Shoulder PainPhase 2NCT00835302
Development of a Clinical Prediction Rule to Identify Patients With Shoulder Pain Likely to Benefit From Cervicothoracic Manipulation
A Phase 2 study testing Cervicothoracic manipulation in people with Shoulder Pain, run by University of Colorado, Denver at 6 sites in United States.
Trial summary
The investigators seek to develop a clinical prediction rule (CPR) to identify patients with a primary complaint of shoulder pain who are likely to benefit from manual therapy to the neck and upper back regions. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Shoulder Pain
- What is being tested?
- Cervicothoracic manipulation
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 80 participants
- Where
- 6 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- Oct 2006to Mar 2009
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Primary complaint of shoulder pain (defined as pain between the neck and the elbow at rest or during movement of the upper arm, see diagram at right)
- Age between 18-65 years old
- Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score greater than 20 points (full description of this measure provided in self report measures section)
Who cannot join
- Medical red flags noted in the patient's Medical Screening Questionnaire(i.e. tumor, fracture, metabolic diseases, RA, osteoporosis, weight loss, fever, prolonged history of steroid use, etc.)
- Acute fractures in the shoulder region.
- Acute severe trauma to the cervical (neck) or thoracic (upper back) regions in the last 6 weeks.
- Contraindications to manipulative therapy (for example osteoporosis of the cervicothoracic spine).
- Evidence of central nervous system involvement, to include hyperreflexia, sensory disturbances in the hand, intrinsic muscle wasting of the hands, unsteadiness during walking, nystagmus, loss of visual acuity, impaired sensation of the face, altered taste, the presence of pathological reflexes (i.e. positive Hoffman's and/or Babinski reflexes), etc.
- Diagnosis of cervical spinal stenosis or bilateral upper extremity symptoms
Show all 11Show fewer
- Two or more positive neurologic signs consistent with nerve root compression, including any two of the following:
- Muscle weakness involving a major muscle group of the upper extremity Diminished upper extremity muscle stretch reflex (biceps brachii, brachioradialis, or triceps brachii reflexes) Diminished or absent sensation to pinprick in any upper extremity dermatome
- Prior surgery to the neck or thoracic spine involving fusion or open reduction internal fixation.
- Insufficient English language skills to complete all questionnaires as they have only been validated in English.
- Inability to comply with treatment and follow-up schedule
Trial locations and contacts
6 sites in 1 country.
6 sites in 1 country
United States6 sites
University of Colorado Denver
Aurora, Colorado, 80045
Wardenburg Health Center
Boulder, Colorado, 80030
Concord Hospital
Concord, New Hampshire
Physiotherapy Associates
Greenwood Village, Colorado
Newton Wellesley Hospital
Newton, Massachusetts
Groves Physical Therapy
Saint Paul, Minnesota
About this study
The investigators seek to develop a clinical prediction rule (CPR) to identify patients with a primary complaint of shoulder pain who are likely to benefit from manual therapy to the neck and upper back regions. Manual therapy will include mobilizations (therapist moves the joints in an oscillating fashion) and manipulations (therapist performs a high velocity low amplitude movement) The investigators hypothesize that a cluster of signs and symptoms from the subject history and physical examination will exist that maximize the accuracy of identifying patients with a primary complaint of shoulder pain likely to benefit from this manual therapy treatment based on a reference standard of patient-reported improvement.
The investigators also seek to investigate the psychometric properties (how good a test is), including test retest reliability of a modified version of the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and the shortened Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK-11) in patients with shoulder pain. The investigators will also look at the convergent validity (determine if measures that should be related are in reality related) and discriminant validity (show that measures that should not be related are in reality not related) of the modified FABQ and the TSK-11 in patients with shoulder pain.
Read the detailed description
The point prevalence of shoulder symptoms has been reported to range from 20-33% and the incidence of shoulder complaints in the general population is increasing. Furthermore, several authors have reported low rates of perceived recovery (patient reports of "being cured") for patients with a new episode of shoulder or neck pain.3-6 According to Bot et al, less than 25% of patients with a first episode of shoulder pain reported recovery after 3 months, and only 32% stated they had recovered (no longer had symptoms) after 1 year. Other studies have investigated the prognosis of shoulder pain in general practice. Croft et al reported recovery rates of only 21% after 6 months and 49% after 18 months. Van der Windt et al and Winters et al reported recovery rates of 51% and 59% after 12 to 18 months, respectively. Finally, Rekola et al reported that 25% of patients with shoulder or neck pain experienced at least one episode of recurrence within 12 months. These findings suggest that shoulder pain can be recurrent and frequently progresses to the chronic stage.
