Elsevier

Manual Therapy

Volume 17, Issue 6, December 2012, Pages 497-506
Manual Therapy

Review article
Centralization and directional preference: A systematic review

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2012.05.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Centralization is a symptom response to repeated movements that can be used to classify patients into sub-groups, determine appropriate management strategies, and prognosis. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature relating to centralization and directional preference, and specifically report on prevalence, prognostic validity, reliability, loading strategies, and diagnostic implications. Search was conducted to June 2011; multiple study designs were considered. 62 studies were included in the review; 54 related to centralization and 8 to directional preference. The prevalence of centralization was 44.4% (range 11%–89%) in 4745 patients with back and neck pain in 29 studies; it was more prevalent in acute (74%) than sub-acute or chronic (42%) symptoms. The prevalence of directional preference was 70% (range 60%–78%) in 2368 patients with back or neck pain in 5 studies. Twenty-one of 23 studies supported the prognostic validity of centralization, including 3 high quality studies and 4 of moderate quality; whereas 2 moderate quality studies showed evidence that did not support the prognostic validity of centralization. Data on the prognostic validity of directional preference was limited to one study. Centralization and directional preference appear to be useful treatment effect modifiers in 7 out of 8 studies. Levels of reliability were very variable (kappa 0.15–0.9) in 5 studies. Findings of centralization or directional preference at baseline would appear to be useful indicators of management strategies and prognosis, and therefore warrant further investigation.

Introduction

The treatment of back and neck pain remains controversial. Recent research has highlighted the value of reliable examination findings that can be used to predict response to different treatments (Long et al., 2004; Childs et al., 2004; Hicks et al., 2005; Long et al., 2008). Clinically induced symptom responses have been used to determine treatment; with spinal loads being used to induce lasting changes in the site or intensity of symptoms to determine prognosis and management. Such responses are intrinsic to a number of spinal classification or management systems (Fritz et al., 2003; McKenzie and May, 2003; Petersen et al., 2003; Murphy and Hurwitz, 2007; Tuttle, 2009). Probably the most researched clinically induced symptom response is centralization, which has been defined as the abolition of distal and spinal pain in response to repeated movements or sustained postures (McKenzie and May, 2003). Centralization has been the subject of 2 systematic reviews within the last decade, both of which were positive about its usefulness as a prognostic indicator (Aina et al., 2004; Chorti et al., 2009). The first of these reviews is no longer contemporary, and the second was on the prognostic value of symptom responses in general; only half of the 18 studies dealt specifically with centralization.

An associated, but separate phenomenon is that of directional preference, which has been defined as the repeated movement which induces centralization or abolition of symptoms, but also a decrease in symptom severity, and/or a positive mechanical response, such as an increase in range of movement (McKenzie and May, 2003). Movements in the opposite direction may cause these symptoms and signs to worsen. A finding of directional preference at baseline has been shown to predict a significantly better response to directional preference exercises than non-specific exercises (Long et al., 2004, 2008). A number of classification systems use this phenomenon, though not always termed as such, as a part of their assessment and management process (Fritz et al., 2003; McKenzie and May, 2003; Petersen et al., 2003; Van Dillen et al., 2003; Murphy and Hurwitz, 2007; Tuttle, 2009; Hall et al., 2009).

Thus given the apparent usefulness of the centralization phenomenon in predicting outcomes, and the value of directional preference in directing management strategy, it seemed appropriate to conduct a new systematic review. The aim of the present study was to systematically review the literature relating to all aspects of centralization and directional preference.

Section snippets

Study selection

Any full-text study that reported some aspect of centralization or directional preference, in adults reporting spinal pain (low back or neck pain) with or without radiating symptoms. As we knew different types of study design were to be included we restricted qualitative evaluation of study methods to the prognostic studies, for which clear cut quality criteria exist (Hudak et al., 1996). To the authors' knowledge the first paper on centralization was published in 1990.

Data sources and searches

A search was made of

Study selection and characteristics of studies

1416 titles and abstracts were screened, 131 full articles were reviewed, and 62 articles were finally included (see Fig. 1). The majority of studies related to centralization; only 8 related to directional preference (Delitto et al., 1993; Erhard et al., 1994; Snook et al., 1998; Fritz et al., 2003; Long et al., 2004; May, 2006; Hefford, 2008; Long et al., 2008; Werneke et al., 2011). The majority involved patients with back pain, only 5 involved patients with neck pain (Tuttle, 2005; Tuttle

Discussion

This is the largest review to date on centralization, and the first to attempt to review data on directional preference. The literature on centralization has expanded considerably since the first review (Aina et al., 2004). This current review found that the occurrence of centralization was less than reported previously, but still represented a substantial proportion of the neck and back pain populations that were included. There was an indication that centralization was more common in acute

Conclusion

Centralization and directional preference appear to be well accepted concepts commonly encountered by clinicians examining patients with back and neck pain, of a specific or non-specific nature, and have been reported in at least 62 studies, most of which deal with centralization. This review attempted to summarise the data from these studies. Centralization is generally, but not universally associated with a good prognosis, but this effect declines in certain sub-groups. The evidence for

References (74)

  • M. Laslett et al.

