Guidelines

<<< Rollover study type title to see section description below.

Centralisation

Lumbar: Systematic Reviews

Lumbar: Reviews

Lumbar: Trials

Lumbar: Surveys of Physical Therapy practice

Lumbar: Studies into assessment procedures, tests & techniques

Lumbar: Anatomical & physiological studies

Textbooks, Chapters and Overviews of MDT

Discussion Articles

Cervical: Systematic reviews

Cervical: Trials

Cervical: Studies into assessment procedures, tests & techniques

Cervical: Anatomical, physiological, and pain studies

Whiplash: Reviews

Whiplash: Trials

Correspondence

Extremities

American College of Occupation and Environmental Medicine ; Exercise and Manipulative Therapies for Treatment of Acute and Subacute Low Back Pain. , 2005.

McKenzie method is recommended as a classification based treatment system and some of the relevant evidence presented.

Danish Institute for Health Technology Assessment; Low-back pain. Frequency, management and prevention from an HTA persective. 1-106, 1999.

This wide ranging review and guideline includes a summary of the McKenzie approach, both as a treatment and as a diagnostic method. They concluded there was limited evidence to support its use as a treatment for both acute and chronic back pain, and moderate evidence indicating its value as a diagnostic tool and prognostic indicator.

Philadelphia Panel; Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on selected rehabilitation interventions for low back pain Phys Ther; 81; 1641-1674, 2001.

These guidelines have been developed using a structured and rigorous methodology. For sub-acute and chronic back pain they recommend that there is good evidence to include certain specific exercises, including the McKenzie method.

Work Loss Data Institute. Encinitas, CA; Official Disability Guidelines - Treatment in Workers Comp (ODG) Online ODG, 2008.

McKenzie recommended for acute and chronic back pain. Guidelines noted the reliability of assessment with trained therapists; the value of sub-grouping using centralisation; and the ability of McKenzie method to improve pain and disability in the short-term. This was supported by best levels of evidence: systematic reviews and RCTs.http://worklossdata.com

Aina A, May S, Clare H; The centralization phenomenon of spinal symptoms - a systematic review Man Ther; Aug;9(3):134-143, 2004.

Systematic review of 14 studies into centralisation. Prevalence 70% in 731 sub-acute back pain patients and 52% in 325 chronic back pain patients. Centralisation was reliably assessed (kappa values 0.51 to 1.0). Centralisation was consistently associated with good outcomes, and failure to centralise with poor outcomes. Association was confirmed by high quality studies.

Bybee R, Hipple L, McConnell R, Crossland P ; The relationship between reported pain during movement and centralization of symptoms in low back pain patients. Manuelle Therapie; 9:122-127 (German), 2005.

Occurrence of centralisation was correlated with occurrence of pain during movement in 33 patients with back pain. 22 (67%) reported centralisation, 8 (24%) centralising symptoms, and 3 (9%) reported no site change in symptoms; and 29 reported pain during movement. 97% of those who reported pain during movement reported centralisation/centralising; and 93% of those who reported centralisation/centralising reported pain during movement (p=0.001 for both).

Donelson R, Aprill C, Medcalf R, Grant W.; A prospective study of centralization of lumbar and referred pain. A predictor of symptomatic discs and anular competence. Spine; May 15;22(10):1115-22, 1997.

63 chronic patients received a mechanical evaluation and discography, with clinicians blind to the findings of the other assessment. Centralisation (74%) and peripheralisation (69%) were strongly associated with discogenic pain, compared to no change in symptoms (12%). Centralisation (91%) was strongly associated with a competent annulus compared to peripheralisation (54%).

Donelson R, Grant W, Kamps C, Medcalf R.; Pain response to sagittal end-range spinal motion. A prospective, randomized, multicentered trial. Spine; Jun;16(6 Suppl):S206-12, 1991.

Donelson found that 47% of low back pain patients with or without referred pain displayed a directional preference to end range sagital spinal movement – 40% preferred extension, 7% preferred flexion.

Donelson R, Silva G, Murphy K.; Centralization phenomenon. Its usefulness in evaluating and treating referred pain. Spine; Mar;15(3):211-3, 1990.

The centralisation phenomenon is found to be a reliable predictor of good or excellent treatment outcome. In 87 patients centralisation occurred in 87% - with centralisation occurring in 100% of 59 patients with excellent outcomes.

George SZ, Bialosky JE, Donald DA ; The centralization phenomenon and fear-avoidance beliefs as prognostic factors for acute low back pain: a preliminary investigation involving patients classified for specific exercise. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther; 35:580-588, 2005.

Secondary analysis of 28 patients who were classified as specific exercise category and observed for the effects of prognostic variables at baseline on outcomes at 6 months. Centralisation and fear-avoidance at work both independently and significantly predicted disability at 6 months. Only centralisation significantly predicted pain at 6 months.

Karas, R.; McIntosh, G.; Hall, H.; Wilson, L.; Melles, T.; The Relationship Between Nonorganic Signs and Centralization of Symptoms in the Prediction of Return to Work for Patients With Low Back Pain Phys Ther; 77:354-360, 1997.

Inability to centralize indicated a decreased probability of returning to work, regardless of the Waddell score. A high Waddell score predicted a poor chance of returning to work regardless of the patients’ ability to centralize symptoms. Waddell scores appear to be a better predictor of poor outcomes.

Laslett M, Oberg B, Aprill CN, McDonald B ; Centralization as a predictor of provocation discography results in chronic low back pain, and the influence of disability and distress on diagnostic power. Spine J; 5:370-380, 2005.

83 patients with chronic low back pain underwent a full or partial mechanical examination and discography and the results were compared. The prevalence of positive discography was 75%, and of centralisation 32%. Sensitivity of centralisation to predict discogenic pain was weak (about 40%), but specificity was high and 100% in patients without severe distress or disability.

Lisi AJ.; The centralization phenomenon in chiropractic spinal manipulation of discogenic low back pain and sciatica J Manipulative Physiol Ther ; Nov-Dec;24(9):596-602, 2001.

3 case studies demonstrating value of centralisation. 2 patients displayed centralisation and responded to mobilisation / manipulation treatment. One patient only able to peripheralise came to surgery.

Long A; The centralization phenomenon: its usefulness as a predictor of outcome in conservative treatment of chronic low back pain (a pilot study Spine; 20(23):2513-2521, 1995.

A pilot study indicating that centralisation is useful as an outcome predictor in chronic patients. There was a superior outcome comparing centralisers to non-centralisers in an interdisciplinary work-hardening programme.

Rathore S; Use of McKenzie cervical protocol in the treatment of radicular neck pain in a machine operator. J Can Chiropr Assoc; 47:291-297, 2003.

Case study of patient with cervical radicular pain, demonstrating centralisation in response to retraction and extension, categorised as derangement and treated with retraction and extension exercises.

Skytte L, May S, Petersen P; Centralization: Its prognostic value in patients with referred symptoms and sciatica Spine; 30:E293-E299, 2005.

60 patients with referred symptoms and sciatica following a mechanical evaluation were classified as centralisers (25) or non-centralisers (35). Patients then followed a standardised management pathway that involved surgery if there was a failure to improve. Both short and long-term the centralisation group had significantly better outcomes for pain and disability. Non-centralisers were 6 times more likely to have surgery.

Sufka A, Hauger B, Trenary M, Bishop B, Hagen A, Lozon R, Martens B.; Centralization of low back pain and perceived functional outcome. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther; Mar;27(3):205-12, 1998.

Of 36 patients 70% centralised within 14-day test period – centralisation was less amongst those with chronic symptoms and those with more referred pain. Centralisation was associated with significantly more improvement on one of the functional outcome measures used.

Werneke M, Hart DL, Cook D; A descriptive study of the centralization phenomenon. A prospective analysis. Spine; Apr 1;24(7):676-83, 1999.