The Guide to Physical Therapist Practice describes 5 components of patient management; examination, evaluation, diagnosis, prognosis, interventions and outcomes. Information collected during the examination is evaluated in an attempt to improve decision making regarding the most appropriate treatment strategy for the individual patient. Contrary to the medical model which attempts to identify pathology to arrive at a diagnosis, the diagnostic process in physical therapy involves classifying or labeling patients based on functional limitations (restrictions in activities caused by a certain condition) and impairments (loss or abnormality in function such as decreased strength or motion) in an attempt to specifically direct treatment. Clinical decision making regarding treatment involves a certain degree of uncertainty as to which interventions will maximize individual patient outcomes. While the amount of quality evidence supporting physical therapy interventions is increasing, this uncertainty can make it difficult to decide on an appropriate treatment strategy. The American Physical Therapy Association has stated that identifying subgroups of patients who are likely to benefit from specific treatments is a research priority. (APTA) The Guide to Physical Therapist Practice indicates that interventions such as mobilization/manipulation are utilized by physical therapists to manage patients who have shoulder pain. There is growing evidence that impairments in the cervicothoracic spine may contribute to shoulder pain, and that patients with shoulder pain may benefit from manipulation in this region. Manipulation is defined as a manual therapy technique comprising a continuum of skilled passive movements, including small-amplitude/high velocity movements (thrust) and oscillations (non-thrust), that is targeted at joints and soft tissues.
While it is not likely that all patients who have with shoulder pain will benefit from manipulation (thrust and non-thrust) of the cervicothoracic spine, it is possible that a subgroup exists that will experience rapid and dramatic improvement with the use of these manual physical therapy techniques. It is our specific aim to develop a clinical prediction rule (CPR) to identify patients with a primary complaint of shoulder pain who are likely to benefit from cervicothoracic manipulation. The purpose of a CPR is to improve the clinician's accuracy in predicting a diagnosis or an expected outcome. For example, CPRs exist to improve the accuracy of diagnosing ankle fractures in individuals with acute injuries,predict the likelihood of death within four years for individuals with coronary disease, or determine when cervical radiographs are required for patients who have experienced neck trauma. The process of developing and testing a CPR has been described in detail elsewhere. Although CPRs can be developed to improve the accuracy of making a certain diagnosis, the focus of this project is to develop a CPR to predict a certain treatment outcome. The development of a CPR utilizes diagnostic properties of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios, which are based on the individual patient. Thus their interpretation can be readily applied to an individual patient. Development of a CPR to accurately predict which patients with shoulder pain will likely experience a clinically meaningful improvement in pain and function with cervicothoracic spine manipulation before treatment would be immensely helpful for clinicians in the decision-making process. Thus the purpose of this project is to develop a CPR to identify patients with shoulder pain likely to benefit from cervicothoracic spine thrust and non-thrust manipulation.
- Conditions
- Shoulder Pain
- Being tested
- Cervicothoracic manipulation
- Keywords
- Cervical, Thoracic, Manipulation, Mobilization, Clinical prediction rule, Shoulder pain.
- Medical subject headings
- Shoulder Pain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Cervicothoracic manipulationProcedure or surgery
Also called Mobilization
Thrust and non-thrust manipulation to the cervical and thoracic spine
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Manipulation + Exercise Group | Experimental | Cervicothoracic manipulation and ROM exercises Receives: Procedure: Cervicothoracic manipulation |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Global Rating of Change (GROC)
Measured: 7 days
Secondary outcomes (3)
Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI)
Measured: 7 days
Numerical Pain Rating Scale
Measured: 7 days
Painfree Shoulder Range of Motion
Measured: 7 days
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted3 Feb 2009 (estimated)
- Study startOct 2006
- Primary completionDec 2008
- Study completionMar 2009
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Shoulder PainStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of Colorado, DenverThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 80 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Colorado, Denver
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00835302
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 08-0220
- Other IDs
- 1543340
- Status last verified
- Feb 2009
- First submitted
- 2 Feb 2009
- Last updated
- 30 Jan 2013
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Mintken PE, Cleland JA, Whitman JM, George SZ. Psychometric properties of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire and Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia in patients with shoulder pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010 Jul;91(7):1128-36. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.04.009.