    Clinical predictors of screening lumbar zygapophyseal joint blocks: development of clinical prediction rules

    Spine Journal

    (2006)
  • A.J. Lisi

    The centralization phenomenon in chiropractic spinal manipulation of discogenic low back pain and sciatica

    Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics

    (2001)
  • S. May

    Classification by McKenzie's mechanical syndromes: a survey of McKenzie-trained faculty

    Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics

    (2006)
  • D.R. Murphy et al.

    Outcome of pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain treated according to a diagnosis-based decision rule: a prospective observational cohort study

    Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics

    (2009)
  • D.R. Murphy et al.

    A nonsurgical approach to the management of patients with lumbar radiculopathy secondary to herniated disk: a prospective observational cohort study with follow-up

    Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics

    (2009)
  • S.R. Piva et al.

    Inter-tester reliability of passive intervertebral and active movements of the cervical spine

    Manual Therapy

    (2006)
  • N. Tuttle

    Do changes within a manual therapy treatment session predict between-session changes for patients with cervical spine pain?

    Australian Journal of Physiotherapy

    (2005)
  • N. Tuttle et al.

    Changes in impairments in the first two treatments predicts outcome in impairments, but not in activity limitations, in subacute neck pain: an observational study

    Australian Journal of Physiotherapy

    (2006)
  • N. Tuttle

    Is it reasonable to use an individual patient's progress after treatment as a guide to ongoing clinical reasoning

    Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics

    (2009)
  • L.R. Van Dillen et al.

    The effect of modifying patient-preferred spinal movement and alignment during symptom testing in patients with low back pain: a preliminary report

    Archives Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

    (2003)
  • M.W. Werneke et al.

    Clinical outcomes for patients classified by fear-avoidance beliefs and centralization phenomenon

    Archives Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

    (2009)
  • S. Young et al.

    Correlation of clinical examination characteristics with three sources of chronic low back pain

    Spine Journal

    (2003)
  • S.S.A. Abdulwahab et al.

    The effect of prone position and interferential therapy on lumbosacral radiculopathy

    Advances in Physiotherapy

    (2006)
  • N. Bogduk et al.

    A prospective study of centralization of lumbar and referred pain: a predictor of symptomatic disc and annular competence: commentary

    Pain Medicine Journal Club

    (1997)
  • D. Broetz et al.

    A prospective trial of mechanical physiotherapy for lumbar disk prolapse

    Journal of Neurology

    (2003)
  • D. Broetz et al.

    Lumbar disk prolapse: response to mechanical physiotherapy in the absence of changes in magnetic resonance imaging. Report of 11 cases

    NeuroRehabilitation

    (2008)
  • D. Broetz et al.

    A prospective study of mechanical physiotherapy for lumbar disk prolapse: five year follow-up and final report

    NeuroRehabilitation

    (2010)
  • D.A. Browder et al.

    Effectiveness of an extension-oriented treatment approach in a subgroup of subjects with low back pain: a randomized clinical trial

    Physical Therapy

    (2007)
  • R. Bybee et al.

    The relationship between reported pain during movement and centralization of symptoms in low back pain patients

    Manuelle Therapie

    (2005)
  • F. Bybee et al.

    Centralization of symptoms and lumbar range of motion in patients with low back pain

    Physiotherapy Theory and Practice

    (2009)
  • J.D. Childs et al.

    A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain most likely to benefit from spinal manipulations: a validation study

    Annals of Internal Medicine

    (2004)
  • A.G. Chorti et al.

    The prognostic value of symptom responses in the conservative management of spinal pain. A systematic review

    Spine

    (2009)
  • D. Christiansen et al.

    Pain responses in repeated end-range spinal movements and psychological factors in sick-listed patients with low back pain: is there an association?

    Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine

    (2009)
  • D. Christiansen et al.

    Pain response classification does not predict long-term outcome in patients with low back pain who are sick listed

    Journal of Orthopedic Sports Physical Therapy

    (2010)
  • A. Delitto et al.

    Evidence for use of an extension-mobilization category in acute low back syndrome: a prescriptive validation pilot study

    Physical Therapy

    (1993)
  • R. Donelson et al.

    Centralisation phenomenon: its usefulness in evaluating and treating referred pain

    Spine

    (1990)
  • R. Donelson et al.

    Pain response to sagittal end-range spinal motion: a prospective, randomized multicentered trial

    Spine

    (1991)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text