Of 289 patients with acute neck and back pain 31% centralised during repeated movement testing in the clinic and achieved abolition of symptoms on an average of 4 sessions; 46% showed some centralisation or reduction of symptoms on an average of 8 sessions (partial response); 23% showed no change in symptom site or intensity over an average of 8 sessions. The authors question whether in the partial response group changes were a product of the natural history or exercise programme. Both centralisers and partial responders showed significant improvement in pain intensity and function, whilst the non-response group did not. Assessment of initial pain location was reliably assessed.

Werneke M, Hart DL.; Centralization phenomenon as a prognostic factor for chronic low back pain and disability. Spine; Apr 1;26(7):758-65 , 2001.

In 225 patients with acute back pain 24 psychosocial, somatic and demographic variables were recorded at initial assessment. Patient outcomes at one year were predicted by a range of independent variables. When all these variables were entered in a multivariate analysis only pain pattern classification (centralisation or partial centralisation v non-centralisation), and leg pain at intake were significant predictors of chronic pain and disability.

Werneke M, Hart DL:; Discriminant validity and relative precision for classifying patients with non-specific neck and back pain by anatomical pain patterns Spine; 28(2), 161-166, 2003.

Re-analysis of data from earlier study comparing prognostic usefulness of classifying patients as centralisers on the first visit compared to during subsequent visits. At first visit 130 (45%) were classified as centralisers, only 4 became non-centralisers, but 43 became partial centralisers. At first visit 157 (55%) were classified as non-centralisers – of these 95 (60%) became partial or full centralisers at later sessions.

Werneke MW, Hart DL.; Categorizing patients with occupational low back pain by use of the Quebec Task Force Classification system versus pain pattern classification procedures: discriminant and predictive validity Phys Ther; Mar;84(3):243-54, 2004.

Re-analysis of previously collected data comparing different methods of classifying back pain patients for their ability to predict outcome. QTF 3 or 4 predicted high levels of pain and disability at intake, but only centralisation / non-centralisation categories predicted pain and disability at discharge. Non-centralisation was stronger predictor of work status at 1 year than fear-avoidance. Predictive value of centralisation / non-centralisation stronger when followed through rehabilitation period, than just at intake.

Werneke MW, Hart DL.; Centralization: association between repeated end-range pain responses and behavioral signs in patients with acute non-specific low back pain. J Rehabil Med; Sep;37(5):286-90, 2005.

Re-analysis of data from previous study to determine association between centralisation category and psychosocial variables. Non-centralisation patients were significantly more likely to have positive non-organic signs, overt pain behaviour, fear of work activities and somatisation, but no difference was found between centralisation category regarding depression, fear of physical activity, disability or pain intensity.

Williams MM, Hawley JA, McKenzie RA, van Wijmen PM.; A comparison of the effects of two sitting postures on back and referred pain. Spine; Oct;16(10):1185-91, 1991.

Over a 24-48 hour period 2 groups of patients with back and referred pain were encouraged to sit in lordosis or in a kyphotic posture. Lordotic sitting group had back and leg pain significantly reduced and pain centralised compared to kyphotic group.

Clare HA, Adams R, Maher CG; A systematic review of efficacy of McKenzie therapy for spinal pain. Aust J Physiother; 50(4):209-16, 2004.

Systematic review of 5 trials deemed to be truly evaluating McKenzie method with pooled data showing greater pain relief (8.6 on a 100 scale) and greater reduction in disability (5.4 on 100 scale) than comparison at short-term (less than 3 months). At 3 to 12 months results were unclear.

Cook C, Hegedus EJ, Ramey K ; Physical therapy exercise intervention based on classification using the patient response method: a systematic review of the literature J Man & Manip Ther; 13:152-162, 2005.

This review uniquely only includes exercise trials for back pain in which patients were classified into exclusive, patient response groups based on physical examination findings. Given these inclusion criteria only 5 trials were included, 4 of these included elements of the McKenzie method, all included centralisation as part of the assessment process. All articles scored 6 or more by PEDro rating (suggesting high quality). 4 / 5 found that a PT directed exercise programme implemented according to patient response was significantly better than control or comparison groups. Authors note a positive trend, but that few studies have investigated this phenomenon.

Hancock MJ, Maher CG, Latimer J, Spindler MF, McAuley JH, Laslett M, Bogduk N ; Systematic review of tests to identify the disc, SIJ or facet joint as the source of low back pain Eur Spine J; 16:1539-1550, 2007.

28 studies investigated the disc, 8 the facet joint and 7 the SIJ. Various features on MRI were suggestive of disc pathology: high intensity zone likelihood ratio (LR) 1.5 to 5.9, disc degeneration 1.6 to 4.0, endplate changes 0.6 to 5.9. Centralisation and likelihood of disc pathology had LR of 2.8. Single tests of SIJ were uninformative; multiple pain provocation tests had LR of 3.2 and negative LR of 0.29. None of the facet tests were found to be informative.

Hettinga DM, Jackson A, Klaber Moffett J, May S, Mercer C, Woby SR ; A systematic review and synthesis of higher quality evidence of the effectiveness of exercise interventions for non-specific low back pain of at least 6 weeks duration. Phys Ther Rev; 12:221-232, 2007.

This systematic review found that higher quality evidence supported the use of strengthening exercises, organised aerobic exercise, general exercises, hydrotherapy and McKenzie exercises for back pain of at least 6 weeks duration.

Machado LAC, de Souza MvS, Ferreira PH, Ferreira ML ; The McKenzie Method for low back pain. A systematic review of the literature with a meta-analysis approach Spine; 31:E254-E262, 2006.

Systematic review that included 11 trials and concluded that there is some evidence that the McKenzie method is more effective than passive therapies for acute back pain, but the size of treatment effect is unlikely to be clinically worthwhile. There is limited evidence for the McKenzie method in chronic back pain and overall effectiveness is not established. However the authors largely failed to perform the meta-analysis they intended, and many studies were included in which treatment was not classification based.

May S, Littlewood C, Bishop A; Reliability of procedures used in the physical examination of non-specific low back pain: a systematic review. Aust J Physiother; 52(2):91-102, 2006.

48 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and were grouped under types as: palpation, symptom response, observation, classification system. Very few physical examination procedures were deemed to be consistently reliable at threshold of reliability coefficient of 0.85. At reliability coefficient 0.70 evidence about pain response to repeated movements changed from contradictory to moderate evidence for high reliability. The McKenzie classification system had contradictory reliability; of 3 high quality studies 2 demonstrated reliability one did not – the study demonstrating lack of reliability used inexperienced therapists with limited / no training in MDT.

Slade SC, Keating J; Unloaded movement facilitation exercise compared to no exercise or alternative therapy on outcomes for people with non-specific chronic low back pain: a systematic review. J Manipulative Physiol Ther; 30:301-311, 2007.

A review of unloaded exercises facilitating lumbar spine movement compared to a no-treatment control or other treatment; of the 6 studies located 4 used the McKenzie system. Strong evidence was found that such exercises improve pain and function compared to no exercise. The evidence slightly favoured McKenzie when compared to strengthening and stabilisation exercises.

Berthelot JM, Delecrin J, Maugars Y, Passuti N ; Contribution of centralization phenomenon to the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of discogenic low back pain. Joint Bone Spine; 74:319-323, 2007.

This review of centralisation concluded that it may indicate discogenic pain and is associated with better outcomes.

Donelson R; Evidence-based low back pain classification Eur Med Phys; 40:37-44, 2004.

Review of literature supporting Mechanical Diagnosis and Treatment – includes the value of a non-specific classification system, the value of establishing directional preference, its reliability as an assessment system, and the prevalence of centralisation in the back pain population.

Huijbregts PA; Fact and Fiction of Disc Reduction: A Literature Review J Man & Manip Ther; 6:3, 137-143, 1998.

