An imprint of Elsevier Limited

© 2006, Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

The right of Sue Greenhalgh and James Selfe to be identified as authors of
this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the
Publishers. Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Health
Sciences Rights Department, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1800,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2899, USA: phone: (+1) 215 239 3804; fax: (+1) 215 239
3805; or, e-mail: healthpermissions@elsevier.com. You may also complete your
request on-line via the Elsevier homepage (http://www.elsevier.com), by
selecting ‘Support and contact’ and then ‘Copyright and Permission’.
First published 2006
ISBN 0 4431 0140 X
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
Note
Neither the Publisher nor the Authors assume any responsibility for any loss
or injury and/or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to
any use of the material contained in this book. It is the responsibility of the
treating practitioner, relying on independent expertise and knowledge of
the patient, to determine the best treatment and method of application for
the patient.

Working together to grow

libraries in developing countries
www.elsevier.com | www.bookaid.org | www.sabre.org

Printed in China
The Publisher’s policy is to use paper manufactured from sustainable forests.
 Foreword

I have always believed that every patient who goes to

see their doctor wants to know the following:

• Doctor, what’s wrong with me?

• Doctor, how long is it going to take to get better?
• Doctor, is there anything that I can do to help it get
better?
• Doctor, is there anything that you can do or give me
to help it?

The order of importance to each individual may alter

slightly, but for most, a reassuring answer to the first
question is always somewhere near the top. Implicit
here is a simple desire to know whether there is some-
thing seriously wrong. It is often the most important
starting point for a successful treatment outcome.
Perhaps clinicians need to think about this more,
because without a thorough understanding and without
reassurance, the patient’s progress is likely to be ham-
pered by feelings of uncertainty and insecurity. Would
you go back to work, comply with a series of exercises

ix
 FOREWORD

or take a prescribed medicine if you still had an uneasy

inkling that something was badly wrong or something
had been missed?
A great many patients, acute and chronic, report that
they have not been listened to fully, not examined fully
and not been reassured or had an adequate explanation
of their symptoms. Many people with benign pain com-
plaints remain burdened by uncertainty and hence are
unable to recover in any meaningful way. The title of an
old but very important article by Nortin Hadler always
rings in my ears: ‘If you have to prove you are ill, you
can’t get well’ (Hadler 1996). The main message for me
is: ‘Top-down before bottom-up’, which simply means
that for every clinical encounter undertaken it is the
clinician’s responsibility to reassure the patient (top-
down), before embarking on the ‘physical’ (bottom-up)
recovery pathway.
In my daily dealings with patients I frequently hear
about pain that comes on for no reason and often quite
severely, about pain that keeps the patient awake at
night, that gets rapidly worse and pain that the patient
thinks is something serious. Patients are naturally
worried; after all, worry is what often drives their help-
seeking behaviour.
I strongly believe that in order to be successful all
good therapists need to be far more explicit here. At the
end of every first session with all my patients I state/ask
the following: ‘It is important before moving on with
treatment/rehabilitation that you feel comfortable that
I have listened to all your problems, all your concerns
and examined you fully. I need you to feel reassured

x
 FOREWORD

about what is wrong and the recovery process. Do you

have any concerns?’.
You simply cannot ask this question if you are not
confident, if you do not know.
Having up-to-date ‘Red Flag’ knowledge is essential
for clinician confidence and in turn for patient confi-
dence – every therapist or doctor should be able to say
to every patient seen that they been through a check list
of features that signifies a serious disorder and the need
for further investigation.
This book is so important and so timely as we start
to learn more and more about the importance of
clinician–patient interactions. Reassurance is a pain
killer, and you cannot give reassurance if you are unsure!
This is a book that every clinician should have a per-
sonal copy of and continue to refer to throughout their
whole professional life.

Louis Gifford

Reference
Hadler N M 1996 If you have to prove you are ill, you can’t
get well. The object lesson of fibromyalgia. Spine 21(20):
2397–2400

xi
 Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Guy McLennan for his typing

skills and good humour.

We would also like to thank Louis Gifford and Steve

Young for their constructive criticism and support.

xiii
 Introduction

The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy describes 1978

as a ‘watershed’ in the physiotherapy profession. It
was in this year that physiotherapists became clinically
autonomous in the UK. Today access to physiotherapy is
still largely controlled by a traditional medical model.
However, these are changing times with modernization,
blurring of professional boundaries and more creative
ways of delivering healthcare. Physiotherapists are
coming increasingly into the spotlight at the cutting
edge of healthcare provision. There is widening access
to physiotherapy by innovations such as telephone help
lines, increased patient choice and improved timing of
care. This book has been written for musculoskeletal
physiotherapists, students, lecturers and other practi-
tioners who work with patients complaining of spinal
pain. Six out of ten people will feel back pain at some time
in their life, many seeking medical help; 1% of these
cases will have serious pathology. These changing times,
inevitably, put clinicians in a position where they will be
faced with serious spinal pathology. This book is devoted
in its entirety to helping to identify the 1% of cases with:

1
 INTRODUCTION

• tumour
• infection or
• other conditions requiring urgent specialist investi-
gation and treatment (e.g. fractures).
Grieve (1994) suggests that the identification of serious
pathology depends more on ‘awareness, vigilance and
suspicion rather than a set of rules’. This book endeav-
ours to provide a set of guidelines to raise awareness
and vigilance and provoke appropriate suspicion.
Gifford & Butler (1997) suggest that clinical reasoning
is an analytical process in which data from a variety of
sources, pertinent to the patient’s unique clinical sce-
nario, are examined. This book contains a valuable
range of data to support this reasoning process with
respect to serious spinal pathology.
We will endeavour to answer your questions about
indicators for serious pathology (Red Flags) that we have
been frequently asked. The answers are often embedded
in a diverse literature and difficult to find. This book con-
solidates these facts into a concise, readable summation
of important Red Flag details. In addition, it provides a
sounder, more robust basis on which to make a clinical
decision by providing an ‘index of suspicion’ cutting
through the ‘red haze’ surrounding Red Flags. The index
of suspicion for each Red Flag item is denoted by an
attached flag system – those with a higher index have a
larger number of flags. It clarifies issues such as:

• How much weight loss is considered significant?

• Is the risk of developing serious pathology the same
at 6 years, 16 years and 66 years of age?

2
 INTRODUCTION

We explore and discuss a number of terms including

three-dimensional thinking, conditional probabilities
and ‘Red Herrings’. The term Red Herring originates
from the very pungent salted and smoked herrings,
which were red in colour, used by anti-hunting cam-
paigners in the 1800s to create false trails. The hounds
invariably followed the false trails created by these
Red Herrings, allowing the fox to escape. In this book
we use the term Red Herrings in a broad way as a
concept that incorporates psychosocial and biomedical
parameters. Red Herrings are an important phe-
nomenon to be aware of as they can mislead the clini-
cian and confuse the clinical picture, leading to
unnecessary and sometimes catastrophic delay in ulti-
mate diagnosis.
We hope that you are as excited as we are by the pos-
sibilities that this book creates. We consider that our
‘index of suspicion’ can be a vital tool in the clinical deci-
sion-making process. By weighting Red Flags, critical
conditions can be more rapidly identified. The contents
of this book will boost confidence in your own clinical
judgement by helping you to collate the appropriate
information and logically process these findings. If
serious pathology is identified at an early stage, clini-
cians can raise the alarm to potentially greatly improve
a patient’s prognosis. This will ultimately add to
your own empowerment and rewards within your role.
The technical application of physiotherapy is relatively
straightforward. The challenge lies partly in knowing
which techniques to apply to which patients but
above all in not only knowing when physiotherapy is

3
 INTRODUCTION

inappropriate but recognizing when something serious

is going on.

References
Grieve G P 1994 The masqueraders. In: Boyling J D,
Palastanga N (eds) Grieve’s modern manual therapy: the
vertebral column, 2nd edn. Churchill Livingstone,
Edinburgh, p 841–856
Gifford L, Butler D S 1997 The integration of pain sciences
into clinical practice. Journal of Hand Therapy 10:86–95

4
Chapter 1
Red Flags

CHAPTER CONTENTS
Historical perspective of physiotherapy 7
Early development of indicators of serious
pathology 8
Clinical guidelines 14
Quebec Task Force report 1987 14
CSAG report 1994 16
AHCPR guidelines 1994 19
Red Herrings and masqueraders 20
Some pathologies appearing on Red Flag lists 25
Cancer 26
Pyogenic infections 34
Brucellosis 35
Tuberculosis (TB) 36
HIV/AIDS 40
Conclusion/summary 42
References 44

5
 RED FLAGS

In recent years there has been an increased demand

for musculoskeletal medicine. This has led to a dra-
matic expansion in a number of professions involved
in the management of musculoskeletal disorders. For
example, across the European Union the number of
physiotherapists increased by 21% between 1996 and
1999 (European Commission 2004). Along with these
changes, healthcare systems are evolving and being
reorganized. In the European Union there has been a
major shift towards managing patients in primary care
with a result that the number of acute hospital beds fell
by 30% between 1980 and 2000 (European Commission
2004).
Simultaneous to these developments physiothera-
pists have expanded their role and are more commonly
taking on the role of first contact and extended scope
practitioners in a variety of non-traditional settings.
These changes in practice are leading to challenges and
opportunities not previously faced by the physiother-
apy profession. Many of the conditions we discuss in
this book have been around for centuries. However,
more physiotherapists are now increasingly likely to
come into contact with these serious cases earlier in the
disease processes where previously they may not have
seen them at all.
In the United Kingdom the Chartered Society of
Physiotherapy (CSP) has established a clinical interest
group dedicated to extended scope practitioners (ESPs).
The membership stood at 250 in 2004 (CSP 2004). The
role of extended scope physiotherapy practitioners
includes:

6
 RED FLAGS

• requesting investigations, e.g. blood tests, scans, X-

rays, nerve conduction studies
• using the result of investigations to assist clinical
diagnosis and appropriate management of patients
• listing for surgery
• referring to other medical and paramedical
professions.
It is difficult to determine exactly how many patients
with serious spinal pathology present to physiothera-
pists. During a 7-year period of working in a specialist
spinal assessment clinic where 1000 patients were seen
annually, it is estimated by one of the authors that
on average there was 1 patient a month who presented
with serious spinal pathology of some type. In com-
parison, it is reported that an average general practi-
tioner in England or Wales will see approximately 8 or
9 new cases of cancer each year (Department of Health
2000a). It is therefore important that physiotherapists
remain vigilant to the possibility that the patient in front
of them may have a serious pathology.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
OF PHYSIOTHERAPY
According to Cyriax (1982), the first mention of a pro-
fessor of physiotherapy dates from AD 585. Rehabilita-
tion in ancient Greece and Rome was described by
Hippocrates and other scholars. At around the time
that Daniel David Palmer was founding chiropractic
in North America, the London massage scandal of

7
 RED FLAGS

1894 galvanized legislators in Britain to regulate

masseuses. The profession had fallen into disrepute and
massage parlours were being described by the British
Medical Journal as hotbeds of vice (Barclay 1994). In 1894
Miss Rosalind Paget and Miss Lucy Robinson, two
qualified masseuses, took steps to redeem the reputa-
tion of massage as a respectable treatment. This even-
tually led to the birth of the Chartered Society of
Physiotherapy. In 1973, in the UK, the McMillan report
moved the physiotherapy profession forwards dramat-
ically by recommending professional autonomy allow-
ing physiotherapists greater responsibility and freedom
to treat and diagnose (Barclay 1994). Development of
professional autonomy has continued to now include
extended scope practitioner and consultant physiother-
apist posts (Department of Health 2000b).

EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF INDICATORS OF

SERIOUS PATHOLOGY
Historically the profession of physiotherapy has relied
on the medical profession for recognition. According to
Roberts (1994), the founders of the Chartered Society of
Physiotherapy ‘traded professional autonomy for the
respectability offered by doctors’. The relationship has
often been paternalistic on the part of medicine towards
physiotherapy. Under these conditions physiotherapists
often took the role of technicians carrying out treat-
ments that were prescribed by doctors. However, in
their teaching early modern day medical advocates of
manual therapy, such as James Mennell and James

8
 RED FLAGS

Cyriax, not only embraced the profession of physio-

therapy but recognized the potential for, and started to
encourage, independent practice.
Mennell was actively influencing physiotherapy
training as early as the First World War (Barclay 1994).
In the introduction of his classic book The Science and Art
of Joint Manipulation he implies that for doctors to pre-
scribe only one treatment restricts the potential of a suc-
cessful outcome of physiotherapy (Mennell 1949).
Cyriax describes devoting his whole life to perfect-
ing a method of clinical examination which led to accu-
rate diagnosis of locomotor disorders. His medical peers
considered him to be something of a maverick as not
only did he develop manipulation techniques which he
practised himself but he also taught these diagnostic
and treatment techniques to physiotherapists (Cyriax
1982).
Within their teaching both Mennell and Cyriax were
aware of the need for caution in some presentations.
However, unlike their historical predecessors Mennell
and Cyriax both realized that the indication of serious
pathology could be more subtle than waiting for its
obvious visible manifestation. This prompted them to
highlight certain presentations which could suggest
something sinister as the underlying cause.

9
RED FLAGS

Mennell’s Red Flags (Mennell 1952)

• Smallpox
• Influenza
• Genitourinary (gonorrhoea)
• Prostate cancer
• Acute kidney problems
• Multiple sclerosis
• Parkinson’s disease
• Tuberculosis (TB)
• Paget’s disease
• Appendicitis
• Sepsis – bowel/teeth/tonsillitis
• Haemorrhoids

Cyriax’s Red Flags (Cyriax 1982)

• Backache with fever
• Neoplasm
• Root pain >8 months’ duration or with gross limitation
of every movement
• Weak psoas major
• Afebrile osteomyelitis
• Aortic occlusion
• Spinal claudication
• Nutritional osteomalacia
• Gonorrhoeal fasciitis
• Multiple root palsy
• ‘Forbidden area’ (thoracolumbar junction pain, should be
considered suspiciously)

10
 RED FLAGS

One of the problems with the way these conditions

are presented is that unfortunately they are incorpo-
rated into different parts of the main body of the text;
extensive reading is therefore necessary before clinicians
can access these important facts.
It is also important to consider the major influence
of the work of physiotherapists Robin McKenzie and
Geoffrey Maitland on the field of musculoskeletal med-
icine. It is interesting to see how McKenzie’s attitude
towards the identification of Red Flags appears to
have evolved. In the 1990 edition of his book on the
cervical and thoracic spine, McKenzie (1990) states:
‘It has always been my belief that the differential diag-
nosis should be established by the patient’s family
practitioner . . . The patient once screened by the
medical practitioner, should have had unsuitable
pathologies excluded.’ However, in McKenzie’s latest
edition of his lumbar spine book (McKenzie & May
2003) there is a chapter on serious spinal pathology that
discusses some of the Red Flags; in this chapter it is
stated: ‘serious spinal conditions . . . need early identifi-
cation and onward referral’. This implies that there is
now a role for physiotherapists in recognizing serious
pathology.
The most recent edition of Maitland’s Vertebral Mani-
pulation includes a chapter titled ‘The doctor’s role in
diagnosis and prescribing vertebral manipulation’
(Brewerton 2001). This implies that doctors retain the
role of initially recognizing serious pathology; in the
UK this is not now always the case. However, it is
true that historically physiotherapy has relied on the

11
 RED FLAGS

medical profession to provide an accurate diagnosis

of the patient’s condition which would then inform the
physiotherapist’s decision to treat. Whilst Maitland
states that malignancy of the vertebral column is a
contraindication to manual techniques, no guidance
for identifying indicators of serious conditions is
given.
The current teaching on Red Flags within ortho-
paedic medicine (Ombregt et al 2003) is more specific;
the following warning signs in the subjective history of
the cervical spine are described:

• gradual increase in pain; prolonged timescale com-

pared to discogenic patterns
• expanding pain, i.e. spreading across a number of
segments rather than shifting within a segment
• bilateral arm pain: suggests non-discal lesion
• radicular pain below 35 years of age
• arm pain over 6 months’ duration
• elderly patient with initial presentation or rapid
increase in pain or stiffness over 1 or 2 months
• arm pain increased by cough
• paraesthesia all over body provoked by neck flexion
• cord symptoms
• dysphagia
• progressive neck pain at night
• history of cancer.

In addition, the following warning signs in the objective

examination of the cervical spine are listed:

12
 RED FLAGS

Articular
• Painful restriction in full articular pattern in short
period of time
• Gross limitation of rotations
• End feel soggy, empty or muscle spasm
• Side flexion away: only painful movement
• Scapular elevation limited.

Non-articular
• Unusual myotome involvement:
• T1 palsy
• excessive loss of power
• two or three nerve root signs and symptoms
• painless weakness
• resisted movements of neck not only painful but
weak
• Distal symptoms before central
• Anaemia
• Horner’s syndrome
• Hoarse voice.

Whilst this teaching is very specific there is now a

wealth of information but no apparent system of
weighting given to different symptoms and signs. For
example, how important is hoarse voice in isolation in
someone who has a cervical spine problem? This may
cause inappropriate levels of distress if clinical reason-
ing processes do not consider the overall picture and the
conditional probabilities (see Ch. 2).

13
 RED FLAGS

Apart from the development of Red Flag lists within

specific schools of thought, there have also been sig-
nificant developments in government-driven initiatives.
These have attempted to collate a wide range of
research-based data and present evidence-based guide-
lines in user-friendly formats.

CLINICAL GUIDELINES
Over the past three decades there has been a well-
recognized increase in the levels of disability asso-
ciated with spinal problems, with leading authorities
referring to back pain as ‘a 20th century medical disas-
ter’ (Waddell 2004). This has occurred despite the
plethora of publications in relation to the manage-
ment of back pain. However, there have been signi-
ficant positive developments in the form of clinical
guidelines for the diagnosis and management of spinal
pain.

Quebec Task Force report 1987

The first of these guidelines was the Quebec Task Force
report (Spitzer 1987). This was commissioned as a con-
sequence of an increase in debilitating back pain in the
working population of Quebec, Canada. The Task Force
was particularly concerned with work status.
In addition, the report described 11 diagnostic cate-
gories for spinal disorders.

14
 RED FLAGS

Quebec Task Force diagnostic categories (Spitzer 1987)

• Pain without radiation
• Pain and radiation to extremity above knee or elbow
• Pain and radiation to extremity below knee or elbow
• Pain and radiation into limb with neurological signs
• Presumptive compression of a spinal nerve root on a
simple roentgenogram (i.e. spinal instability or fracture)
• Compression of a spinal nerve root confirmed by spe-
cific imaging techniques
• Spinal stenosis
• Post-surgical status 1–6 months
• Post-surgical status >6 months intervention
(asymptomatic/symptomatic)
• Chronic pain syndrome
• Other diagnosis

It is interesting to note when reviewing this list that

serious pathology would be classified under the vague
diagnostic category of ‘Other diagnosis’.
Incorporated within the main body of the text the fol-
lowing indicators suggest that more serious disease may
be present:

• age <20 or >50 years

• history and/or signs of serious trauma
• history of neoplasm
• fever
• neurological deficit.
The report suggests ‘Upon identifying such clinical
indicators the clinician should order appropriate

15
 RED FLAGS

paraclinical tests (e.g. plain roentgenograms of the

spine, inflammatory or osseous laboratory evaluation,
myelography, CT scan or radionucleotide bone scan)’.

CSAG report 1994

In the United Kingdom in 1991 the Clinical Standards
Advisory Group (CSAG) was set up as an independent
source of expert advice to the Ministry of Health. It was
commissioned ‘to advise on standards of clinical care
for, and access to and availability of services to NHS
patients with back pain’ (CSAG 1994). CSAG considered
duration of back pain and work loss as significant pre-
dictors of outcome. It was reported that 90% of low
back pain recovered spontaneously in the first 6 weeks.
However, if work loss continued for more than 6 months
there was only a 50% chance of sufferers returning to
their original employment. This report appears to be the
first to use the phrase ‘Red Flags’ for describing diag-
nostic indicators of serious spinal pathology.

Five diagnostic categories for spinal disorders

(CSAG 1994)
• Simple backache
• Nerve root pain
• Red Flags
• Cauda equina syndrome/widespread neurological
disorder
• Inflammatory disorder

16
 RED FLAGS

CSAG goes on to describe the diagnostic triage. This

highlights the clinical importance of assessing that
patients have musculoskeletal problems. Non-spinal
and serious pathologies should be excluded from the
diagnosis and the presence and extent of any nerve root
pathology determined.

Diagnostic triage CSAG (1994)

• Simple backache (95% of cases)
• Nerve root pain (<5% of cases)
• Possible serious spinal pathology (<1% of cases)

Historically medical triage involves the screening of

patients into three priority groups. It developed in
response to the problem of dealing with large numbers
of wartime casualties:

• those who will die despite intervention (no treatment

given)
• those who will survive without intervention (no
treatment given)
• those who will only survive with intervention (treat-
ment given).
Triage in back pain applies exactly the same principle,
when the following conditions are suspected:

• simple mechanical low back pain (medical interven-

tion not appropriate)

17
 RED FLAGS

• nerve root pain (in a small proportion medical inter-

vention necessary)
• serious pathology (medical intervention essential)
(Gifford 2000).
Red Flags are described as indicators of possible serious
spinal pathology. They are physical risk factors of sig-
nificant medical pathology (Kendall et al 1997). It is
important to recognize that the Red Flags represent an
interesting list of clinical findings rather than diagnos-
tic labels. This list equips physiotherapists further to
fulfil their expanding and extended role in the manage-
ment of musculoskeletal disorders and as such helps
facilitate a paradigm shift for the profession.

