Back PainPhase 2NCT02950129
IRB-HSR # 14073 Investigation of Pelvic Girdle Dysfunction in the Low Back Pain Population
A Phase 2 study testing SIJ pain diagnostic tests in people with Back Pain, run by University of Virginia at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The subjects will undergo a specific physical exam of tests reported to be diagnostic of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain prior to receiving the routine injection in the SIJ that which is being performed as part of their normal medical care. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 64 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Back Pain
- What is being tested?
- SIJ pain diagnostic tests
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 55 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Feb 2009to Jun 2011
- 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 64 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients presenting for sacroiliac injection with pain suspected from the sacroiliac joint
Who cannot join
- Pregnancy, allergy to contrast, inability to cooperate with screening tests, inability to understand the consent, either due to language barrier, or cognitive limitations, age > 64 years, inability to position themselves on the fluoro table for the procedure
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
UVA Pain Management Center
Charlottesville, Virginia, 22908
About this study
The subjects will undergo a specific physical exam of tests reported to be diagnostic of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain prior to receiving the routine injection in the SIJ that which is being performed as part of their normal medical care. Routine care involves use of any number of these tests, but doesn't routinely include assessment of all 6 tests in all patient's treatment. The subject will fill out a Visual Analog Scale for pain and a pain drawing prior to and after the injection.
The tests will be repeated after the injection.
The investigators propose to investigate a cluster of tests proposed by Laslett as well as compare the results of the ASLR and the Gillet Test both before and after SIJ injection to determine the validity of these tests in a low back patients presenting for injections thought to be from the sacroiliac joint. The secondary purpose would be the development of a clinical predictor rule to determine examination characteristics of patients who may benefit from intraarticular injections of the SIJ.
Read the detailed description
Low back pain has been the subject of extensive research in the past 10 years. Some of the efforts have focused on the effectiveness of diagnostic testing in determining the etiology of low back pain. One component of low back pain clinically can be sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction. The prevalence of sacroiliac pain in the low back pain population is reported to be approximately 10 to 30%. The diagnosis of sacroiliac pain has been an area of controversy in the literature with poor inter-tester and intra-rater reliability described for motion testing. More recently, a cluster of provocation tests has been described as predictive of the diagnosis of sacroiliac dysfunction. Laslett et al suggested that SI pain provocation tests used in examination should include a cluster of six tests. When three or more out of six tests or any two of four selected tests are positive, that showed the best predictive power in diagnosing SIJ pain. The "gold standard" for diagnosing SIJ pain in this study was pain relief with intra-articular local anesthetic block injection. When all six provocation tests do not provoke the patient's typical pain, the SIJ can be ruled out as a source of current low back pain.
Pelvic girdle pain including SIJ dysfunction has been investigated in post partum populations. The Active Straight Leg Raise (ASLR) has been shown to be reliable in post partum pelvic pain. This test is thought to help assess hypermobility in the SIJ. This test has a positive likelihood ratio (+LR)= 14.5 and a negative likelihood ratio (-LR)= .14 which indicates that this is a good test to rule in or rule out pelvic girdle pain in pregnancy. This test is thought to help assess dysfunction of the SIJ. The Gillet test has recently been reported to indicate abnormal biomechanics on the stance side by Hungerford et al. Increased hamstring activation on the stance leg has been identified as indicative of abnormal SI motion. These two tests (ASLR and Gillet) are thought to be reflective of SIJ instability or abnormal movement in, respectively, pregnancy or low back patients.
