RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Migraine may be accompanied by several cervical musculoskeletal dysfunctions, for example an altered performance on the Craniocervical Flexion Test (CCFT). However, CCFT measurement properties are still unclear in patients with migraine. OBJECTIVES: To determine intra- and inter-examiner reliability, construct validity, standard measurement error (SEM), and minimal detectable change (MDC) of the CCFT in patients with migraine. METHODS: Women diagnosed with migraine were considered eligible for this study. Participants were assessed by two examiners for the inter-examiner reliability, and with 7-10 days interval for the intra-examiner reliability. Construct validity was assessed considering headache and neck pain frequency and intensity, and self-reported questionnaires, including the Headache Impact Test - 6 items (HIT-6), the 12-item Allodynia Symptom Checklist/Brazil (ASC-12), and the Neck Disability Index (NDI). In addition, participants performed cervical endurance and maximal voluntary isometric contraction of the cervical flexors. RESULTS: A total of 103 women with migraine were recruited. The intra-examiner reliability was rated as good (ICC= 0.81, 95% CI: 0.73, 0.87), while the inter-examiner reliability was rated as moderate (ICC= 0.55, 95% CI: 0.40, 0.67). The intra and inter-examiner SEM were 1.31 and 1.36 mmHg respectively, and MDC were 3.63 and 3.77 mmHg. The HIT-6 and the cervical endurance flexion test were associated with the CCFT in a multiple linear regression model (p = 0.004, R = 0.35). CONCLUSION: The CCFT presents adequate intra- and inter-examiner reliability. Better performance on the CCFT test was associated with better HIT-6 scores and greater cervical endurance time, which was not influenced by the presence of neck pain.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Among the tests designed to evaluate neck neuromuscular function, the craniocervical flexion test (CCFT) assesses the function of the deep cervical flexor muscles (DCFs). The purpose of this study was to conduct a review and meta-analysis of published articles about all measurement properties of the different CCFT versions (CCFT Activation Score [CCFT-AS], CCFT Performance Index [CCFT-PI], CCFT Cumulative Performance Index [CCFT-CPI], and CCFT alternative procedures for measuring activation level (CCFT1) or endurance (CCFT2) in people who were asymptomatic and people with nonspecific neck pain. METHODS: PubMed Central, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to June 30, 2020. Studies were selected if they reported data on reliability, validity, and/or responsiveness of the CCFT in adults who were asymptomatic or who had nonspecific neck pain. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, conducted quality assessment, and extracted the results. All meta-analyses used a random-effects model. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. The rating of interrater reliability (assessed for CCFT-AS and CCFT-CPI) was positive only for using the test at a group level. The same rating was ascribed to the intrarater reliability of CCFT-AS, CCFT1, and CCFT2, whereas CCFT-PI and CCFT-CPI showed positive intrarater reliability for assessment of individuals as well. CCFT validity was rated as positive for expressly assessing DCF action when measuring DCF activation through electromyography-not through ultrasonography-or craniocervical flexion motion as well as for differentiating patients who were asymptomatic and patients who had nonspecific neck pain (only the AS version). CCFT validity was rated as negative for investigating the CCFT performance correlation with the severity of nonspecific neck pain. CCFT responsiveness was rated as negative. CONCLUSIONS: The CCFT is a potentially useful tool for detecting impairment in DCF control and identifying patients who have nonspecific neck pain and who would benefit from a targeted intervention. However, the limited reliability affects its suitability for that purpose. Further research on the reliability of different CCFT versions in which the raters are thoroughly trained is strongly recommended. IMPACT: The CCFT might help to detect impairment in DCF control and identify patients who have nonspecific neck pain and who would benefit from a targeted intervention. However, the poor reliability of most versions of the test greatly limits its application in clinical practice. Only CCFT-PI and CCFT-CPI seem reliable enough to help in clinical decision-making at the individual level.