Red Flags (CSAG 1994)

• Age of onset <20 or >55 years
• Violent trauma, e.g. fall from a height, road traffic
accident
• Constant progressive, non-mechanical pain
• Thoracic pain
• Past medical history of carcinoma
• Systemic steroids
• Drug abuse, HIV
• Systemically unwell
• Weight loss
• Persistent severe restriction of lumbar flexion
• Widespread neurology
• Structural deformity

18
 RED FLAGS

AHCPR guidelines 1994

Also published in 1994 was the United States Agency
for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) clinical
guide for the assessment and treatment of acute low
back problems in adults (Bigos 1994). The aims of the
AHCPR guide were to help patients improve their activ-
ity tolerance and to ‘provide information on the detec-
tion of serious conditions that occasionally cause low
back symptoms’.
Similar to the CSAG report the AHCPR guidelines
describe diagnostic categories and a list of Red Flags.

AHCPR diagnostic categories (Bigos 1994)

• Potentially serious spinal condition
• Sciatica
• Non-specific back symptoms

A comparison between the AHCPR and CSAG lists

of Red Flags shows that both lists are virtually identi-
cal; there are three main differences between the two
lists. AHCPR includes:

• age of onset >50 rather than >55

• pain that worsens when supine
• severe night-time pain.

19
 RED FLAGS

It is interesting to note that the AHCPR guidelines like

the Quebec Task Force report suggest a more conserva-
tive upper limit for age of onset, i.e. 50 years compared
to 55 years in the CSAG report.
More recently the Royal College of General Practi-
tioners (2001), the New Zealand Acute Low Back
Pain Guide (New Zealand Ministry of Health 2004),
and the European guidelines for prevention in low
back pain (European Union 2004) have provided back
pain guidelines. However, no significant additions to
those Red Flags listed in previous publications have
emerged.

RED HERRINGS AND MASQUERADERS

We introduced the term Red Herrings in the paper ‘Mar-
garet: a tragic case of spinal Red Flags and Red Her-
rings’ (Greenhalgh & Selfe 2004). We consider the term
to be broad and to encompass any misleading biomed-
ical or psychosocial factors that will deflect the course
of accurate clinical reasoning. Grieve (1994) and Bois-
sonnault (1995) both highlight the importance of differ-
ential biomedical diagnosis in the clinical examination
of spinal pain.
Grieve describes in some detail misleading presen-
tations of spinal pain; he suggests that virtually any
pathology in the abdomen can present with back pain,
for example peptic ulcer, cancer of the colon, rectum,
pancreas or aortic aneurysm. Not surprisingly there is
overlap between the CSAG list and these pathologies,
for example:

20
 RED FLAGS

• gallbladder – only refers pain to thoracic spine

region
• multiple myeloma – peak incidence 60–70 years
• tight filum terminale – peak incidence 12–16 years
• the majority of secondary tumours occur above 50
years
• angina – posterior thoracic pain.

Grieve points out that simple thoracic dysfunction can

frequently mimic the pain of angina. Similarly thoracic
pain can be produced by:

• aorta
• lungs
• oesophagus
• diaphragm
• stomach and duodenum
• liver, gallbladder and bile duct
• pancreas
• spleen
• small intestine, appendix and colon
• kidneys
• reproductive system (Ombregt et al 2003).

Another common symptom that may be benign or

that may have serious underlying causes is headache.
Physiotherapists commonly see cases of headache that
is musculoskeletal in origin; however, Grieve (1994) dis-
cusses the differential symptoms of headache due to
brain tumour.

21
 RED FLAGS

Differential symptoms of headache due to brain

tumour (Grieve 1994)
• Deep dull constant ache
• Aggravated by being upright
• Not rhythmic or throbbing
• Sometimes severe
• Usually relieved by aspirin or cold packs
• Does not usually disturb sleep
• Aggravated by coughing, sneezing, straining
• Nausea not common
• May be associated with cervical dysfunction

Boissonnault (1995) adopts a systems approach and

guides clinicians through each of the body’s major
systems and highlights questions which may help iden-
tify pathologies arising from those systems.
Key signs and symptoms for the cardiovascular
system are:

• pain: angina or in legs

• sweating
• palpitations
• breathlessness/cough
• light-headedness/loss of consciousness
• fatigue (Boissonnault 1995).

Tables 1.1 and 1.2 show the main areas of pain referral
from the male and female urogenital systems.

22
 RED FLAGS

TABLE 1.1 REFERRED PAIN: MALE

UROGENITAL SYSTEM (BOISSONNAULT 1995)
Structure Segmental Possible areas of pain
innervation referral
Kidney T10–L1 Lumbar spine,
(ipsilateral) flank
Upper abdominal
Ureter T11–L2, S2–S4 Groin, upper/lower
abdominal, suprapubic,
scrotum, medial
proximal thigh
Thoracolumbar
Urinary bladder T11–L2, S2–S4 Sacral apex, suprapubic
Thoracolumbar
Prostate gland T11–L1, S2–S4 Sacral, low lumbar, testes
Thoracolumbar
Testes T10–T11 Lower abdominal, sacral

Grieve (1994) and Boissonnault (1995) both give very

specific and detailed descriptions of certain pathologies,
whereas the various Red Flag lists provide clinicians
with a more general toolbox of indictors suggesting that
something more serious may be occurring. Grieve sug-
gests that recognition of pathology early depends on

23
RED FLAGS

TABLE 1.2 REFERRED PAIN: FEMALE

UROGENITAL SYSTEM (BOISSONNAULT 1995)
Structure Segmental Possible areas of pain
innervation referral
Ovaries T10–T11 Lower abdomen, low
back
Uterus T10–L1 Lower abdomen, low
back
Fallopian tubes T10–L1 Lower abdomen, low
back
Perineum S2–S4 Sacral apex,
suprapubic, rectum
External L1–L2, S3–S4 Lower abdomen, medial
genitalia anterior thigh, sacrum
Kidney T10–L1 Ipsilateral low back
and upper abdominal
Urinary bladder T11–L2, S2–S4 Thoracolumbar,
sacrococcygeal,
suprapubic
Ureters T11–L2, S2–S4 Groin, upper and lower
abdomen, suprapubic,
anterior-medial thigh,
thoracolumbar

24
 RED FLAGS

awareness, vigilance and suspicion rather than rules.

One of the potential problems facing clinicians is an
overreliance on the Red Flag list. It is important to
remember that the Red Flag lists are lists of clinical indi-
cators rather than absolute rules. For example, when
considering the age of patients in most clinical practice,
age over 50 years on its own should not raise an alarm
but should instil a sense of awareness in the physio-
therapist’s mind.

SOME PATHOLOGIES APPEARING ON RED

FLAG LISTS
One of the interesting things that has emerged during
our brief historical review is that threats to public
health (including spinal dysfunction) are subject to
change through time and vary from place to place and
that these can influence behaviour in society. In Victo-
rian Britain life for the majority of the population was
short and harsh; for example, a 21-year-old labourer
could only expect to live to the age of 50 (Thackray
Museum 2004). Infectious diseases like tuberculosis (TB)
spread rapidly due to poor living conditions. It was not
until the mid 19th century that there was recognition of
the link between poverty and poor health (McGrew
1985). It is important that clinicians today are aware of
these changes and adapt to a changing world. Physio-
therapy training only 20 years ago would not have
considered conditions such as HIV/AIDS, MRSA or
BSE/CJD.

25
 RED FLAGS

Cancer

Cancer is the term used to define any condition arising

from the uncontrolled division and multiplication of
cells. There are two basic types of tumour, benign or
malignant. A benign tumour will remain localized
whereas a malignant tumour will spread (metastasize).
Over 100 different cancers have been identified; they can
affect any part of the body. The American Cancer Society
considers 5% of cancer to be genetic and 95% associated
with other confounding factors. Approximately one-
third of the population will suffer a form of invasive
cancer in their lifetime (Goodman et al 1998).
Evidence of tumours has been recorded across many
centuries. Tumours in dinosaurs from the Cretaceous
age have been found. Egyptian mummies from the 3rd
to 5th dynasties (3000–2500 BC) also displayed evidence
of neoplasms; there have also been similar findings in
Inca remains (McGrew 1985). The Edwin Smith papyrus
(1660 BC) discusses the ‘bulging tumour of the breast’
for which there was no cure (McGrew 1985). Early
medical diagnosis of cancer relied on the visible mani-
festation of the disease. Hippocrates was the first to coin
the term cancer and discussed a variety of descriptive
terms including ‘karkinoma’ or ‘karkinos’. After the 6th
century AD cancer is frequently discussed in the Euro-
pean medical literature (McGrew 1985).
In the late 16th century a professor of medicine at
Basel, post autopsy, described a brain tumour in a
knight who had demonstrated bizarre behaviour for 2
years preceding his death (McGrew 1985). Soot was one

26
 RED FLAGS

of the earliest carcinogenic agents to be identified, pro-

ducing a high incidence of cancer of the scrotum among
18th century chimney sweeps. In the 18th century
cancer was considered to develop as a consequence of
inflammation (McGrew 1985).
It was not until the early 19th century that Marie
François Xavier Bichat, a young French anatomist, dis-
covered that cancers were not inflammations but an
overgrowth of cells. In the 19th and 20th centuries it
was seen that people working with X-rays, radium or
radioactive material had a high cancer rate. Other
causes identified were smoking, nutritional deficiencies,
alcohol abuse and over-exposure to direct sunlight. The
early 20th century saw a rise in the general awareness
of cancer (McGrew 1985).
Cancer causes 6 million deaths every year; this is 12%
of all deaths worldwide (WHO 2004a). Cancer is pre-
dominantly a modern disease associated with increas-
ing lifespan. Across the European Union life expectancy
has increased in all countries since 1960; it is currently
estimated that 16.2% of the population of Europe is now
over 64 years of age. It is also estimated both in Europe
and in Australia that 1 in 3 males and 1 in 4 females will
develop cancer by the age of 75 (European Commission
2004, Australian Department of Health and Ageing
2004). The World Health Organization (WHO) states
that 10 million people are diagnosed with cancer every
year and predict that there will be 15 million new cases
every year by 2020 (WHO 2004a). Success in controll-
ing other diseases, along with modern environmental
dangers inherent in technologically sophisticated

27
 RED FLAGS

civilizations, has also contributed to the rise in cancer.

Types of cancer vary geographically; for example, colon
cancer is more common in urban areas and skin cancer
more common among farmers in rural areas. Interest-
ingly, genetic and chromosomal cancers caused by the
environment, e.g. chemical radiation, can pass to the
next generation. Recent studies relate cancer to stress.
Long-term stress can cause hormonal or immunological
changes; this can promote the development of cancer
cells. Psychological depression or anxiety can lead to a
poorer repair of damaged DNA and changes in apopto-
sis (cell death) (Goodman et al 1998).

Cancer risk factors (Goodman et al 1998)

• Age
• Lifestyle
• Tobacco
• Alcohol
• Diet
• Sexual
• Viral
• Geographical
• Environmental
• Gender
• Ethnicity
• Socioeconomic
• Occupation
• Genetics
• Precancerous lesions
• Stress

28
 RED FLAGS

Commonest cancers worldwide (WHO 2004a)

• Lung – men
• Stomach – men
• Breast – women
• Cervical – women

Lung cancer is the largest group of cancers related to

death in both genders (Goodman et al 1998). Current
medical practice attempts to identify cancer at the ear-
liest possible stage, even before symptoms arise (Table
1.3). Once symptoms of cancer have developed the
outcome is inevitably worse.

Stages of cancer development (Pfalzer 1995)

Precancerous
• Hypertrophy
• Neoplastic hyperplasia (increased number of cells)
• Dysplasia (replacement of mature cells with immature
cells)
• Metaplasia (replacement of mature cells with cells of a
different type)
• Anaplasia (cellular disorganization)
Cancerous (neoplasia – non-random autonomous
cell growth)
• Invasion
• Metastatic process
Escape of malignant cells from immune surveillance

29
 RED FLAGS

TABLE 1.3 EARLY DETECTION OF

ASYMPTOMATIC CANCER (GOODMAN
ET AL 1998)
Risk factors Test
Breast Women >40 years Breast examination
Annual mammogram
Uterus All sexually active Pap test
women Pelvic examination
Endometrium Hereditary Endometrial biopsy
>35 years
Prostate >50 years Prostate specific
African/American PSA blood test
History in first Digital rectal
degree relative examination

The spread of cancer can be speeded up by ageing, a

dysfunctional immune system, hormonal and environ-
mental changes, pregnancy and stress (Goodman et al
1998). Metastases are believed to pass from primary
sites as emboli into the venous system; these pass via
the heart and lungs to reach the vertebral bodies as arte-
rial emboli. It is estimated that between 50% and 70% of
patients with cancer develop metastases before death.
This figure can be as high as 85% for women with breast

30
 RED FLAGS

cancer (Wiesel et al 1996). Metastases and primary

tumours occur at all sites in the spine and at any age
(Wiesel et al 1996). Cervical primary tumours account
for 4.2% of all primary bone tumours; both primary
tumours and metastases present much less frequently in
the cervical spine than in the thoracic or lumbar spines
(Ombregt et al 2003).
The high incidence of secondary metastases in the
vertebral bodies, ribs and ilium is most probably
explained by the slower bloodstream at these haemo-
poietic sites in the adult (Grieve 1981). Malignancy
affects the vertebral body four times more frequently
than the posterior spinal elements. To be visible on X-
ray 30–50% destruction of the vertebral body needs to
have occurred. Although the vertebral body is the area
most commonly affected at initial presentation, it is
often pedicle destruction that is observed initially by
X-ray; here minimal changes can be observed on X-ray
(Wiesel et al 1996). The goal of treatment in cases of
spinal metastases is generally palliative as treatment is
seldom curative (Ratliff & Cooper 2004).
Metastases often present 2–5 years after initial diag-
nosis. Low grade lesions, however, can develop metas-
tases as much as 20 years later (Goodman et al 1998).
Grieve also suggests that the position of neoplastic
disease in relation to the caudal or cephalad site affects
prognosis. He suggests that the more cranial the lesion
the poorer the outcome (Grieve 1981). Cancers that
spread to bone first have a poorer prognosis (Goodman
et al 1998).

31
 RED FLAGS

Survival times vary with spinal metastases of differ-

ent origin (Ratliff & Cooper 2004). With cancer of the
colon, median survival time is less than 3 months; for
melanoma it is 4 months.
Other factors contributing to the spread of metastases
include speed of onset, length of symptoms and sphinc-
ter involvement. Secondaries spread more rapidly in
younger patients and metastases from the lungs are
much more aggressive than those from breast, prostate,
thyroid or kidney (Grieve 1994). Metastases often
possess the same cellular structure as that of the primary
growth and this can enable the primary to be identified
(Goodman et al 1998).
It is particularly interesting to note that pelvic
tumours were found to take an average of 61 weeks to
diagnosis due to the low level of suspicion aroused in
clinicians (Table 1.4). Thirteen out of seventy cases went
on to have negative initial radiograph results although
evidence of serious pathology was seen on retrospective
review (Grieve 1994). There are two main technical dif-
ficulties in detecting pelvic tumours. The first relates to
the standard view used in lumbar spine imaging which
often does not extend far enough laterally to include the
sacroiliac complex. Secondly pelvic tumours are hard to
identify because of the presence of overlying intestinal
gas (Bickels et al 1999). It is important that clinicians are
not overly reliant on radiographic results in isolation as
they can be misleading.
Grieve (1981) suggests the following indicators for
the possibility of the presence of neoplasm.
Possible symptoms:

32
 RED FLAGS

TABLE 1.4 TIMESCALE OF CANCER TYPE AND

MEDICAL INTERVENTION (GRIEVE 1994)
Disease Time to first GP consultation
Osteosarcoma 6/52
Ewing’s sarcoma 16/52
Chondrosarcoma 21/52
Disease Time to diagnosis
Pelvic tumours 61/52

• mild, severe or catastrophic pain

• pain severe enough to be uninfluenced by the usual
analgesics, and requiring morphine for more than 48
hours
• weakness of legs
• unsteadiness of gait
• backache with pronounced loss of hip flexor power
• shock, vomiting and loss of spinal function following
a trivial trauma (may be pathological fracture)
Possible signs:
• deformity of the spine
• ‘globally’ rigid cervical spine
• painful and restricted movement of the back
• swelling of soft parts of the back
• paraplegia
• the combination of shoulder girdle pain with
neurological signs in the distribution of C8–T1 and
Horner’s syndrome.

33
 RED FLAGS

Pyogenic infections
These are pus-forming in nature and are significantly
different from TB, both in causation and clinical pres-
entation. Patients with pyogenic infections may remain
relatively healthy with no raised temperature or associ-
ated muscle spasm. The majority of infections are of
insidious onset and commonly there is a prolonged
period of time between onset and diagnosis. Early
diagnosis is reliant on tacit knowledge of these condi-
tions. The spinal regions affected by osteomyelitis
are reported as; lumbar 50% of cases, followed by
thoracic and then cervical with less than 10% of cases
(Wainwright 2001).
Pyogenic infections have been linked to urinary tract
infection, drug addiction, diabetes and after cardiac or
urinary catheterization. It is worth noting that drug
addiction is present on the CSAG (1994) Red Flag list.
There are three groups of pyogenic infections, which
vary in their anatomical site of presentation:

• vertebral body
• disc
• epidural space.

Those affecting the vertebral body constitute 1% of

osteomyelitis cases. Although less common, infections
of the disc can in 40% of cases result in paraparesis or
paraplegia. This percentage increases to 75–100% in
cases of infection of the epidural space, often present-
ing in the form of an epidural abscess (Leong & Luk
1996).

34
 RED FLAGS

The symptoms may be acute or chronic but the pre-

dominant symptom is pain which may refer to the
abdomen or the legs. The most common causative
organism is Staphylococcus (50%). The remaining 50% is
made up of:

• Streptococcus
• Proteus and Escherichia coli
• Pseudomonas
• Klebsiella
• Salmonella typhi
• Streptococcus pneumoniae
• Brucella (Leong & Luk 1996).
A survey in Denmark found an incidence rate of just
5 cases of acute vertebral osteomyelitis per million of
population per year (Krogsgard et al 1998).

Brucellosis
Brucellosis is an infection which affects the lumbar spine
more than any other part of the body (Leong & Luk
1996). Cyriax (1982) refers to brucellosis in the United
Kingdom as a condition primarily affecting farmers and
veterinary surgeons from Wales or the Midlands. He
goes on to describe the outstanding symptoms as being
fatigue, breathlessness and sweating after minor exer-
tion, headache and pain in the back. Leong & Luk (1996)
suggest that it can also affect those dealing with live-
stock and their preparation. It is caused by the Brucella
bacteria and is commonly transmitted through unpas-
teurized milk or dairy products.

35
 RED FLAGS

Grieve (1994) lists brucellosis as having a variety of

names including undulant fever, abortus fever and
Malta fever. He reports that it occurs uncommonly in
agricultural communities, in mild and obscure forms.
Grieve warns that a farm worker, for example, may
present with migraine and vague muscle pains, and cli-
nicians in country districts should be aware of the
possibility. Data for the European Union show that the
incidence decreased by 56% between 1996 and 2000,
falling to 0.63 per 100 000. Brucellosis is most common
in the following European countries (European
Commission 2004):

• Greece
• Portugal
• Spain
• Italy.
Clinicians in rural areas need to be aware of the possi-
bility of this presentation; similarly physiotherapists in
urban environments may need to be aware of patients
who have travelled to the Mediterranean or who work
in abattoirs.

Tuberculosis (TB)
Tuberculosis (TB) like cancer has afflicted humankind
for centuries and is commonly a disease associated with
poverty and poor living conditions. Human remains
dating from the Neolithic age (4500 BC) show evidence
of TB type damage to the spine. TB bone lesions have
been identified in Egyptian remains, and wall paintings

36
 RED FLAGS

of the time illustrate marked spinal deformity consistent

with that found in TB spine. Contemporary medical
reports suggest that death associated with TB spine was
a common outcome (McGrew 1985).
An historical perspective is important for an under-
standing of the role of poverty alleviation in causing
changing patterns of death and disease; lung TB pro-
vides an excellent example. In England and Wales,
figures from 1850 onwards show that there was a steady
decrease in the mortality of lung tuberculosis (Fig. 1.1),
long before the discovery of Mycobacterium tuberculosis
by Robert Koch around 1880. Anti-tuberculosis drugs

4000
Death rate (per million)

3000

2000

1000

0
1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960
Date

Figure 1.1 The declining death rate for TB of the lung, in

England and Wales, before the introduction of vaccination.
(Based on data in Bergstrom 1994.)

37
 RED FLAGS

did not become widely used until the 1940s and the BCG
vaccination came into public use later still. It is difficult
to know exactly which factors were responsible for this
decline. However, better housing, improved sanitation,
declining illiteracy, better food, and generally improved
standards of living are thought to have contributed
(Bergstrom 1994).
Although poverty and poor living conditions are less
common in developed industrial countries today, it is
unfortunate that these conditions still exist in many
parts of the world and still cause the spread of TB
(Leong & Luk 1996). It was not until 50 years ago that
the first medicines able to cure TB were developed. After
a brief period of optimism the AIDS pandemic and the
emergence of drug-resistant strains of the bacteria have
resulted in TB re-emerging as a major threat to public
health worldwide (WHO 2004b).
TB is a major health problem globally; overall 30%
of the world’s population is currently infected and
someone in the world is newly infected with the bac-
terium every second (WHO 2004b). TB is described as a
chronic, insidious and recurrent infection caused most
commonly by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Khoo et al
2003). Only people who are sick with pulmonary TB are
infectious (WHO 2004b). Following treatment TB can
remain dormant for as long as 30–40 years before recur-
rence (Leong & Luk 1996). TB infections of the spine are
usually ‘seeded’ from the lungs (Khoo et al 2003). Inter-
estingly, the most common spinal site of infection is the
thoracolumbar junction (Wiesel et al 1996). Cyriax (1982)

38
 RED FLAGS

refers to this site as ‘no man’s land’ and CSAG (1994)

lists this area as a Red Flag.
In adults there are four primary patterns of spinal
infection:

• paradiscal lesions
• anterior granuloma
• central lesions
• appendiceal type lesions.
Of these, paradiscal lesions are most common, repre-
senting approximately 50% of all cases (Khoo et al
2003).
Typical features of TB are backache with gibbus, an
extreme kyphosis often with a marked angular defor-
mity. Additional features may include abscess in the
groin, trochanteric region or buttock (Leong & Luk
1996).
During the first half of the 20th century, TB started to
decline due to the development of antibiotics. However,
the combination of the development of antibiotic-
resistant strains of the bacterium and the spread of
HIV/AIDS has reversed this trend and prompted an
increase in TB. A recent prospective survey conducted
at the University Teaching Hospital, Zambia demon-
strated an unusual pattern of admissions for spinal cord
lesions. There were twice as many non-traumatic spinal
cord lesions as there were traumatic lesions. TB spine
was the most common reason for admission in the non-
traumatic group, with 37 cases during a 5-month period
(Mweemba et al 2005).

