Skip to main content
Download PDF

Management of non-specific thoracic spine pain: a cross-sectional study among physiotherapists

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume 24, Article number: 398 (2023) Cite this article

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

The thoracic area has mainly been neglected in research compared to the lumbar and cervical regions. No clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for non-specific thoracic spine pain (TSP) have been compiled. Therefore, it can be argued that the absence of specific CPGs raises questions about the management of non-specific TSP. Hence, this study aimed at determining the management of non-specific TSP among physiotherapists in Italy.

Methods

A web cross-sectional survey investigating physiotherapists’ management of non-specific TSP was conducted. The survey instrument was divided into three sections. The first section obtained participants’ characteristics. The second section determined participants’ agreement with 29 statements regarding the clinical management of non-specific TSP utilising a five-point Likert scale. Participants who partially or completely agreed (scores 4–5) were considered to agree with the statements. A ≥ 70% of agreement with a statement was considered as consensus according to previous literature. The third section asked the participants to indicate how often they adopted several treatments to manage non-specific TSP with a 5-point scale (always – often – sometimes – rarely - never). The frequencies of answers were calculated, and a visual representation through a bar chart was reported. The online version of the survey instrument was delivered through the newsletter of the Italian Association of Physiotherapists and the postgraduate master’s degree in Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation of the University of Genova (Genova, Italy).

Results

In total, 424 physiotherapists (mean age (SD): 35.1 years (10.5); 50% women) completed the survey. In the second section, physiotherapists achieved consensus for 22/29 statements. Those statements addressed the importance of psychosocial factors, exercise, education, and manual therapy techniques in managing non-specific TSP. In the third section, 79.7% of participants indicated they would always adopt a multimodal treatment (education, therapeutic exercise, manual therapy), followed by education and information (72.9%), therapeutic exercise (62.0%), soft tissue manual therapy (27.1%), and manual therapy (16.5%).

Conclusions

Study participants considered fundamentally using a multimodal programme based on education, exercise and manual therapy to manage non-specific TSP. This approach aligns with the CPGs for other chronic musculoskeletal pain than non-specific TSP.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The thoracic spine has received less attention in terms of terminology, epidemiologic data and clinical management than the lumbar and cervical spines [1, 2]. As a result, Heneghan et al. referred to the thoracic spine as the “Cinderella” region of the spine [3]. As per the terminology, a shared definition of the non-specificity origin of thoracic spine pain (TSP) has yet to be made [4, 5]. Briggs et al. defined non-specific TSP as pain experienced in the region of the thoracic spine, between the thoracic levels T1–T12 and across the posterior side of the trunk [4]. Conversely, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) refers to non-specific TSP as pain in the most lateral margins of the erector spinae muscles [5].

When it comes to the epidemiology of non-specific TSP, this condition is not well documented compared to neck pain (NP) and low back pain (LBP) [6, 7]. This phenomenon can be attributed to non-specific TSP being less considered as TSP is often a consequence of systemic and more severe conditions (e.g., cancers, fractures and infections) than musculoskeletal pain [8]. In fact, less than 35% of TSP has a musculoskeletal origin. As far as the management is concerned, no specific clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for non-specific TSP were retrieved. Some recommendations made by Floren included education, exercise, passive physical modalities or multimodal interventions, as is the case for NP and LBP [9]. Several authors investigated the effectiveness of manual therapy in the short and long run, but no significant conclusions could be made due to the low quality of these studies [10,11,12,13,14,15].

Hence, it can be argued that the absence of specific CPGs raises questions about the management of non-specific TSP. To date, there is only one cross-sectional online survey study whose primary aim was to determine how physiotherapists manage TSP (either specific or non-specific) [16]. Without specific CPGs, physiotherapists might resort to managing TSP according to their preferences and beliefs or utilising LBP and NP CPGs that do not consider the uniqueness of TSP. Therefore, this study aimed at determining the management of non-specific TSP among physiotherapists in Italy.