This review examines the effect of manipulation, traction, and McKenzie exercises on the position of herniated nuclear material in lumbar intervertebral discs. From the evidence reviewed the author concludes that there is no proof that rotatory manipulation is effective and may lead to further displacement; that traction may temporarily influence displacement; and that extension exercises may influence displacement in non-degenerated discs, but does not allow conclusions about the effect in degenerated or herniated discs.

May S, Donelson R; Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with the McKenzie method. Spine J; 8.134-141, 2008.

Review that examines evidence for McKenzie method in an edition of Spine Journal that investigates the evidence for a wide range of different approaches in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Four guidelines, 5 systematic reviews, and 3 RCTs are quoted.

Wetzel FT, Donelson R; The role of repeated end-range / pain response assessment in the management of symptomatic lumbar discs. Spine J; 3:146-154, 2003.

Review of current literature regarding usefulness of dynamic mechanical assessment for diagnosis andd management of reversible discogenic pathology: and identification of irreversible pathology that may benefit from sugery.

Alexander AH, Jones AM, Rosenbaum Jr D H:; Nonoperative Management of Herniated Nucleus Pulposus: Patient Selection by the Extension Sign-Long term Follow-up. Orthopaedic Review; 21;181-188, 1992.

Follow-up study of 33/73 patients with acute disc herniation treated conservatively. Those unable to gain extension by 5 days were treated surgically. Ability to regain extension was a better predictor of outcome than a variety of other clinical and neurological signs and symptoms.

Brennan GP, Fritz JM, Hunter SJ, Thackeray A, Delitto A, Erhard RE ; Identifying subgroups of patients with acute/sub acute “non-specific” low back pain. Spine; 31:623-631, 2006.

A randomised clinical trial comparing manipulation, stabilisation and directional preference exercises, but also analysing results according to whether patients were treated by classification sub-group or not. Classification sub-groups were determined by clinical features gathered at baseline. There were no significant differences between randomised treatment groups, but there were significant differences between patients matched with their classification sub-group and those unmatched.

Browder DA, Childs JD, Cleland JA, Fritz JM; Effectiveness of an extension-oriented treatment approach in a subgroup of subjects with low back pain: a randomized clinical trial. Phys Ther; 87.1608-1618, 2007.

About 300 patients evaluated for eligibility of who 63 met inclusion criteria:

Cherkin DC, Deyo RA, Battie M, Street J, Barlow W.; A comparison of physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, and provision of an educational booklet for the treatment of patients with low back pain. N Engl J Med; Oct 8;339(15):1021-9, 1998.

McKenzie therapy and chiropractic manipulation are equally effective and both are slightly superior to the booklet in terms of patient satisfaction and short-term symptom reduction. The long-term outcome measures were the same in all 3 groups, including recurrences and care-seeking. The cost of the booklet group was considerably less than the 2 other groups.

Delitto A, Cibulka MT, Erhard RE, Bowling RW, Tenhula JA; Evidence for use of an extension-mobilization category in acute low back syndrome: a prescriptive validation pilot study. Phys Ther; Apr;73(4):216-22, 1993.

Delitto suggests that treatment strategy based on signs and symptoms and response to movement may result in a more effective outcome compared with an unmatched non-specific treatment. Patients classified as extension-responders did better with an extension, than a flexion oriented programme.

Erhard RE, Delitto A, Cibulka MT; Relative effectiveness of an extension program and a combined program of manipulation and flexion and extension exercises in patients with acute low back syndrome Phys Ther; 74:(12)1093-1100, 1994.

Manipulation and general exercise group had greater improvements than pure extension group.

Fritz JM, Delitto A, Erhard RE; Comparison of classification-based physical therapy with therapy based on clinical practice guidelines for patients with acute low back pain. A RCT. Spine; 28:1363-1372, 2003.

78 patients with acute back pain randomised to AHCPR guidelines or care based on classification by therapist. Patients in classification group had significantly better functional outcomes at 4 weeks, and less work loss in follow-up year.

Fritz JM, Lindsay W, Matheson JW et al; Is there a subgroup of patients with low back pain likely to benefit from mechanical traction? Spine; 32.E793-E800, 2007.

64 patients with leg pain and signs of nerve root compression were randomised to extension oriented treatment by itself or with mechanical traction. Percentages demonstrating centralisation and peripheralisation in response to different movements were presented. The traction group had some greater improvements at 2, but not at 6 weeks, but received twice amount of treatment. Subjects who peripheralised with extension were more likely to improve with traction; subjects who centralised with extension did better what ever treatment was given.

Gard G, Gille KA, Degerfeldt L; McKenzie method and functional training in back pain rehabilitation. A brief review including results from a four-week rehabilitation programme. Phys Ther; 5; 107-115, 2000.

Uncontrolled study of 40 patients treated with McKenzie and functional rehabilitation; 14 pain free afterwards. 36 /40 derangements; 18 / 36 demonstrated centralisation.

Gillan MG, Ross JC, McLean IP, Porter RW; The natural history of trunk list, its associated disability and the influence of McKenzie management. Eur Spine J; 7(6):480-3, 1998.

Patients with a trunk list were randomised to McKenzie protocol or non-specific back care. At 90 days there was a significantly greater reduction of list in the McKenzie group, but no clinical difference. List and functional disability were poorly correlated.

Hammer C, Degerfeldt L, Denison E; Mechanical diagnosis and therapy in back pain: compliance and social cognitive theory. Advances in Physio; 9.190-197, 2007.

Study of 58 patents being treated with MDT that examined self-efficacy and compliance. Self efficacy was rated high; compliance tended to decrease over time, but at 2 months was still 64%. Pain and disability decreased over 5 visits and remained minimal at 2-month follow-up.

Hefford C; McKenzie classification of mechanical spinal pain: profile of syndromes and directions of preference. Manual Therapy; 13.75-81, 2008.

Survey of over 300 consecutive patients with cervical, thoracic and lumbar pain from over 30 therapists, which describes mechanical classification, pain patterns and directional preference of reducible derangements. Over 90% were classified with a mechanical syndrome and more than 80% with derangement. Extension was the commonest directional preference by far, especially amongst patients with central or symmetrical symptoms, but also in over 50% of patients symptoms in the arm or leg.

Kopp JR, Alexander AH, Turocy RH, Levrini MG, Lichtman DM.; The use of lumbar extension in the evaluation and treatment of patients with acute herniated nucleus pulposus. A preliminary report. Clin Orthop; Jan;(202):211-8, 1986.

67 patients with disc herniations and nerve root signs were given extension exercises. Of those who improved, 34/35 (97%) achieved full extension. 32 came to surgery, of which only 2 (6%) were able to extend. The ability to achieve full passive extension correlated with good response to conservative treatment, and this was mostly achieved in a few days. Sequestrations were found in 56% of those who came to surgery.

Larsen K, Weidick F, Leboeuf-Yde C.; Can passive prone extensions of the back prevent back problems?: a randomized, controlled intervention trial of 314 military conscripts. Spine; Dec 15;27(24):2747-52, 2002.

314 male conscripts randomised into 2 groups: one group received theory session based on TYOB, disc model, tape to back, and instructed to do 15 EIL X 2 a day for period of military duty. 214 (68%) completed follow-up at 12 months. 1-year prevalence LBP in experimental group 33%, compared to 51% in control. Numbers seeking medical help for LBP also significantly less (9% to 25%). In those who had reported LBP at baseline 1-year prevalence 45% to 80%.

Long A, Donelson R, Fung T; Does it matter which exercise? A randomized control trial of exercises for low back pain. Spine; Dec 1;29(23):2593-2602, 2004.