39
 RED FLAGS

HIV/AIDS

HIV/AIDS are identified as Red Flags on the CSAG

(1994) guidelines. The human immunodeficiency virus
targets CD4+ T cells, a type of white blood cell, which
is one of the key cells involved in fighting infection. The
body’s ability to fight disease decreases as the number
of CD4+ T cells decreases. A healthy immune system has
800–1200 CD4+ T cells per cubic millimetre of blood;
once this is reduced to 200 the patient is considered to
have AIDS. As the immune system deteriorates it loses
its capacity to fight disease and patients become increas-
ingly susceptible to opportunistic illnesses (US Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services 2004).
Regionally there are marked variations in the pre-
valence and incidence of HIV/AIDS. In the European
Union there was a decrease in the annual incidence of
66% from 1994 to 2001; the cumulative total of AIDS
cases for the EU in 2001 was 232 407 (European Com-
mission 2004). In the United States AIDS-related deaths
fell by 14% from 1998 to 2002, from 19 005 to 16 371 (US
Department of Health and Human Services 2004). This
is in stark contrast to the devastating AIDS pandemic in
sub-Saharan Africa where approximately 25 million
people are living with HIV/AIDS (US Department of
Health and Human Services 2004). In Zambia alone it is
estimated that 1 in 5 of the population is infected with
the HIV virus and 200 people die of AIDS daily (Phiri
2004).
The diagnosis of AIDS, in an HIV-positive patient,
requires the presence of at least one of the following

40
 RED FLAGS

opportunistic illnesses (European Commission 2004,

Terence Higgins Trust 2004):

• pneumonia (present in 21–22% of cases)

• oesophageal candidiasis (present in 13–14.9% of
cases)
• TB (present in 21.6% of cases)
• Kaposi’s sarcoma (present in 5.5% of cases)
• toxoplasmosis.

Common symptoms occurring in people with AIDS (US

Department of Health and Human Services 2004)
• Coughing and shortness of breath
• Lack of coordination
• Difficult or painful swallowing
• Mental symptoms such as confusion
• Severe and persistent diarrhoea
• Fever
• Vision loss
• Nausea and vomiting
• Weight loss
• Extreme fatigue
• Severe headaches

The relationship between HIV and TB is a synergis-

tic one, in which their combined effect is worse than
their separate effects added together (Tarantola &
Mann 1994). For example, up to 60% of HIV-positive TB
patients will have skeletal involvement compared to the

41
 RED FLAGS

usual 1% or 2% in HIV-negative patients (Khoo et al

2003).

CONCLUSION/SUMMARY
Despite the serious subject of this book it is vitally
important for physiotherapists to retain a sense of per-
spective when examining and treating spinal patients.
Physiotherapists need to recognize that serious pathol-
ogy forms only a tiny proportion of the total caseload
(Fig. 1.2).

<1%
Serious spinal
pathology

<5%
Nerve root pain

<95%
Simple backache

Figure 1.2 Percentage of patients classified into the

diagnostic triage groups.

42
 RED FLAGS

In addition, physiotherapists must not be alarmist as

many patients present with some Red Flags in the pres-
ence of completely benign conditions. Over-medicaliza-
tion and investigation of benign pathology can cause the
patient a great deal of distress. The physiotherapist has
a professional duty of care not to cause needless anxiety
and concern for patients and their families.
The purpose of this book is to help differentiate
between the small number of serious pathologies and
the vast majority of benign conditions. The book will go
on to discuss the sensitivity and specificity of Red Flags

Serious Serious
pathology pathology
correctly misdiagnosed
diagnosed as benign

Benign Benign
pathology pathology
misdiagnosed correctly
as serious diagnosed

Figure 1.3 Model of diagnostic alternatives.

43
 RED FLAGS

in the assessment of spinal conditions. This is graphi-

cally illustrated in Figure 1.3. Appropriate clinical rea-
soning will hopefully lead clinicians to an accurate
diagnosis represented by the top left or bottom right
quadrants in the figure.

References
Australian Department of Health and Ageing 2004 Cancer
Data and Trends. Online. Available: http://www.health.
gov.au 3 Aug 2004
Barclay J 1994 In good hands; The history of the Chartered
Society of Physiotherapy 1894–1994. Butterworth
Heinemann, Oxford
Bergstrom S 1994 The pathology of poverty. In: Lankinen et
al K S (eds) Health and disease in developing countries.
Macmillan Press, London, p 3–12
Bickels J, Kahanovitz N, Rubert C K et al 1999 Extraspinal
bone and soft-tissue tumours as a cause of sciatica.
Spine 24(15):1611–1616
Bigos S. 1994, Acute low back pain in adults: Clinical
practice guideline, US Department of Health and
Human Services, Rockville, MD. AHCPR 95-0643
Boissonnault W G 1995 Examination in physical therapy
practice: screening for medical disease, 2nd edn.
Churchill Livingstone, New York
Brewerton D A 2001 The doctor’s role in diagnosis and
prescribing vertebral manipulation. In: Maitland G et al
(eds) Maitland’s vertebral manipulation, 6th edn.
Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, p 16–20
CSAG 1994 Report of a Clinical Standards Advisory Group
on Back Pain. HMSO, London

44
 RED FLAGS

CSP 2004 Extended scope practitioners. Online. Available:

http://www.csp.org.uk
Cyriax J 1982 Textbook of orthopaedic medicine, 8th edn.
Baillière Tindall, Eastbourne
Department of Health 2000a Referral guidelines for
suspected cancer. London
Department of Health 2000b The NHS plan. HMSO,
London
European Commission 2004 Health statistics. Key data on
health 2002 (data 1970–2001). European Commission
European Union 2004 European guidelines for prevention
in low back pain. Online. Available: http://www.
backpaineurope.org 28 Jan 2005
Gifford L 2000 The nerve root. CNS Press, Falmouth
Goodman C C, Fuller K S, Boissonnault W G 1998
Pathology implications for physical therapists, 2nd edn.
Saunders, Philadelphia
Greenhalgh S, Selfe J 2004 Margaret: a tragic case of
spinal Red Flags and Red Herrings. Physiotherapy
90(2):73–76 (also available at http://evolve.elsevier.
com/Greenhalgh/redflags/)
Grieve G P 1981 Common vertebral joint problems.
Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh
Grieve G P 1994 ‘The masqueraders. In: Boyling J D,
Palastanga N (eds) Grieve’s modern manual therapy: the
vertebral column, 2nd edn. Churchill Livingstone,
Edinburgh, p 841–856
Kendall N A S, Linton S J, Main C 1997 Guide to assessing
psychosocial yellow flags in acute low back pain: Risk
factors for long term disability and work loss. Accident
Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
of New Zealand and the National Health Committee,
Wellington

45
 RED FLAGS

Khoo L T, Mikawa K, Fessler R G 2003 A surgical

revisitation of Pott distemper of the spine. Spine Journal
3:130–145
Krogsgard M R, Wagn P, Bergtsson J 1998 Epidemiology of
acute vertebral osteomyelitis in Denmark. Acta
Orthopaedica Scandinavica 69:513–517
Leong J C Y, Luk K D K 1996 Spinal Infections. In: Wiesel S
W et al (eds) The lumbar spine, International Society for
the Study of the Lumbar Spine, 2nd edn. Saunders,
Philadelphia, p 874–915
McGrew R E 1985 Encyclopedia of medical history.
Macmillan Press, London
McKenzie R A 1990 The cervical and thoracic spine.
Mechanical diagnosis and therapy. Spinal Publications,
Waikanae
McKenzie R A, May S 2003 The lumbar spine. Mechanical
diagnosis and therapy, Vol 1. Spinal Publications,
Waikanae
Mennell J 1949 The science and art of joint
manipulation: the extremities, 2nd edn. J & A Churchill,
London
Mennell J 1952 The science and art of manipulation: the
spinal column. J & A Churchill, London
Mweemba C, Mwango M, Rochester P, Selfe J 2005 Spinal
cord injuries in Zambia. International Journal of Therapy
and Rehabilitation, in press
New Zealand Ministry of Health 2004 New Zealand Acute
Low Back Pain Guidelines. Online. Available:
http://www.nzgg.org.nz 4 Apr 2005
Ombregt L, Bisschop P, ter Veer H J 2003 A system of
orthopaedic medicine, 2nd edn. Churchill Livingstone,
London
Pfalzer L A 1995 Oncology: Examination, diagnosis and
treatment. Medical and surgical considerations. In:

46
 RED FLAGS

Myers R S (ed) Saunders manual of physical therapy

practice. Saunders, Philadelphia, p 65
Phiri M 2004 HIV/AIDS in Zambia WCPT Africa. 5th
Regional Conference, Lusaka, Zambia
Ratliff J K, Cooper P R 2004 Metastatic spine tumours.
Southern Medical Journal 97(3):246–253
Roberts P 1994 Theoretical models of physiotherapy.
Physiotherapy 80(6):361–366
Royal College of General Practitioners 2001 Clinical
guidelines for the management of acute low back pain.
Online. Available: http://www.rcgp.org.uk/clinspec/
guidelines/backpain/index.asp
Spitzer W O 1987 Quebec Task Force report. Spine
12(Suppl 1):S1–S59
Tarantola T, Mann J 1994 The AIDS pandemic. In:
Lankinen K S et al (eds) Health and disease in
developing countries. Macmillan Press, London,
p 185–194
Terence Higgins Trust 2004 Toxoplasmosis information for
people with HIV and AIDS. London
Thackray Museum 2004 Victorian Collection.
Online. Available: www.thackraymuseum.org 22 Oct
2004
US Department of Health and Human Services 2004 How
HIV causes AIDS. Online. Available: http://www.
niaid.nih.gov/factsheets 3 Aug 2004
Waddell G 2004 The back pain revolution, 2nd edn.
Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh
Wainwright A 2001 Spinal infection. In: Bartley R,
Coffey P (eds) Management of low back pain in
primary care. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford,
p 99
WHO 2004a Cancer. Online. Available: http:www.who.int/
cancer 22 Apr 2004

47
 RED FLAGS

WHO 2004b Tuberculosis infection and transmission.

Online. Available: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/
factsheets/fs104/en/ 104 22 Apr 2004
Wiesel S W, Weinstein J N, Herkowitz H et al 1996 The
lumbar spine, International Society for the Study of the
Lumbar Spine, 2nd edn. Saunders, Philadelphia

48
Chapter 2
Clinical Reasoning

CHAPTER CONTENTS
Pain, behaviour and psychosocial flags 51
Clinical reasoning 58
Health behaviour 73
Summary 77
Weighted Red Flag list 81
Subjective examination: age, previous medical history
and lifestyle questions 81
Subjective examination: history of current episode
questions 81
Subjective examination: pain questions 82
Objective examination 82
Red Herrings 82
References 83

49
 CLINICAL REASONING

One of the many clinical challenges facing physiothera-

pists is the issue of diagnosis of spinal pain. There are
numerous causes of spinal pain, and a multitude of indi-
vidual anatomical structures either individually or in
combination can contribute to the clinical symptom of
spinal pain.

Potential causes of spinal pain

• Structural abnormalities
• Inflammatory processes
• Degenerative processes
• Infective processes
• Neoplastic processes
• Metabolic processes
• Visceral referral
• Idiopathic

However, in the quest for a diagnosis it is vitally

important to remember that back pain is actually just a
symptom, not a disease, and that a diagnosis of specific
pathology is only achievable in about 15% of cases of
spinal pain (Waddell 2004).
The International Association for the Study of Pain
(IASP) defines pain as ‘an unpleasant sensory and
emotional experience associated with actual or potential
tissue damage or described in terms of such damage’
(Merskey & Bogduk 1994, emphasis ours).
Using this IASP definition of pain helps us to under-
stand that pain is much more than a ‘simple’ nocicep-

50
 CLINICAL REASONING

tive output from injured tissue but is in fact a very

complex sensory and emotional experience. Gifford &
Butler (1997) suggest that clinicians should consider
pain as three interacting dimensions:

• sensory–discriminative: awareness of intensity, loca-

tion, quality and pain behaviour
• cognitive–evaluative: thoughts about the problem
influenced by experiences and previous knowledge
• motivational–affective: the emotional response (often
negative) that motivates or governs response to pain,
e.g. fear, anxiety or anger.
By adopting a clinical approach that incorporates both
physical and psychosocial factors, physiotherapists
align themselves with the holistic philosophy of patient
care encouraged by the WHO International Classifi-
cation of Functioning, Disability and Health (WHO
2001).

PAIN, BEHAVIOUR AND

PSYCHOSOCIAL FLAGS
We have so far exclusively discussed physical problems.
However, it is important to remember the very complex
emotional and psychological reactions that can ac-
company even simple mechanical spinal pain. Current
research evidence suggests strong links between
psychological variables and spinal pain (Linton 2000,
Sterling 2004). Current evidence suggests that some
psychological variables may also have a genetic link
(MacGregor et al 2004). A flag system highlighting risk

51
 CLINICAL REASONING

factors has been developed to alert the clinician that

there may be a risk of poor outcome due to low back
pain for reasons other than biomedical ones. Chapter 1
traces the development of the Red Flag system of bio-
medical indicators of serious pathology. The following
flag system highlights psychosocial indicators (C Main,
personal communication, 2005, Main & Williams 2002,
Schultz & Gatchel 2005):

• Yellow Flags – emotional and behavioural factors

• Blue Flags – social and economic factors
• Black Flags – occupational factors
• Orange Flags – psychiatric factors.
Grieve (1981) points out that continuous and harrow-
ing distress can be the dominant feature of pain from
malignancy; an emotionally disturbed patient with psy-
chogenic pain may give the same impression. However,
in the latter case the patient tends to describe suffering
rather than symptoms. The extravagance of the descrip-
tion of painful suffering may invite the suspicion that
while the patient may be in pain, the kind of help they
need is not that indicated for malignant disease. Emo-
tional and psychological issues associated with spinal
pain are addressed in detail by Gordon Waddell in his
book The Back Pain Revolution (Waddell 2004) and in the
New Zealand ‘Guide to assessing psychosocial Yellow
Flags in acute low back pain’ (New Zealand Ministry of
Health 2002).
Both publications highlight the complexity of these
emotional and psychological reactions and propose that
clinicians should use a biopsychosocial model of illness

52
 CLINICAL REASONING

as a framework when interpreting the complex picture

of the patient’s physical and emotional presentation.
Roberts (2000) argues that Red and Yellow Flags are not
mutually exclusive; the complexity of cases in which
both are present poses a significant challenge. It must
be considered that those with serious pathology can
develop increased psychosocial stresses as the condition
progresses, especially in view of the delay in detection
(for example, see ‘Cancer’ section in Ch. 1). Three-
dimensional thinking (see Fig. 2.2) is hugely important
in these cases, to help differentiate between apparently
serious or genuinely serious presentations (Fig. 2.1).
In addition, Waddell (2004) also identifies a group of
patients with low back pain who demonstrate very
overt pain behaviour . These patients display an exag-
gerated pain behaviour which can manifest in a number
of ways. One of the problems facing clinicians is that
these overt pain behaviours can often be the same as
those displayed by patients with serious pathology.
The following extract helps to illustrate this:
He moved to a chair in reception and sat down and
soon began to half lie on to the next chair. Within
two minutes he stood up and leaned against a
cupboard. (Greenhalgh & Selfe 2003)
Waddell (2004) cites the University of Alabama
(UAB) pain behaviour scale as a useful tool in helping
clinicians determine the degree of pain behaviour
(Richards et al 1982). The scale consists of ten items;
with reference to the clinical example above it is inter-
esting to consider two of the ten items:

53
 CLINICAL REASONING

Genuinely Genuinely
simple problem serious problem
Simple Nerve root pain
mechanical pain Serious pathology

Apparently
serious problem
Psychosocial
Biomedical
(Red Herrings)

Figure 2.1 Model differentiating between genuinely simple,

apparently serious and genuinely serious problems.

• item eight: ‘Use of physical supports (corset, stick,

crutches, lean on furniture, transcutaneous electrical
nerve stimulation (TENS) – none; occasional;
dependent; constant use)’
• item nine: ‘Stationary movement (sit or stand still;
occasional shift of position; constant movement or
shifts of position)’.

54
 CLINICAL REASONING

The patient described would score highly on these two

items of the UAB scale. However, the patient did not
have an exaggerated reaction to his pain; he was diag-
nosed with a malignant myeloma of T12 and subse-
quently underwent a vertebrectomy (Greenhalgh &
Selfe 2003). With respect to this difficult issue Waddell
(2004) urges caution and states that clinicians should:
Always carry out diagnostic triage first. Exclude
serious spinal pathology or a widespread neurological
disorder before even thinking about illness behaviour.
This is a view that we would strongly endorse.
Not many figures are available on the incidence of
overt pain behaviour in the back pain population.
Waddell et al (1980) reported an incidence rate of 10%
among patients referred to an orthopaedic clinic from
general practitioners in the UK. Also in the UK, Selfe
(1995) reported that 8% of patients from a sample of
300 low back pain patients referred to physiotherapy
via general practitioners, orthopaedic consultants and
rheumatology consultants demonstrated sufficiently
overt pain behaviour to require referral to a specialist
multidisciplinary pain management programme. It
must be remembered that a patient chronically disabled
for many decades with low back pain is not immune
from serious pathology.
The importance of the biopsychosocial approach
to low back pain was highlighted in the CSAG guide-
lines (CSAG 1994). Biopsychosocial issues have been
highlighted as contributory factors in spinal pain
becoming chronic, increasing the risk of long-term

55
 CLINICAL REASONING

disability and social exclusion (CSAG 1994). Tradition-

ally physiotherapists have not routinely measured psy-
chosocial risk, in a formal way. The Linton and Halden
Initial Back Pain Questionnaire (L&H questionnaire
or acute low back pain screening questionnaire) was
specifically developed to measure psychosocial risk
factors in patients with low back pain (Waddell 2004).
The L&H questionnaire is now widely used by physio-
therapists. Hurley et al (2001) report that the final total
score on the L&H questionnaire correlated with pain
and disability at 1-year follow-up. However, high
L&H scores can also be obtained purely by severe pain
unrelated to significant psychosocial issues (Greenhalgh
et al 2005). The L&H questionnaire should there-
fore be used as one of a number of aids in clinical
decision-making.
In addition to formal questionnaires, Waddell (2004)
also suggests a mnemonic for clinicians, to guide them
through topics to explore during the subjective history-
taking of biopsychosocial issues: A, B, C, D, E, F, W.

• A – Attitudes and beliefs about pain

• B – Behaviours
• C – Compensation issues
• D – Diagnosis and treatment issues
• E – Emotions
• F – Family
• W – Work.
A more detailed discussion of these important psy-
chosocial issues is beyond the scope of a pocket guide

56
 CLINICAL REASONING

to Red Flags; interested readers are referred to the work

of Linton (2000), Main & Williams (2002) and Waddell
(2004).
As described in the previous chapter, a number of
reports have produced simplified diagnostic schemes in
an attempt to aid clinicians. The Quebec Task Force pro-
duced a list of 11 diagnostic categories (Spitzer 1987).
CSAG (1994) described five diagnostic categories for
spinal disorders, which was further condensed into the
diagnostic triage:

• simple backache (95% of cases)

• nerve root pain (<5% of cases)
• possible serious spinal pathology (<1% of cases).

These diagnostic categories are intended to help clini-

cians and to simplify diagnosis, and indeed the diag-
nostic triage appears very successful in this regard as
it provides a clear framework for clinical decision-
making. However, even using a simple tool such as the
diagnostic triage can be challenging; this is illustrated in
Figure 2.1.
There should be little difficulty distinguishing
between genuinely simple problems and those that are
genuinely serious; this is denoted by the solid line.
However, the dashed lines show where diagnostic dif-
ficulty may occur around the apparently serious prob-
lems which often present with very complex clinical
pictures.

