent therapeutic recommendations were information, exercise therapy, multidisciplinary treatment, and combined physical and psychological interventions. Compared to previous assessments, the average quality of the guidelines dealing with chronic low back pain has improved. Furthermore, all guidelines are increasingly aligning in providing therapeutic recommendations that are clearly differentiated from those formulated for acute pain. However, there is still a need for improving quality and generating new evidence for this particular condition.

Several clinical tests have been proposed on low back pain (LBP), but their usefulness in detecting lumbar instability is not yet clear. The objective of this literature review was to investigate the clinical validity of the main clinical tests used for the diagnosis of lumbar instability in individuals with LBP and to verify their applicability in everyday clinical practice. We searched studies of the accuracy and/or reliability of Prone Instability Test (PIT), Passive Lumbar Extension Test (PLE), Aberrant Movements Pattern (AMP), Posterior Shear Test (PST), Active Straight Leg Raise Test (ASLR) and Prone and Supine Bridge Tests (PB and SB) in Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PubMed, and Scopus databases. Only the studies in which each test was investigated by at least one study concerning both the accuracy and the reliability were considered eligible. The quality of the studies was evaluated by QUADAS and QAREL scales. Six papers considering 333 LBP patients were included. The PLE was the most accurate and informative clinical test, with high sensitivity (0.84, 95% CI: 0.69 - 0.91) and high specificity (0.90, 95% CI: 0.85 -0.97). The diagnostic accuracy of AMP depends on each singular test. The PIT and the PST demonstrated by fair to moderate sensitivity and specificity [PIT sensitivity = 0.71 (95% CI: 0.51 - 0.83), PIT specificity = 0.57 (95% CI: 039 - 0.78); PST sensitivity = 0.50 (95% CI: 0.41 - 0.76), PST specificity = 0.48 (95% CI: 0.22 - 0.58)]. The PLE showed a good reliability (k = 0.76), but this result comes from a single study. The inter-rater reliability of the PIT ranged by slight (k = 0.10 and 0.04), to good (k = 0.87). The inter-rater reliability of the AMP ranged by slight (k = −0.07) to moderate (k = 0.64), whereas the inter-rater reliability of the PST was fair (k = 0.27). The data from the studies provided information on the methods used and suggest that PLE is the most appropriate tests to detect lumbar instability in specific LBP. However, due to the lack of available papers on other lumbar conditions, these findings should be confirmed with studies on non-specific LBP patients.

Background: The aim of this non-randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of a Global Postural Reeducation (GPR) program as compared to a Stabilization Exercise (SE) program in subjects with persistent low back pain (LBP) at short- and mid-term follow-up (ie. 3 and 6 months). Methods: According to inclusion and exclusion criteria, 100 patients with a primary complaint of persistent LBP were enrolled in the study: 50 were allocated to the GPR group and 50 to the SE group. Primary outcome measures were Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcome measures were lumbar Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Fingertip-to-floor test (FFT). Data were collected at baseline and at 3/6 months by health care professionals unaware of the study. An intention to treat approach was used to analyze participants according to the group to which they were originally assigned. Results: Of the 100 patients initially included in the study, 78 patients completed the study: 42 in the GPR group and 36 in the SE group. At baseline, the two groups did not differ significantly with respect to gender, age, BMI and outcome measures. Comparing the differences between groups at short- and mid-term follow-up, the GPR group revealed a significant reduction (from baseline) in all outcome measures with respect to the SE group. The ordered logistic regression model showed an increased likelihood of definitive improvement (reduction from baseline of at least 30% in RMDQ and VAS scores) for the GPR group compared to the SE group (OR 3.9, 95% CI 2.7 to 5.7). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that a GPR intervention in subjects with persistent LBP induces a greater improvement on pain and disability as compared to a SE program. These results must be confirmed by further studies with higher methodological standards, including randomization, larger sample size, longer follow-up and subgrouping of the LBP subjects. Trial registration: NCT00789204