Methods

Design

A web cross-sectional survey was developed according to the ‘International Handbook of Survey Methodology’ [17] to explore the management of non-specific TSP among physiotherapists in Italy. Specifically, the four authors (MR, RG, MT and SB) compiled the survey instrument. They are all physiotherapists who specialised in rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease (RMD) rehabilitation. SB is a joint PhD candidate in Neurosciences and Medical Science with proficiency in conducting web-based survey studies. MT has a PhD in Rehabilitation Science and Physiotherapy. MR compiled the first version of the survey instrument by starting from a previous survey-based study conducted in the United Kingdom [16], implementing and improving it with other questions adapted from LBP [18] and NP [19] CPGs as no non-specific TSP CPGs were found. To create the questions, information was retrieved on the different parts of clinical management (from the assessment to the treatment) of LBP and NP, after which a preliminary version composed of twenty-two questions were drafted by MR. RG, SB and MT scrutinised this version, and a few questions were simplified and deleted, reaching a consensus among the authors. After three rounds of revision, the final draft was compiled.

The survey instrument consisted of three sections and twenty questions (See Supplementary File 1). Section 1 – Demographic, work, and academic characteristics of the sample (questions 1 to 11): this section described the participants’ age, the gender they identified with, number of years as physiotherapists, highest educational attainments, predominant physiotherapy practice specialities (e.g., RMD, neurological etc.), health sector they were mostly working in (e.g., public, private etc.) and the mean number of people with non-specific TSP treated per year). Section 2 – Agreement with the Statements regarding the Definition, Assessment, Importance of Psychological factors, and Treatment of Non-Specific TSP (questions 12–19 ): this section comprised 29 statements about the definition of non-specific TSP (questions 12 and 13; statements 1–7), non-specific TSP assessment (questions 14 and 15; statements 8–17), relationship of non-specific TSP with psychosocial factors (e.g., kinesiophobia, pain catastrophising, mental health issues) (questions 16 and 17; statements 18–23) and non-specific TSP treatment (questions 18 and 19; statements 24–29) (Table 1). Participants indicated to what extent they agreed with the 29 statements with a 5-point Likert Scale. Section 3 – Frequency of use of the treatments (question 20). This section investigated how frequently the participants adopt several treatments to manage non-specific TSP. The interventions were categorised into manual therapy techniques (mobilisation, thrust), soft tissue manual therapy (massage, trigger point (TrP), pressure release, Muscle Energy Technique, Strain Counterstrain, Specific Soft Tissue Mobilisation), therapeutic exercises, patient education, and the use of a multimodal treatment thereof (manual therapy, therapeutic exercises, education).

Table 1 Section 2: Synopsis of the Statements Reported in the Survey Instrument (Sect. 2)
Full size table

Before the online dissemination, we further tested the survey instrument with two physiotherapists specialised in RMD rehabilitation to ensure the questions were understandable, relevant and comprehensive of the essential management of non-specific TSP. As no queries were raised and no changes were made to the survey instrument, further pilot testing was not performed. The online version of the survey instrument was delivered in Italian through Microsoft 365 Forms, a secure web application for creating online survey instruments, respecting the European General Data Protection Regulations (Supplementary File 1 – English Translation of the Survey Instrument) [20].

Participants

The online version of the survey instrument was delivered through the Italian Association of Physiotherapists (AIFI) newsletters, its Manual Therapy Group division and the newsletters of the postgraduate master’s degree in RMD rehabilitation of the University of Genova (Genova, Italy). These groups were the target of recruitment since they were most likely to comprise physiotherapists who regularly treat RMD, including non-specific TSP. Additionally, participants were recruited via social media outlets. The survey instrument was available from 1 March to 31 August 2021. To be eligible, participants had to be physiotherapists enrolled in the Italian physiotherapist national register.