57
 CLINICAL REASONING

CLINICAL REASONING

Clinical reasoning refers to the thought processes used

in patient diagnosis and management and is universally
applied by clinicians. Jones & Rivett (2004) suggest that
while conceptually very simple, clinical reasoning in
practice is actually very difficult and fraught with
errors. They state that ‘therapists must be able to think
along multiple lines and often think on different levels
at the same time’. This is a point we would strongly
agree with. To illustrate the complexity of clinical rea-
soning we use the term three-dimensional thinking (3D
thinking; Fig. 2.2). 3D thinking is a very dynamic and
rapidly occurring process. 3D thinking should permit a
unique therapist response (output) in relation to each
individual and unique patient scenario (input).
Figure 2.2 also shows how equal weight is placed on
the patient (input) and the physiotherapist (output).
This illustrates that for clinical reasoning to be success-
ful the patient and therapist should form an active and
balanced partnership in trying to come to an under-
standing of the patient’s condition. It is also important
to note that the vertical line in the centre of Figure 2.2
has an arrowhead at both ends. This illustrates that
during patient consultations physiotherapists draw on
their previous experience and knowledge and that
simultaneously each patient consultation adds to the
physiotherapist’s knowledge and experience.
Central to clinical reasoning is the concept of clini-
cians reflecting or thinking about their own thought
processes when engaged in patient contact; this is

58
 CLINICAL REASONING

Emotions

Experience Knowledge

Input Clinical Output

reasoning
Unique patient Unique therapist
scenario response

Verbal and
Verbal
non-verbal
communication
communication

Figure 2.2 Model of 3D thinking.

59
 CLINICAL REASONING

referred to as metacognition. Rather than being a

passive or theoretical activity, metacognition should be
an ongoing dynamic and practical activity underpin-
ning all clinical reasoning. There are a number of ele-
ments to metacognition, including:

• metacognitive knowledge: thinking about know-

ledge
• metacognitive skill: thinking about current action
(Hacker 1998).

To underline the universality and importance of clinical

reasoning in the clinical environment Schell (1998) sug-
gests that: ‘It is not a question of whether you are doing
it, only a question of how well’.
Clearly clinical reasoning is a very important process
in the day-to-day practice of a wide variety of profes-
sions; from a physiotherapy perspective Jones (1995)
lists three reasons why it is so important:

• It provides a safeguard against the risk of popular

theory and practice being accepted without question.
• Without clinical reasoning clinical practice becomes
merely a technical operation.
• It is important in avoiding misdirection in beliefs and
helps to manage the rapidly expanding body of clin-
ical and biomedical knowledge.

Schell (1998) describes four categories of clinical

reasoning:

• scientific
• narrative

60
 CLINICAL REASONING

• pragmatic
• ethical.
According to Edwards et al (2004), clinical reasoning
has mainly developed from a quantitative scientific
perspective set within a positivistic paradigm and has
primarily been concerned with diagnosis (diagnostic
reasoning). Within the diagnostic reasoning model,
two distinct processes of clinical reasoning have been
identified:

• hypothetico-deductive reasoning, used primarily by

more inexperienced practitioners or by experts when
faced with unfamiliar or complex presentations
• pattern recognition, which is faster and more efficient
and is used by experienced and expert practitioners.
Jones & Rivett (2004) explain that these processes
involve collecting and analysing information and
hypothesis generation about the cause or nature of the
patient’s condition. This begins with the therapist’s
observation and interpretation of initial cues from the
patient when they first meet, even before any verbal
communication takes place. The following extract
from Greenhalgh & Selfe (2003) helps to illustrate this
point:
John was a 64-year-old man leaning heavily on the
reception desk and obviously in a great deal of discom-
fort when first seen, but was trying hard to smile. He
appeared unwell with a sallow complexion, slightly
dishevelled appearance and poorly fitting clothes. He
moved to a chair in reception and sat down and soon

61
 CLINICAL REASONING

began to half lie on to the next chair. Within two

minutes he stood up and leaned against a cupboard.
There is a wealth of non-verbal information that can
be gained from this description and it shows how the
therapist should be able to develop an initial concept
of the problem that includes preliminary working
hypotheses for considering during the examination. In
this example it is clear that the patient is displaying
marked illness behaviour; two alternative hypotheses
that could explain this behaviour can be formulated:

• The patient has an abnormal and exaggerated reac-

tion to a minor problem.
• The patient has a normal reaction to a very severe
and painful problem.
In the hypothetico-deductive reasoning model these
hypotheses are tested through further data collection to
determine optimal treatment and management strate-
gies based on these data.

Hypothesis categories (Jones & Rivett 2004)

• Activity capability or restriction
• Patients’ perspectives on their experience
• Pathobiological mechanisms
• Physical impairments
• Contributing factors
• Precautions and contraindications
• Management and treatment
• Prognosis

62
 CLINICAL REASONING

Although we have used a fairly simple example

above, patients sometimes present with very complex
problems where multiple competing hypotheses can be
generated. This is particularly true in cases of serious
spinal pathology. In these cases it is worth remember-
ing and adopting the principle of parsimony (sometimes
referred to as Ockham’s razor) first attributed to the 14th
century logician and Franciscan friar, William of
Ockham:
Of two competing theories or explanations, all other
things being equal, the simpler one is to be pre-
ferred. (Chalmers 2003)
This is commonly expressed as ‘If you hear the sound
of hooves outside you should assume it is a horse not a
zebra’ (Fig. 2.3).
The physician Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of
Sherlock Holmes, was an advocate of the principle of
parsimony. He states ‘. . . when you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable,
must be the truth’. He also suggests that logic must
prevail (Dillin & Watkins 1992); therefore when apply-
ing the principle of parsimony to serious spinal pathol-
ogy it is vitally important for physiotherapists to
remember that serious pathology accounts for no more
than 1% of all back pain (CSAG 1994).
Using the horse/zebra illustration it is also possible
to consider how one would confirm whether a horse or
a zebra is outside, i.e. one would need to look out of the
window to gather more information. Jones (1992) argues
that successful clinical reasoning does precisely this. It

63
 CLINICAL REASONING

Figure 2.3 ’If you hear the sound of hooves outside you
should assume it is a horse not a zebra.’

is a process of ongoing data collection, and does not stop

on completion of the assessment; continuous reassess-
ment is essential and contributes to the therapist’s
evolving concept of the patient’s problem.
In a paper that demonstrates a clear link between
diagnostic reasoning and its positivistic origins, Round
(2000) suggests that clinicians should utilize Bayes’
theorem as an aid to diagnosis. Thomas Bayes was an
18th century mathematician, and his theorem concerns
conditional probabilities. According to Chalmers (2003)
these are:
Probabilities for propositions that depend on (and
hence are conditional on) the evidence bearing on those
propositions.

64
 CLINICAL REASONING

Put another way, the probability ascribed to an event

depends on prior knowledge of the event and if any new
evidence pertaining to the circumstances of the event
comes to light the probability (related to the event)
changes in response to the new evidence.
In the horse/zebra example used above, the condi-
tional probabilities partly depend on where you live;
generally in the North West of England zebras would
have a very low probability; however, the conditional
probability can change. The city of Chester provides an
example:

• living next door to Chester Zoo (zebra possible)

• living next door to Chester Race Course (horse very
likely).
From a clinical perspective this could very simply be
expressed as keeping an open mind about the patient’s
condition and being prepared to modify ideas in
response to any new information that comes to light.
This reinforces the earlier point made by Jones & Rivett
(2004) that successful clinical reasoning involves a
continuous process of reassessment and an evolving
concept of the patient’s problem.
In practical terms the way conditional probabilities
can influence clinical decision-making is illustrated by
the following examples. The International Myeloma
Foundation suggests that there is a rare tendency for
myeloma to have a genetic link (3–5% of cases).
However, it is also likely that a combination of several
environmental and predisposing factors can culminate
in the development of myeloma.

65
 CLINICAL REASONING

Predisposing factors for myeloma (International

Myeloma Foundation 2002)
• African descent
• Exposure to chemicals (dioxins and solvents)
• Exposure to radiation
• Viral infection (HIV, hepatitis, herpes and cytomegalo-
virus)
• Age 50—70

Therefore the conditional probability is affected by

the presence, absence or combination of these factors.
Interestingly, Durie (2004) reports a trend toward an
increased incidence of myeloma below the age of 55
years. He suggests this may be due to changing envi-
ronmental factors over the last 30–40 years.
Similarly, environmental factors and genetically
linked predisposing factors can have an effect on breast
cancer. A recent study revealed that among women who
smoked for 20 years or longer there was a 60% increase
in the incidence of breast cancer. Among those who
smoked 20 cigarettes a day or more for 40 years, the risk
rose to 83% (Terry et al 2002).
Returning to Bayes’ theorem, Round (2000) proposes
a more formal use of the theorem in relation to diag-
nostic reasoning. She advocates that clinicians could
use the theorem as the basis on which to calculate the
likelihood ratios of a particular medical condition. In
order to calculate likelihood ratios it is necessary to

66
 CLINICAL REASONING

know two things about an item of clinical information;

these are:

• the specificity, the chance of having a negative result

when the disease is absent
• the sensitivity, the chance of having a positive result
when the disease is present.
One of the challenges facing physiotherapists is that the
specificity and sensitivity of many of the objective tests
used in clinical practice have not been established. This
issue has recently been highlighted in the UK and
research into the physical diagnostic tests commonly
used by physiotherapists has become a research funding
priority (CSP 2002). This problem, however, is not just
restricted to the UK. Interested readers are directed to
McKenzie & May (2003a, 2003b) who, drawing from a
wide international literature, provide a comprehensive
review and discussion on this subject. In light of the
problems associated with objective examination, it is
interesting, and somewhat reassuring, to note that
according to Deyo et al (1992) the objective examination
is actually much less useful than the subjective exami-
nation in identifying serious pathology in the early
stages. The patient’s own story of their lived experience
provides valuable and rich diagnostic data which
should never be underestimated or ignored. It is not
until the later stages of the disease that objective
markers of progressing pathology become evident.
Deyo et al (1992) report that during history-taking a
variety of subjective markers have been shown to have
high specificity and sensitivity. For example, a previous

67
 CLINICAL REASONING

medical history of cancer has a specificity of 0.98. Fry-

moyer (1997) agrees with this view and reports that any
history of a known primary cancer, however remote,
should be considered significant. Both these reports
suggest that in patients with histories of previous cancer
the conditional probability is very high and that there
may be a recurrence at some stage. Clinicians need to be
aware of this and remain vigilant. Therefore during the
clinical decision-making process, screening questions
for recurrent cancer should take place at the initial
stages.
Wardle et al (2005) illustrate this point in the case of
Christine, a 53-year-old patient who had a previous
history of acute myeloid leukaemia who presented with
what initially appeared to be a frozen shoulder 20 years
later. This patient was ultimately diagnosed with a
brachial plexus granulocytic sarcoma. In a study of
almost 2000 patients suffering from back pain, no cancer
was identified in any patient below the age of 50 years
without a previous history of cancer, unexplained
weight loss or failed previous intervention (Deyo et al
1992).

KEY FACT: The sensitivity of these four combined markers,

previous cancer, age, weight loss and failed conservative
management, is 1.00 (a staggering 100%).

Many clinicians would tend to assume that the sen-

sitivity of weight loss was high. However, Deyo et al
(1992) state that the sensitivity is 0.15 and the specificity

68
 CLINICAL REASONING

0.94 for diagnostic accuracy of weight loss in the

medical history. It is also important to remember that in
some conditions, for example myeloma, weight loss
may not occur until later stages of the disease process
(Durie 2004). Weight loss in the later stage of cancer is
termed cachexia and is defined as a wasting syndrome
in which fat and muscle tissue are lost; it is indicative of
a state of malnutrition (Maltzman 2004), and is dis-
cussed further in Chapter 4.
Osteoporosis is another condition where conditional
probability is dependent on knowledge of the combina-
tion of presenting factors. It is a common condition
responsible for 40 000 clinically diagnosed fractures
each year in the UK alone (Bolton Hospitals NHS Trust
1996). The estimated cost of care of osteoporotic frac-
tures in postmenopausal women in the UK is estimated
to be in the region of £1030 million (NICE 2005).
Conditional probability in osteoporosis, for example,
depends on:

• corticosteroid usage
• gender
• early menopause
• history of previous fracture
• family history of osteoporosis.
A patient taking systemic steroids who develops low
back pain has a specificity of 0.99 when considering ver-
tebral compression fractures (Dukes 2004). However,
providing no fracture has occurred, once steroid treat-
ment has been withdrawn the effects are reversible.

69
 CLINICAL REASONING

Another area of interest when considering condi-

tional probabilities is spinal infection. Experience would
suggest that the clinician often assumes that the pres-
ence of a fever (including night sweats) may indicate
some sort of infection; conversely absence of a fever
tends to reassure clinicians when considering spinal
infection. Importantly, however, the sensitivity of fever
in the case of tuberculous osteomyelitis is a mere 0.27.
A fever therefore is suggestive, but not specific (Deyo et
al 1992).
The model of diagnostic reasoning outlined above set
within a positive paradigm has not been without criti-
cism. Scott (2000) states that three types of error can
occur:

1. faulty perception or elicitation of cues

2. incomplete factual knowledge
3. misapplication of known facts to a specific problem.

Downing & Hunter (2003) pick up on this first point

when they point out that subjectivity is entwined with
clinical reasoning. This is a problem associated with
bias, which (Murphy 1997) defines as:

Any process at any stage of inference which tends to

produce results or conclusions that differ systemati-
cally from the truth.

Within clinical practice, bias can come from many

sources and can occur at both a conscious and un-
conscious level. This can have serious consequences
when considering patients’ own self-diagnosis and mis-

70
 CLINICAL REASONING

attribution; this is discussed more fully later in this

chapter.
Both Schell (1998) and Edwards et al (2004) highlight
that diagnostic reasoning set within a positive paradigm
does not consider that many clinical tasks require an
understanding of the person as well as the disease. They
go on to point out that the world of the patient is both
a biomedical and a lived experience. In order to address
this issue narrative reasoning within a qualitative para-
digm has developed. Narrative reasoning seeks to
understand the unique lived experience of patients, a
reasoning activity that could be termed the construction
of meaning. It is essential that subjective questioning
enables the clinician to understand the entire patient
story.
Edwards et al (2004) develop this concept and
propose a conceptual framework which considers the
dialectical nature of reasoning. This acknowledges the
legitimacy of different reasoning processes without
attempting to establish the supremacy of one over the
other. They go on to describe how in real life there is a
dynamic interplay between different types of reasoning.
They also argue, and are supported by Hack (2004), that
this mode of thinking relates well to the biopsychoso-
cial model of health (Waddell 2004) and the WHO Inter-
national Classification of Functioning, Disability and
Health (WHO 2001). A further extract of the case history
presented earlier helps to illustrate this:

At home he needed the help of his 16-year old daughter

to dress and undress. (Greenhalgh & Selfe 2003)

71
 CLINICAL REASONING

Remembering that the patient being described is a

64-year-old male, this extract demonstrates how his
spinal problem occurs in a unique social setting and
how the spinal problem in turn actually impacts on and
changes the social dynamic of his world. This role rever-
sal is commonplace when functional activity is limited
by a musculoskeletal disorder. It is vitally important
that the physiotherapist recognizes that this informa-
tion provides a valuable insight into the world of the
patient’s own experience and considers these issues
when trying to understand the patient’s problem and
when formulating a suitable management plan. In this
particular case, this information helped to contribute to
a picture of a patient with a serious pathology.
Schell (1998) describes pragmatic reasoning and
ethical reasoning. Pragmatic reasoning is ‘the world in
which therapy occurs’. This world has two components:

• Practice: this includes things such as treatment

resources and organizational culture.
• Personal: this includes things such as clinical com-
petence and demands outside of work.

These professional and personal issues can strongly

influence clinical reasoning.
Scientific, narrative and pragmatic reasoning all
attempt to answer questions about what is the patient’s
problem and what can be done to help that problem.
Ethical reasoning asks the question ‘What should be
done?’.

72
 CLINICAL REASONING

Both pragmatic and ethical reasoning are important

when managing patients with serious pathology, as the
following extract illustrates.
These findings strongly suggested that John had serious
pathology; his case was immediately discussed with the
consultant adviser. John was admitted directly to an
orthopaedic ward . . . Within a few hours John had
received a magnetic resonance image scan and blood
tests, which implied plasmacytoma (myeloma).
(Greenhalgh & Selfe 2003)
In this case the process of pragmatic reasoning by the
physiotherapist was relatively easy; the organizational
culture strongly supported her, and she could speak
immediately to an orthopaedic consultant who was then
able to initiate the admission and subsequent investiga-
tion process. It also highlights the ethical reasoning
dimension of ‘what should be done?’. As the physio-
therapist was highly suspicious that the patient had
serious pathology, ethically it was imperative to seek a
further opinion.

HEALTH BEHAVIOUR
Within musculoskeletal practice it is useful to consider
why patients seek treatment. The simple answer is
usually associated with pain that is negatively impact-
ing on some aspect of the patient’s function. However,
the issue is rarely that simple and a whole academic dis-
cipline of health psychology has developed in order to

73
 CLINICAL REASONING

answer some of the more complex issues surrounding

health behaviour.
Conner & Norman (1995) provide a detailed critical
review of some of the key concepts in health psychol-
ogy and explore how these inform us about health-
related behaviours. They state that social cognition is
concerned with how individuals make sense of a variety
of social situations. A number of social cognition models
have been developed to explain health-related behav-
iours and subsequent responses to treatment. They
provide a basis for understanding the determinants of
behaviour and behaviour change.

The five main models of health behaviour (Conner &

Norman 1995)
• Health belief model
• Health locus of control
• Protection motivation theory
• Theory of planned behaviour
• Self-efficacy model

It is beyond the scope of this pocket guide to provide

a detailed analysis of these models. However; with ref-
erence to serious spinal pathology a brief discussion of
the health belief model provides a useful insight into a
patient’s behaviour in response to illness. The central
tenet of this model is that the threat of illness determines
health behaviour. The health belief model is made up of
six independent predictors of behaviour.

74
 CLINICAL REASONING

Health belief model (Conner & Norman 1995)

• Perceptions of illness threat (serious/benign)
• Evaluation of behaviours to counteract this threat
(action/no action)
• Perceived susceptibility to the illness (vulnerability)
• Perceived severity of the consequences of such illness
(prognosis)
• Cues to action either external (media) or internal (phys-
ical symptom)
• Health motivation (value placed on health)

Together these variables determine behaviour. Indi-

viduals are likely to follow a particular health action if
they believe themselves to be susceptible to a particular
condition, which they also consider to be serious, and if
they believe that the benefits of the action taken to coun-
teract the health threat outweigh the costs.
This is particularly important in cases of serious
spinal pathology as outcome of treatment is often
dependent on stage of condition, so that earlier diag-
noses are very often associated with better outcomes
(Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control 2002). Cancer
that has metastasized is rarely curable (Jarvik & Deyo
2002). The difficulty here is that in the early stages it can
be very difficult to identify the presence of serious
pathology. Patients at this early stage will tend to have
a low perception of illness threat and will also tend to
have a low perceived severity of the consequences of
their problem; as a result they are probably less likely to

75
 CLINICAL REASONING

seek an early medical opinion. Although entirely under-

standable, the patient’s behaviour at this stage may
actually contribute to a poorer outcome later in the
disease process.
There are also important gender issues involved in
this issue, as a MORI poll in 1994 identified that male
patients seek medical intervention much later than
females (Banks 1997); this is regardless of income or
ethnicity (Banks 2001).
One of the key factors involved in this com-
plex picture revolves around the patient’s own self-
diagnosis of their condition. Leventhal & Crouch (1997)
suggest that a patient’s behaviour is determined by his
or her own self-diagnosis. This self-diagnosis is deter-
mined by mapping the signs and symptoms of the
health problem against five attributes, described by
Leventhal et al (1997).

Self-diagnosis model (Leventhal et al 1997)

• Disease identity (diagnostic label)
• Timeline (acute versus chronic)
• Consequences (prognosis/likely outcome)
• Causes (reasons/blame)
• Controllability (is intervention necessary?)

The challenge for clinicians is to assess whether the

patient’s self-diagnosis is accurate. Wiesel et al (1996)
report: ‘Patients often relate their pain to a fall or some

76
 CLINICAL REASONING

other mishap.’ Wilson (2002) also highlights that inap-

propriate attribution by patients of insidious symptoms
to a traumatic event is common and can be very mis-
leading. In a previous paper we have used the term Red
Herring to describe this and any other misleading
aspects of the patient’s history or presentation (Green-
halgh & Selfe 2004). The following extract is taken from
a case we used to illustrate the point.

Margaret attributed symptoms to her road traffic acci-

dent and indeed the site of symptoms was consistent
with mechanical injury, where Margaret was in the
driver’s seat and the driver’s door was the point of
impact of the motorcyclist.

In Margaret’s self-diagnosis scheme, the mechanical

trauma of the road traffic accident was considered to be
the cause of her symptoms (predominantly right rib
pain); unfortunately this was a Red Herring. Margaret
in fact had widespread metastatic disease secondary to
primary breast cancer. The difficulty of Margaret’s case
lies in the fact that to a physiotherapist Margaret’s own
self-diagnosis seemed as if it was highly accurate.
However, it is vital that all other available information
is assessed, as that may cast a different light on the
problem.

SUMMARY
In Chapter 1 we reviewed the development of a number
of influential reports on back pain management;

77
 CLINICAL REASONING

contained within these have been a number of Red Flag

lists. In this chapter we have reviewed clinical decision-
making processes and in particular have discussed con-
ditional probabilities. Although the Red Flag lists are
very useful, one thing they do not provide clinicians
with, which would be extremely useful, is a hierarchy
of the importance of each Red Flag either singly or in
groups. When considering the previous discussion on
conditional probabilities we feel this is an important
point for clinicians. To illustrate this point consider the
following scenarios:

1. A 49-year-old woman involved in a road traffic acci-

dent presents with thoracic pain and no previ-
ous history of cancer.
2. A 63-year-old woman involved in a road traffic
accident presents with thoracic pain and no
previous history of cancer.
3. A 49-year-old woman involved in a road traffic acci-
dent presents with thoracic pain with a previ-
ous history of cancer .
4. A 63-year-old woman involved in a road traffic
accident presents with thoracic pain with a pre-
vious history of cancer .