Following a mechanical evaluation all patients who demonstrated directional preference (DP) (230/312, 74%) were randomised to receive exercise matched to DP (1), exercise opposite to DP (2) or evidence-based management (3). Over 30% of groups 2 and 3 withdrew because of failure to improve or worsening, compared to none in group 1. Over 90% of group 1 rated themselves better or resolved at 2 weeks, compared to just over 20% (group 2) and just over 40% (group 3). There were further significant differences between the groups in back and leg pain, functional disability, depression and QTF category.

Long A, Donelson R, Fung T, Spratt K ; Are acute, chronic, back pain-only, and sciatica-with neural deficit valid low back subgroups? Not for most patents. Spine J; 7;5:63S-64S, 2007.

Sub-group analysis from previous RCT (Long et al 2004) of 80 with directional preference who were treated with exercises matched to directional preference. There were no significant differences in outcomes between QTF groups 1-4, and in 5 of 7 outcomes between acute and chronic groups, but chronic patients reported significantly less reduction of pain. (abstract only)

Manca A, Dumville JC, Torgerson DJ, Klaber Moffett JA, Mooney MP, Jackson DA, Eaton S ; Randomized trial of two physiotherapy interventions for primary care back and neck pain patients: cost-effectiveness analysis. Rheumatology; 46:1495-15010, 2007.

This was an economic analysis of the Klaber-Moffett et al (2007) trial. Despite a mean of one additional visit in the McKenzie group and being more expensive the McKenzie group had additional benefit and was deemed to be cost-effective in regard to acquiring additional Quality Adjusted Life Years.

Miller ER, Schenk RJ, Karnes JL, Rousselle JG ; A comparison of the McKenzie approach to a specific spine stabilization program for chronic low back pain J Man & Manip Ther; 13:103-112, 2005.

29/30 patients with very chronic low back pain completed 6 weeks of either intervention depending on randomisation. Both groups improved from baseline, but there were no significant differences between the groups.

Moffett JK, Jackson DA, Gardiner ED et al ; Randomized trial of two physiotherapy interventions for primary care neck and back pain patients: 'McKenzie' vs brief physiotherapy pain management. Rheumatology; Dec;45:1514-1521, 2006.

315 patients (219 with back pain 96 with neck pain) were randomised to either: McKenzie approach or a cognitive behavioural approach and were followed for 12 months, with the main outcome being the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK). Both groups reported modest but clinically important functional improvements, but there were few differences between the groups. Except greater TSK Activity-Avoidance improvement at 6 months and greater satisfaction in the McKenzie group; and greater change in one aspect of Health Locus of Control measure in the cognitive behavioural approach plus The Back or Neck Book.

Monk C; Measurement of the functional improvement in patients receiving physiotherapy for musculoskeletal conditions. NZ J Physiotherapy; 34:50-55, 2006.

Consecutive case series over a one month period of patients with back pain (N=29) or lower limb problems (N=39) treated according to MDT philosophy with record of before/after functional disability outcomes; 11 additional patients were excluded. Patients received an average of 5.1 treatment sessions; back pain patients improved by 71%, lower limb patients by 69% (p<0.0001 both).

Nwuga G, Nwuga V; Relative therapeutic efficacy of the Williams and McKenzie protocols in back pain management. Physiotherapy Practice; 1:99-105, 1985.

A treatment trial of McKenzie versus Williams protocol favours the McKenzie approach in patients with a diagnosis of disc prolapse.

Owen JE, Orpen N, Ayris K, Birch NC; Very early McKenzie protocol intervention for back pain in hospital workers. JBJS ; 82B. Supp III. 212 (abstract), 2000.

Following introduction of a McKenzie trained therapist to manage hospital employees days lost due to back pain fell be 52%, number of staff off due to back pain fell by 27%, and number of episodes of absenteeism due to back pain fell by 30%.

Petersen T, Kryger P, Ekdahl C, Olsen S, Jacobsen S.; The effect of McKenzie therapy as compared with that of intensive strengthening training for the treatment of patients with subacute or chronic low back pain: A randomized controlled trial. Spine; Aug 15;27(16):1702-9, 2002.

260 patients with chronic back pain followed up at 2 and 8 months after 8 week treatment period. With intention to treat analysis both groups improved modestly, McKenzie group favoured at 2 months. Outcomes were better and differences favouring McKenzie group were more significant in those who actually completed treatment.

Petersen T, Larsen K, Jacobsen S; One-year follow-up comparison of the effectiveness of McKenzie treatment and strength training for patients with chronic low back pain. Spine; 32.2948-2956, 2007.

Long-term follow up of previous trial showing no significant differences between groups and examined factors associated with good and bad outcomes.

Ponte DJ, Jensen GJ, Kent BE; A Preliminary Report on the use of the McKenzie protocol versus Williams Protocol in the treatment of Low Back Pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther; Vol. 6:2; 130-139, 1984.

In LBP patients, the McKenzie protocol was superior to the Williams protocol in decreasing pain and hastening the return of pain free range of motion.

Rasmussen C, Nielsen GL, Hansen VK, Jensen OK, Schioettz-Christensen B ; Rates of lumbar disc surgery before and after implementation of multidisciplinary nonsurgical spine clinics. Spine; 30: 2469-2473., 2005.

In region in Denmark following introduction of spine clinics there was a significant decrease in spine surgery that was not found in the rest of Denmark during the same period. The clinics were based on Indahl and McKenzie principles and patients were treated by McKenzie trained physical therapists.

Schenk R, Jozefczyk, Kopf A ; A randomised trial comparing interventions in patients with lumbar posterior derangement. J Man & Manip Ther; 11:95-102, 2003.

25 patients with lumbar radiculopathy classified as derangement then randomised to McKenzie or mobilisation therapy. Significantly better outcomes pain and function for McKenzie group short-term.

Snook SH, Webster BS, McGorry RW; The reduction of chronic, non-specific low back pain through the control of early morning lumbar flexion: 3-year follow-up. J Occup Rehab; 12.13-19, 2002.

3-year follow-up of previous study with 62% of subjects still restricting bending activities in the early morning and claiming benefit.

Snook SH, Webster BS, McGorry RW, Fogleman MT, McCann KB; The reduction of chronic nonspecific low back pain through the control of early morning lumbar flexion. A randomized controlled trial. Spine; Dec 1;23(23):2601-7, 1998.

Education in the control of early morning flexion produced significant reductions in pain intensity, days in pain, disability and medication use. High drop-out rates show the difficulty of getting people to make such behavioural changes.

Spratt KF, Weinstein JN, Lehmann TR, Woody J, Sayre H; Efficacy of flexion and extension treatments incorporating braces for low-back pain patients with retrodisplacement, spondylolisthesis, or normal sagittal translation Spine; 18(13):1839-1849, 1993.

Improvement in the extension group was significantly greater, regardless of type of radiographic abnormality, than flexion or control group.

Stankovic R, Johnell O; Conservative treatment of acute low back pain. A 5-year follow-up study of two methods of treatment Spine; 20(4):469-472, 1995.

Difference between 2 treatments at 5 years was much less, however McKenzie group had significantly less recurrences of pain and episodes of sick leave.

Stankovic R, Johnell O.; Conservative treatment of acute low-back pain. A prospective randomized trial: McKenzie method of treatment versus patient education in "mini back school". Spine; Feb;15(2):120-3, 1990.

100 acute back patients randomised to McKenzie or back school; significantly better outcomes in McKenzie group in pain, function, sick leave, recurrences, and further health care.

Udermann BE, Spratt KF, Donelson RG, Mayer J, Graves JE, Tillotson J; Can a patient educational book change behavior and reduce pain in chronic back pain patients? Spine J; 4.425-435, 2004.

Long-term (18 month) uncontrolled cohort study of effect of TYOB on 48 of 62 chronic back pain volunteers. There were significant differences in reductions in pain and pain episodes and perceived benefit over time. Significant differences remained even with a worst-case model to account for those lost to follow-up. Compliance with exercise and posture advice was reported by about 80% long-term.