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of dry needling or manual pressure release on an active trigger point in the upper trapezius on craniocervical flexion test performance, pressure pain thresholds, and cervical range of motion in chronic neck pain. DESIGN: A parallel randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Physical therapy service. SUBJECTS: Individuals with chronic neck pain. METHODS: Subjects were randomized to receive dry needling (n = 25) or manual trigger point pressure release (n = 25) on upper trapezius active trigger points. Surface electromyography from the upper trapezius, splenius capitis, sternocleidomastoid, and scalene muscles during performance of the craniocervical flexion test was assessed before and immediately after the intervention as the primary outcome. Neck pain intensity, range of motion, and pressure pain thresholds were the secondary outcomes. RESULTS: A decrease in sternocleidomastoid activity at all stages of the craniocervical flexion test (time effect, P < 0.001) was found in both groups after the interventions, with no significant between-group difference. Pressure pain thresholds measured over the cervical spine and second metacarpal increased after dry needling when compared with manual trigger point pressure release (P < 0.05). Pain intensity decreased immediately after both treatments with moderate to large effect sizes, whereas cervical range of motion increased for both groups but with small effect sizes. CONCLUSION: A single session of dry needling or manual pressure release over upper trapezius active trigger points promotes limited effects on muscle performance during the craniocervical flexion test, pressure pain thresholds, and cervical range of motion in patients with chronic neck pain.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Forward head posture is the most frequently observed postural deviations and is said to be associated with shortening of posterior cervical extensors and weakening of the anterior deep cervical flexors. Manual therapy has the potential to achieve reflexogenic changes in muscle and enhance the motor activity and strength. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To evaluate the immediate effect of grade IV cervicothoracic Maitland mobilization on deep neck flexors strength in individuals with forward head posture. STUDY DESIGN: A Single-blinded randomized placebo-controlled trial. METHOD: Sixty individuals were randomly divided into two groups. Placebo-controlled (PBO) group (n = 30) received the grade I and experimental (EXP) group (n = 30) received grade IV posteroanterior central and unilateral Maitland mobilization from the upper cervical to the upper thoracic spine. Outcome measure: Clinical Cranio-cervical flexion test (CCFT) was used to measure the motor activity and the strength of deep neck flexors. RESULTS: The strength of deep neck flexors effectively increased (p = <0.0001) after advocating grade IV mobilization. CONCLUSION: This study concluded that grade IV central and unilateral posteroanterior Maitland mobilization demonstrated significant increase in the deep neck flexors strength in individuals with forward head posture.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of three different foci of attention (internal, external and mixed) on motor learning using craniocervical flexion test in inexperienced participants. METHODS: Ninety healthy young adults, with no experience in the task, practiced the craniocervical flexion test under three different focus of attention: a) Mixed Focus (internal plus external), b) Internal Focus, and c) External Focus. We assessed immediate, post-training, and retention (one week after the last training session) aspects of motor learning by quantifying (i) the activity of the superficial cervical flexors muscles, (ii) craniocervical range of motion, and (iii) the performance on the craniocervical flexion test. RESULTS: None of the groups showed any significant immediate, post-training, or retention effects on superficial neck flexors activity and craniocervical range of motion progression. At immediate assessment, mixed focus had greater craniocervical flexion performance than external (MD 0.9, 95%CI 0.2 to 1.5), and internal foci (MD 1.4, 95%CI 0.8 to 2.1). At post-training, mixed focus led to better craniocervical performance compared to external (MD 1.6, 95%CI 0.8 to 2.4) and internal foci (MD 2.7, 95%CI 1.9 to 3.5). External focus had better scores on the craniocervical flexion test performance than internal focus (MD 1.1, 95%CI 0.3 to 1.9). Results remained similar at retention, with mixed focus being superior to internal (MD 2.3, 95%CI 1.7 to 3) and external foci (MD 1.5, 95%CI 0.9 to 2.1) on craniocervical flexion test performance. Similarly, the performance on the craniocervical flexion test performance remained similar at retention between external and internal foci (MD 0.9, 95%CI 0.2 to 1.5). CONCLUSION: In inexperienced asymptomatic participants, different foci of attention were not able to change cervical muscle activity and craniocervical range of motion during the craniocervical flexion test. Mixed focus was better than external and internal focus on the craniocervical flexion test. These findings were retained after one week.