Scenarios 1 and 2 are very similar, both have the Red

Flags of road traffic accident and thoracic pain; the only
difference is the age of the patient. What is interesting
is that the age of the patient in scenario 2 is now also a
Red Flag. When the age changes to a Red Flag the con-

78
 CLINICAL REASONING

ditional probability changes; however, most clinicians

would probably not be unduly alarmed by this. Now
consider the difference between scenarios 3 and 4. Here
we have the same change in age of the patient but set
against a background of previous history of cancer; here
the effect of age has a more pronounced effect on clini-
cal decision-making.
Now compare the differences between scenario 1
and 3 and then scenario 2 and 4. These pairs of scenar-
ios are similar but note the effect of the addition of
previous history of cancer. Each time previous history
of cancer is present it appears to have a greater impact
on clinical decision-making than age, even though
they are both Red Flags in this instance. Clinicians
need to take this factor into account during clinical
decision-making.
The point we are making here is that clearly the con-
ditional probabilities change across all four of the sce-
narios but what is unknown is by how much. Which
individual Red Flags and which combinations are most
important? Roberts (2000) identifies ‘. . . a surprisingly
poor evidence base for danger signs’. Roberts (2000)
provides a suggested hierarchy of danger signs which
was proposed following a review of the literature and
the experience of a multidisciplinary research team:

• probable danger signs; indicative of serious spinal

pathology
• possible danger signs; evidence more controversial
• probably not danger signs; little or no evidence.

79
 CLINICAL REASONING

Hierarchy of danger signs (Roberts 2000)

Probable danger signs
• Extensor plantar response
• Neurological signs at multiple levels
• Saddle anaesthesia
Possible danger signs
• ‘Constant’ night pain
• Bilateral leg signs
Probably not danger signs
• Severe local back pain
• Loss of reflex at one level
• Unilateral sciatic symptoms below the knee

The following section presents our own weighted

list of Red Flags which builds on and develops
Roberts’ earlier work. In the next three chapters we will
expand on why it is important to identify these partic-
ular signs or symptoms, including a discussion on
their sensitivity and specificity. We will also explore
how they interact with each other and influence condi-
tional probabilities; finally we will provide suggestions
for strategies on how to deal with them if they are
identified.

80
 CLINICAL REASONING

WEIGHTED RED FLAG LIST

Subjective examination: age, previous medical
history and lifestyle questions (Ch. 3)
• Age
<10
11–19
20–50
>51
• Medical history (current or past) of
Cancer
TB
HIV/AIDS or injection drug abuse
Osteoporosis
• Smoking

Subjective examination: history of current

episode questions (Ch. 4)
• Weight loss (3–6 months)
Weight loss <5% body weight
Weight loss 5–10% body weight
Weight loss >10% body weight
• Cauda equina syndrome
• Systemically unwell
• Trauma
• Vertebrobasilar insufficiency
• Bilateral pins and needles in hands and/or
feet
• Previous failed treatment

81
 CLINICAL REASONING

Age >50 years + history of cancer + unexplained weight

loss + failure to improve after 1 month of conservative
therapy

Subjective examination: pain questions (Ch. 4)

• Constant progressive pain
• Thoracic pain
• Abdominal pain and changed bowel habits but with
no change of medication
• Severe night pain
• Headache

Objective examination (Ch. 5)

• Physical appearance
• Inability to lie supine
• Bizarre neurological deficit
• Marked partial articular restriction of movement
• Loss of sphincter tone and altered S4 sensation

• Spasm
• Vertebral artery testing
• Upper cervical instability tests
• Positive extensor plantar response
• Disturbed gait

Red Herrings
Misattribution by:
• Patient
82
 CLINICAL REASONING

• Referring doctor or allied health professional

• Treating physiotherapist
Inappropriate overt illness behaviour
Other conditions which complicate the clinical sce-
nario but which do not impact on the management
of the patient
Biomedical masqueraders

References
Banks I 1997 Men’s health. The Black-Staff Press, Belfast
Banks I 2001 No man’s land: men, illness and the NHS.
BMJ 323:1058–1060
Bolton Hospitals NHS Trust 1996 Osteoporosis
management: guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis
and treatment of osteoporosis. Bolton
Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control 2002 Cancer
diagnosis in Canada
Chalmers A F 2003 What is this thing called Science?, 3rd
edn. Open University Press, Maidenhead
Conner M, Norman P 1995 Predicting health behaviour.
Open University Press, Buckingham
CSAG 1994 Report of a Clinical Standards Advisory Group
on Back Pain. HMSO, London
CSP 2002 Priorities for physiotherapy research in the UK:
project report. CSP, London
Deyo R A, Rainville J, Kent D L 1992 What can the history
and physical examination tell us about low back pain?
JAMA 268(6):760–765
Dillin W H, Watkins R G 1992 Back pain in children and
adolescents. In: Rothman R H, Simeone F A (eds)
The spine, 3rd edn. Saunders, Philadelphia,
p 231–259

83
 CLINICAL REASONING

Downing A M, Hunter D G 2003 Validating clinical

reasoning: question of perspective, but whose
perspective. Manual Therapy 8(2):117–119
Dukes M N G 2004 Myler’s side effects of drugs, 14th edn.
Elsevier, Amsterdam
Durie B G M 2004 Multiple myeloma: a concise review of
the disease and treatment options. Online. Available:
http://www.myeloma.org 4 Jul 2005
Edwards I., Jones M A, Carr J et al 2004 Clinical reasoning
strategies in physical therapy. Physical Therapy
84(4):312–330
Frymoyer J W 1997 The adult spine: principles and practice,
2nd edn. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia
Gifford L, Butler D S 1997 The integration of pain sciences
into clinical practice. Journal of Hand Therapy 10:
86–95
Greenhalgh S, Selfe J 2003 Malignant myeloma of the spine.
Physiotherapy 89(8):486–488 (also available at http://
evolve.elsevier.com/Greenhalgh/redflags/)
Greenhalgh S, Selfe J 2004 Margaret: a tragic case of spinal
Red Flags and Red Herrings. Physiotherapy 90(2):73–76
(also available at http://evolve.elsevier.com/
Greenhalgh/redflags/)
Greenhalgh S, Hollis S, Parnell J, Main C 2005 The
reliability of the Linton and Halden initial back pain
questionnaire. Manuscript in preparation
Grieve G P 1981 Common vertebral joint problems.
Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh
Hack L M 2004 Invited commentary on: Clinical reasoning
strategies in physical therapy. Physical Therapy 84(4):331
Hacker D J 1998 Metacognition in educational theory and
practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London
Hurley D A, Dusoir T E, McDonough S M et al 2001 How
effective is the acute low back pain screening

84
 CLINICAL REASONING

questionnaire for predicting 1 year follow up in patients

with low back pain? Clinical Journal of Pain 17(3):
256–263
International Myeloma Foundation 2002 Patient handbook.
Edinburgh
Jarvik J G, Deyo R A 2002 Diagnostic evaluation of low
back pain with emphasis on imaging. Annals of Internal
Medicine 137:586–597
Jones M A 1992 Clinical reasoning in manual therapy.
Physical Therapy 72(12):875–884
Jones M A 1995 Clinical reasoning for educators: course
notes. Nottingham. Unpublished
Jones M A, Rivett D A 2004 Clinical reasoning for manual
therapists. Butterworth Heinemann, Edinburgh
Leventhal E, Crouch M 1997 Are there differences in
perceptions of illness across the lifespan? In: Petrie K J,
Weinman, J A (eds) Perceptions of health and illness.
Harwood Academic Publishers, London
Leventhal H, Benyamini Y, Brownlee S et al 1997 Illness
representations. In: Petrie K J, Weinman, J A (eds)
Perceptions of health and illness. Harwood Academic
Publishers, London
Linton S J 2000 A review of psychological risk factors in
back and neck pain. Spine 25(9):1148–1156
MacGregor A J, Andrew T, Sambrook P N, Spector T D 2004
Structural, psychological and genetic influences on low
back and neck pain: A study of adult female twins.
Arthritis and Rheumatism 51(2):160–167
McKenzie R A, May S 2003a The lumbar spine mechanical
diagnosis and therapy, Vol 1. Spinal Publications,
Waikanae
McKenzie R A, May S 2003b The lumbar spine mechanical
diagnosis and therapy, Vol 2. Spinal publications,
Waikanae

85
 CLINICAL REASONING

Main C, Williams A C C 2002 ABC of psychological

medicine: musculoskeletal pain. BMJ 325:534–537
Maltzman J D 2004 Developments in the fight against
cancer cachexia. Online. Available: http://www.
oncolink.org
Merskey H, Bogduk N 1994 Classification of chronic pain.
IASP Press, Seattle
Murphy E A 1997 The logic of medicine, 2nd edn. Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
New Zealand Ministry of Health 2002 Guide to assessing
psychosocial yellow flags in acute low back pain.
Online. Available: http://www.nzgg.org.nz
NICE 2005 Prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.
Online. Available: http://www.nice.org.uk
Richards J S, Nepomuceno C, Riles M, Suer Z 1982
Assessing pain behaviour: the UAB pain behaviour
scale. Pain 14:393–398
Roberts L 2000 Flagging the danger signs of low back pain.
In: Gifford L (ed) Topical issues in Pain. 2
Biopsychosocial assessment and management,
relationships and pain. CNS Press, Falmouth
Round A 2000 Introduction to clinical reasoning. Student
BMJ 8:15–17
Schell B B 1998 Clinical reasoning: the basis of practice. In:
Neistadt M E, Crepeau E B (eds) Willard and
Spackman’s Occupational therapy, 9th edn. Lippincott,
Philadelphia, p 90–100
Schultz I, Gatchel R J 2005 The handbook of complex
occupational disability claims: Early risk identification,
intervention and prevention. Kluwer Academic, New
York
Scott I 2000 Teaching clinical reasoning a case based
approach. In: Jones M A, Higgs J (eds) Clinical reasoning

86
 CLINICAL REASONING

in the health professions, 2nd edn. Butterworth

Heinemann, Oxford
Selfe J 1995 Abnormal illness behaviours in chronic back
pain: a practical guide. Journal of Orthopaedic Medicine
17(1):27–28
Spitzer W O 1987 Quebec Task Force report. Spine 12(Suppl
1):S1–S59
Sterling M 2004 A proposed new classification system for
whiplash associated disorders – implications for
assessment and management. Manual Therapy 9:60–70
Terry P D, Miller A B, Rohan T E 2002 Cigarette smoking
and breast cancer: a long latency period. International
Journal of Cancer 100(6):723–728
Waddell G 2004 The back pain revolution, 2nd edn.
Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh
Waddell G, McCulloch J A, Kummel E, Venner R M 1980
Nonorganic physical signs in low-back pain. Spine
5(2):117–125
Wardle F M, Maskell A P, Selfe J 2005 Christine: a case of
granulocytic sarcoma of the upper trunk of the brachial
plexus. Submitted for publication
WHO 2001 International classification of functioning,
disability and health. WHO, Geneva
Wiesel S W, Weinstein J N, Herkowitz H et al 1996, The
lumbar spine, International Society for the Study of the
Lumbar Spine, 2nd edn. Saunders, Philadelphia
Wilson A 2002 Effective management of musculoskeletal
injury. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh

87
Chapter 3
Subjective Examination:
Age, Previous Medical
History and Lifestyle
Questions

CHAPTER CONTENTS
Age 91
Medical history 96
Cancer 96
Tuberculosis (TB) 102
HIV/AIDS or injection drug abuse 103
Osteoporosis 106
Lifestyle 108
Smoking 108
References 110

89
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

To some readers there may appear to be an imbalance

in the content of this book with two chapters devoted
to subjective examination and only one to objective
examination.

KEY FACT: Deyo et al (1992) argue that the subjective

examination provides clinicians with clearer
indications of serious pathology than the objective
examination.

Further evidence to support the importance of the

subjective examination over the objective is found in the
CSP research priorities report of 2002 (CSP 2002). In
this report the musculoskeletal panel considered the
question of physical diagnostic tests commonly used by
physiotherapists. They reported that for the assessment
of joint dysfunction a wide variety of tests were often
described for one structure and that very often these
lacked reference to validity and reliability. In addition,
a large number of so-called objective tests based on
parameters such as range of motion and muscle power
relied on subjective clinical statements such ‘normal’,
‘limited’ or ‘reduced’. Clearly if there are multiple tests
with poor validity and reliability there will be problems
with interpretation. Therefore relying too heavily on the
objective examination for the detection of serious
pathology is inappropriate.
During the subjective examination it is the physio-
therapist’s clinical responsibility to ask the patient ques-
tions that are:

90
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

• appropriate
• relevant
• sequential
• empathic.

During the subjective examination it is worth remem-

bering the words of Robin McKenzie, who urges clini-
cians to ask themselves ‘Will the answer to the question
on the assessment form provide information of practi-
cal value in the treatment of this patient?’ (McKenzie
1990).

AGE
It is interesting to note, but not surprising, that there are
differences in recommendations between various publi-
cations regarding the question: At what age does age
become a Red Flag?
This is important at both ends of the age spectrum.
Should we consider children as small adults complain-
ing of spinal pain or are the pathological processes dif-
ferent? Dillin & Watkins (1992) suggest that, in contrast
to adults, in a high proportion of children a specific
diagnosis can be determined; however, children may
experience considerable delay in receiving a final diag-
nosis. The diagnosis can be confounded by the fact that
intraspinal tumours do not necessarily follow a linear
growth pattern, waxing and waning in size, and conse-
quently symptoms can be intermittent (Dillin & Watkins
1992).

91
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

A non-specific diagnosis of mechanical back pain is

given to 95% of adult back discomfort (CSAG 1994).
This is often thought to be a culmination of pathologi-
cal processes related to degeneration of tissues, includ-
ing ligament, muscle, disc and bone (Dillin & Watkins
1992), confounded by psychosocial factors (Waddell
2004). These degenerative processes are unlikely to be
present in a child.
King (1984) argues that different specific diagnoses
could be considered in children under 10 years of age
and those 10 years and over. He considers possible
causes of back pain in children up to 10 years as:

• infective processes
• tumours of the spinal column or cord.

In children 10 years and over possible causes are:

• spondylolysis/spondylolisthesis
• Scheuermann’s disease
• herniated nucleus pulposus
• overuse syndromes
• tumours.

In children and adolescents back pain related to activity

and/or worse at night should raise the suspicion of
tumour. Dillin & Watkins (1992) consider this particular
combination of factors of paramount importance in
these age groups with constant back pain.
We have been unable to find a rationale for having a
cut-off age of <20 years as a Red Flag. However, this is
an age at which rapid physical development has slowed

92
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

and degenerative processes may have begun. Dillin &

Watkins (1992) state that ‘our threshold for discovery
must be lower for the child than for the adult – the inci-
dence of pathologies is different’.
In the USA and Canada age above 50 years is con-
sidered a Red Flag (Bigos 1994, Spitzer 1987). However,
in the UK age above 55 years is considered a Red Flag
(CSAG 1994). None of these publications gives a clear
rationale as to why these particular ages have been
selected.
A brief review of the epidemiology of some common
cancers may help clinicians understand the importance
of age, as the incidence of many cancers increases with
age. It is reported (Department of Health 2000) that for
some cancers, age may in fact be one of the most useful
discriminating factors. People >65 years have 11 times
the chance of developing cancer compared to younger
people (Goodman et al 1998).

Cancer type and age group (Department of Health

2000, Goodman et al 1998)
• Lung cancer
• Myeloma
Only 1% or less of cases are diagnosed before 40 years
• Breast cancer
Only 3—5% of cases are diagnosed before 40 years
A woman of average life expectancy has a 1 in 9 chance
of breast cancer

93
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

Cancer type and age group (Department of Health

2000, Goodman et al 1998) — Cont’d
A woman aged 25 years old has a 1 in 21 chance of
developing breast cancer
70% of all breast cancer occurs in women aged >50
years
In men aged >60 years familial link is the biggest risk
factor
It is usually diagnosed in later stages in older men
• Sarcoma
Distribution across adult age groups is evenly spread
• Testicular cancer
Commonest in younger adults <40 years
• Acute leukaemia 2—4 years old
• Neuroblastoma <4 years old
• Bone sarcoma 10—14 years old
• Childhood cancers

Figure 3.1 clearly shows the link between increasing

age and increased lung cancer and myeloma. In particu-
lar, there is a marked increase between the ages 40–49
and 50–59 and then another even more dramatic
increase between the ages 50–59 and 60–69. There would
be a high index of suspicion for lung cancer and
myeloma in these age groups. However, breast and
prostate cancer occur more frequently in the over
65-year-old age group and so have a higher index of
suspicion in this group.

94
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

40
35
30
25
Percentage

20
15
10
5
0
< 40 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79
Age group

Lung
Myeloma

Figure 3.1 Proportions of lung cancer and myeloma cases

presenting in different age groups.

In Finland most new cases of breast cancer are found

between 50 and 55 years of age (Institute for Statistical
and Epidemiological Cancer Research 2004). Seventy
per cent of all actual deaths from cancer occur in people
over 65 years of age.

95
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

Based on the above review rather than focusing on

definite cut-off points for age, we would propose the
following Red Flag index of suspicion for age:

• <10
• 11–19
• 20–50
• >51
Clinicians should be particularly alert to the possibility
of serious pathology presenting in children aged 10 and
below and in adults aged 51–65. The ages 11–19 and
over 66 should also definitely raise concern but perhaps
not to the same level. We would not consider ages 20–50
to require a Red Flag.

MEDICAL HISTORY
A current or past medical history of any of the follow-
ing conditions should immediately raise serious con-
cerns.

Cancer
For cancer it is usually considered important to estab-
lish a personal history. However, we also feel that clini-
cians should establish whether there has been a family
history of cancer, particularly in a first degree relative,
i.e. parent/sibling. Positive family history alone would
not warrant a referral for a medical opinion; however, it
has an important influence on the conditional probabil-
ity. Therefore adding this information to the list of other

96
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

concerns the therapist may have strengthens the case for

referral (Boissonnault 1995).

The most common warning signs of cancer

(Pfalzer 1995)
• Change in bowel or bladder habits
• Sores that do not heal
• Unusual bleeding or discharge
• Thickening or lump in breast or elsewhere
• Indigestion or difficulty swallowing
• Obvious change in wart or mole
• Nagging cough or hoarseness

KEY FACT: Although cancer causes 12% of all deaths

worldwide every year (WHO 2004a), it is estimated that
neoplastic disease accounts for just 0.7% of all low back pain
(Jarvik & Deyo 2002).

The main types of neoplastic disease causing low

back pain are:

• multiple myeloma
• metastatic carcinoma
• lymphoma and leukaemia
• spinal cord tumours
• retroperitoneal tumours
• primary vertebral tumours.

97
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

Tumours of the spine can remain asymptomatic for long

periods of time; symptoms eventually develop for the
following reasons (Frymoyer 1997):

• destruction of vertebral cortex and expansion into

paravertebral soft tissue
• nerve root compression
• pathological vertebral fracture
• spinal instability
• spinal cord compression.
Intraspinal intrinsic tumours are uncommon; however,
extradural tumours are more common, accounting for
22% of primary spinal cord tumours. A classic sign of
spinal cord tumours is night pain; bladder dysfunction
may also be apparent (Goodman et al 1998).
When considering potential cases of serious pathol-
ogy, Deyo et al (1992) and Jarvik & Deyo (2002) report
that the subjective history is much more useful than the
objective physical examination. Table 3.1 shows the
estimated accuracy of the history in the diagnosis of
cancer in low back pain.

Commonest sources of metastatic cancer

(Jarvik & Deyo 2002)
• Breast
• Lung
• Prostate

98
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

TABLE 3.1 ESTIMATED ACCURACY OF THE

HISTORY IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF CANCER IN
LOW BACK PAIN (DEYO & DIEHL 1988)
Sensitivity Specificity
Age >50 years 0.77 0.71
Previous history of cancer 0.31 0.98
Unexplained weight loss 0.15 0.94
Failure to improve after 1 month 0.31 0.90
of conservative therapy
No relief with bed rest >0.90 0.46
Duration of pain >1 month 0.50 0.81
Age >50 years + 1.00 0.60
history of cancer + unexplained
weight loss + failure to improve
after 1 month of conservative
therapy

According to Rothman & Simeone (1992), patients

with a history of breast cancer have an 85% chance of
developing bony metastases before death. They also
suggest that one of the earliest sites for these metastases
is the spine, in particular the thoracic spine. Breast
cancer appears in both sexes; 10% of all breast cancer is
genetic. Female gender is the biggest risk factor, with

99
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

less than 1% of breast cancer occurring in men. More

than 50% of men have no known risk factors. Men and
women whose families have several generations of
breast cancer with a BRCA2 mutation on chromosome
13q have the greatest risk. Their risk can be as great as
90%.
Breast cancer in two or more first degree relatives
increases the risk by five times. Pregnancy, childbearing
and prolonged lactation are considered to have an
impact on reducing the risk of breast cancer (Goodman
et al 1998).
Many cancers are on the increase; for example, the
incidence of multiple myeloma has doubled in the last
10 years and the incidence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
has doubled since the 1970s.
Multiple myeloma is characterized by an increase in
monoclonal plasma cells that leads to abnormally large
amounts of a specific immunoglobulin. It is this
abnormally large quantity of immunoglobulin that
leads to bone pain. Multiple myeloma usually presents
gradually but in patients aged over 75 years it is often
accompanied by an increased rate of infection. Pre-
symptomatic periods can last between 5 and 20 years;
the most frequent initial symptoms are bone pain, par-
ticularly back pain (Goodman et al 1998).
Lymphoma describes cancer of the lymphatic system
and is divided into two groups:

• Hodgkin’s disease – primarily affects young adults

• non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma – most commonly pre-
sents between 20 and 40 years of age.