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions supervised by a physiotherapist in patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis, PROSPERO Protocol number CRD42020209453. Five databases (PubMed, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science Core, and EMBASE) and reference lists with relevant articles were searched. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions supervised by a physiotherapist were compared with usual care or home-based exercise programmes. Two investigators independently screened eligible studies. A total of 12 RCTs satisfied eligible criteria. The risk of bias ranged between medium and high. The meta-analysis results indicated that between supervised physiotherapy and usual care, the former was significantly associated with improvement in disease activity (standardised mean difference = −0.37, 95% CI, −0.64; −0.11; p < 0.001, I² = 71.25%, n = 629), and functional capacity (standardised mean difference = −0.36, 95% CI, −0.61; −0.12, p < 0.05; n = 629). No statistically significant differences emerged when interventions were compared with home-based exercise programmes. Supervised physiotherapy is more effective than usual care in improving disease activity, functional capacity, and pain in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. No significant improvements emerged when supervised physiotherapy and home-based exercise programmes were compared. Further investigation and RCTs with larger samples are needed.

Evaluation of the psychometric properties of a translated and culturally adapted questionnaire. Translating, culturally adapting, and validating the Italian version of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ-I) to allow its use with Italian-speaking patients with low-back pain (LBP). Growing attention is being given to standardized outcome measures to improve interventions for LBP. A translated form of the FABQ has never been validated in Italian patients with LBP. The FABQ-I questionnaire was developed by means of forward-backward translation, a final review by an expert committee, and a test of the prefinal version to establish its correspondence with the original English version. The psychometric testing included factor analysis, reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach α) and test-retest reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation), convergent validity by comparing FABQ-I with the Italian version of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-I), and discriminant validity by comparing FABQ-I with a visual analogue scale, the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (Pearson correlation). It took 4 months to develop a shared version of the FABQ-I. The questionnaire was administered to 180 subjects and proved to be acceptable. Factor analysis revealed a 2-factor, 12-item solution (57% of explained variance). The questionnaire showed good internal consistency (α = 0.822) and high test-retest reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation = 0.869). Convergent validity showed a moderate correlation with TSK-I (r = 0.440), and discriminant validity showed moderate-poor correlations with a visual analogue scale (r = 0.335), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (r = 0.414), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (r = 0.258 for the Anxiety score and r = 0.246 for the Depression score). The results of the psychometric analyses of the subscales were similar to those of the scale as a whole. The FABQ outcome measure was successfully translated into Italian and proved to have a good factorial structure and psychometric properties that replicated the results of other existing versions. Its use is recommended for research purposes.

Neck pain is one of the most common musculoskeletal disorders in clinical practice. However neck pain may mask more serious pathology. Although uncommon in most musculoskeletal physiotherapy practices, it is possible to encounter rare and extremely life-threatening conditions, such as craniovertebral congenital anomalies. Basilar invagination is an abnormality where the odontoid peg projects above the foramen magnum and is the commonest malformation of the craniocervical junction. Its prevalence in the general population is estimated to be 1 %. Furthermore, it is a well-recognised cause of neck pain insomuch as it can be easily overlooked and mistaken for a musculoskeletal disorder. Diagnosis is based on the patient’s symptoms in conjunction with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). If life-threatening symptoms, or pressure on the spinal cord are present, the recommended treatment is typically surgical correction. This case report describes the history, relevant examination findings, and clinical reasoning used for a 37 year old male who had the chief complaint of neck pain and occipital headache. After the history and the physical examination, there were several key indicators in the patient’s presentation that appeared to warrant further investigation with diagnostic imaging: (1) the drop attack after a triggering event (i.e., heading a football), (2) several episodes of facial numbness immediately and shortly after the trauma, (3) the poorly defined muscle upper extremity muscle weakness, and (4) the modification of symptoms during the modified Sharp-Purser test. Therefore, the decision was made to contact the referring neurosurgeon to discuss the patient’s history and his physical examination. The physician requested immediate cervical spine MRI, which revealed a “basilar impression”. This case report highlights the need for more research into a number of issues surrounding the prevalence, diagnosis, and the central role of primary care clinicians such as physiotherapists. Furthermore it underlines the importance of including Basilar invagination in the differential diagnosis. Physiotherapists working within a direct access environment must take a comprehensive history and be capable of screening for non-musculoskeletal medical conditions (on a systems, not diagnosis level) in order to avoid providing potentially harmful musculoskeletal treatments (e.g., cervical mobilization or manipulation, stretching, exercise) to patients with sinister medical pathologies, not benign musculoskeletal disorders.