Analysis

Section 1 – demographic, work, and academic characteristics of the sample

Demographic, work, and academic characteristics were analysed through descriptive analysis. Continuous variables (age) were reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Categorical variables (gender they identified with, number of years as a physiotherapist, the highest education attainment, predominant physiotherapy practice specialities, health sector they mainly worked in and mean number of people with non-specific TSP treated per year) were reported as absolute and percentage frequencies.

Section 2 - Agreement with the Statements regarding the Definition, Assessment, Importance of Psychological factors, and Treatment of Non-Specific TSP

To measure agreement with the abovementioned statements, a 5-point Likert scale ranging from completely disagree (score 1) to completely agree (score 5) was used [21]. Participants who partially or completely agreed (scores 4–5) were considered to agree with the statements. A ≥ 70% of agreement with a statement was considered as consensus according to previous literature [22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. The frequencies of the answers were calculated, and a visual representation through a bar chart was reported.

Section 3 – frequency of use of treatment techniques

Participants responded using a 5-point scale (always – often – sometimes – rarely - never) to indicate how frequently they would include the different interventions in managing non-specific TSP. The frequencies of answers were calculated, and a visual representation through a bar graph was reported.

Sample size calculation

The sample size calculated for the study followed the calculation formula reported by Taherdoost et al. [29], and 370 participants were deemed necessary for an online survey with a confidence interval of 95% .

Ethical and reporting considerations

The study was conducted following the Declaration of Helsinki principles. The Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Ethics Committee for University Research (CERA: Comitato Etico per la Ricerca di Ateneo), University of Genova (approval date: 17/01/21; CERA2021.34). At the beginning of the survey instrument, participants’ consent to participate was gained after a brief cover letter, and the informed consent outlining the aim and duration of the study. Completion of the survey instrument was anonymous and entirely voluntary. IP addresses were not saved to ensure participant anonymity. Researchers’ contact details were supplied to enable any questions or concerns to be answered prior to completing the online survey instrument. Participants who did not consent to participate in the study were shown a ‘Thank-You page’ and could not continue. The study was reported following the ‘Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology’ (STROBE) recommendations [30]. All the authors are responsible for the data acquisition and analysis, with the latter led by MR and SB.

Results

A total of 427 physiotherapists accepted the invitation to participate in the study, and 424 participants completed the survey instrument. Three participants did not agree to provide informed consent and could not partake in the study. Demographic data are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Participants’ demographic characteristics
Full size table

Consensus was achieved for 22 (75%) statements (3, 5, 9–28) out of 29 (Figs. 1, 2, 3 and 4). As per the ‘definition’ (Fig. 1), agreement was found in defining non-specific TSP as experienced in the thoracic spine region, between the thoracic levels T1-T12 and across the posterior side of the trunk (statement 1). Most participants agreed that non-specific TSP is experienced in the thoracic region but has a multisystemic origin with several factors (biological, social, neurophysiological, psychological) influencing the onset of non-specific TSP (statement 5). However, no agreement was found with all the other statements regarding the definition of non-specific TSP (statements 1, 2, 4, 6, 7).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Levels of agreement among physiotherapists on the definition of non-specific thoracic spine pain. *The dashed grey line represents the consensus threshold set at 70%

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Levels of agreement among physiotherapists on the assessment of non-specific thoracic spine pain. *The dashed grey line represents the consensus threshold set at 70%

Full size image

When it came to the ‘Assessment’ (Fig. 2), participants agreed with the importance of formulating the clinical diagnosis of non-specific TSP and the role of the clinical interview, physical examination, and manual tests in assessing non-specific TSP (statements 9–17). Patient history was considered a fundamental tool to diagnose non-specific TSP by most participants (> 95%). Conversely, no agreement was found in the statement addressing radiographic findings’ role in non-specific TSP clinical assessment (statement 8).

