Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy 

About: Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy is an academic journal published by Maney Publishing. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Manual therapy & Low back pain. It has an ISSN identifier of 1066-9817. Over the lifetime, 889 publications have been published receiving 17153 citations. The journal is also known as: JMMT & Journal of manual and manipulative therapy.

Global Rating of Change Scales: A Review of Strengths and Weaknesses and Considerations for Design

Abstract: Most clinicians ask their patients to rate whether their health condition has improved or deteriorated over time and then use this information to guide management decisions. Many studies also use patient-rated change as an outcome measure to determine the efficacy of a particular treatment. Global rating of change (GRC) scales provide a method of obtaining this information in a manner that is quick, flexible, and efficient. As with any outcome measure, however, meaningful interpretation of results can only be undertaken with due consideration of the clinimetric properties, strengths, and weaknesses of the instrument. The purpose of this article is to summarize this information to assist appropriate interpretation of the GRC results and to provide evidence-informed advice to guide design and administration of GRC scales. These considerations are relevant and applicable to the use of GRC scales both in the clinic and in research.

Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID)

Abstract: Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) scores are commonly used by clinicians when determining patient response to treatment and to guide clinical decision-making during the course of treatment. For research purposes, the MCID score is often used in sample size calculations for adequate powering of a study to minimize the false-positives (type 1 errors) and the false-negatives (type 2 errors). For clinicians and researchers alike, it is critical that the MCID score is a valid and stable measure. A low MCID value may result in overestimating the positive effects of treatment, whereas a high MCID value may incorrectly classify patients as failing to respond to treatment when in fact the treatment was beneficial. The wide range of methodologies for calculating the MCID score results in varied outcomes, which leads to difficulties with interpretation and application. This clinimetrics corner outlines key factors influencing MCID estimates and discusses limitations with the use of the MCID in both clinical and research practice settings.

Clinimetrics Corner: The Minimal Clinically Important Change Score (MCID): A Necessary Pretense

Abstract: Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) are patient derived scores that reflect changes in a clinical intervention that are meaningful for the patient. At present, there are a number of different methods to obtain an MCID, as there a number of different factors that can influence the MCID value. This clinimetric corner outlines the hidden challenges associated with identifying a viable MCID and possible suggestions to improve the future development of these single scores.

Evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of the painful sacroiliac joint.

Abstract: Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain refers to the pain arising from the SIJ joint structures. SIJ dysfunction generally refers to aberrant position or movement of SIJ structures that may or may not result in pain. This paper aims to clarify the difference between these clinical concepts and present current available evidence regarding diagnosis and treatment of SIJ disorders. Tests for SIJ dysfunction generally have poor inter-examiner reliability. A reference standard for SIJ dysfunction is not readily available, so validity of the tests for this disorder is unknown. Tests that stress the SIJ in order to provoke familiar pain have acceptable inter-examiner reliability and have clinically useful validity against an acceptable reference standard. It is unknown if provocation tests can reliably identify extra-articular SIJ sources of pain. Three or more positive pain provocation SIJ tests have sensitivity and specificity of 91% and 78%, respectively. Specificity of three or more positive tests increases to 87% in patients whose symptoms cannot be made to move towards the spinal midline, i.e., centralize. In chronic back pain populations, patients who have three or more positive provocation SIJ tests and whose symptoms cannot be made to centralize have a probability of having SIJ pain of 77%, and in pregnant populations with back pain, a probability of 89%. This combination of test findings could be used in research to evaluate the efficacy of specific treatments for SIJ pain. Treatments most likely to be effective are specific lumbopelvic stabilization training and injections of corticosteroid into the intra-articular space.

Dry needling — peripheral and central considerations

Abstract: Dry needling is a common treatment technique in orthopedic manual physical therapy. Although various dry needling approaches exist, the more common and best supported approach targets myofascial trigger points. This article aims to place trigger point dry needling within the context of pain sciences. From a pain science perspective, trigger points are constant sources of peripheral nociceptive input leading to peripheral and central sensitization. Dry needling cannot only reverse some aspects of central sensitization, it reduces local and referred pain, improves range of motion and muscle activation pattern, and alters the chemical environment of trigger points. Trigger point dry needling should be based on a thorough understanding of the scientific background of trigger points, the differences and similarities between active and latent trigger points, motor adaptation, and central sensitize application. Several outcome studies are included, as well as comments on dry needling and acupuncture.