PubMed 20599053Mintken PE, Cleland JA, Carpenter KJ, Bieniek ML, Keirns M, Whitman JM. Some factors predict successful short-term outcomes in individuals with shoulder pain receiving cervicothoracic manipulation: a single-arm trial. Phys Ther. 2010 Jan;90(1):26-42. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20090095. Epub 2009 Dec 3.
PubMed 19959652
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 30 Jan 2013. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Development of a Clinical Prediction Rule to Identify Patients With Shoulder Pain Likely to Benefit From Cervicothoracic Manipulation
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00835302
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 08-0220
- Conditions
- Shoulder Pain
- Keywords
- Cervical, Thoracic, Manipulation, Mobilization, Clinical prediction rule, Shoulder pain.
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 80 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Colorado, DenverUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Oct 2006
- Primary completion
- Dec 2008 (actual)
- Study completion
- Mar 2009 (actual)
- First posted
- 3 Feb 2009 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The investigators seek to develop a clinical prediction rule (CPR) to identify patients with a primary complaint of shoulder pain who are likely to benefit from manual therapy to the neck and upper back regions. Manual therapy will include mobilizations (therapist moves the joints in an oscillating fashion) and manipulations (therapist performs a high velocity low amplitude movement) The investigators hypothesize that a cluster of signs and symptoms from the subject history and physical examination will exist that maximize the accuracy of identifying patients with a primary complaint of shoulder pain likely to benefit from this manual therapy treatment based on a reference standard of patient-reported improvement.
The investigators also seek to investigate the psychometric properties (how good a test is), including test retest reliability of a modified version of the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and the shortened Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK-11) in patients with shoulder pain. The investigators will also look at the convergent validity (determine if measures that should be related are in reality related) and discriminant validity (show that measures that should not be related are in reality not related) of the modified FABQ and the TSK-11 in patients with shoulder pain.
Detailed description
The point prevalence of shoulder symptoms has been reported to range from 20-33% and the incidence of shoulder complaints in the general population is increasing. Furthermore, several authors have reported low rates of perceived recovery (patient reports of "being cured") for patients with a new episode of shoulder or neck pain.3-6 According to Bot et al, less than 25% of patients with a first episode of shoulder pain reported recovery after 3 months, and only 32% stated they had recovered (no longer had symptoms) after 1 year. Other studies have investigated the prognosis of shoulder pain in general practice. Croft et al reported recovery rates of only 21% after 6 months and 49% after 18 months. Van der Windt et al and Winters et al reported recovery rates of 51% and 59% after 12 to 18 months, respectively. Finally, Rekola et al reported that 25% of patients with shoulder or neck pain experienced at least one episode of recurrence within 12 months. These findings suggest that shoulder pain can be recurrent and frequently progresses to the chronic stage.
The Guide to Physical Therapist Practice describes 5 components of patient management; examination, evaluation, diagnosis, prognosis, interventions and outcomes. Information collected during the examination is evaluated in an attempt to improve decision making regarding the most appropriate treatment strategy for the individual patient. Contrary to the medical model which attempts to identify pathology to arrive at a diagnosis, the diagnostic process in physical therapy involves classifying or labeling patients based on functional limitations (restrictions in activities caused by a certain condition) and impairments (loss or abnormality in function such as decreased strength or motion) in an attempt to specifically direct treatment. Clinical decision making regarding treatment involves a certain degree of uncertainty as to which interventions will maximize individual patient outcomes. While the amount of quality evidence supporting physical therapy interventions is increasing, this uncertainty can make it difficult to decide on an appropriate treatment strategy. The American Physical Therapy Association has stated that identifying subgroups of patients who are likely to benefit from specific treatments is a research priority. (APTA) The Guide to Physical Therapist Practice indicates that interventions such as mobilization/manipulation are utilized by physical therapists to manage patients who have shoulder pain. There is growing evidence that impairments in the cervicothoracic spine may contribute to shoulder pain, and that patients with shoulder pain may benefit from manipulation in this region. Manipulation is defined as a manual therapy technique comprising a continuum of skilled passive movements, including small-amplitude/high velocity movements (thrust) and oscillations (non-thrust), that is targeted at joints and soft tissues.