As far as the ‘Psychosocial factors’ are concerned (Fig. 3), all participants agreed with all the statements dealing with the importance and influence of psychological factors (kinesiophobia, mental health issues, contextual and social factors etc.) in non-specific TSP (statements 18–23). As per the ‘treatment’ (Fig. 4), agreement was found with the statements addressing the role of exercise and education in the short- and long-term treatment of non-specific TSP (statements 24, 25, 27, 28). Conversely, agreement on manual therapy efficacy in non-specific TSP was only reported in the short-term treatment (statement 26) but not in the long one (statement 29).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Levels of agreement among physiotherapists on the influence of psychosocial factors on non-specific thoracic spine pain. *The dashed grey line represents the consensus threshold set at 70%

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Levels of agreement among physiotherapists on the treatment of non-specific thoracic spine pain. *The dashed grey line represents the consensus threshold set at 70%

Full size image

With regards to the treatment approach, most participants (79.7%) indicated they would “always” adopt a multimodal treatment approach (education, therapeutic exercise, manual therapy), followed by education and information (72.9%), therapeutic exercise (62.0%), soft tissue manual therapy (27.1%), and manual therapy (16.5%). Please refer to Fig. 5.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Frequency of treatment techniques to treat non-specific thoracic spine pain

Full size image

Discussions

This cross-sectional online survey-based study focussed on physiotherapists’ clinical management of non-specific TSP. As the challenge of managing non-specific TSP persists, understanding current physiotherapy clinical practice for TSP is fundamental to inform future research [3]. Regarding the definition of non-specific TSP, we found different and contrasting results. Most of the participants agreed with the definitions reported by Briggs et al. [4] and the multisystemic origin of non-specific TSP. However, no agreement was found with all the other statements regarding the definition of non-specific TSP. This result reflects the confusion and little clarity in defining non-specific TSP. An accurate definition of the non-specific origin of thoracic spine pain (TSP) is currently absent in the literature, unlike LBP and NP for which a definition exists [31, 32]. Future studies should address this issue.

As far as the clinical assessment is concerned, our findings showed that almost all participants consider the patients’ history essential to formulate a clinical diagnosis of non-specific TSP rather than imaging. Current evidence highlights the importance of exploring patient history thoroughly for identifying contraindications and precautions for treatments, generating a hypothesis or functional diagnosis and physical examination planning [33]. However, as Myburgh reported [34], thoracic spine radiographs remain widely used as a first-line investigative method and are often requested in patients with non-specific TSP. All CPGs for non-specific LBP and NP do not recommend routine imaging [35]. Radiographic findings should be considered only when other diseases are suspected of causing the symptoms (e.g. infection, cancer, rheumatoid arthritis) or when a surgical intervention is planned [36].

Consensus was also achieved for the statements on the importance and influence of psychological factors in non-specific TSP. LBP and NP CPGs recommend considering and assessing psychosocial factors (kinesiophobia, pain catastrophising, contextual, social and work-related factors, and mental health issues) for diagnostic purposes and treatment planning within a biopsychosocial model [36] due to their impact on pain perception [37,38,39,40,41,42]. The biopsychosocial model considers not only biological but also psychological and social factors as determinants of pain perception [43]. It considers the multidimensionality of pain as determined by different interlaced dimensions (sensory-discriminative, cognitive-evaluative, motivational-affective, behavioural and social) [43]. Clinicians are encouraged to explore these dimensions while assessing an individual’s pain experience and considering them during treatment. ‘Psychologically informed physiotherapy’ interventions (e.g., graded exposure, acceptance and commitment and cognitive behavioural interventions) have been tested on other RMD conditions (e.g., LBP and complex regional pain syndrome) [43, 44]. Therefore, future studies should test their effect on non-specific TSP.