- Conditions
- Back Pain
- Being tested
- SIJ pain diagnostic tests
- Keywords
- pelvic girdle dysfunction
- Medical subject headings
- Back Pain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
SIJ pain diagnostic testsOther
Also called back pain
The subjects will undergo a specific physical exam of tests reported to be diagnostic of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain prior to receiving the routine injection in the SIJ; all tests will be repeated after the SIJ injection
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| measurements of gait | Other | all subjects will undergo 6 tests to assess gait before and after SIJ; SIJ pain diagnostic tests Receives: Other: SIJ pain diagnostic tests |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Predictive values of 6 tests to assess gait parameters
Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values will be calculated for each SIJ pain diagnostic test using values collected prior to and following the SIJ injection
Measured: Day one (after SIJ injection)
Secondary outcomes (1)
Visual Analog Scale for pain
the subject will fill out a Visual Analog Scale for pain before and after the SIJ injection
Measured: Day one (before and after SIJ injection)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted31 Oct 2016 (estimated)
- Study startFeb 2009
- Primary completionJun 2011
- Study completionJun 2011
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (14)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Back PainStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of VirginiaThe 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
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 55 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Virginia
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Robin Hamill-Ruth, MD, University of Virginia
- Investigators
- Robin Hamill-Ruth, MD, Principal investigator, UVA Anesthesiology
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02950129
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 14073
- Status last verified
- Aug 2011
- First submitted
- 9 Aug 2011
- Last updated
- 31 Oct 2016
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Broadhurst NA, Bond MJ. Pain provocation tests for the assessment of sacroiliac joint dysfunction. J Spinal Disord. 1998 Aug;11(4):341-5.
PubMed 9726305Cibulka MT, Koldehoff R. Clinical usefulness of a cluster of sacroiliac joint tests in patients with and without low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1999 Feb;29(2):83-9; discussion 90-2. doi: 10.2519/jospt.1999.29.2.83.
PubMed 10322583Cibulka MT. Understanding sacroiliac joint movement as a guide to the management of a patient with unilateral low back pain. Man Ther. 2002 Nov;7(4):215-21. doi: 10.1054/math.2002.0474. No abstract available.
PubMed 12481788Hungerford B, Gilleard W, Hodges P. Evidence of altered lumbopelvic muscle recruitment in the presence of sacroiliac joint pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Jul 15;28(14):1593-600.
PubMed 12865851Hungerford B, Gilleard W, Lee D. Altered patterns of pelvic bone motion determined in subjects with posterior pelvic pain using skin markers. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2004 Jun;19(5):456-64. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2004.02.004.
PubMed 15182980Kokmeyer DJ, Van der Wurff P, Aufdemkampe G, Fickenscher TC. The reliability of multitest regimens with sacroiliac pain provocation tests. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2002 Jan;25(1):42-8. doi: 10.1067/mmt.2002.120418.
PubMed 11898017Laslett M, Williams M. The reliability of selected pain provocation tests for sacroiliac joint pathology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994 Jun 1;19(11):1243-9. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199405310-00009.
PubMed 8073316Laslett M. The value of the physical examination in diagnosis of painful sacroiliac joint pathologies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Apr 15;23(8):962-4. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199804150-00029. No abstract available.
PubMed 9580969Laslett M, Young SB, Aprill CN, McDonald B. Diagnosing painful sacroiliac joints: A validity study of a McKenzie evaluation and sacroiliac provocation tests. Aust J Physiother. 2003;49(2):89-97. doi: 10.1016/s0004-9514(14)60125-2.
PubMed 12775204Laslett M, Aprill CN, McDonald B, Young SB. Diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain: validity of individual provocation tests and composites of tests. Man Ther. 2005 Aug;10(3):207-18. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2005.01.003.
PubMed 16038856Laslett M, McDonald B, Tropp H, Aprill CN, Oberg B. Agreement between diagnoses reached by clinical examination and available reference standards: a prospective study of 216 patients with lumbopelvic pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2005 Jun 9;6:28. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-6-28.
PubMed 15943873Mens JM, Vleeming A, Snijders CJ, Stam HJ, Ginai AZ. The active straight leg raising test and mobility of the pelvic joints. Eur Spine J. 1999;8(6):468-73. doi: 10.1007/s005860050206.
PubMed 10664304Mens JM, Vleeming A, Snijders CJ, Koes BW, Stam HJ. Reliability and validity of the active straight leg raise test in posterior pelvic pain since pregnancy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 May 15;26(10):1167-71. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200105150-00015.
PubMed 11413432Mens JM, Vleeming A, Snijders CJ, Koes BW, Stam HJ. Validity of the active straight leg raise test for measuring disease severity in patients with posterior pelvic pain after pregnancy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Jan 15;27(2):196-200. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200201150-00015.