Underwood MR, Morgan J.; The use of a back class teaching extension exercises in the treatment of acute low back pain in primary care. Fam Pract; Feb;15(1):9-15, 1998.

In an acute group of patients randomised to usual GP care or a one off back class according to McKenzie principles there were no significant differences in outcome, except one difference at one year, when more of the back class group reported ‘back pain no problem in previous 6 months’.

Worsfold C, Langridge J, Spalding A, Mullee MA.; Comparison between primary care physiotherapy education/advice clinics and traditional hospital based physiotherapy treatment: a randomized trial. Br J Gen Pract; Mar;46(404):165-8, 1996.

Spinal and non-spinal musculoskeletal problems managed in primary care with advice and exercise, which included exercises from Treat Your Own Back / Neck, were seen more efficiently than hospital physiotherapy (3 sessions compared to 5), and had better outcomes, though only a few were significant.

Battie MC, Cherkin DC, Dunn R, Clol MA, Wheller KJ.; Managing Low Back Pain : Attitudes and Treatment Preferences of Physical Therapists. Phys Ther; 74:3, 219-226, 1994.

A survey of therapists in USA when presented with hypothetical back pain patients. The McKenzie method was deemed the most useful method of managing patients, and was said to be a very common means of evaluating patients.

Byrne K, Doody C, Hurley DA.; Exercise therapy for low back pain: a small-scale exploratory survey of current physiotherapy practice in the Republic of Ireland acute hospital setting. Man Ther; Nov;11(4):272-8, 2006.

73% response rate to survey of 24 physiotherapy departments: stabilisation exercises were most popular with acute (39%) and chronic (51%) back pain, followed by McKenzie approach (36% and 17% respectively).

Foster NE, Thompson KA, Baxter GD, Allen JM; Management of nonspecific low back pain by physiotherapists in Britain and Ireland. A descriptive questionnaire of current clinical practice. Spine; Jul 1;24(13):1332-42, 1999.

The McKenzie method was said to be the second most common treatment approach used by therapists. The Maitland approach was used by 59%, McKenzie method by 47%,, multiple other approaches were used as well with less frequency – combined approaches were common.

Gracey JH, McDonough SM, Baxter GD.; Physiotherapy management of low back pain: a survey of current practice in northern ireland. Spine; Feb 15;27(4):406-11, 2002.

Details of management of over 1,000 patients by 157 therapists over 12-month period. McKenzie was used in over 70% of patients, usually in combination, and was one of the most commonly used approaches. McKenzie course attendees ranged from 76% for A to 16% for D.

Hamm L, Mikkelsen B, Kuhr J, Stovring H, Munck A, Kragstrup J ; Danish physiotherapists’ management of low back pain. Advances in Physio; 5:109-113, 2003.

An audit of 242 Danish PTs (14% of total) during a 4 week period to see if they used recommended treatments. McKenzie was used in 40% of consultations; there was a lot of combination of treatments; 22% of consultations involved non-recommended treatments, such as ultrasound and short-wave. McKenzie was most commonly used in acute back pain with radiation (64%), acute back pain (44%), chronic back pain with radiation (40%), and least in chronic back pain (27%).

Jackson DA; How is low back pain managed? Retrospective study of the first 200 patients with low back pain referred to a newly established community-based physiotherapy department. Physiotherapy; 87;11 573-581, 2001.

In 58% of patients McKenzie approach was used, usually in combination with other therapies. Electrotherapy was commonly used also.

May S; Classification by McKenzie mechanical syndromes: A survey of McKenzie-trained faculty. J Manipulative Physiol Ther; 29:637-642, 2006.

Survey of 57 therapists in 18 countries and details of 607 consecutively discharged spinal patients and their mechanical syndrome classification. Individually each therapist recorded a mechanical classification in 82% of their patients, in total 83% of 607 patients had a mechanical classification - derangement 78%, dysfunction 3%, adherent nerve root (1%) and postural syndrome (1%). 'Other' was recorded in 17% of patients, most commonly mechanically inconclusive, chronic pain state and post surgery.

McKenzie RA; A Prophylaxis in Recurrent Low Back Pain New Zealand Med J; No. 627, 89:22-23, 1979.

Frequent restoration of the lumbar lordosis and avoidance of flexion were seen as critical factors in prophylactic education for prevention of recurrent LBP. McKenzie reports on 318 patients - onset, aggravating and relieving factors, deformity, and the success of treatment in reducing further attacks as reported by the patients.

Poitras S, Blais R, Swaine B, Rossignol M ; Management of work-related low back pain: a population-based survey of physical therapists. Phys Ther; 85:1168-1181, 2005.

Survey of 328 physical therapists treating workers’ compensation patients with back pain in Quebec to find their treatment objectives and chosen interventions. Wide range of exercise, mobilisation, modality and other interventions were used. McKenzie approach was used by 37% of physical therapists for patients with back pain only and 63% of therapists for patients with back and radiating pain.

Clare HA, Adams R, Maher CG; Reliability of the McKenzie spinal pain classification using patient assessment forms. Physiotherapy; 90:114-119, 2004.

50 completed neck and back assessment forms were sent to 50 credentialed McKenzie therapists to classify - kappa values of 0.56 were recorded for syndromes and 0.68 for sub-syndromes.

Clare HA, Adams R, Maher CG; Reliability of McKenzie classification of patients with cervical and lumbar pain J Manipulative Physiol Ther; Feb;28(2):122-7, 2005.

25 lumbar and 25 cervical patients were assessed simultaneously by pairs of credentialed therapists; 14 in total. Prevalence of derangement was 88%/84%, dysfunction 0%/4%, posture 0%/0%, and ‘other’ 12%/12% for the 2 therapists. Kappa values for lumbar syndromes and sub-syndromes was 1.0 and 0.89, and for cervical syndromes and sub-syndromes 0.63 and 0.84 respectively.

Clare HA, Adams R, Maher CG ; Construct validity of lumbar extension measures in McKenzie’s derangement syndrome. Manual Therapy; 12:328-334, 2007.

50 consecutive patients were classified as derangement (40) or non-derangement (10) and treated with extension procedures; extension range of movement was measured at baseline and at day 5. All patients gained extension but those classified as derangement had significantly more improvement in extension and significantly better globally perceived effect scores. The modified Schober test in standing was the most responsive was to measure extension range of the 4 methods tested.

Clare HA, Adams R, Maher CG.; Reliability of detection of lumbar lateral shift. J Manipulative Physiol Ther; Oct;26(8):476-80, 2003.

148 therapists (students, PTs, PTs with McKenzie training) viewed slides from 45 patients to determine presence, direction, and certainty of lateral shift or absence of shift. ICC values represented fair to good reliability for both intra and inter-tester reliability; kappa values were all < 0.4 (fair reliability).

Donahue MS, Riddle DL, Sullivan MS.; Intertester reliability of a modified version of McKenzie‘s lateral shift assessments obtained on patients with low back pain. Phys Ther; Jul;76(7):706-16, 1996.

Determination of a lateral shift by observation was found to be very unreliable. Determination of positive side-gliding test, based on alteration of patient’s pain, was found to be of high reliability.

Fritz JM, Delitto A, Vignovic M, Busse RG; Interrater reliability of judgments of the centralization phenomenon and status change during movement testing in patients with low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil; Jan;81(1):57-61, 2000.

40 students and 40 physical therapists reviewed a composite videotape made during assessment of back pain patients and had to make judgements on changes in pain status with movement testing. Intertester reliability was excellent, kappa = 0.79.

Horton SJ, Franz A ; Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy approach to assessment and treatment of derangement of the sacro-iliac joint. Manual Therapy; 12:126-132, 2007.

Description of a case in which lumbar spine pain was ruled out and then direction preference exercises targeting the SIJ abolished a patients 2-year history of buttock and thigh pain.