When it came to the treatment, we asked the participants which strategies (manual therapy, education, exercise) they considered helpful in the short and long term. Most participants reported that patient education and physical exercise are essential, and they were the most preferred short-term and long-term strategies. According to LBP[18] and NP [19] CPGs, the most promising approaches seem to involve physical activity and exercise together with appropriate (biopsychosocial) education. On the other hand, most participants did not consider it essential to include manual therapy (e.g. spinal manipulation, spinal mobilisation, soft tissue mobilisation) in the long-term, but only in the short-term treatment. This is in line with current evidence showing that once manual therapy is compared with exercise therapy alone, it provides only short-term benefits in pain reduction, function and physical performance improvement [45]. However, manual therapy is mainly recommended as a component of multimodal care, along with other strategies, including exercise, psychological therapies, information/education, and activity advice, rather than a stand-alone treatment [46]. A multimodal treatment is suggested by NP [19] and LBP [18] CPGs and a recent systematic reviews of CPGs to manage musculoskeletal pain [46]. This approach aligns with the results of this study as the use of a multimodal treatment was proposed by the majority of our participants also for non-specific TSP. However, we only tested the prevalence of the use of these treatments. Future qualitative or mixed-method studies should explore physiotherapists’ TSP clinical decision-making in-depth in the absence of CPGs.

Our study had some limitations that should be acknowledged. Firstly, the findings of our study are based on the results of a survey instrument without response rate calculation. To be noted is that the number of participants indicated by the sample size calculation was achieved. The survey instrument utilised for the study was created ad hoc by the RMD experts for the study and validity and reliability of the survey instrument was not calculated. It could be hypothesised that a degree of sampling bias was introduced in the study as physiotherapists interested in non-specific TSP would have been more willing to participate in this study. Then, most participants were recruited through an invitation via the newsletter of a postgraduate master’s degree in RMD rehabilitation, limiting the generalisability of the findings to those without such educational attainment. The main strength of this study is that it is the first study to focus on physiotherapists’ management of non-specific TSP, as other studies mainly concentrated on LBP and NP. Moreover, it is the first study that investigated a population from a Mediterranean area. Health professionals from southern countries reported higher educational needs than their northern counterparts [47]. Hence, retrieving information from these populations is necessary to promote education campaigns to bridge the gap between European countries. Having said this, the statement can also be considered a further limitation as our findings cannot be generalised to other countries.

Despite the lack of evidence, the treatment options identified by the participants of this study are consistent with the treatments proposed in NP and LBP CPGs. This brings to the forefront promising results about the professional development of physiotherapists in Italy in the field of RMD rehabilitation. However, some grey areas are yet to be addressed in the management of non-specific TSP. Firstly, the development of non-specific TSP CPGs is crucial. Secondly, it is pivotal to promote the use of these guidelines in university programmes. Lastly, facilitating the timely translation of evidence for non-specific TSP into clinical practice will be another step to deeply impact on non-specific TSP quality of care.

Data Availability

The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Change history

  • 27 May 2023

    The paper was amended to correct the gender translation mistake (male/female instead of man/woman) in Supplementary material 1, Abstract (result section) and Table 2.

References

  1. Group AAMPG. Evidence- based management of acute musculoskeletal pain. A guide for clinicians. Brisbane: Australian Academic Press National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Edmondston SJ, Singer KP. Thoracic spine: Anatomical and biomechanical considerations for manual therapy. Manual Therapy. 1997.

  3. Heneghan NR, Rushton A. Understanding why the thoracic region is the “Cinderella” region of the spine. Man Ther. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2015.06.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Briggs AM, Smith AJ, Straker LM, Bragge P. Thoracic spine pain in the general population: prevalence, incidence and associated factors in children, adolescents and adults. A systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-10-77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Merskey H, Bogduk N. Spinal pain: spinal and radicular pain syndrome. Classification of chronic pain: descriptions of chronic pain syndromes and definitions of pain terms. 2nd ed. Seattle: IASP Press; 1994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10354-015-0413-2.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Wu A, March L, Zheng X, Huang J, Wang X, Zhao J, et al. Global low back pain prevalence and years lived with disability from 1990 to 2017: estimates from the global burden of Disease Study 2017. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8:299–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Safiri S, Kolahi AA, Smith E, Hill C, Bettampadi D, Mansournia MA et al. Global, regional and national burden of osteoarthritis 1990–2017: a systematic analysis of the global burden of Disease Study 2017. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79.

