Agreement is very low between a clinical prediction rule and physiotherapist assessment for classifying the risk of poor recovery of individuals with acute whiplash injury

View/ Open
Author(s)
Kelly, Joan
Ritchie, Carrie
Sterling, Michele
Year published
2019
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Background: A prognostic clinical prediction rule (whiplash CPR) has been validated for use in individuals with acute whiplash associated disorders (WAD). The clinical utility of this tool is unknown. Objectives: To investigate: 1) the level of agreement between physiotherapist- and whiplash CPR-determined prognostic risk classification of people with acute WAD; 2) which clinical findings are used by physiotherapists to classify prognostic risk; and 3) whether physiotherapists plan to differ the number of treatment sessions provided based on prognostic risk classification. Design: Pragmatic, observational. Method: 38 adults ...
View more >Background: A prognostic clinical prediction rule (whiplash CPR) has been validated for use in individuals with acute whiplash associated disorders (WAD). The clinical utility of this tool is unknown. Objectives: To investigate: 1) the level of agreement between physiotherapist- and whiplash CPR-determined prognostic risk classification of people with acute WAD; 2) which clinical findings are used by physiotherapists to classify prognostic risk; and 3) whether physiotherapists plan to differ the number of treatment sessions provided based on prognostic risk classification. Design: Pragmatic, observational. Method: 38 adults with acute WAD were classified as low, medium, or high risk of poor recovery by their treating physiotherapist (n = 24) at the conclusion of the initial consultation. A weighted Cohen's kappa examined the agreement between physiotherapist estimated risk classification and the whiplash CPR. Physiotherapists’ reasons for classification were provided and summarised descriptively. Kruskal-Wallis and post-hoc Dunn's tests compared projected number of treatment sessions between risk subgroups. Results: Physiotherapist agreement with the whiplash CPR occurred in 29% of cases (n = 11/38), which was less than what is expected by chance (K = −0.03; 95%CI -0.17 to 0.12). Physiotherapists most frequently considered range of movement (n = 23/38, 61%), a premorbid pain condition (n = 14/38, 37%), response to initial physiotherapy treatment (n = 12/38, 32%), and pain intensity (n = 12/38, 32%) when classifying prognostic risk. The projected number of treatment sessions was not different between risk groups using classifications provided by the physiotherapists (χ2(2) = 2.69, p = 0.26). Conclusions: Physiotherapists should consider incorporating the whiplash CPR into current assessment processes to enhance accuracy in prognostic decision-making.
View less >
View more >Background: A prognostic clinical prediction rule (whiplash CPR) has been validated for use in individuals with acute whiplash associated disorders (WAD). The clinical utility of this tool is unknown. Objectives: To investigate: 1) the level of agreement between physiotherapist- and whiplash CPR-determined prognostic risk classification of people with acute WAD; 2) which clinical findings are used by physiotherapists to classify prognostic risk; and 3) whether physiotherapists plan to differ the number of treatment sessions provided based on prognostic risk classification. Design: Pragmatic, observational. Method: 38 adults with acute WAD were classified as low, medium, or high risk of poor recovery by their treating physiotherapist (n = 24) at the conclusion of the initial consultation. A weighted Cohen's kappa examined the agreement between physiotherapist estimated risk classification and the whiplash CPR. Physiotherapists’ reasons for classification were provided and summarised descriptively. Kruskal-Wallis and post-hoc Dunn's tests compared projected number of treatment sessions between risk subgroups. Results: Physiotherapist agreement with the whiplash CPR occurred in 29% of cases (n = 11/38), which was less than what is expected by chance (K = −0.03; 95%CI -0.17 to 0.12). Physiotherapists most frequently considered range of movement (n = 23/38, 61%), a premorbid pain condition (n = 14/38, 37%), response to initial physiotherapy treatment (n = 12/38, 32%), and pain intensity (n = 12/38, 32%) when classifying prognostic risk. The projected number of treatment sessions was not different between risk groups using classifications provided by the physiotherapists (χ2(2) = 2.69, p = 0.26). Conclusions: Physiotherapists should consider incorporating the whiplash CPR into current assessment processes to enhance accuracy in prognostic decision-making.
View less >
Journal Title
Musculoskeletal Science and Practice
Volume
39
Copyright Statement
© 2019 Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, providing that the work is properly cited.
Subject
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Rehabilitation
Whiplash injuries
Prognosis