3.9 Article

Patients with non-specific neck disorders commonly report upper limb disability

Journal

MANUAL THERAPY
Volume 18, Issue 6, Pages 492-497

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.math.2013.05.004

Keywords

Neck pain; Upper limb function; Questionnaire

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Patients with neck disorders can report difficulties with functional use of their upper limb because of their neck pain. Yet, there is little information on the frequency and specifically, the nature of these upper limb activities. This study surveyed patients with neck pain disorders (n = 103) presenting for management at private physiotherapy clinics in a large metropolitan area to investigate the frequency and nature of reduced upper limb function. Participants were asked to complete four questionnaires, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, the Neck Disability Index (NDI), Pictorial Fear of Activity Scale-Cervical (PFActS-C) and Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS). Approximately 80% of patients spontaneously reported that upper limb activities aggravated their neck pain (PSFS). Most frequently, these activities involved loading of the upper limb such as lifting. Eight activity items on the DASH were scored positive by >= 50% of participants. Participants had mild to moderately severe neck pain (NDI: range 2-68%). The DASH and NDI were moderately-highly correlated (rho = 0.669; p < 0.001), indicating the higher the neck pain severity the greater the upper limb functional restrictions. There was a low correlation between the NDI and PFActS-C (rho = 0.319; p = 0.001). These findings provide evidence that upper limb function is often impaired in association with neck pain disorders and suggest clinicians should routinely question patients regarding upper limb function. The DASH could be used as a suitable outcome measure in its current or possibly a modified form. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available