  8. Buntinx F, Knockaert D, Bruyninckx R, De Blaey N, Aerts M, Knottnerus JA et al. Chest pain in general practice or in the hospital emergency department: is it the same? Fam pract. 2001. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/18.6.586.

  9. Floren AE. Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines, evaluation and management of common health problems and functional recovery in workers. J Occup Environ Med. 1997. https://doi.org/10.1097/00043764-199710000-00015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Crothers A, Walker B, French SD. Spinal manipulative therapy versus Graston technique in the treatment of non-specific thoracic spine pain: design of a randomised controlled trial. Chiropr Osteopat. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-1340-16-12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Schiller L. Effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy in the treatment of mechanical thoracic spine pain: a pilot randomized clinical trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2001. https://doi.org/10.1067/mmt.2001.116420.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Skillgate E, Bohman T, Holm LW, Vingård E, Alfredsson L. The long-term effects of naprapathic manual therapy on back and neck pain - results from a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-11-26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Lehtola V, Korhonen I, Airaksinen O. A randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial for the short-term effectiveness of manipulative therapy and acupuncture on pain caused by mechanical thoracic spine dysfunction. Int Musculoskelet Med. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1179/175361410x12652805807558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pecos-Martín D, de Melo Aroeira AE, Verás Silva RL, Martínez de Tejada Pozo G, Rodríguez Solano LM, Plaza-Manzano G, et al. Immediate effects of thoracic spinal mobilisation on erector spinae muscle activity and pain in patients with thoracic spine pain: a preliminary randomised controlled trial. Physiotherapy (United Kingdom). 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2015.10.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bizzarri P, Buzzatti L, Cattrysse E, Scafoglieri A. Thoracic manual therapy is not more effective than placebo thoracic manual therapy in patients with shoulder dysfunctions: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2018;33:1–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Heneghan NR, Gormley S, Hallam C, Rushton A. Management of thoracic spine pain and dysfunction: a survey of clinical practice in the UK. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2018.11.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. de Leeuw DHJDD. International handbook of survey methodology (European Association of Methodology Series). 1st ed New York. 2008;:560.

  18. Burton AK, Balagué F, Cardon G, Eriksen HR, Henrotin Y, Lahad A, et al. European guidelines for prevention in low back pain November 2004. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(SUPPL 2):136–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Côté P, Wong JJ, Sutton D, Shearer HM, Mior S, Randhawa K, et al. Management of neck pain and associated disorders: a clinical practice guideline from the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) collaboration. Eur Spine J. 2016;25:2000–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. European Commission. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the fr. 2018;2016:48–119.

  21. Joshi A, Kale S, Chandel S, Pal D. Likert Scale: explored and explained. Br J Appl Sci Technol. 2015;7:396–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dziedzic KS, Bennell KIML, Physio B. Identifying and prioritizing clinical Guideline Recommendations most relevant to physical therapy practice for hip and/or Knee Osteoarthr. 2019;49.