Kilby J, Stigant M, Roberts A; The Reliability of Back Pain Assessment by Physiotherapists, Using a 'McKenzie Algorithm'. Physiotherapy; 76:9;579-583, 1990.

Kilby presents a McKenzie algorithm which was found to be intertester reliable, except with regard to identifying the presence of a lateral shift or a kyphotic lumbar spine.

Kilpikoski S, Airaksinen O, Kankaanpaa M, Leminen P, Videman T, Alen M.; Interexaminer reliability of low back pain assessment using the McKenzie method. Spine; Apr 15;27(8):E207-14, 2002.

39 patients with back pain were assessed by 2 therapists in turn, clinical and classification decisions were compared using Kappa statistics. Agreement was poorer for presence of lateral shift than relevance of shift or lateral component. Agreement on centralisation, directional preference, and mechanical classification was good to excellent.

Laslett M, McDonald B, Tropp H, Aprill CN, Oberg B ; Agreement between diagnosis reached by clinical examination and available reference standards: a prospective study of 216 patients with lumbopelvic pain. BMC Musculoskeletal Disord; 6:28, 2005.

In 216 patients with chronic low back pain structural diagnosis, as defined by intra-articular injections or discography was compared to clinical diagnosis: discogenic pain defined as centralisation or directional preference. Discogenic pain was the commonest diagnosis by both radiographer and physiotherapist, followed by ‘illness behaviour’ and ‘indeterminate’. Diagnoses of SIJ or ‘facet’ joint were rarely made. Agreement between radiographer and clinical examination was weak.

Laslett M, Williams M; The reliability of selected pain provocation tests for sacroiliac joint pathology Spine; 19(11):1243-1249, 1994.

Five of the seven tests were shown to be reliable, and may be used to detect a sacroiliac cause of low back pain. They were the distraction (or gapping) test, compression test, posterior shear (or thigh thrust) test, left and right pelvic torsion (or Gaenslen’s) test.

Laslett 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; 49(2):89-97, 2003.

Using initial Mechanical evaluation to exclude mechanical responders and 3 or more positive pain provocation SIJ tests compared to a double intra-articular injection was more accurate in diagnosing SIJ problems (sensitivity 91%, specificity 87%) than SIJ pain provocation tests only (sensitivity 91%, specificity 78%).

May S, Rosedale R; A case of a potential manipulation responder whose back pain resolved with flexion exercises. J Manipulative Physiol Ther; 30:539-542, 2007.

Case study of a patient who met 4 / 5 of clinical prediction rule criteria for a manipulation responder but who also displayed a directional preference for flexion exercises, and resolved symptoms and functional disability rapidly with self-management exercises. This suggests that clinical prediction rule criteria for manipulation responders and directional preference may not be discrete groups.

McKenzie RA; Manual Correction of Sciatic Scoliosis New Zealand Med J; 484,76:194-199, 1972.

McKenzie outlines the treatment procedure for manual correction of sciatic scoliosis.

Petersen T, Olsen S, Laslett M et al. ; Inter-tester reliability of a new diagnostic classification system for patients with non-specific low back pain. Aust J Physiother; 50:85-91, 2004.

Reliability study of their classification system, which borrows many aspects from McKenzie system. Kappa values for mechanical syndromes (derangement, dysfunction, postural syndrome) mostly > 0.60.

Petersen T, Thorsen H, Manniche C, Ekdahl C; Classification of non-specific low back pain: a review of the literature on classification systems relevant to physiotherapy Phys Ther Rev ; 4:265-281, 1999.

A critical appraisal, using a systematic approach, of 8 classification systems for non-specific back pain. Various types of validity are examined, and despite having weaknesses in reliability and content validity, the McKenzie system is rated as one of the most promising.

Razmjou H, Kramer JF, Yamada R; Intertester reliability of the McKenzie evaluation in assessing patients with mechanical low-back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther; Jul;30(7):368-383, 2000.

Two physical therapists, one assessor, one observer, both experienced in McKenzie assessed 45 subjects and were analysed on agreements using Kappa statistics. Agreement on syndromes was good (93%), derangement sub-syndrome classification was excellent (97%), presence of lateral shift was moderate (78%), relevance of lateral shift and lateral component was very good/excellent (98%), deformity in sagittal plane was excellent (100%).

Riddle DL, Rothstein JM.; Intertester reliability of McKenzie‘s classifications of the syndrome types present in patients with low back pain. Spine; Aug;18(10):1333-44, 1993.

369 patients assessed by 49 therapists with no or minimal training in McKenzie. Intertester reliability using author’s version of the system was poor, agreement on classification was 39%.

Seymour R, Walsh T, Blankenberg C, Pickens A, Rush H; Reliability of detecting a relevant lateral shift in patients with lumbar derangement: a pilot study J Man & Manip Ther; 10(3):129-135, 2003.

15 patients were examined by 6 therapists to determine reliability of determining if a lateral shift was present and if it was relevant; observed agreement was 73%, kappa 0.56

Young S, Aprill C, Laslett M; Correlation of clinical examination characteristics with three sources of chronic low back pain Spine; 3.460-465, 2003.

In 81 chronic back pain patients 51 had positive response to diagnostic injection into disc, zygapophyseal or sacro-iliac joints. Centralisation, midline pain, and pain on rising from sitting were significantly associated with a positive discogram. Sacro-iliac joint pain was strongly associated with 3 or more positive pain provocation tests, pain on rising from sitting, unilateral pain and absence of mid-line or lumbar pain. Zygapophyseal pain was associated with absence of pain on rising from sitting.

Al-Obaidi S, Anthony J, Dean E, Al-Shuwai N.; Cardiovascular responses to repetitive McKenzie lumbar spine exercises Phys Ther; Sep;81(9):1524-1533, 2001.

Blood pressure and heart rate goes up in normal individuals when they perform repeated exercises as described by McKenzie.

Alexander LA, Hancock E, Agouris I, Smith FW, MacSween A ; The response of the nucleus pulposus of the lumbar intervertebral discs to functionally loaded positions. Spine; 32:1508-1512, 2007.

First ever study using upright magnetic resonance imaging of effect of functional positions on movement of the nucleus pulposus (NP) in 11 volunteers. In sitting there was significantly less lordosis than prone lying and standing, and significantly more posterior migration of the NP than other positions.

Aota Y, Iizuka H, Ishige Y, Mochida T, Yoshihisa T, Uesugi M, Saito T ; Effectiveness of a lumbar support continuous passive motion device in the prevention of low back ain during prolonged sitting. Spine; 32.E674-E677, 2007.

Asymptomatic volunteers tested prolonged sitting with 1) no lumbar support, 2) static lumbar support, or 3) continuous passive motion lumbar support. There were significant differences between 1 and 2 / 3 in discomfort / pain, stiffness and fatigue, but no significant differences between 2 and 3

Bakker EW, Verhagen AP, Lucas C, Koning HJ, de Haan RJ, Koes BW.; Daily spinal mechanical loading as a risk factor for acute non-specific low back pain: a case-control study using the 24-Hour Schedule Eur Spine J.; Jan;16(1):107-13, 2007.

100 cases with acute back pain were compared by a blinded assessor with 100 controls using the 24-Hour Schedule, which quantifies spinal mechanical loading taking into account duration of activity, sagittal movement and loading status. There were no significant differences between cases and controls in predominant work postures. There were significant differences between the groups in hours in flexion and extension, with cases spending significantly more hours in flexion and significantly less likely to be in extended postures.

Bakker EWP, Verhagen AP, Lucas C, Koning HJCMF, Koes BW ; Spinal mechanical load: a predictor of persistent low back pain? A prospective cohort study. Eur Spine J; 16:933-941, 2007.

A prospective cohort study of 100 back pain patients who were reviewed at 6 months (N = 88) when 60% reported persistent back pain. Baseline factors were analysed for their association with back pain. Multivariate analysis found smoking and older age (protective) to be associated, while univariate analysis found the 24-hour schedule to be, this is a measure of spine mechanical load.