100
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

The clinical features of Hodgkin’s disease include pain-

less swelling of lymph glands in the neck, axilla and
groin accompanied by fatigue, fever, night sweats,
itching and weight loss; these symptoms are present in
40% of cases. However, asymptomatic enlargement of
lymph nodes may be identified on routine examination.
Occasionally compression of nerve roots can cause root
pain.
In non-Hodgkin’s disease lymphadenopathy is gen-
erally the first sign, which can develop over months or
years. Abdominal lymphoma can cause bloated sensa-
tions, gastrointestinal obstruction, bleeding, ascites, leg
swelling and back pain. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has
been reported as presenting as polyarthritis, with fever,
night sweats, pallor, fatigue and weight loss. It is impor-
tant to note that TB, systemic lupus erythematosus, lung
and bone cancer can also masquerade as malignant
lymphoma (Goodman et al 1998).
A Pancoast tumour, first described by Professor
Henry Pancoast in 1924, is an apical tumour in the lung
(Gurwood 1999). This pathology must be considered in
patients with neck and upper extremity pain accom-
panied by neurological deficit. Pancoast tumour is rare;
less than 5% of lung cancers are Pancoast tumours. Most
lung cancer develops lower down in the lungs (Cancer
Research UK 2005). The lesion often invades the sym-
pathetic chain and brachial plexus. Typical clinical fea-
tures include:

• Horner’s syndrome:
• dilation of the pupil
101
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

• ptosis (drooping eyelid)

• unilateral anhidrosis and flushing of the face
• pain, which can be referred into the shoulder, scapula
and along the ulnar nerve distribution of the arm
• wasting of the intrinsic muscles of the hand (Cancer
Research UK 2005, Gurwood 1999).
Despite generally being small in size and not readily
metastatic, Pancoast tumour has a rapid and almost
complete mortality rate (Gurwood 1999).
A commonly asked question amongst physiothera-
pists is ‘How does cancer actually result in death?’
According to Maltzman (2004) the most likely cause is
as a result of electrolyte imbalance. It is this electrolyte
imbalance that results in fatal heart arrhythmias and
weakened respiratory muscles leading to pneumonia
and fatal systemic infection.

Tuberculosis (TB)
TB infections of the spine are usually ‘seeded’ from the
lungs (Khoo et al 2003). The commonest symptoms are:
• pain in the thoracolumbar junction and decreased
range of motion
• weight loss
• fever
• neurological compromise (10–61% of cases)
• malaise
• skeletal involvement (60% in HIV-positive, 1 or 2%
in HIV-negative cases)
• abscesses in the groin, trochanteric region or buttock
(Leong & Luk 1996).

102
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

Although the report of a past medical history of TB

should raise an alarm, it is important to remember that
following treatment TB can remain dormant for as long
as 30–40 years before recurrence (Leong & Luk 1996). It
is highly likely that some patients will experience
benign back pain unrelated to TB during such a lengthy
time period. Therefore it is still very important to think
about the conditional probabilities associated with the
presence or absence of the other possible symptoms
associated with TB. Certainly a past medical history of
TB coupled with the report of pain in the thoracolum-
bar region, which Cyriax (1982) refers to ominously as
‘no man’s land’, should be sufficient evidence to request
further investigation.
Spinal tenderness in response to percussion is
described by Deyo et al (1992) as having a poor speci-
ficity at 0.60 but a sensitivity of 0.86 for bacterial in-
fections. Definitive diagnosis of TB is made by needle
biopsy and treatment revolves around an appropriate
antimicrobial regimen (Khoo et al 2003), although this is
increasingly becoming more challenging with the emer-
gence of drug-resistant strains of TB (WHO 2004b).

HIV/AIDS or injection drug abuse

The human immunodeficiency virus targets CD4+ T
cells, a type of white blood cell, which is one of the key
cells involved in fighting infection. A healthy immune
system has 800–1200 CD4+ T cells per cubic millimetre
of blood; once this is reduced to 200 the patient
is considered to have AIDS. As the immune system

103
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

deteriorates it loses its capacity to fight disease and

patients become increasingly susceptible to opportuni-
stic illnesses (US Department of Health and Human
Services 2004).

How AIDS is spread (US Department of Health and

Human Services 2004)
HIV transmission
• Unprotected sex
• Contact with infected blood
• Shared needles or syringes in drug users
• Pregnant women to babies during pregnancy or birth
HIV is not transmitted by
• Sharing food utensils
• Sweat, towels and bedding
• Swimming pools
• Telephones
• Toilet seats, urine, faeces
• Biting insects
HIV is rarely transmitted by
• Needlestick injury

The diagnosis of AIDS, in an HIV-positive patient,

requires the presence of at least one of the following
opportunistic illnesses:

• pneumonia (present in 21–22% of cases)

• oesophageal candidiasis (present in 13–14.9% of
cases)

104
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

• TB (present in 21.6% of cases)

• Kaposi’s sarcoma (present in 5.5% of cases)
• toxoplasmosis (European Commission 2004, Terence
Higgins Trust 2004).

Oesophageal candidiasis is a thrush infection of the

oesophagus. The most common symptom is difficulty
with swallowing or pain on swallowing, sometimes in
association with pain posterior to the sternum. Kaposi’s
sarcoma was considered rare until the AIDS epidemic;
however, it is now much more common, accounting for
10% of all cancers in Kenya and Uganda. Typically it
presents as a slow growing pigmented nodule on the leg
or foot, although other parts of the body can be affected
(Souhami & Tobias 1995). Toxoplasmosis is an infection
caused by a parasite called Toxoplasma gondii; it can affect
all mammals. Between 20% and 50% of the UK popula-
tion will be infected at some time during their lives. The
parasite is found in raw and undercooked meat, infected
cat faeces, unwashed, uncooked vegetables and fruit
grown in contaminated soil, and unpasteurized goats’
milk. A normal immune system keeps the parasite inac-
tive rather than destroying it. Symptoms of the infection
are like mild flu in people with healthy immune systems.
In patients with HIV/AIDS antibiotic treatment may be
required (Terence Higgins Trust 2004).
HIV is frequently spread among injection drug users
by sharing needles or syringes contaminated with blood
from someone already infected with the virus. In Europe
the mean age of problem drug users ranges between 23
years in Ireland and 33 years in Sweden. The majority

105
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

of drug users who need treatment for health-related

problems are men: e.g. Austria 68%; Italy 86%
(European Commission 2004).

Osteoporosis
Osteoporosis is recognized internationally as a major
healthcare problem. Hip and vertebral fractures are
associated with reduced survival as well as considerable
morbidity. In the European Union there were an esti-
mated 23.7 million vertebral fractures in 2000. As the
population ages, it is predicted that this will rise to
37.3 million in 2050 (European Commission 2004).
However, it is important to note that despite 40 000
vertebral fractures in postmenopausal British women
each year, only one third will develop clinical features.
Postmenopausal loss of bone mass can be as great as 5%
per year due to depletion of hormonal levels. From a
clinical perspective it is important to establish when the
menopause occurred. It is commonly seen that 10–15
years after menopause fractures start to emerge as a
clinical problem.
• 1 in 3 women >65 develop osteoporosis
• 1 in 2 women >70 develop osteoporosis (National
Osteoporosis Society 1993).
Although associated with women, it should be remem-
bered that due to the increasing number of elderly
people there is now an increased prevalence in both men
and women. Osteoporosis can be prevented, it can be
treated once it occurs, but it cannot be cured (le Gallez
1998).

106
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

Factors contributing to osteoporosis (le Gallez 1998)

Intrinsic
• Sex – women
• Race – whites and Asians
• Family history – increased risk if mother or grandmother
had osteoporosis

Extrinsic
• Amenorrhoea
Eating disorders, oophorectomy, prolonged intense
physical activity, late menarche
• Lifestyle
Smoking (including passive smoking)
Alcohol >14 units per week female, >21 units per week
male
Poor diet and little exercise
• Drugs
Corticosteroids. Effects are age- and sex-dependent. An
80-year-old woman with polymyalgia rheumatica
taking 10 mg of prednisolone daily could be at a
greater risk than a 30-year-old man treated for
psoriasis on a dose twice as great.
Immunosuppressants post transplant surgery.
Heparin, thyroxine, anticonvulsants, chemotherapy
• Disease
Chronic inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn’s disease
Kidney, liver disease
Gastrectomy

107
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

LIFESTYLE
Smoking
The scale of the health effects of smoking is vast: 3
out of 10 cancer deaths are smoking related. Smoking
kills 13 people every hour in the UK (Secretary of State
for Health 1998). Across the European Union half a
million people die from the effects of smoking each
year. Half of these deaths occur in people aged between
35 and 69, which is well below average life expectancy.
Compared to non-smokers, smokers have a poorer diet
and higher levels of stress. The most common level of
smoking in the European Union in 1995 was between
10 and 14 cigarettes per day (European Commission
2004).
In the UK the smoking epidemic peaked in the 1940s
when 2 out of 3 men smoked. The peak for women
smokers occurred a little later, post 1948, with 41% of
women smoking. In the UK today 26% of adult men and
women smoke and 21% of all 15-year-olds smoke
(Donnellan 2002). An adolescent who begins smoking at
the age of 15 is three times more likely to die of cancer
due to smoking than someone who begins in their
mid-twenties (Secretary of State for Health 1998). Lung
cancer can take twenty years to develop; despite the
peak in smoking for women occurring in the late 1940s
the rate of mortality in women due to lung cancer is still
rising (Donnellan 2002).
Similar to breast cancer, the risk of lung cancer
is associated with the quantity smoked and over

108
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

what period of time the person has smoked for (ASH

2002).
Risk of cancer = Quantity smoked + Length of
time smoked

Estimated cause of death for 1000 smokers aged 20

years (Secretary of State for Health 1998)
• 1 murdered
• 6 due to road traffic accident
• 250 in middle age from smoking-related disorders
• 250 in old age from smoking-related disorders

It is also estimated that several hundred non-smokers

die each year from lung cancer caused by passive
smoking. Although the risk of lung cancer is small from
passive smoking, it is 50–100 greater than the risk of
lung cancer from exposure to asbestos (Health Educa-
tion Authority 1991).
There are 4000 chemicals which occur naturally in
tobacco, at least 60 of which are carcinogenic (Health
Education Authority 1991). With respect to the spine,
tobacco smoking adversely affects the circulatory
system outside the intervertebral disc, as well as
disrupting metabolic processes within the disc.

109
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

Effects of smoking on the spine

(Nachemson & Vrigard 2000)
• Decreased blood flow
• Decreased nutrition to the disc
• pH of disc lowered
• Mineral content of vertebrae decreased
• Fibrinolytic activity altered
• Increased degenerative changes

Over time these combined processes can lead to

degeneration, dehydration, instability and probably low
back pain (Rothman & Simeone 1992). In addition, the
‘wear and tear’ effects of the mechanical stress of cough-
ing which is often associated with smoking need to be
considered.

References
ASH 2002 Smoking and cancer; fact sheet 4. Online.
Available: http://www.ash.org.uk
Bigos S 1994 Acute low back pain in adults: Clinical
practice guideline. US Department of Health and
Human Services, Rockville, MD. AHCPR 95-0643
Boissonnault W G 1995 Examination in physical therapy
practice: screening for medical disease, 2nd edn.
Churchill Livingstone, New York
Cancer Research UK 2005 What is a Pancoast tumour.
Online. Available: www.cancerhelp.org.uk 4 Mar 2005
CSAG 1994 Report of a Clinical Standards Advisory Group
on Back Pain. HMSO, London

110
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

CSP 2002 Priorities for physiotherapy research in the UK:

project report. CSP, London
Cyriax J 1982 Textbook of orthopaedic medicine, 8th edn.
Baillière Tindall, Eastbourne
Department of Health 2000 Referral guidelines for
suspected cancer. London
Deyo R A, Diehl A K 1988 Cancer as a cause of back pain:
frequency, clinical presentation and diagnostic strategies.
Journal of General and Internal Medicine 3:330–338
Deyo R A, Rainville J, Kent D L 1992 What can the history
and physical examination tell us about low back pain?
JAMA 268(6):760–765
Dillin W H, Watkins R G 1992 Back pain in children and
adolescents. In: Rothman R H, Simeone F A (eds) The
spine, 3rd edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, p 231–259
Donnellan C 2002 The smoking debate. Independence,
Cambridge
European Commission 2004 Health statistics. Key data on
health 2002 (data 1970–2001). European Commission
Frymoyer J W 1997 The adult spine: principles and practice,
2nd edn. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia
Goodman C C, Fuller K S, Boissonnault W G 1998
Pathology implications for physical therapists, 2nd edn.
Saunders, Philadelphia
Gurwood A S 1999 Horner’s syndrome. Optometry Today
June: 36–37
Health Education Authority 1991 Passive smoking:
Questions and answers. London
Institute for Statistical and Epidemiological Cancer
Research 2004 Finnish Cancer Registry. Online.
Available: www.cancerregistry.fi
Jarvik J G, Deyo R A 2002 Diagnostic evaluation of low
back pain with emphasis on imaging. Annals of Internal
Medicine 137:586–597

111
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

Khoo L T, Mikawa K, Fessler R G 2003 A surgical

revisitation of Pott distemper of the spine. Spine Journal
3:130–145
King H 1984 Back pain in children. Pediatric Clinics of
North America 31:1083–1094
le Gallez P 1998 Rheumatology for nurses: patient care.
Whurr, London
Leong J C Y, Luk K D K 1996 Spinal infections. In: Wiesel S
W et al (eds) The lumbar spine, International Society for
the Study of the Lumbar Spine, 2nd edn. Saunders,
Philadelphia, p 874–915
McKenzie R A 1990 The cervical and thoracic spine
mechanical diagnosis and therapy. Spinal Publications,
Waikanae
Maltzman J D 2004 Developments in the fight against
cancer cachexia. Online. Available:
http://www.oncolink.org
Nachemson A, Vrigard E 2000 Influences of individual
factors and smoking on neck and low back pain. In:
Nachemson A, Jonsson E (eds) Neck and back pain:
The scientific evidence of causes diagnosis and
treatment. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins,
Philadelphia
National Osteoporosis Society 1993 Menopause and
osteoporosis therapy, practice nurse manual. St Andrews
Press, Wells
Pfalzer L A 1995 Oncology: examination, diagnosis and
treatment. Medical and surgical considerations. In:
Myers R S (ed) Saunders manual of physical therapy
practice. Saunders, Philadelphia, p 65
Rothman R H, Simeone F A (eds) 1992 The spine, 3rd edn.
Saunders, Philadelphia
Secretary of State for Health 1998 Smoking kills: a White
Paper on tobacco. The Stationery Office, London

112
 AGE, MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIFESTYLE

Souhami R, Tobias J 1995 Cancer and its management, 2nd

edn. Blackwell, Oxford
Spitzer W O 1987 Quebec Task Force Report. Spine
12(Suppl 1):S1–S59
Terence Higgins Trust 2004 Toxoplasmosis information for
people with HIV and AIDS. London
US Department of Health and Human Services 2004 How
HIV causes AIDS. Online. Available: http://www.
niaid.nih.gov/factsheets 3 Aug 2004
Waddell G 2004 The back pain revolution, 2nd edn.
Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh
WHO 2004a Cancer. Online. Available: http:www.who.int/
cancer 22 Apr 2004
WHO 2004b Tuberculosis infection and transmission.
Online. Available: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/
factsheets/fs104/en/ 22 Apr 2004

113
Chapter 4
Subjective Examination:
Questions about the
Current Episode
and Pain
CHAPTER CONTENTS
History of current episode questions 117
Weight loss 117
Cauda equina syndrome 122
Systemically unwell – malaise (fever, chills, urinary
tract infection) 125
Trauma (fall from height, whiplash, road traffic
accident) 127
Vertebrobasilar insufficiency (VBI) 131
Bilateral pins and needles in hands and/or
feet 133
Previous failed treatment 133
Pain questions 135
Constant progressive pain 135
Thoracic pain 136
Abdominal pain and changed bowel habits but with
no change of medication 137
Severe night pain (disturbed sleep, painkiller
consumption) 138
Headache 139
Extract from a patient–clinican consultation 143
References 165

115
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

This chapter continues to emphasize the importance of

the subjective examination in detecting serious pathol-
ogy. The first part of the chapter discusses history of the
current episode and pain questions; the second part
illustrates an example of a patient–therapist consulta-
tion. It takes you on a journey along a theoretical sub-
jective route, highlighting critical cues which affect the
clinical decision-making of the physiotherapist. As we
have already stated, for clinical reasoning to be suc-
cessful, the patient and therapist should form an active
and balanced partnership in trying to come to an under-
standing of the patient’s condition. The patient scenario
provides a practical example of 3D thinking in action.
The subjective questioning must consider all aspects of
the following warning flags as discussed in Chapters 1
and 2:

• Red
• Yellow
• Blue
• Black
• Orange.
Investigating the behaviour of the patient’s pain may
help the physiotherapist considerably with differential
diagnosis, when faced with a unique clinical scenario.
Typically, a change in the location and/or intensity of
the symptoms from mechanical musculoskeletal dys-
function can be associated with either an alteration
in body posture or specific physical activities. Phy-
siotherapists should be aware of how typical patterns
of dysfunction could present (Boissonnault 1995). In

116
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

simple terms the subjective pain questions should

establish:
Where was the pain at the beginning, where did it
spread or shift to and where is it now?
(Ombregt et al 2003)

HISTORY OF CURRENT EPISODE QUESTIONS

Weight loss
A frustrating aspect of many publications considering
weight loss as a Red Flag is the vague guidance on how
much weight loss and over how long should be a cause
for concern; for example:

• ‘weight loss’ (CSAG 1994)

• ‘unexplained weight loss’ AHCPR report (Bigos
1994)
• ‘weight loss’ (New Zealand Ministry of Health 2004).
Despite the 10-year period between the CSAG and the
New Zealand guidelines no further guidance is given
other than ‘weight loss’ in relation to quantity or time.
Only one reference (Boissonnault 1995) was identified
that actually quantified weight loss:
Unexplained weight change, especially weight loss (5%
of body weight over a 4-week period) is a potential
symptom of a variety of ailments, including gastroin-
testinal disorders (e.g., ulcers or cancer), diabetes mel-
litus, hyperthyroidism, adrenal insufficiency, common
infections, malignancies, and depression.

117
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

In addition, few reports actually explain why

weight loss may be a Red Flag. Rapid weight loss is
usually associated with disseminated tumours rather
than small localized tumours (Souhami & Tobias 1995).
According to the British Association for Parenteral and
Enteral Nutrition (BAPEN) (2003), in the presence of
disease, basal metabolic rate increases but physical
activity is often decreased and an increase in energy
expenditure may not occur. However, there is an
increase in protein oxidation and nitrogen loss; therefore
in the absence of fluid retention loss of lean body mass
occurs.
In later stages of serious pathology cachexic weight
loss occurs and is described as drastic loss of body
weight of >10%.

Symptoms associated with cachexia (Maltzman 2004)

• Profound loss of appetite
• Lack of sense of taste
• Depressed immune system
• Loss of fat and muscle tissue
• Electrolyte imbalance (leading to weakness, fatigue,
pain, paraesthesia and fasciculation)
• Poor outcome of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation
therapy
• Unkempt and dishevelled appearance
• Distress associated with changed body image

118
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

What clinicians would benefit from is more precise

guidance on how much weight loss over what time
period they should be concerned about. For example,
taller and heavier individuals tend to lose weight faster
than those who are shorter and lighter. Hence men tend
to lose weight faster than women (BAPEN 2003).
Although not designed for this purpose, some guidance
may be derived from scales used to assess malnutrition.
The Nutrition Risk Score (Reilly et al 1995) uses a
scoring system based on absolute weight loss over 3
months (Table 4.1).
However, it should be remembered that absolute
weight loss will have differential effects depending on
a patient’s stature; therefore it may be more useful to
consider percentage weight loss.
The Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST)
(BAPEN 2003) uses a scoring system based on

TABLE 4.1 NUTRITION RISK SCORE (REILLY

ET AL 1995)
Weight loss in last 3 months (unintentional) Score
No weight loss 0
0–3 kg weight loss 1
>3–6 kg 2
6 kg or more 3

119
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

TABLE 4.2 THE MALNUTRITION UNIVERSAL

SCREENING TOOL (MUST) FOR SCORING
UNPLANNED WEIGHT LOSS IN PREVIOUS 3–6
MONTHS (BAPEN 2003)
% Body weight lost Score
<5 0
5–10 1
>10 2

percentage of body weight lost over 3–6 months; it is

only applicable to adults (Table 4.2).
Similar to our recommendation for interpreting age
as a Red Flag we propose a Red Flag index of suspicion
for weight loss based on percentage of body weight lost
over a 3–6-month period (Table 4.3).

Red Flag index of suspicion for weight loss

(3–6 months)
Weight loss <5% body weight
Weight loss 5–10% body weight
Weight loss >10% body weight

120
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

TABLE 4.3 WEIGHT LOSS GUIDE

Weight loss Weight loss Weight loss
<5% 5–10% >10%
52 kg <2.6 kg 2.6–5.2 kg >5.2 kg
56 kg <2.8 kg 2.8–5.6 kg >5.6 kg
60 kg <3.0 kg 3.0–6.0 kg >6.0 kg
64 kg <3.2 kg 3.2–6.4 kg >6.4 kg
68 kg <3.4 kg 3.4–6.8 kg >6.8 kg
72 kg <3.6 kg 3.6–7.2 kg >7.2 kg
76 kg <3.8 kg 3.8–7.6 kg >7.6 kg
80 kg <4.0 kg 4.0–8.0 kg >8.0 kg
84 kg <4.2 kg 4.2–8.4 kg >8.4 kg

It must be remembered that weight loss in serious

pathology is associated with complex metabolic
changes, which are not fully understood (Maltzman
2004).
Clinicians should also remember that in some types
of serious pathology (e.g. myeloma) weight loss is rare
(Durie 2004) and in some cases of serious pathology, in
the early stages, weight may in fact increase.