  23. Cutolo R, Battista S, Testa M. Actual and perceived level of scientific english across italian physiotherapy courses: a cross-sectional study. Healthc (Switzerland). 2021;9:1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Battista S, Salvioli S, Millotti S, Testa M, Dell’Isola A. Italian physiotherapists’ knowledge of and adherence to osteoarthritis clinical practice guidelines: a cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Caffini G, Battista S, Raschi A, Testa M. Physiotherapists’ knowledge of and adherence to evidence-based practice guidelines and recommendations for ankle sprains management: a cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022;23:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Vogel C, Zwolinsky S, Griffiths C, Hobbs M, Henderson E, Wilkins E. A Delphi study to build consensus on the definition and use of big data in obesity research. Int J Obes 2019. 2019;43:12.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Diamond IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM, Pencharz PB, Ling SC, Moore AM, et al. Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:401–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sadowski PK, Battista S, Leuzzi G, Sansone LG, Testa M. Low back Pain in People with Lower Limb Amputation: a cross-sectional study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2022;47:1599–606.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Taherdoost H. Determining sample size; how to calculate survey sample size. Int J Econ Manage Syst. 2017;2:237–9.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Vandenbroucke JP, Von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4:1628–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Fandim J, Nitzsche R, Michaleff ZA, Pena Costa LO, Saragiotto B. The contemporary management of neck pain in adults. Pain Manag. 2021;11:75–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Massé-Alarie H, Angarita-Fonseca A, Lacasse A, Pagé MG, Tétreault P, Fortin M, et al. Low back pain definitions: effect on patient inclusion and clinical profiles. Pain Rep. 2022;7:E997.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Rushton A, Rivett D, Carlesso L, Flynn T, Hing W, Kerry R. International framework for examination of the cervical region for potential of cervical arterial dysfunction prior to Orthopaedic Manual Therapy intervention. Man Ther. 2014;19:222–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Myburgh HJ. The impact of thoracic spine radiographs in the diagnosis and management of patients who Present with thoracic spine Pain at the Chiropractic Day. Clinic At the Durban University of Technology; 2016.

  35. Corp N, Mansell G, Stynes S, Wynne-Jones G, Morsø L, Hill JC, et al. Evidence-based treatment recommendations for neck and low back pain across Europe: a systematic review of guidelines. Eur J Pain (United Kingdom). 2021;25:275–95.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Oliveira CB, Maher CG, Pinto RZ, Traeger AC, Lin CWC, Chenot JF, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care: an updated overview. Eur Spine J. 2018;27:2791–803.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rossettini G, Camerone EM, Carlino E, Benedetti F, Testa M. Context matters: the psychoneurobiological determinants of placebo, nocebo and context-related effects in physiotherapy. Arch Physiother. 2020;10:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Turk DC, Fillingim RB, Ohrbach R, Patel KV. Assessment of Psychosocial and Functional Impact of Chronic Pain. J Pain. 2016;17:T21–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Testa M, Rossettini G. Enhance placebo, avoid nocebo: how contextual factors affect physiotherapy outcomes. Man Ther. 2016;24:65–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Gandolfi M, Donisi V, Battista S, Picelli A, Valè N, Piccolo L, Del, et al. Health-related quality of life and psychological features in post-stroke patients with chronic pain: a cross-sectional study in the neuro-rehabilitation context of care. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Donisi V, Mazzi MA, Gandolfi M, Deledda G, Marchioretto F, Battista S et al. Exploring emotional distress, psychological traits and attitudes in patients with chronic migraine undergoing OnabotulinumtoxinA Prophylaxis versus Withdrawal Treatment. Toxins (Basel). 2020;12.

  42. Gandolfi M, Donisi V, Marchioretto F, Battista S, Smania N, Piccolo L, Del. A prospective observational cohort study on pharmacological habitus, headache-related disability and psychological profile in patients with chronic migraine undergoing OnabotulinumtoxinA prophylactic treatment. Toxins (Basel). 2019;11:1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Smart KM. The biopsychosocial model of pain in physiotherapy: past, present and future. https://doi.org/101080/1083319620232177792. 2023;:1–10.