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Objectives: To compare the performance of cervical stabilizer muscles using the craniocervical flexion test (CCFT) among individuals with subacute, chronic, and asymptomatic low back pain (LBP) conditions. Methods: Individuals with subacute (N = 23) and chronic LBP (N = 23) with their age- and gender-matched controls (N = 30) participated in this study. All recruited participants were required to perform the CCFT. The activation score (AS) and the performance index (PI) were recorded by an assessor who was blinded to the group of participants. Results: Approximately, 74% of subacute LBP participants and 60-65% of chronic LBP participants obtained abnormal AS and PI. AS was significantly lower in participants with subacute (P = 0.0002) and chronic LBP (P = 0.0009) than the control group. Likewise, the PI was significantly lower in participants with subacute (P = 0.0002) and chronic LBP (P = 0.0036) than the control group. Participants in the subacute LBP group showed significantly greater percentages of abnormal responses on the AS (P < 0.0001) and the PI (P = 0.0001) than the control. Discussion: Abnormal performance of cervical stabilizer muscles using the CCFT was demonstrated in a high proportion of participants with LBP. The findings highlight the plausible association in muscle control between cervical and lumbar stabilizers. Level of Evidence: 2b.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The inter-rater reliability of the craniocervical flexion test (CCFT) has not been established. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the intra-rater and inter-rater reliabilities of the CCFT in asymptomatic subjects. METHODS: Sixty asymptomatic subjects were randomly selected for the study. The CCFT was measured on each subject by two testers for inter-rater reliability and by one of the testers after a gap of seven days for the intra-rater reliability. Before testing, the participants were trained for the movement and compensations were corrected. RESULTS: The CCFT has high inter-rater reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.907, standard error of mean = 0.735) and high intra-rater reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.986, standard error of mean = 0.287). A Bland & Altman limits of agreement analysis has confirmed the high inter- and intra-rater reliabilities of the test. CONCLUSION: The CCFT has high inter-rater and intra-rater reliabilities in asymptomatic subjects.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The craniocervical flexion test assesses the deep cervical flexor muscles (longus capitis, longus colli). Ideally, electromyography (EMG) studies measure activity in both deep and superficial (sternocleidomastoid, anterior scalene) flexors during the test, but most studies confine recordings to superficial muscle activity as the technique to record the deep muscles is invasive. Higher activity of the superficial flexors has been interpreted as an indicator of reduced deep flexor activity in people with neck pain but how close the inverse relationship is during this test is unknown. METHODS: EMG was recorded from the sternocleidomastoid, anterior scalene and deep cervical flexor muscles to quantify their relationship during the craniocervical flexion test, from 32 women (age: 38.0 ± 11.6 yrs) with a history of chronic non-specific neck pain. The range of craniocervical flexion at each of the five test stages was also measured. RESULTS: A moderate negative correlation was identified (r = -0.45; P < 0.01) between the average normalized EMG amplitude of the deep cervical flexors and sternocleidomastoid across all stages of the craniocervical flexion test. There was a moderate although weaker and non-significant negative correlation between deep cervical flexors and anterior scalene activity (r = -0.34; P = 0.053). CONCLUSIONS: The results affirm the interpretation that higher levels of activity of the superficial flexor muscles are an indicator of reduced deep cervical flexor activity in the craniocervical flexion test. Further studies of neuromuscular and movement strategies used by people with neck pain to compensate for poorer activation of the deep cervical flexors will inform best clinical assessment.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Dentists have to remain in a fixed position during dental practices for the accuracy required, therefore they are susceptible to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). OBJECTIVES: Considering the infrequency of ergonomics studies in general dental practitioners (GDPs), especially in cervical region, this study aimed to reviews MSDs in the neck region among GDPs. METHODS: An analytic cross-sectional study was carried out among the GDPs in 2011. A total of 60 dentists (40 males and 20 females) were examined through a combination of questionnaires (concerning their demographic information) such as the Nordic standardized musculoskeletal disorder questionnaire (NMQ) and Body Discomfort Assessment questionnaire (BDA). Each