We present a systematic review of prospective cohort studies. Our aim was to assess prognostic factors associated with functional recovery of patients with whiplash injuries. The failure of some patients to recover following whiplash injury has been linked to a number of prognostic factors. However, there is some inconsistency in the literature and there have been no systematic attempts to analyze the level of evidence for prognostic factors in whiplash recovery. Studies were selected for inclusion following a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the database of the Dutch Institute of Allied Health Professions up until April 2002 and hand searches of the reference lists of retrieved articles. Studies were selected if the objective was to assess prognostic factors associated with recovery; the design was a prospective cohort study; the study population included at least an identifiable subgroup of patients suffering from a whiplash injury; and the paper was a full report published in English, German, French or Dutch. The methodological quality was independently assessed by two reviewers. A study was considered to be of 'high quality' if it satisfied at least 50% of the maximum available quality score. Two independent reviewers extracted data and the association between prognostic factors and functional recovery was calculated in terms of risk estimates. Fifty papers reporting on twenty-nine cohorts were included in the review. Twelve cohorts were considered to be of 'high quality'. Because of the heterogeneity of patient selection, type of prognostic factors and outcome measures, no statistical pooling was able to be performed. Strong evidence was found for high initial pain intensity being an adverse prognostic factor. There was strong evidence that for older age, female gender, high acute psychological response, angular deformity of the neck, rear-end collision, and compensation not being associated with an adverse prognosis. Several physical (e.g. restricted range of motion, high number of complaints), psychosocial (previous psychological problems), neuropsychosocial factors (nervousness), crash related (e.g. accident on highway) and treatment related factors (need to resume physiotherapy) showed limited prognostic value for functional recovery. High initial pain intensity is an important predictor for delayed functional recovery for patients with whiplash injury. Often mentioned factors like age, gender and compensation do not seem to be of prognostic value. Scientific information about prognostic factors can guide physicians or other care providers to direct treatment and to probably prevent chronicity.

The Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF) issued a clinical practice guideline for physical therapists that addresses the assessment and treatment of patients with nonspecific neck pain, including cervical radiculopathy, in Dutch primary care. Recommendations were based on a review of published systematic reviews. During the intake, the patient is screened for serious pathologies and corresponding patterns. Patients with cervical radiculopathy can be included or excluded through corresponding signs and symptoms and possibly diagnostic tests (Spurling test, traction/distraction test, and Upper Limb Tension Test). History taking is done to gather information about patients’ limitations, course of pain, and prognostic factors (eg, coping style) and answers to health-related questions. In case of a normal recovery (treatment profile A), management should be hands-off, and patients should receive advice from the physical therapist and possibly some simple exercises to supplement “acting as usual.” In case of a delayed/deviant recovery (treatment profile B), the physical therapist is advised to use, in addition to the recommendations for treatment profile A, forms of mobilization and/or manipulation in combination with exercise therapy. Other interventions may also be considered. The physical therapist is advised not to use dry needling, low-level laser, electrotherapy, ultrasound, traction, and/or a cervical collar. In case of a delayed/deviant recovery with clear and/or dominant psychosocial prognostic factors (treatment profile C), these factors should first be addressed by the physical therapist, when possible, or the patient should be referred to a specialist, when necessary. In case of neck pain grade III (treatment profile D), the therapy resembles that for profile B, but the use of a cervical collar for pain reduction may be considered. The advice is to use it sparingly: only for a short period per day and only for a few weeks.

The objective of our prospective inception cohort study was to identify prognostic factors for poor recovery in patients with whiplash-associated disorders grade 1 or 2 who still had neck pain and accompanying complaints 2 weeks after the accident. The study was carried out in a primary health care setting in The Netherlands and included 125 patients. The primary outcome measure was functional recovery defined in terms of neck pain intensity or work disability without medication use. The secondary outcome measures included neck pain intensity, work disability and sick leave. The outcomes were assessed at 4, 12 and 52 weeks after the accident. Prognostic factors were identified by logistic regression analyses. One year after the injury, 64% of the patients were recovered. Factors related to poor recovery were female gender, a low level of education, high initial neck pain, more severe disability, higher levels of somatisation and sleep difficulties. Neck pain intensity and work disability proved to be the most consistent predictors for poor recovery. The accuracy of the predictions of the prognostic models was high, meaning that the models adequately distinguished patients with poor recovery from those regarded as recovered. These findings add to the growing body of evidence, indicating that socio-demographic, physical and psychological factors affect short- and long-term outcome after whiplash injury. Our findings also indicate that care providers can easily identify patients at risk for poor recovery with a visual analogue scale for initial pain intensity and work-related activities.

The aim of this study was to review information about risk factors for lower extremity running injuries in both short-distance (mean running distance ≤20 km/week and ≤10 km/session) and long-distance runners (mean running distance >20 km/week and >10 km/session). Electronic databases were searched for articles published up to February 2019. Prospective cohort studies using multivariable analysis for the assessment of individual risk factors or risk models for the occurrence of lower extremity running injuries were included. Two reviewers independently selected studies for eligibility and assessed risk of bias with the Quality in Prognostic Studies Tool. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the evidence. A total of 29 studies were included: 17 studies focused on short-distance runners, 11 studies focused on long-distance runners, and 1 study focused on both types of runners. A previous running-related injury was the strongest risk factor for an injury for long-distance runners, with moderate-quality evidence. Previous injuries not attributed to running was the strongest risk factor for an injury for short-distance runners, with high-quality evidence. Higher body mass index, higher age, sex (male), having no previous running experience, and lower running volume were strong risk factors, with moderate quality evidence, for short-distance runners. Low-quality evidence was found for all risk models as predictors of running-related injuries among short- and long-distance runners. Several risk factors for lower extremity injuries have been identified among short- and long-distance runners, but the quality of evidence for these risk factors for running-related injuries is limited. Running injuries seem to have a multifactorial origin both in short- and long-distance runners.

In clinical practice, the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy is based on information from the patient's history, physical examination, and diagnostic imaging. Various physical tests may be performed, but their diagnostic accuracy is unknown. This study aimed to summarize and update the evidence on diagnostic performance of tests carried out during a physical examination for the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy. A review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests was carried out. The study sample comprised diagnostic studies comparing results of tests performed during a physical examination in diagnosing cervical radiculopathy with a reference standard of imaging or surgical findings. Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios are presented, together with pooled results for sensitivity and specificity. A literature search up to March 2016 was performed in CENTRAL, PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2. Five diagnostic accuracy studies were identified. Only Spurling's test was evaluated in more than one study, showing high specificity ranging from 0.89 to 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-1.00); sensitivity varied from 0.38 to 0.97 (95% CI: 0.21-0.99). No studies were found that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of widely used neurological tests such as key muscle strength, tendon reflexes, and sensory impairments. There is limited evidence for accuracy of physical examination tests for the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy. When consistent with patient history, clinicians may use a combination of Spurling's, axial traction, and an Arm Squeeze test to increase the likelihood of a cervical radiculopathy, whereas a combined results of four negative neurodynamics tests and an Arm Squeeze test could be used to rule out the disorder.