21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Relationships between craniocervical posture and pain-related disability in patients with cervico-craniofacial pain

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          This cross-sectional correlation study explored the relationships between craniocervical posture and pain-related disability in patients with chronic cervico-craniofacial pain (CCFP). Moreover, we investigated the test–retest intrarater reliability of two craniocervical posture measurements: head posture (HP) and the sternomental distance (SMD).

          Methods

          Fifty-three asymptomatic subjects and 60 CCFP patients were recruited. One rater measured HP and the SMD using a cervical range of motion device and a digital caliper, respectively. The Spanish versions of the neck disability index and the craniofacial pain and disability inventory were used to assess pain-related disability (neck disability and craniofacial disability, respectively).

          Results

          We found no statistically significant correlations between craniocervical posture and pain-related disability variables (HP and neck disability [ r=0.105; P>0.05]; HP and craniofacial disability [ r=0.132; P>0.05]; SMD and neck disability [ r=0.126; P>0.05]; SMD and craniofacial disability [ r=0.195; P>0.05]). A moderate positive correlation was observed between HP and SMD for both groups (asymptomatic subjects, r=0.447; CCFP patients, r=0.52). Neck disability was strongly positively correlated with craniofacial disability ( r=0.79; P<0.001). The test–retest intrarater reliability of the HP measurement was high for asymptomatic subjects and CCFP patients (intraclass correlation coefficients =0.93 and 0.81, respectively) and for SMD (intra-class correlation coefficient range between 0.76 and 0.99); the test–retest intrarater reliability remained high when evaluated 9 days later. The HP standard error of measurement range was 0.54–0.75 cm, and the minimal detectable change was 1.27–1.74 cm. The SMD standard error of measurement was 2.75–6.24 mm, and the minimal detectable change was 6.42–14.55 mm. Independent t-tests showed statistically significant differences between the asymptomatic individuals and CCFP patients for measures of craniocervical posture, but these differences were very small (mean difference =1.44 cm for HP; 6.24 mm for SMD). The effect sizes reached by these values were estimated to be small for SMD ( d=0.38) and medium for HP ( d=0.76).

          Conclusion

          The results showed no statistically significant correlations between craniocervical posture and variables of pain-related disability, but a strong correlation between the two variables of disability was found. Our findings suggest that small differences between CCFP patients and asymptomatic subjects exist with respect to the two measurements used to assess craniocervical posture (HP and SMD), and these measures demonstrated high test–retest intrarater reliability for both CCFP patients and asymptomatic subjects.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

          In clinical measurement comparison of a new measurement technique with an established one is often needed to see whether they agree sufficiently for the new to replace the old. Such investigations are often analysed inappropriately, notably by using correlation coefficients. The use of correlation is misleading. An alternative approach, based on graphical techniques and simple calculations, is described, together with the relation between this analysis and the assessment of repeatability.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The Family of Ln2Ti2S2O5 Compounds (Ln=Nd Sm Gd Tb Dy Ho Er and Y) Optical Properties

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM.

              Reliability, the consistency of a test or measurement, is frequently quantified in the movement sciences literature. A common metric is the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). In addition, the SEM, which can be calculated from the ICC, is also frequently reported in reliability studies. However, there are several versions of the ICC, and confusion exists in the movement sciences regarding which ICC to use. Further, the utility of the SEM is not fully appreciated. In this review, the basics of classic reliability theory are addressed in the context of choosing and interpreting an ICC. The primary distinction between ICC equations is argued to be one concerning the inclusion (equations 2,1 and 2,k) or exclusion (equations 3,1 and 3,k) of systematic error in the denominator of the ICC equation. Inferential tests of mean differences, which are performed in the process of deriving the necessary variance components for the calculation of ICC values, are useful to determine if systematic error is present. If so, the measurement schedule should be modified (removing trials where learning and/or fatigue effects are present) to remove systematic error, and ICC equations that only consider random error may be safely used. The use of ICC values is discussed in the context of estimating the effects of measurement error on sample size, statistical power, and correlation attenuation. Finally, calculation and application of the SEM are discussed. It is shown how the SEM and its variants can be used to construct confidence intervals for individual scores and to determine the minimal difference needed to be exhibited for one to be confident that a true change in performance of an individual has occurred.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Pain Res
                J Pain Res
                Journal of Pain Research
                Journal of Pain Research
                Dove Medical Press
                1178-7090
                2015
                30 July 2015
                : 8
                : 449-458
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Science, The Center for Advanced Studies University La Salle, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Aravaca, Madrid, Spain
                [2 ]Research Group on Movement and Behavioral Science and Study of Pain, The Center for Advanced Studies University La Salle, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Aravaca, Madrid, Spain
                [3 ]Institute of Neuroscience and Craniofacial Pain (INDCRAN), Madrid, Spain
                [4 ]Hospital La Paz Institute for Health Research, IdiPAZ, Madrid, Spain
                [5 ]Faculty of Medicine, Universidad San Pablo CEU, Madrid, Spain
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Roy La Touche, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios La Salle, Calle La Salle, 10, 28023 Madrid, Spain, Tel +34 91 740 1980 ext 256, Email roylatouche@ 123456yahoo.es
                Article
                jpr-8-449
                10.2147/JPR.S84668
                4527574
                © 2015 López-de-Uralde-Villanueva et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License

                The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Similar content 349

                Cited by 5

                Most referenced authors 856