Beattie PF, Brooks WM, Rothstein JM, Sibbitt WL Jr, Robergs RA, MacLean T, Hart BL.; Effect of lordosis on the position of the nucleus pulposus in supine subjects. A study using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Spine; Sep 15;19(18):2096-2102, 1994.

In vivo some anterior displacement of the nucleus pulposus with extension movements was observed. Degenerated discs appear to behave differently from non-degenerated discs.

Boissonnault W, Fabio RP.; Pain profile of patients with low back pain referred to physical therapy. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther; Oct;24(4):180-91, 1996.

98 patients with chronic back pain surveyed about aggravating and relieving factors etc. Pain was worse in morning and evening, and commonest aggravating factors were sitting, driving, bending, and lifting. Commonest alleviating postures were recumbency, changing positions, and walking. Non-serious night pain was common.

Dankaerts W, O'Sullivan P, Burnett A, Straker L.; Differences in sitting postures are associated with nonspecific chronic low back pain disorders when patients are subclassified Spine; Mar 15;31(6):698-704, 2006.

An examination of the sitting posture of back pain patients, analysed as non-specific or according to a novel classification system, and non-back pain controls. There was no difference in sitting posture between controls and un-differentiated back pain patients; however there were significant differences between sub-groups and controls. ‘Flexion pattern’ patients, with a directional preference for extension, had a more kyphotic sitting pattern than controls; and ‘active extension pattern’ patients, who had a directional preference for flexion had a more lordotic sitting posture than controls.

Edmondston SJ, Song S, Bricknell RV, Davies PA, Fersum K, Humphries P, Wickenden D, Singer KP.; MRI evaluation of lumbar spine flexion and extension in asymptomatic individuals. Man Ther; Aug;5(3):158-64, 2000.

Between flexion and extension there was anterior displacement of the nucleus pulposus of 6.7%, this was significant at L1/2, L2/3 and L5/S1. Displacement did not occur in 30% of discs.

Fazey PJ, Song S, Monsas A et al; An MRI investigation of intervertebral disc deformation in response to torsion. Clin Biomech; 21;538-542, 2006.

MRI investigation of 3 asymptomatic women showing that in most instances extension caused anterior deformation of nucleus, flexion posterior deformation, and left rotation deformation to the right.

Fennell A.J.; Jones, A.P.; Hukins, D.W.L.; Migration of the Nucleus Pulposus Within the Intervertebral Disc DuringFlexion and Extension of the Spine Spine; 21:2753-2757, 1996.

In vivo flexion tends to cause posterior displacement of the nucleus pulposus and extension anterior displacement using MRI.

Fredericson M, Lee SU, Welsh J, Butts K, Norbash A, Carragee EJ ; Changes in posterior disc bulging and intervertebral foraminal size associated with flexion-extension movement: a comparison between L4-5 and L5-S1 levels in normal subjects. Spine J; 1:10-17, 2001.

MRI of 3 volunteers with no history of back pain; clear trend for flexion to cause greater posterior bulging and extension to reduce posterior bulging. Intervertebral foramina increased in flexion and decreased with extension.

Geldhof E, de Clercq D, de Bourdeaudhuij I, Cardon G ; Classroom postures of 8-12 year old children. Ergonomics; 50.1571-1581, 2007.

Pupils (N = 105) were observed to spend 85% of classroom time sitting, 28% of which was flexed forward and 91% of time was static. Children who spent more time sitting flexed forward reported significantly more low back pain.

Harrison DD, Harrison SO, Croft AC, Harrison DE, Troyanovich SJ; Sitting biomechanics, part 1: Review of the literature / Sitting biomechanics, part 2: Optimal car driver’s seat and optimal driver’s spinal model. J Manipulative Physiol Ther ; 22:594-609; 23:37-47 2000, 1999.

Extensive literature review on the biomechanical effects and comfort of different sitting postures to identify optimal seating and driving posture. Concludes that maintenance of lumbar lordosis, seat-back inclination, freedom to move, and minimal anterior head translation have been shown to reduce sitting stress and be associated with higher comfort ratings.

Murphy S, Buckle P, Stubbs D ; Classroom posture and self-reported back and neck pain in school children. Applied Ergonomics; 35:113-120, 2004.

The sitting posture and self-reported pain was measured in 66 school children, mean age 13. Significant associations were found between self-reported spine pain and: lesson length, sustained trunk or neck flexion, and time working at the desk

O'Sullivan P, Dankaerts W, Burnett A et al ; Evaluation of the flexion relaxation phenomenon of the trunk muscles in sitting. Spine; 31;2009-2016, 2006.

In 24 healthy volunteers neutral lordotic sitting posture facilitated multifidus and internal oblique muscles, whereas slumped sitting caused a significant decrease in their activity. Activity of erector spinae varied during slumped sitting in some it increased and in some it decreased.

O'Sullivan PB, Mitchell T, Bulich P, Waller R, Holte J ; The relationship between posture and back muscle endurance in industrial workers with flexion-related low back pain. Man Ther; 11:264-271, 2006.

24 workers with back pain provoked by flexion activities compared with 21 healthy workers had: significantly reduced muscle endurance, increased posterior pelvic tilt and sat closer to their end range of lumbar flexion.

O‘Sullivan PB, Grahamslaw KM, Kendell M, Lapenskie SC, Moller NE, Richards KV.; The effect of different standing and sitting postures on trunk muscle activity in a pain-free population. Spine; Jun 1;27(11):1238-44, 2002.

Compared to erect sitting and standing most trunk muscle activity is significantly less in slumped sitting or standing.

Pynt J, Higgs J, Mackey M; Seeking the optimal posture of the seated lumbar spine. Physio Theory & Pract ; 17;5-21, 2001.

A review of the literature on the optimal sitting posture for spinal health, based mostly on cadaveric studies, but some clinical studies. They conclude that the arguments in favour of a kyphotic sitting position are not substantiated by research; and that a lordotic position, interspersed with regular movement, is the optimal sitting posture and assists in preventing back pain.

Schnebel BE, Simmons JW, Chowning J, Davidson R.; A digitizing technique for the study of movement of intradiscal dye in response to flexion and extension of the lumbar spine. Spine; Mar;13(3):309-12, 1988.

Nuclear material in normal discs moves anteriorly with extension and posteriorly with flexion, however movements in degenerated discs were less predictable.

Van Deursen LL, Patijn J, Durinck JR, Brouwer R, van Erven-Sommers JR, Vortman BJ; Sitting and low back pain: the positive effect of rotatory dynamic stimuli during prolonged sitting Eur Spine J; 8: 187-193, 1999.

120 back pain patients sitting for 1 hour – pain increased in 104; 2 had to stop; a few got better. Pain increase was less in those with dynamic stimuli.

Womersley L, May S.; Sitting posture of subjects with postural backache J Manipulative Physiol Ther; Mar-Apr;29(3):213-8., 2006.

Nine students were classified as postural backache (history of mild backache but no functional disability) and 9 as control (no history of backache). Postural activity was recorded over 3 days and relaxed sustained sitting posture observed with computerised video analysis. The postural backache group had significantly longer periods of uninterrupted sitting and sat with greater flexion when relaxed.

McKenzie RA; Treat Your Own Neck. Spinal Publications, Waikanae, New Zealand; 3rd Edition, 1998.

A basic overview of the self-treatment and management of neck pain for lay people. (First published, 1983)

McKenzie RA; Treat Your Own Back. Spinal Publications, Waikanae, New Zealand; 8th Edition, 2006.

A basic overview of the self-treatment and management of LBP for lay people. (First published, 1980)

McKenzie RA, May S ; The Human Extremities: Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy Spinal Publications, Waikanae, New Zealand; , 2000.