121
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

Cauda equina syndrome

KEY FACT: Although commonly referred to, this is actually a

very rare condition with the prevalence among all patients
with back pain being estimated at 0.0004 (Jarvik & Deyo
2002).

In the UK it has been estimated that only one case will

present annually for every 50 000 patients seen in
primary care settings (Office for National Statistics 1995).
The cauda equina consists of spinal nerve roots
from L1 distally. Dysfunction of these roots affects
motor and sensory function of the pelvic organs, pelvic
floor and lower limbs. Cauda equina syndrome is asso-
ciated with low back pain, unilateral or bilateral leg pain
below the knee commonly with segmental neurological
deficit, saddle anaesthesia and loss of bladder or bowel
function (Tables 4.4 and 4.5). Objective findings may
include numbness of the buttocks and perineum usually
with widespread sensory disturbance of the legs
(Rothman & Simeone 1992). Anal sphincter tone is
diminished in 60–80% of cases (Deyo et al 1992). Other
important indicators of possible cauda equina syn-
drome are an extended bladder, confirmed with careful
palpation of the lower abdomen, and a patient report-
ing an inability to pass urine for more than 8 hours
(Bartley 2001).
For bladder and bowel to be affected, sacral roots
below S2 must be compromised. When sacral nerve
roots are injured, the initial response is urinary retention
and the bladder becomes flaccid. In a normal bladder a

122
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

TABLE 4.4 SENSITIVITY OF SIGNS AND

SYMPTOMS OF CAUDA EQUINA SYNDROME
(DEYO ET AL 1992)
Sensitivity
Urinary retention 0.90
Unilateral or bilateral sciatica >0.80
Sensory motor deficit and reduced straight leg >0.80
raise
Saddle anaesthesia 0.75

sensation of fullness is elicited at 400 mL of fluid. The

sensation of the need to void the bowel or bladder is a
complex function. Flaccidity of the bladder can result in
overflow incontinence possibly associated with inade-
quate bladder emptying, a rise in residual volume and
a reduction in bladder sensitivity (Rothman & Simeone
1992). Sexual dysfunction often accompanies bladder
and bowel involvement. This is a very sensitive subject
to discuss with a patient. However, Butler (1991) stresses
that every sign and symptom should be investigated.
Cauda equina syndrome can present as:

• acute – over 1 week, usually age <40 years, often

discal
• chronic – over months or years, usually age >50
years, often stenotic.

123
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

TABLE 4.5 SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS OF

CAUDA EQUINA SYNDROME IN 45 PATIENTS
(NG ET AL 2004)
Percentage
Perineal numbness 86
Loss of urinary sensation 57
Urinary incontinence 46
Absent anal tone 38
Faecal soiling 15
Painful retention 11
Faecal incontinence 9

Other causes to consider are fracture, malignancy and

infection (Rothman & Simeone 1992).
From a physiotherapy perspective the suspicion of
cauda equina syndrome should be regarded as an emer-
gency requiring onward specialist referral. However,
controversy surrounds the window for the timing of
successful decompression, which may be as short as a
few hours. Gleave & Macfarlane (2002) suggest that the
longer the delay in surgery, the greater the possibility of
permanent bladder, bowel, motor and sexual dysfunc-
tion. They also suggest that emergency surgery is indi-
cated for patients with an incomplete cauda equina

124
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

syndrome, but once complete the emergency stage has

been missed and delay in surgery at this stage does not
detrimentally affect long-term outcome. Cauda equina
syndrome occurs in only 1–2% of patients requiring disc
surgery.

Systemically unwell – malaise (fever, chills,

urinary tract infection)
The presentation of systemic illness varies between
children and adults. Children usually present with a
short history of systemic illness of several weeks’
duration rather than months. In the case of leukaemia,
which often presents with back pain, this systemic
illness could consist of fever, bruising, pallor, change in
mood and fatigue. This short-term systemic presenta-
tion can occur in children in many other rare conditions
such as:

• juvenile rheumatoid arthritis

• metastatic neuroblastoma
• aplastic anaemia
• idiopathic thrombocytopenia
• infectious mononucleosis (glandular fever).
In contrast, myeloma in adults can remain asympto-
matic for years. In early stages myeloma can present
with bone pain of varying severity and only vague
complaints of tiredness, thirst and nausea (Oken 2002).
It is a malignancy affecting plasma cells (Durie 2004).
Myeloma results in progressive morbidity by lowering
resistance to infection, causing skeletal damage and

125
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

associated bone pain, hypercalcaemia (one third of

patients), anaemia, renal failure and eventually weight
loss (Oken 2002). Patients who suffer rapid weight
loss and reduced appetite also have associated weak-
ness and fatigue often due to changes in metabolic
function such as electrolyte balance (Maltzman 2004).
In a small proportion of patients suffering from multi-
ple myeloma, morbidity can also include neuropathy,
hyperviscosity of the blood and abnormalities in
haemostasis (Durie 2004). Hypercalcaemia causes tired-
ness, nausea and thirst. High myeloma protein levels
can also lead to blood clotting dysfunction, i.e. excessive
bruising and bleeding, visual disturbance, headaches,
tiredness and ischaemic neurological problems, e.g.
carpal tunnel syndrome. The latter is often due to dep-
osition of amyloid Bence Jones proteins (Oken 2002).
Neutropenia and hypogammaglobulinaemia raise the
possibility of infections, pneumococcal pneumonia
being the most common (Durie 2004).
The signs and symptoms of fever have a surpris-
ingly low sensitivity in many cases of spinal infection
(Table 4.6).
Raised erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) may
occur in a variety of conditions. Table 4.7 shows the
normal ranges for ESR in adults. However, a raised ESR
is meaningless as an isolated finding. Moreover, some
patients with serious pathology will have normal ESR
values. This emphasizes that investigations should not
be relied on in the first instance and highlights the
importance of clinical history-taking and physical exam-
ination. In patients with solid tumours an ESR >100 mm

126
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

TABLE 4.6 SENSITIVITY OF FEVER

(DEYO ET AL 1992)
Diagnosis Sensitivity
TB, osteomyelitis 0.27
Pyogenic osteomyelitis 0.50
Spinal epidural abscess 0.83

per hour usually suggests metastatic activity (Brigden

1999).

Trauma (fall from height, whiplash,

road traffic accident)
Most authorities agree that ‘It is surprisingly difficult to
damage your spine’ and that most people with spinal
pain do not actually have any damage to the spine
(Roland et al. 1997). An exception to this general rule is
cervical spine and whiplash injury or whiplash-associ-
ated disorder (WAD). The Quebec Task Force defined
whiplash as ‘an acceleration–deceleration mechanism of
energy transfer to the neck’ (Spitzer et al 1995). The
amount of energy transfer or force applied to the neck
can be very high (Table 4.8) and the time-frame for the
flexion/extension acceleration and deceleration is very
rapid and is measured in milliseconds.

127
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

TABLE 4.7 NORMAL RANGES OF ESR IN

ADULTS (BRIGDEN 1999)
Age <50 years
Men 0–15 mm/hour
Women 0–20 mm/hour
Age >50 years
Men 0–20 mm/hour
Women 0–30 mm/hour

TABLE 4.8 ESTIMATED FORCES APPLIED

TO THE HEAD AND SPINE DURING
WHIPLASH INJURY
Authors Impact speed G-force
(km/h)
Severy et al (1955) 32 12 in extension
16 in flexion
Deng (1989) 63.5 46
McConnell et al (1993) 6–8 4.5

The Quebec Task Force proposed a clinical classifica-

tion of WAD, which is shown in Table 4.9.
In addition the Quebec Task Force proposed that
patients can be classified according to the time elapsed
following the injury.

128
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

TABLE 4.9 QUEBEC TASK FORCE CLINICAL

CLASSIFICATION OF WAD (SPITZER ET AL 1995)
Grade Clinical presentation
0 No complaint about the neck
No physical sign(s)
1 Neck complaint of pain, stiffness or tenderness
only
No physical sign(s)
2 Neck complaint
and
Musculoskeletal sign(s)
(decreased range of motion and point tenderness)
3 Neck complaint
and
Neurological sign(s)
(decreased or absent deep tendon reflexes,
weakness and sensory deficits)
4 Neck complaint and fracture or dislocation
Symptoms and disorders that may manifest in all
grades include:
Deafness
Dizziness
Tinnitus
Headache
Memory loss
Dysphagia
Temporomandibular joint dysfunction

129
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

Quebec Task Force patient classification timescales

(Spitzer et al 1995)
• Less than 4 days from injury
• 4–21 days from injury
• 22–45 days from injury
• 46–180 days from injury
• In excess of 6 months from injury

Recently the Quebec Task Force clinical classification

of WAD has been criticized (Sterling 2004). Sterling
argues that grade 2 is too heterogeneous and that psy-
chological dysfunction is not adequately addressed by
the classification system. To correct these deficiencies
she proposes that grade 2 is subdivided into three
categories:

• WAD 2A
• WAD 2B
• WAD 2C.
Interested readers are referred to Sterling (2004) for
further details.
A rare but very important symptom occasionally
associated with WAD is unilateral neck pain with
tongue weakness; this may develop within hours or
days of the accident. It is caused by carotid artery
dissection, which affects the hypoglossal nerve near
to the artery’s origin. Ipsilateral Horner’s syndrome also
sometimes accompanies this problem (Hawkes 2002).

130
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

Vertebrobasilar insufficiency (VBI)

The vertebral artery arises from the first part of the
subclavian artery. It enters the foramen transversarium
of C6 and ascends to C1. After leaving C1 it pierces the
dura mater and arachnoid to enter the foramen
magnum. Within the skull the two arteries join to form
the basilar artery, which in turn leads into the circle of
Willis. The vertebral artery is relatively fixed at the
foramen magnum and at C2, but between these
two points the course of the artery goes through an S
bend as it passes behind the lateral mass of the atlas.
It is this section of the artery that is subjected to
large stretching forces during rotation and is at most
risk of injury during inappropriate manual therapy
techniques.
VBI produces ischaemia in areas of the brain sup-
plied by the basilar artery: the pons, medulla and cere-
bellum as well as the central and peripheral vestibular
system (Magarey et al 2004). It is therefore not surpris-
ing that a wide variety of signs and symptoms can be
generated by disruption to the vertebrobasilar circula-
tion (Grant 1994). Dizziness is the most common and is
usually the most pronounced symptom of VBI. It is rare
for dizziness to occur in isolation; it is usually clustered
with other symptoms.
Coman (1986) lists the 5 D’s as the most important
symptoms associated with VBI. Magarey et al (2004)
also highlight the importance of nausea.

131
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

5 D’s
• Dizziness
• Diplopia
• Drop attacks
• Dysarthria
• Dysphagia
Plus
• Nausea

We would recommend that clinicians explore the 5

D’s + 1 during subjective questioning of the patient.
There are many other symptoms which have also been
reported as associated with VBI (Grant 1994):

• visual perceptual disturbances – spots before the

eyes, blurred vision, hallucinations, field defects
• ataxia
• faintness
• light-headedness
• perioral dysaesthesia (tingling around lips)
• nystagmus
• hemianaesthesia.
Similar to whiplash injury there is a large and compre-
hensive body of literature on the subject of VBI. It is
beyond the scope of this pocket guide to discuss this
issue in any further detail. Readers are directed to the

132
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

revised Australian Physiotherapy Association protocol

for pre-manipulative testing of the cervical spine as a
starting point for this subject (Magarey et al 2004).

Bilateral pins and needles in hands

and/or feet
Bilateral pins and needles in the extremities is not a def-
inite indicator of spinal cord dysfunction. It is possible
that the patient has a bilateral nerve root compression,
bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome or a metabolic condi-
tion such as diabetes or thyroid dysfunction. However,
pins and needles in all four extremities raises the level
of suspicion (Butler 1991).
Patients with spinal cord compression may complain
of the following signs and symptoms (Butler 1991):

• a feeling of walking on cotton wool

• loss of dexterity
• diffuse non-specific weakness
• altered sensation
• broad-based jerky gait.
Clinicians should not be reticent about onward referral
for a neurological opinion should this be thought
necessary.

Previous failed treatment

One of the factors often discussed as a Red Flag is pre-
vious failed treatment. This is usually within the context

133
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

of statements such as 50% of low back pain settles more

or less completely within 4 weeks and 90% of low back
pain recovers spontaneously within the first 6 weeks
(CSAG 1994). McKenzie & May (2003), however,
suggest that more recent evidence does not paint such
a ‘rosy’ picture of back pain and that the patient’s life-
time experience of back pain is actually one of an inter-
mittent recurring problem, varying in severity, rather
than an acute self-limiting one.
It is important to note that failure to respond to
treatment is also considered to be a Yellow Flag. As such
it becomes apparent that this is a complex issue which
is determined by the subtle interaction of a variety
of biomedical and psychosocial factors. Briefly, the
complexity of previous failed treatment may be com-
pounded by some of the following:

• nature of the condition

• use or non-use of evidence-based practice
• psychosocial issues
• patient–therapist interaction
• patient concordance.

The important point to make here is that unlike patients

with mechanical back pain, who have episodic pain
which often responds to treatment, patients with serious
pathology may initially appear to respond to treatment
, but then suffer relapse. It is vital that as well as
focusing on the behaviour of specific signs and symp-
toms during treatment episodes, physiotherapists also
monitor the patient’s overall health status. This is par-

134
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

ticularly important when the expected progress as a

result of treatment is not being made; vital clues that
there may be an underlying serious pathology may be
present.

PAIN QUESTIONS
Constant progressive pain
If the patient’s pain does not vary with activity or posi-
tion, the physiotherapist should be suspicious of serious
pathology; importantly, as discussed earlier, this may
not be true in cases of early serious pathology. During
the subjective examination patients will often state that
their symptoms are constant. It is essential that in these
cases the physiotherapist questions further to identify if
the pain ‘truly’ does not vary at all during a 24-hour
period. It is also vitally important to establish how long
the pain has behaved in this way. For example, in cases
of serious pathology of the spine the initial presentation
may be episodic in nature and may also appear to
respond to physiotherapy treatment in the early stages
(Greenhalgh & Selfe 2003). McKenzie (1990) states
that only 30% of patients have truly constant pain. He
suggests that many patients get confused when pain has
persisted over weeks or months, as pain may be felt
intermittently through the day, but some pain is felt
every day.
It is of paramount importance that the physiothera-
pist explores in detail factors that affect the severity of
pain. Simple cues for the patient are:

135
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

• What makes your pain worse? (aggravating

factors)
• Does anything make your pain go away completely?
(abolishing factors)
• What makes your pain easier? (easing factors)
Traditionally physiotherapists have tended to consider
aggravating and easing factors as being restricted to
movement and posture. We suggest a more holistic
approach considering, for example, the effects of drug
therapy. Current guidelines (CSAG 1994) suggest a role
for non-steroidal anti-inflammatories and analgesics in
the management of spinal pain. However, patients with
established serious pathology will obtain little or no
relief from these.
Bickels et al (1999) describe a series of 32 patients
with sciatica caused by tumour along the extraspinal
course of the sciatic nerve. All patients described insid-
ious onset of pain that progressed, within just one
month, to become constant. Twenty-five patients also
described significant night pain. Interestingly, more
than half the group were able to pinpoint the pain to an
exact location which was later found to correspond to
the site of the tumour. The authors concluded that
ability to locate sciatic pain to an extraspinal point
should be considered ‘an alarming sign’.

Thoracic pain
Although many patients with benign pathology present
with thoracic pain, clinicians need to be alert when faced

136
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

with this presentation. Patients with mechanical disc

disorders of the thoracic spine comprise only 1.96% of
patients with mechanical back pain (McKenzie 1990).
Thoracic spinal pain is often caused by metastases, most
commonly from the lung or breast. Direct venous
drainage by the azygos veins from the breast to the
circulatory plexus in the thoracic spine accounts
for metastatic spread from a primary breast lesion to
tumour emboli entering the thoracic region. The emboli
pass from the circulatory system to the fertile cancellous
bone where they then grow. Lumbar metastases are
more commonly prostatic in origin. Once metastases
have developed the prognosis is variable. Rapidly pro-
gressing neurological symptoms are often associated
with poorer outcomes (Wiesel et al 1996). A history of
thoracic pain spreading bilaterally and anteriorly
should also raise suspicions (Ombregt et al 2003). The
commonest symptom of TB is pain in the thoracolum-
bar junction and decreased range of motion (Khoo et al
2003).

Abdominal pain and changed bowel habits but

with no change of medication
Some malignant cancers, for example myeloma, breast
and lung, cause hypercalcaemia. It is estimated that
approximately 30% of cancer patients will develop
hypercalcaemia (Medline Plus 2005).
Hypercalcaemia has already been briefly discussed
earlier in the chapter in the ‘Systemically unwell’
section; some of the symptoms are:

137
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

• abdominal pain
• constipation
• nausea and/or vomiting
• poor appetite.
Importantly any change in bowel habits in the absence
of a change in medication must be established. The fol-
lowing extract from a case history where the patient was
diagnosed with a malignant myeloma illustrates this
point.
John’s problems had begun 10 months previously. His
initial symptoms were abdominal pain and increasing
problems with constipation despite no changes in med-
ication. (Greenhalgh & Selfe 2003)
The use of codeine-based analgesics and opioids in
cases of spinal pain is common and indeed is indicated
in guidelines (CSAG 1994). However, common side
effects of these preparations are constipation, nausea
and vomiting (BMA 2004) .

Severe night pain (disturbed sleep,

painkiller consumption)
Investigating symptom behaviour over a 24-hour period
includes questions regarding the presence of night pain.
However, the physiology behind the phenomenon of
night pain is not certain (Frymoyer 1997). Wiesel et al
(1996) report that ‘Symptoms of back pain at night, pain
at rest or a neurological deficit should prompt consid-

138
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

eration of a spinal tumour’. However, night pain (pain

precluding sleep) has also been associated with mechan-
ical dysfunction as well as the presence of serious
pathology, leading to a great deal of confusion and
anxiety amongst clinicians.

• Patients with mechanical dysfunction can often

provoke pain by turning over in bed; often they
simply change position in order to return to sleep .
• Patients with serious pathology often give a history
of getting out of bed, pacing, or the need to doze
sitting in a chair with an inability to return to sleep.
• Patients with psychological dysfunction often
describe disturbed sleep with a pattern of waking in
the early hours of the morning .

Concern should be raised if patients report that night

pain is the most intense, severe pain episode experi-
enced during a 24-hour period. In contrast, pain associ-
ated with mechanical dysfunction is typically most
intense and severe during the day when patients are
engaged in weight-bearing activities and postures.
Exceptions to this general rule are patients who have
severe, acute pain for whom even minimal comfort is
not achieved in any position (Boissonnault 1995).

Headache
Headaches are common in all age groups (Wilson 2002).
According to Cartwright & Godlee (2003), 90% of

139
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

Causes of headache (Brier 1999)

• Upper respiratory tract infection
• Depression
• Stress
• Poor posture
• Faulty biomechanics
• Trauma

headaches are tension headaches. Migraine is reported

as affecting an estimated 15% of the population (Wilson
2002).
Clinically, Edeling (1988) grades headache by fre-
quency, which she refers to as periodicity (P), and by
intensity (I):
P1: pain one day per month or less
P2: pain two or more days per month
P3: pain one or more days per week
P4: pain daily but intermittent
P5: constant pain
I1: mild pain
I2: more than mild pain but tolerable
I3: moderately severe pain
I4: severe pain
I5: intolerable, perhaps suicidal pain.

140
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

KEY FACT: It is estimated that only 0.004% of headaches

are due to serious pathology (Cartwright & Godlee 2003).

Headaches that increase linearly with unremitting

intensity may be consistent with neoplasm. Indicators
of serious pathology in headache (Cartwright & Godlee
2003, Hawkes 2002) are:

• sudden onset new severe headache (patients who are

not prone to headaches suddenly complain of the
first and worst headache in their life; consider vas-
cular tumour or aneurysm)
• progressively worsening headache
• onset of headaches after the age of 50 years
• altered level of consciousness
• recent head or cervical trauma
• abnormal physical findings, especially focal neuro-
logy
• meningism
• tender temporal arteries
• cough headache (headache initiated by coughing
rather than headache aggravated by coughing;
approximately 50% will have serious pathology).

As discussed in Chapter 1, differential symptoms of

headache due to brain tumour are as follows:

• deep dull constant ache

• aggravated by being upright
• not rhythmic or throbbing
• sometimes severe

141
THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

• usually relieved by aspirin or cold packs

• does not usually disturb sleep
• aggravated by coughing, sneezing, straining
• nausea not common
• may be associated with cervical dysfunction (Grieve
1994).

142
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

EXTRACT FROM A PATIENT–CLINICIAN

CONSULTATION
The following extract of a patient subjective examina-
tion highlights the Red Flags and the Red Herrings
alongside serious pathology clinical reasoning. Other
warning flags have been identified for the reader but
discussion of these lies outside the remit of this pocket
guide.

143
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

Key
C = clinician P = patient

C Hello Mr X, please come in and sit down. (patient

dishevelled, fidgety)

P Thank you.

C My name is Chris. Nice to meet you. We have

received a letter from your GP stating . . .
What I would like to do today is to explore the
bigger picture of your problem.
When it first developed.
How it has progressed.
What treatment you have had so far and what you
are complaining of today.
I will then have a look at you and see what I can
find.
We will then talk about my findings and the way
forwards.
Is that OK?

P Yes fine. I don’t know if I answered those

questionnaires OK.

144
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

Clinical reasoning

Make the patient feel reassured. Many are nervous of a

medical environment. The clinician’s body language and
tone of voice are important in reassuring and giving
confidence from the first patient/client contact to the
end of the consultation.