PubMed 11805667
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 31 Oct 2016. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- IRB-HSR # 14073 Investigation of Pelvic Girdle Dysfunction in the Low Back Pain Population
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02950129
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 14073
- Conditions
- Back Pain
- Keywords
- pelvic girdle dysfunction
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 55 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of VirginiaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Feb 2009
- Primary completion
- Jun 2011 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jun 2011 (actual)
- First posted
- 31 Oct 2016 (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 subjects will undergo a specific physical exam of tests reported to be diagnostic of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain prior to receiving the routine injection in the SIJ that which is being performed as part of their normal medical care. Routine care involves use of any number of these tests, but doesn't routinely include assessment of all 6 tests in all patient's treatment. The subject will fill out a Visual Analog Scale for pain and a pain drawing prior to and after the injection.
The tests will be repeated after the injection.
The investigators propose to investigate a cluster of tests proposed by Laslett as well as compare the results of the ASLR and the Gillet Test both before and after SIJ injection to determine the validity of these tests in a low back patients presenting for injections thought to be from the sacroiliac joint. The secondary purpose would be the development of a clinical predictor rule to determine examination characteristics of patients who may benefit from intraarticular injections of the SIJ.
Detailed description
Low back pain has been the subject of extensive research in the past 10 years. Some of the efforts have focused on the effectiveness of diagnostic testing in determining the etiology of low back pain. One component of low back pain clinically can be sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction. The prevalence of sacroiliac pain in the low back pain population is reported to be approximately 10 to 30%. The diagnosis of sacroiliac pain has been an area of controversy in the literature with poor inter-tester and intra-rater reliability described for motion testing. More recently, a cluster of provocation tests has been described as predictive of the diagnosis of sacroiliac dysfunction. Laslett et al suggested that SI pain provocation tests used in examination should include a cluster of six tests. When three or more out of six tests or any two of four selected tests are positive, that showed the best predictive power in diagnosing SIJ pain. The "gold standard" for diagnosing SIJ pain in this study was pain relief with intra-articular local anesthetic block injection. When all six provocation tests do not provoke the patient's typical pain, the SIJ can be ruled out as a source of current low back pain.
Pelvic girdle pain including SIJ dysfunction has been investigated in post partum populations. The Active Straight Leg Raise (ASLR) has been shown to be reliable in post partum pelvic pain. This test is thought to help assess hypermobility in the SIJ. This test has a positive likelihood ratio (+LR)= 14.5 and a negative likelihood ratio (-LR)= .14 which indicates that this is a good test to rule in or rule out pelvic girdle pain in pregnancy. This test is thought to help assess dysfunction of the SIJ. The Gillet test has recently been reported to indicate abnormal biomechanics on the stance side by Hungerford et al. Increased hamstring activation on the stance leg has been identified as indicative of abnormal SI motion. These two tests (ASLR and Gillet) are thought to be reflective of SIJ instability or abnormal movement in, respectively, pregnancy or low back patients.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| measurements of gait | Other | Other: SIJ pain diagnostic testsall subjects will undergo 6 tests to assess gait before and after SIJ; SIJ pain diagnostic tests |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 64 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patients presenting for sacroiliac injection with pain suspected from the sacroiliac joint
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Pregnancy, allergy to contrast, inability to cooperate with screening tests, inability to understand the consent, either due to language barrier, or cognitive limitations, age > 64 years, inability to position themselves on the fluoro table for the procedure
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 |
|---|---|---|
| SIJ pain diagnostic testsAlso: back painThe subjects will undergo a specific physical exam of tests reported to be diagnostic of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain prior to receiving the routine injection in the SIJ; all tests will be repeated after the SIJ injection | Other | measurements of gait |
Primary outcome
Predictive values of 6 tests to assess gait parameters
Time frame: Day one (after SIJ injection)
Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values will be calculated for each SIJ pain diagnostic test using values collected prior to and following the SIJ injection
1 secondary outcome
Visual Analog Scale for pain
Time frame: Day one (before and after SIJ injection)
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 31 Oct 2016.