  44. Coronado RA, Brintz CE, McKernan LC, Master H, Motzny N, Silva FM, et al. Psychologically informed physical therapy for musculoskeletal pain: current approaches, implications, and future directions from recent randomized trials. Pain Rep. 2020;5:E847.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Anwer S, Alghadir A, Zafar H, Brismée JM. Effects of orthopaedic manual therapy in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Physiotherapy (United Kingdom). 2018;104:264–76.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Lin I, Wiles L, Waller R, Goucke R, Nagree Y, Gibberd M, et al. What does best practice care for musculoskeletal pain look like? Eleven consistent recommendations from high-quality clinical practice guidelines: systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54:79–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Vliet Vlieland TPM, Van Den Ende CHM, Alliot-Launois F, Beauvais C, Gobbo M, Iagnocco A, et al. Educational needs of health professionals working in rheumatology in Europe. RMD Open. 2016;2:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Fouquet N, Bodin J, Descatha A, Petit A, Ramond A, Ha C, et al. Prevalence of thoracic spine pain in a surveillance network. Occup Med (Chic Ill). 2015;65:122–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Wood KB, Garvey TA, Gundry C, Heithoff KB. Magnetic resonance imaging of the thoracic spine. Evaluation of asymptomatic individuals. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77:1631–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Rock JM, Rainey CE. Treatment of nonspecific thoracic spine pain with trigger point dry needling and intramuscular electrical stimulation: a case series. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2014.

  51. Chou R, Fu R, Carrino JA, Deyo RA. Imaging strategies for low-back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet. 2009;373:463–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Blanpied PR, Gross AR, Elliott JM, Devaney LL, Clewley D, Walton DM, et al. Clinical practice guidelines linked to the international classification of functioning, disability and health from the orthopaedic section of the american physical therapy association. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017;47:A1–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. S H-J, SS MNEJC. Assessment of neck pain and its associated disorders: results of the bone and joint decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders. J Occup Environ Med. 2010;52:424–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Williams DA. The importance of psychological assessment in chronic pain. Curr Opin Urol. 2013;23:554–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Linton SJ, Nicholas MK, MacDonald S, Boersma K, Bergbom S, Maher C, et al. The role of depression and catastrophizing in musculoskeletal pain. Eur J Pain. 2011;15:416–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Moseley GL, Butler DS. 15 Years of Explaining Pain - The Past, Present and Future. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2015.05.005.This.

  57. Louw A, Diener I, Butler DS, Puentedura EJ. The effect of neuroscience education on pain, disability, anxiety, and stress in chronic musculoskeletal pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92:2041–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Nijs J, van Paul C, Van Oosterwijck J, van Ittersum M, Meeus M. How to explain central sensitization to patients with “unexplained” chronic musculoskeletal pain: practice guidelines. Man Ther. 2011;16:413–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The researchers would like to thank all the participants that joined the study, the Italian Physiotherapist Association (AIFI) and the people that helped with the participants’ recruitment. This work was developed within the DINOGMI Department of Excellence framework of MIUR 2018–2022 (Legge 232 del 2016).

Funding

This research did not receive external funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosciences, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health, University of Genova, Campus of Savona, Via Magliotto 2, Savona, 17100, SV, Italy

    Marco Risetti, Riccardo Gambugini, Marco Testa & Simone Battista

Authors
  1. Marco Risetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Riccardo Gambugini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marco Testa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Simone Battista
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors made substantial contributions to the conception and design, data acquisition, or analysis and interpretation of data. All authors participated in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content. All authors gave final approval of the version to be published. All authors agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Testa.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was conducted following the Declaration of Helsinki principles. The Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Ethics Committee for University Research (CERA: Comitato Etico per la Ricerca di Ateneo), University of Genova (approval date: 17/01/21; CERA2021.34). The participants signed digital informed consent before participation to publish anonymous data. The approval for digital informed consent was given by the Ethics Committee for University Research (CERA: Comitato Etico per la Ricerca di Ateneo) of the University of Genova.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

None to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Risetti, M., Gambugini, R., Testa, M. et al. Management of non-specific thoracic spine pain: a cross-sectional study among physiotherapists. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 24, 398 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06505-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06505-8

Keywords

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us