dentist's working posture was assessed using Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) and deep cervical flexor muscle endurance through a Craniocervical Flexion test (CCFT). Descriptive statistical indexes and Chi-square test were used for statistical analysis, while considering p< 0.05. RESULTS: The mean dental practice experience was 16.9 ± 5.6 years with average 41.2 ± 13.4 working hours per week. About 45% of dentists took regular exercises weekly. Some 83.3% of these dentists expressed to be suffering from the cervical pain, whereas, 56.7% complained about back pains and 41% shoulder problems. Female dentists were found more at risk of neckache, discomfort and pain in shoulder and hand than males. Greater pain frequency in knee was found in more experienced and older age dentists (P= 0.07). Results from the CCF test showed that the deep cervical flexor muscles endurance increased with regular exercise and decreased with aging. CONCLUSION: Many dentists experience the MSDs, especially in cervical region, as a consequence of occupational stresses. Therefore, detecting occupational risk factors, standards of work position, regular exercise and following ergonomic policy are intensely recommended.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Assessing sensorimotor abilities, such as movement control, becomes increasingly important for the management of patients with neck pain because of the potential contribution to the development of chronic neck pain. Our aim was to evaluate whether sensorimotor tests could discriminate between persons with neck pain and persons without neck pain and to assess correlations among the assessments. A matched case-control study with 30 persons with recurrent neck pain and 30 controls was conducted. We tested two-point discrimination (TPD), joint position error (JPE), muscle activation with the craniocervical flexion test (CCFT), laterality judgment accuracy and movement control (MC). We administered the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and the painDetect questionnaire. According to the areas under the curve (AUC), tests for the JPE (0.69), CCFT (0.73), MC (0.83) and laterality judgment accuracy (0.68) were able to discriminate between persons with and without neck pain. Among the five tests, laterality judgment accuracy exhibited moderate to large correlations with the JPE and MC, and moderate correlations were observed between the TPD and CCFT (r between -0.4 and -0.5). We recommend the assessment of various aspects of sensorimotor ability and of central representation of the body schema, even in patients with mild neck pain. For clinical practice, we recommend the craniocervical flexion test, testing of laterality judgment accuracy and three movement control tests (cervico-thoracic extension, protraction-retraction of the head and quadruped cervical rotation).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The craniocervical flexion test (CCFT) is generally undertaken using a pressure biofeedback unit. However, the high costs of the device limits its availability in poorly resourced healthcare settings. The use of alternate measures such as the aneroid sphygmomanometer to undertake CCFT need to be investigated. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to establish the concurrent validity, intra- and inter-rater reliability of the aneroid sphygmomanometer using a paediatric size cuff for CCFT in asymptomatic adults. METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study involved 300 asymptomatic participants randomly allocated to either validity (n = 100), intra-rater (n = 100) or inter-rater (n = 100) testing. Participants were asked to perform CCFT to assess craniocervical flexors performance using the pressure biofeedback unit and the aneroid sphygmomanometer with a paediatric cuff. Inter-rater reliability test was performed by two different raters on the same day with rest of 30 min between tests. An independent observer checked and recorded the pressures noted on the pressure dial thus ensuring blinded outcome measurement. Correlation between the two instruments was determined by computing the stability coefficient (Pearson product moment correlation) and associated P-values for statistical significance. Intra-class correlation coefficients and its 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to determine the intra- and inter-rater reliability. RESULTS: The concurrent validity of aneroid sphygmomanometer as per Pearson's product moment correlation was r = 0.856 for activation score. The intra-class correlation coefficients for intra-rater reliability was 0.92 (95% CI 0.89-0.94), and inter-rater reliability was 0.87 (95% CI 0.80-0.91). CONCLUSION: This study has confirmed high concurrent validity, intra- and inter-rater reliability of the aneroid sphygmomanometer using a paediatric cuff for CCFT in asymptomatic adults. Its use in people with neck pain warrants investigation.

Asunto(s)