- Background: PubMed 9726305Broadhurst NA, Bond MJ. Pain provocation tests for the assessment of sacroiliac joint dysfunction. J Spinal Disord. 1998 Aug;11(4):341-5.
- Background: PubMed 10322583Cibulka MT, Koldehoff R. Clinical usefulness of a cluster of sacroiliac joint tests in patients with and without low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1999 Feb;29(2):83-9; discussion 90-2. doi: 10.2519/jospt.1999.29.2.83.
- Background: PubMed 12481788Cibulka MT. Understanding sacroiliac joint movement as a guide to the management of a patient with unilateral low back pain. Man Ther. 2002 Nov;7(4):215-21. doi: 10.1054/math.2002.0474. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 12865851Hungerford B, Gilleard W, Hodges P. Evidence of altered lumbopelvic muscle recruitment in the presence of sacroiliac joint pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Jul 15;28(14):1593-600.
- Background: PubMed 15182980Hungerford B, Gilleard W, Lee D. Altered patterns of pelvic bone motion determined in subjects with posterior pelvic pain using skin markers. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2004 Jun;19(5):456-64. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2004.02.004.
- Background: PubMed 11898017Kokmeyer DJ, Van der Wurff P, Aufdemkampe G, Fickenscher TC. The reliability of multitest regimens with sacroiliac pain provocation tests. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2002 Jan;25(1):42-8. doi: 10.1067/mmt.2002.120418.
- Background: PubMed 8073316Laslett M, Williams M. The reliability of selected pain provocation tests for sacroiliac joint pathology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994 Jun 1;19(11):1243-9. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199405310-00009.
- Background: PubMed 9580969Laslett M. The value of the physical examination in diagnosis of painful sacroiliac joint pathologies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Apr 15;23(8):962-4. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199804150-00029. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 12775204Laslett M, Young SB, Aprill CN, McDonald B. Diagnosing painful sacroiliac joints: A validity study of a McKenzie evaluation and sacroiliac provocation tests. Aust J Physiother. 2003;49(2):89-97. doi: 10.1016/s0004-9514(14)60125-2.
- Background: PubMed 16038856Laslett M, Aprill CN, McDonald B, Young SB. Diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain: validity of individual provocation tests and composites of tests. Man Ther. 2005 Aug;10(3):207-18. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2005.01.003.
- Background: PubMed 15943873Laslett M, McDonald B, Tropp H, Aprill CN, Oberg B. Agreement between diagnoses reached by clinical examination and available reference standards: a prospective study of 216 patients with lumbopelvic pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2005 Jun 9;6:28. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-6-28.
- Background: PubMed 10664304Mens JM, Vleeming A, Snijders CJ, Stam HJ, Ginai AZ. The active straight leg raising test and mobility of the pelvic joints. Eur Spine J. 1999;8(6):468-73. doi: 10.1007/s005860050206.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Back Pain
RecruitingPhase 4
ESP Blocks for Posterior Spinal Fusion
Postoperative Pain
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Hip Hinge Exercises on Pain, Range of Motion and Functional Disability in Non-specific Low Back Pain.
Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Lumbar Stabilization Exercises With and Without YTWL (Scapular Stabilization Exercises) on Reducing Chronic Low Back Pain and Related Disability. A Randomized Clinical Trial,
Chronic Non Specific Mechanical Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
Comparing Non-Medicine Strategies for Improving Low Back Pain
Chronic Low-back Pain (cLBP), High-Impact Chronic Pain (HICP)
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Whole-Body Vibration and Cervical Stabilization With Core Stabilization in Young Adults With Non-Specific Low Back Pain
Nonspecific Low Back 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.
Robin Hamill-Ruth, MD principal investigator
UVA Anesthesiology
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 2 study testing SIJ pain diagnostic tests in people with Back Pain, run by University of Virginia at 1 site 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 1 inclusion and 1 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 31 Oct 2016. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site 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?
Predictive values of 6 tests to assess gait parameters (time frame: Day one (after SIJ injection)). 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 NCT02950129, which also lists 14 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 31 Oct 2016.