While it is not likely that all patients who have with shoulder pain will benefit from manipulation (thrust and non-thrust) of the cervicothoracic spine, it is possible that a subgroup exists that will experience rapid and dramatic improvement with the use of these manual physical therapy techniques. It is our specific aim to develop a clinical prediction rule (CPR) to identify patients with a primary complaint of shoulder pain who are likely to benefit from cervicothoracic manipulation. The purpose of a CPR is to improve the clinician's accuracy in predicting a diagnosis or an expected outcome. For example, CPRs exist to improve the accuracy of diagnosing ankle fractures in individuals with acute injuries,predict the likelihood of death within four years for individuals with coronary disease, or determine when cervical radiographs are required for patients who have experienced neck trauma. The process of developing and testing a CPR has been described in detail elsewhere. Although CPRs can be developed to improve the accuracy of making a certain diagnosis, the focus of this project is to develop a CPR to predict a certain treatment outcome. The development of a CPR utilizes diagnostic properties of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios, which are based on the individual patient. Thus their interpretation can be readily applied to an individual patient. Development of a CPR to accurately predict which patients with shoulder pain will likely experience a clinically meaningful improvement in pain and function with cervicothoracic spine manipulation before treatment would be immensely helpful for clinicians in the decision-making process. Thus the purpose of this project is to develop a CPR to identify patients with shoulder pain likely to benefit from cervicothoracic spine thrust and non-thrust manipulation.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Manipulation + Exercise Group | Experimental | Procedure: Cervicothoracic manipulationCervicothoracic manipulation and ROM exercises |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 65 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Primary complaint of shoulder pain (defined as pain between the neck and the elbow at rest or during movement of the upper arm, see diagram at right)
- Age between 18-65 years old
- Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score greater than 20 points (full description of this measure provided in self report measures section)
Key exclusion criteria (11 listed)
- Medical red flags noted in the patient's Medical Screening Questionnaire(i.e. tumor, fracture, metabolic diseases, RA, osteoporosis, weight loss, fever, prolonged history of steroid use, etc.)
- Acute fractures in the shoulder region.
- Acute severe trauma to the cervical (neck) or thoracic (upper back) regions in the last 6 weeks.
- Contraindications to manipulative therapy (for example osteoporosis of the cervicothoracic spine).
- Evidence of central nervous system involvement, to include hyperreflexia, sensory disturbances in the hand, intrinsic muscle wasting of the hands, unsteadiness during walking, nystagmus, loss of visual acuity, impaired sensation of the face, altered taste, the presence of pathological reflexes (i.e. positive Hoffman's and/or Babinski reflexes), etc.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Cervicothoracic manipulationAlso: MobilizationThrust and non-thrust manipulation to the cervical and thoracic spine | Procedure or surgery | Manipulation + Exercise Group |
Primary outcome
Global Rating of Change (GROC)
Time frame: 7 days
3 secondary outcomes
Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI)
Time frame: 7 days
Numerical Pain Rating Scale
Time frame: 7 days
Painfree Shoulder Range of Motion
Time frame: 7 days
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 30 Jan 2013.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 20599053Mintken PE, Cleland JA, Whitman JM, George SZ. Psychometric properties of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire and Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia in patients with shoulder pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010 Jul;91(7):1128-36. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.04.009.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 19959652Mintken PE, Cleland JA, Carpenter KJ, Bieniek ML, Keirns M, Whitman JM. Some factors predict successful short-term outcomes in individuals with shoulder pain receiving cervicothoracic manipulation: a single-arm trial. Phys Ther. 2010 Jan;90(1):26-42. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20090095. Epub 2009 Dec 3.
Related trials for Shoulder Pain
Recruiting
Effects of Cervicothoracic Mobilization in Patients With Supraspinatus Tendinitis
Rotator Cuff Tendonitis
Recruiting
Hybrid mHealth and Telerehabilitation vs Conventional Physiotherapy for Subacromial Pain Syndrome
Subacromial Pain Syndrome
Not yet recruiting
Magnesium Sulphate as an Adjuvant in Combined Costoclavicular Block and Suprascapular Block Versus Interscalene Block for Ambulatory Shoulder Arthroscopy
Postoperative Pain, Shoulder Arthroscopy
Active, not recruiting
Effects of Injection Combined With Spencer Technique on Painful Frozen Shoulder
Frozen Shoulder
Not yet recruiting
Laser Therapy Versus Transcutaneous Electical Nerve Stimulation at Hemiplegic Shoulder Pain
Hemiplegic Shoulder Pain
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
6 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 2 study testing Cervicothoracic manipulation in people with Shoulder Pain, run by University of Colorado, Denver at 6 sites in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 11 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 30 Jan 2013. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 6 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Global Rating of Change (GROC) (time frame: 7 days). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00835302, which also lists 2 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 30 Jan 2013.