A description of the McKenzie philosophy outlining assessment, treatment and prophylaxis for the human extremities.

McKenzie RA, May S; The Lumbar Spine. Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy. (Vol. 1 and 2) Spinal Publications, Waikanae, New Zealand; 2nd Edition, 2003.

A revision and update of the McKenzie philosophy outlining assessment, treatment and prophylaxis for low back pain and leg pain. (Foreword written by Nikolai Bogduk MD, PhD, DSc) 1st edition published in 1981.

McKenzie RA, May S; The Cervical and Thoracic Spine. Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy. (Vol. 1 and 2) Spinal Publications, Waikanae, New Zealand ; 2nd Edition, 2006.

A revision and update of the McKenzie method of mechanical diagnosis and therapy with specific reference to the cervical and thoracic spine. (First published in 1990)

McKenzie RA; A perspective on Manipulative Therapy Physiotherapy; 75:8. pp 440-444, 1989.

McKenzie presents a review of spinal manipulative therapy and suggests that therapist generated forces should only be indicated when patient generated forces have been exhausted.

Watson G; Neuromusculoskeletal physiotherapy: Encouraging self-management. Physiotherapy; 82:6;352-357

Watson urges that physiotherapists should promote a therapeutic alliance with patients to encourage self-management, an approach that is efficient, increases patient compliance, and helps prevent recurrences.

Clare HA, Adams R, Maher CG; A systematic review of efficacy of McKenzie therapy for spinal pain. Aust J Physiother; 50(4):209-16, 2004.

Systematic review of 5 trials deemed to be truly evaluating McKenzie method with pooled data showing greater pain relief (8.6 on a 100 scale) and greater reduction in disability (5.4 on 100 scale) than comparison at short-term (less than 3 months). At 3 to 12 months results were unclear.

Abdulwahab SS, Sabbahi M; Neck retractions, cervical root decompression, and radicular pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther; Jan;30(1):4-9, 2000.

In a group of patients with neck and radicular pain a posture of sustained flexion caused a significant increase in peripheral pain and root compression as measured by H reflex amplitude. Repeated retractions caused a significant decrease in peripheral pain and decrease of nerve root compression.

Kjellman G, Oberg B:; A randomised clinical trial comparing general exercise, McKenzie treatment and a control group in patients with neck pain. J Rehabil Med; 34:183-190, 2002.

77 patients with acute to chronic neck pain randomised to 1 of 3 treatment arms, 93% follow-up at 12 months. All groups significant improvements in pain and disability, no significant difference between groups. Trend towards greater improvements in McKenzie group compared to controls at certain times. Significant improvements in DRAM scores in McKenzie group only. Recurrence rates similar by 12 months, but additional healthcare usage much less in McKenzie group.

Bybee RF, Dionne CP ; Interater agreement on assessment, diagnosis, and treatement for neck pain by trained physical therapist students. J Phys Ther Edu; 21;2:39-47, 2007.

17 students who had completed parts A and B viewed a video recording of assessment of 20 patients with neck pain and recorded classification and classification-treatment link. There reliability was compared to that of post-graduate physical therapists from a previous study. Reliability was kappa 0.5 for initial classification, 0.55 for initial treatment, and 0.58 for classification-treatment link; for clinicians the latter kappa was 0.46. The students were significantly more reliable.

Dionne C, Bybee RF, Tomaka J ; Correspondence of diagnosis to initial treatment for neck pain. Physiotherapy; 93:62-68, 2007.

54 trained clinicians viewed videotapes of the assessment of 20 patients with neck pain to determine the reliability of MDT diagnosis to management link and derangement classification and directional preference (DP) link. For derangement-DP link kappa values were 0.46, and for extension, lateral flexion DP 0.4, 0.45, and 0.04 respectively.

Dionne CP, Bybee RF, Tomaka J ; Inter-rater-reliability of McKenzie assessment in patients with neck pain. Physiotherapy; 92:75-82, 2006.

54 physical therapists with a range of MDT training reviewed 20 video-taped examinations and offered a MDT classification, sub-classification and directional preference if relevant. The majority classification was derangement (16), then dysfunction (2) and postural syndrome (1). The majority decision on directional preference for derangement was extension (15) and lateral (1). Reliability statistics (kappa) were: classification, 0.55; sub-classification, 0.47; directional preference, 0.46.

Auvinen J, Tammelin T, Taimela S, Zitting P, Karppinen J ; Neck and shoulder pain in relation to physical activity and sedentary activities in adolescence. Spine; 32:1038-1044, 2007.

Cross-sectional study amongst 6000 15-16 year olds to determine activities associated with neck and shoulder pain. About 50% of the girls and 30% of the boys reported some pain, and 5% and 2% respectively reported severe pain in the last 6 months. Pain was associated with high levels of physical activity and with prolonged sitting.

Cloward RB; Cervical discography. A contribution to the aetiology and mechanism of neck, shoulder and arm pain. Ann Surg; 150:1052-1064, 1959.

At surgery stimulation of cervical discs produced intra-scapular pain, with stimulation mid-line producing central pain and off-centre producing lateral pain.

Falla D, Jull G, Russell T, Vicenzino B, Hodges P ; Effect of neck exercise on sitting posture in patients with chronic neck pain Phys Ther; 87:408-417, 2007.

Comparison of sustained sitting posture for 10 minutes in 58 patients with chronic neck pain and 10 controls, with a distraction computer task. The neck pain group demonstrated a significantly reduced ability to maintain an upright sitting posture and adopted amore forward head posture over time.

Harms-Ringdahl K.; On assessment of shoulder exercise and load-elicited pain in the cervical spine. Biomechanical analysis of load--EMG--methodological studies of pain provoked by extreme position. Scand J Rehabil Med; 14:1-40, 1986.

Various motor and sustained loading tests carried out on asymptomatic volunteers. When sustaining extreme flexion pain was produced after 2-15 minutes and stopped test within hour, when the pain abated. Pain was mostly neck and shoulders.

Mercer S, Bogduk N; The ligaments and anulus fibrosus of human adult cervical intervertebral discs. Spine; Apr 1;24(7):619-26;, 1999.

Anatomical study of 12 adult specimens. Anulus is thick anteriorly, but posteriorly is minimal, reinforced by the posterior longitudinal ligament centrally and virtually absent poster-laterally.

Mercer SR, Jull GA.; Morphology of the cervical intervertebral disc: implications for McKenzie‘s model of the disc derangement syndrome. Man Ther; Mar;1(2):76-81, 1996.

As the morphology and degenerative process of the cervical spine is different from the lumbar spine the authors conclude that the model does not conform to known anatomy. (see also discussion McKenzie Institute (UK) Newsletter 5:1;10-14,1996)

Ordway NR, Seymour RJ, Donelson RG, Hojnowski LS, Edwards WT; Cervical flexion, extension, protrusion, and retraction. A radiographic segmental analysis. Spine; Feb 1;24(3):240-7, 1999.

Study into the paradoxical movement pattern of the cervical spine – retraction produces lower C extension and upper C flexion, protrusion produces lower C flexion and upper C extension. Full range extension is produced in lower C by extension, but in O-C2 by protrusion; full range flexion is produced in lower C by flexion, but in O-C2 by retraction.

Pearson ND, Walmsley RP; Trial into the effects of repeated neck retractions in normal subjects. Spine; 20(11):1245-1251, 1995.

Retraction range did not increase on repetition, and range was greater in the younger population.

Schellhas, K.P.; Smith, M.D.; Gundry, C.R.; Pollei, S.R.; Cervical Discogenic Pain. Prospective correlation of MRI and discography in asymptomatic subjects and pain sufferers. Spine; 21:3;300-312, 1996.

Most cervical discs are morphologically abnormal, with outer annular tears found in both volunteers and patients. Gives areas of referral for discogenic pain.