Explain why they are here and what you are going to do
in the session so that they know what to expect.

Speak slowly and clearly. There is a lot to take in.

Informed consent.

Linton & Halden (1998) (L&H)

Roland & Morris (1983)

145
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

C Yes. They are a great help. Already from these I can

see that you are really struggling to keep going and
it looks as though you are getting quite low in
mood. (Yellow Flag)
Is that right?

P Definitely! (patient constantly moving to gain

comfort)

C I will use some of your answers to help me with

my questioning. Don’t worry, you have done really
well.

P Thanks.

C When did you first begin with low back pain ever
in your life?

P Oh, I have had it years. I’ve tried everything.

(Yellow Flag)

C Since being a child?

P Oh no. Early 30s.

C And how old are you now?

P 65 years

C Are you retired?

146
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

Choose words carefully when discussing and giving

feedback on sensitive issues.
It is important to give feedback on completed
questionnaires and emphasize their usefulness.

The L&H can be used to direct the subjective questions.

Even those with chronic pain can develop serious

pathology. The full subjective history gives a complete
picture.

Could there be any pars defects due to exercise leading

to spondylolisthesis?

147
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

P Yes. I retired 15 years ago. Early retirement.

C Was that because of your health?

P Yes.

C Was it your back?

P Yes but I also have problems with depression. I

was in hospital for a while. (Yellow and Orange
Flags)

C So do you have incapacity or disability benefits

now?

P No I have had a bit of trouble with benefit reviews

recently. I have had my benefits withdrawn, I did
get a job in an office but I have been off sick for
some time; in fact my boss is putting me under
pressure to go back. (Yellow, Blue and Black
Flags)

C OK. How did your low back pain first start?

P It started when I worked in the abattoir. I twisted

and lifted a carcass onto a high table and I felt
my back ‘go’. I knew that I had done something.
( ?)
They did not care about Health & Safety then.
(Yellow Flag)

148
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

Clinical reasoning

Any infection in past?

(brucellosis, see Ch. 1)
Not likely now as 30–35 years later (conditional
probability).

149
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

C Could you continue working?

P No. I had to go home and went to bed. The doctor

came out and told me to go to bed for 2 weeks so I
did.

C Was it better then?

P No, I had to have physio. That helped a bit. I went

back to work but I have had problems on and off
ever since. But for the last 3 years it has been
constant.

C Do these episodes usually settle on their own?

P Sometimes I have needed physio, I still try to do

my exercises. I have seen an osteopath once or
twice. I have had acupuncture and seen a
chiropractor. It is difficult to get to see these people.
There are long waits and it costs a fortune. (Yellow
Flag)

C Did any of them help?

P Yes. Usually it got better but this time it is

different.

C OK – Tell me about how this episode started?

P It is all in my buttocks and it comes into my

stomach

150
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

Clinical reasoning

Up to this point it could very well be chronic pain.

Remember three-dimensional thinking adds: verbal and
non-verbal communication.

151
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

C When did this episode start?

P Ages ago.

C 2–3 months?

P Oh longer than that. 6 months I would say.

C How did it begin?

P I woke up with it. I had been helping the wife

move some furniture a few days before. I put it
down to that bloody wardrobe. (Yellow Flag)

C Did you feel anything at the time?

P No – but I had not done anything else that may

have caused it

C OK – so what exactly did you feel?

P Well, I had been a bit off colour for a few months. I

started with pains in my stomach and constipation
. I have seen the consultant at the hospital.
I went in for a day. I had some investigations but
everything was OK.

C What did you have?

152
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

Clinical reasoning
Try to get the patient to stick to a chronological order.
Be courteous in bringing them back to the order of
progression of symptoms or your clinical reasoning may
become confused.

153
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

P Endosc . . . Can’t remember what it was called. I

had the camera . . . but he said everything was
OK.

C Good. Are those symptoms any better?

P No, I am on some tablets for it.

This is what I take (hands list to clinician) but they
don’t work.

C Thank you, that is really helpful. Had you changed

your diet or tablets when the constipation
occurred?

P No.

C So these don’t help.

P No and now I have this backache as well.

C Do you have any leg pain?

P No, not really, it aches a bit in my thighs but my

legs feel really weak

C Any pins and needles or numbness?

P Sometimes my feet feel a bit funny.

C Where?

154
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

Clinical reasoning
Do not be over-reliant on other clinicians’ diagnosis or
negative investigation findings. Trust your own 3D
thinking as conditions can and do change.

155
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

P All over.

C Big toe and inside of your foot right across to the

outside of the foot and little toe?

P Yes. Sometimes my feet don’t feel right.

C Both feet – have you been tested for diabetes?

P Yes and I have not got it.

C OK. Is that pins and needles getting worse or better

or the same?

P Difficult to say, I think it is getting worse, the pain

certainly is.

C What makes your pain feel worse?

P Everything really, I can’t stand for long. I can only

walk from here to the grocers (50 metres). I can’t
sit for long. For the last 2 weeks I have slept in a
chair.

C Do you sleep?

P I doze on and off.

C What happens if you go to bed?

156
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

Clinical reasoning

Consider differential diagnosis

157
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

P It became so bad trying to lie down – it was better

to stay in the chair.

C Do you sleep during the day?

P No, I can’t sleep.

C What makes it feel better?

P Nothing really – I try a hot water bottle but even

the tramadol does not help. I have tried loads of
pills that the doctor gave me but it does not seem
to help.

C Are your bladder and bowels OK?

P Well, I suffer with constipation still.

C Do you feel that this is related to your tablets or is

that normal for you?

P Oh no, I used to be OK. This began before the

backache – before I started the tablets – it just
happened. That is one of the reasons that I saw the
doctor at the hospital – but he said everything is
OK. He said that you would sort me out.

C (Smile) – OK.

C Have you lost any weight.

158
THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

159
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

P Yes, I can’t eat – the pain – I have no appetite.

C How much have you lost?

P Well I was 64 kg but when they weighed me at the

hospital I was 56 kg.

C How long have you been losing weight?

P Difficult to say. I’m not sure – about 6–8 weeks.

C Right (said positively). Do you feel well?

P No, I’m tired, can’t sleep, sick of the pain, I feel

sick, no, I don’t feel well.

C Do you smoke?

P No.

C Have you ever?

P Oh yes. I used to until this started.

C OK. How many did you smoke?

P About 20–25 on a bad day.

C When did you start smoking?

160
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

Clinical reasoning

The index of suspicion suggests this may be a problem

but need to know time period.

Clearly this is a major problem.

Don’t leave the questioning on smoking there.

EU average 1995 = 10–14 per day

161
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

P Oh when I was a lad – 16 years, about 15 or 16.

C What about medical history? Have you had any

serious illnesses or operations other than you have
told me? There does not appear to be anything else
in the notes.

P No . . . No I don’t think so.

C OK – what about your family – parents, brothers,

sisters. Did they have anything significant in their
medical history?

P No, eh well my dad died of a heart attack. My

mum had cancer.

C Which sort – do you know?

P Breast cancer.

C What about brothers, sisters, grandparents?

P I don’t know about my grandparents and I haven’t

seen my sister for years. She lives abroad – we lost
touch.
If I hadn’t lifted that bloody wardrobe.

C That is all the questions for now. Well done. What I

am going to do now is have a look at you.

162
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

Clinical reasoning

If sister or grandparents did have breast cancer – much

higher risk (see Ch. 2).

163
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

In this scenario we have tried to illustrate how the

patient’s response directs the physiotherapist’s ques-
tioning and how the physiotherapist asks questions that
conform to the guidelines we introduced at the begin-
ning of Chapter 3, i.e. they are:

• appropriate
• relevant
• sequential
• empathic.

Throughout the scenario we have also highlighted the

warning flags as they arise as this helps to show how
the direction of questioning can be influenced. This
reinforces the points made about clinical reasoning and
3D thinking in Chapter 2. We argued that for success-
ful clinical reasoning to occur an active partnership
between the patient and the physiotherapist needs to be
formed in order to come to an understanding of the
patient’s condition. Unfortunately in many scenarios a
paternalistic relationship develops where the therapist
becomes dominant whilst the patient is relegated to a
passive role. When this type of relationship develops it
is unlikely to produce a satisfactory result.
In the scenario the following warning signs were
found:

• 30
• 7 Yellow Flags
• 1 Blue Flag
• 1 Black Flag

164
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

• 1 Orange Flag
• 4 .

Clearly a large volume of information has been gained

from the subjective examination, a lot of which, in this
case, is highly suggestive of serious pathology. Using
the wealth of valuable information gained from the sub-
jective examination, the physiotherapist must now
decide which objective tests are appropriate for the indi-
vidual patient. It is important that the physiotherapist
‘mentally pauses/takes stock’ at this point to assimilate
the large volume of verbal and non-verbal information
they have gathered. This will give them the opportunity
to see ‘the wood from the trees’ so that they can care-
fully plan the objective examination. Patients with
potentially serious pathology and in obvious distress
will need to be examined quite differently from those
with minor mechanical problems. Planning which tests
need to be conducted, before actually starting the objec-
tive examination, is vital. This avoids wasting the
patient’s and physiotherapist’s time by completing irrel-
evant tests that will yield little additional information
and perhaps more importantly avoids unnecessarily
subjecting patients to uncomfortable procedures.

References
Bartley R 2001 Nerve root compression and cauda equina
syndrome. In: Bartley R, Coffey P (eds) Management of
low back pain in primary care. Butterworth Heinemann,
Oxford, p 63–67

165
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

Bickels J, Kahanovitz N, Rubert C K 1999 Extraspinal bone

and soft-tissue tumours as a cause of sciatica. Spine
24(15):1611–1616
Bigos S 1994 Acute low back pain in adults: Clinical
practice guideline. US Department of Health and
Human Services, Rockville, MD. AHCPR 95-0643
BMA 2004 BNF, 48th edn. BMA and BPS, London
Boissonnault W G 1995 Examination in physical therapy
practice: screening for medical disease, 2nd edn.
Churchill Livingstone, New York
Brier S R 1999 Primary care orthopaedics. Mosby, St
Louis
Brigden M L 1999 Clinical utility of the erythrocyte
sedimentation rate. American Journal of Family
Physicians 60:1443–1450
British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
(BAPEN) 2003 Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool
(MUST). Redditch
Butler D S 1991 Mobilisation of the nervous system.
Churchill Livingstone, Melbourne
Cartwright S, Godlee C 2003 Churchill’s pocket book of
general practice, 2nd edn. Churchill Livingstone,
Edinburgh
Coman W 1986 Dizziness related to ENT conditions. In:
Grieve G P (ed) Modern manual therapy of the vertebral
column. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, p 303–324
CSAG 1994 Report of a Clinical Standards Advisory Group
on Back Pain. HMSO, London
Deng Y C 1989 Anthropometric dummy neck modeling
and injury considerations, Accident Prevention 21:
85–100
Deyo R A, Rainville J, Kent D L 1992 What can the history
and physical examination tell us about low back pain?
JAMA 268(6):760–765

166
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

Durie B G M 2004 Multiple myeloma: a concise review of

the disease and treatment options. http://www.
myeloma.org 4 Jul 2005
Edeling J 1988 Manual therapy for chronic headache.
Butterworths, London
Frymoyer J W 1997 The adult spine: principles and practice,
2nd edn. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia
Gleave J R W, Macfarlane R 2002 Cauda equina syndrome:
what is the relationship between timing of surgery and
outcome? British Journal of Neurosurgery 16(4):325–328
Grant R 1994 Vertebral artery insufficiency: a clinical
protocol for premanipulative testing of the cervical
spine. In: Boyling J D, Palastanga N (eds) Grieve’s
modern manual therapy, 2nd edn. Churchill
Livingstone, Edinburgh, p 371–380
Greenhalgh S, Selfe J 2003 Malignant myeloma of the spine.
Physiotherapy 89(8):486–488 (also available at http://
evolve.elsevier.com/Greenhalgh/redflags/)
Grieve G P 1994 The masqueraders. In: Boyling J D,
Palastanga N (eds) Grieve’s modern manual therapy: the
vertebral column, 2nd edn. Churchill Livingstone,
Edinburgh, p 841–856
Hawkes C 2002 Smart handles and red flags in neurological
diagnosis. Hospital Medicine 63(12):732–742
Jarvik J G, Deyo R A 2002 Diagnostic evaluation of low
back pain with emphasis on imaging. Annals of Internal
Medicine 137:586–597
Khoo L T, Mikawa K, Fessler R G 2003 A surgical
revisitation of Pott distemper of the spine. Spine Journal
3:130–145
Linton S J, Halden K 1998 Can we screen for problematic
back pain? A screening questionnaire for predicting
outcome in acute and sub-acute back pain. Clinical
Journal of Pain 14:200–215

167
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

McConnell W E, Howard P R, Guzman H M 1993 Analysis

of human test subject responses to low velocity rear end
impacts. Society for Automotive Engineers, Detroit,
SP-975
McKenzie R A 1990 The cervical and thoracic spine:
mechanical diagnosis and therapy. Spinal Publications,
Waikanae
McKenzie R A, May S 2003 The lumbar spine: mechanical
diagnosis and therapy, Vol 1. Spinal Publications,
Waikanae
Magarey M E, Rebbeck T, Coughlan B et al 2004 Pre-
manipulative testing of the cervical spine: review,
revision and new clinical guidelines. Manual Therapy
9:95–108
Maltzman J D 2004 Developments in the fight against
cancer cachexia. Online. Available: http://www.
oncolink.org
Medline Plus 2005 Hypercalcaemia. Online. Available:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus
New Zealand Ministry of Health 2004 New Zealand Acute
Low Back Pain Guidelines. Online. Available: http://
www.nzgg.org.nz 4 Apr 2005
Ng L C L, Tafazal S, Longworth S, Sell P 2004 Cauda equina
syndrome: an audit. Can we do better? Journal of
Orthopaedic Medicine 26(2):98–101
Office for National Statistics 1995, Morbidity statistics from
general practice: 4th national study 1991–1992. HMSO,
London
Oken M M 2002 Management of myeloma: current and
future approaches. Online. Available http://www.
moffitt.usf.edu\pubs\ccj\v5n3\article2
Ombregt L, Bisschop P, ter Veer H J 2003 A system of
orthopaedic medicine, 2nd edn. Churchill Livingstone,
London

168
 THE CURRENT EPISODE AND PAIN

Reilly H M, Martineau J K, Moran A, Kennedy H 1995

Nutritional screening evaluation and implementation of
a simple nutrition risk score, Clinical Nutrition
14:269–273
Roland M O, Morris R W 1983 A study of the natural
history of back pain. Part 1: Development of a reliable
and sensitive measure of disability in low back pain.
Spine 8:141–144
Roland M, Waddell G, Klaber-Moffett J et al 1997 The back
book, 3rd edn. The Stationery Office, Norwich
Rothman R H, Simeone F A (eds) 1992 The spine, 3rd edn.
Saunders, Philadelphia
Severy D M, Mathewson J H, Bechtol C O 1955 Controlled
automobile rear end collisions and investigation of
related engineering and medical phenomena. Canadian
Services Medical Journal 11:727–759
Souhami R, Tobias J 1995 Cancer and its management, 2nd
edn. Blackwell, Oxford
Spitzer W O, Skovron H L, Salmi L R et al 1995 Scientific
monograph of the Quebec Task Force on whiplash-
associated disorders. Spine 20:7S–73S
Sterling M 2004 A proposed new classification system for
whiplash associated disorders – implications for
assessment and management. Manual Therapy 9:60–70
Wiesel S W, Weinstein J N, Herkowitz H et al 1996 The
lumbar spine, International Society for the Study of the
Lumbar Spine, 2nd edn. Saunders, Philadelphia
Wilson A 2002 Effective management of musculoskeletal
injury. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh

169
Chapter 5
Objective Examination

CHAPTER CONTENTS
Physical appearance 172
Looks unwell 172
Spinal deformity 174
Mass 174
Inability to lie supine 174
Bizarre neurological deficit 175
Marked partial articular restriction of
movement 178
Loss of sphincter tone and altered S4
sensation 178
Spasm 179
Vertebral artery testing 179
Upper cervical instability tests 181
Positive extensor plantar response 183
Disturbed gait 184
Summary 185
References 189

171
 OBJECTIVE EXAMINATION

For the purpose of this chapter the objective tests con-

sidered will be confined to the neuromusculoskeletal
assessment of the spine and limbs. Extended scope
examinations of the abdomen, for example, will not be
discussed. As we have discussed in Chapter 2, the objec-
tive examination begins with the therapist’s observation
and interpretation of initial cues from the patient when
they first meet, even before any verbal communication
takes place. The examination should be performed in a
logical order with minimal disruption to patient comfort
by avoiding unnecessary changes in patient position.
The objective assessment may even need to be adapted
and carried out in a chair or sitting on the side of the
bed if the level of pain is so severe that lying is not
possible.
All examinations of the spinal column should, where
possible, consider the following:

• general physical appearance

• deformity
• deviation
• muscle spasm
• paravertebral mass
• pattern of neurological deficit
• cord compression.

PHYSICAL APPEARANCE
Looks unwell
It is surprising how many publications suggest that cli-
nicians assess whether the patient looks unwell; yet

172
 OBJECTIVE EXAMINATION

most do not provide any guidance or suggestions about

what an unwell person looks like. This is interesting as
there is a large element of subjectivity involved in this
type of judgement and many patients who are seriously
ill can ‘look quite healthy’ in the early stages.
One of the publications that does give more specific
guidance is Cyriax (1982), who states ‘Inspection of the
patient’s face may help to decide how disabling his pain
has been; severe pain leading to sleepless nights shows
on the patient’s face.’ The following extract from a case
history of a patient with a malignant myeloma also
helps to illustrate how physical appearance can alert the
clinician to potentially serious pathology: ‘He appeared
unwell with a sallow complexion, slightly dishevelled
appearance and poorly fitting clothes’ (Greenhalgh &
Selfe 2003).

General signs that the patient may be unwell

• Pallor/flushing
• Sweating
• Altered complexion; sallow/jaundiced
• Tremor/shaking
• Tired/drawn
• Dishevelled/unkempt
• Halitosis
• Poorly fitting clothes.
These signs may be explained by the complex metabolic
changes that occur with serious pathology. In particular,
electrolyte imbalance, hypercalcaemia and weight loss
can cause a number of these signs.

173
 OBJECTIVE EXAMINATION

Spinal deformity
The key clinical features of interest are spinal deformity
with marked spinal muscle spasm and unexpectedly
severe limitation of movement. It is important to
identify deformities that are rapidly reversible as these
may be associated with benign mechanical syndromes.
A rapid onset of scoliosis (deviation) can be also be asso-
ciated with osteoid osteoma or osteoblastoma. This
deformity may not appear while the patient is standing
upright but may present on forward flexion. The
concave side of the deformity is usually on the same
side as the tumour. Frymoyer (1997) suggests the
tumour is often at the apex of the curve.

Mass
Often tumours cannot be seen or felt. However, should
a mass be identified size, location, mobility and tender-
ness are key clinical features. Bickels et al (1999), in a
series of 32 patients with sciatic nerve tumours, reported
that 13 patients had a palpable mass. Recent changes in
the structure must also be established. In some cases,
swelling is one of the first presenting signs. With some
tumours, e.g. osteosarcoma, the overlying skin may be
warm (Goodman et al 1998).

INABILITY TO LIE SUPINE

Although not necessarily restricted to night time, inabil-
ity to lie supine is listed as a Red Flag in a number of
clinical guidelines (Bigos 1994, New Zealand Ministry

174
 OBJECTIVE EXAMINATION

of Health 2004). Frymoyer (1997) reports that the pain

symptoms associated with inability to lie supine are
probably due to increased pressure on the affected
segment. This is illustrated clinically by ‘John now com-
plained of constant unremitting pain, was unable to
sleep and had not been to bed for a couple of months;
he dozed in a chair’ (Greenhalgh & Selfe 2003), and by
‘sleeping upright in a chair helped’ (Greenhalgh & Selfe
2004).

BIZARRE NEUROLOGICAL DEFICIT

According to Wiesel et al (1996), the formal style of neu-
rological examination practised today developed in the
19th century. An early pioneer of this field was Leas-
ague, who first described the straight leg raise (SLR) test
in 1880. Later Henry Head contributed significantly to
the understanding of dermatomes by observation of
patients with herpes zoster.
Frymoyer (1997) reports that in cases of serious
pathology neurological deficit is rarely the first
symptom; despite this observation, in those with serious
spinal pathology:

• 70% will have neurological deficit by the time of

diagnosis
• 50% of those with spinal cord compression will
develop symptoms of the compression before diag-
nosis is made.
The presence of gross multiple neurological deficit is
usually obvious. More subtle expansion of neurological

175
 OBJECTIVE EXAMINATION

deficit can be more difficult to identify. In the cervical

spine, due to the angle of the emerging nerve root in
proximity to the disc, segmental neurological deficit is
usually clearly defined. In contrast, in the lumbar spine
neurological deficit can present a more confusing
picture . As the nerve root angle is more vertical, a
bulging disc causing nerve entrapment can result in a
less clearly defined segmental deficit, as one disc bulge
could appear to compromise one or two nerve roots;
however, this can still be within normal segmental
limits.
As thorough a neurological examination as possible
(this is dictated by the severity of the patient’s pain)
must always be carried out if neural compressive or
destructive disorders are indicated from the subjective
history. Neurological examination for the thoracic spine
is often overlooked, but it is as important as that for
lumbar and/or cervical spines and may need to be
included. The presence of neurological deficit and tho-
racic pain should prompt the physiotherapist to con-
sider the possibility of malignancy, infection or fracture.
Positive answers to the following questions should be
considered with a relatively high index of suspicion.

• Is more than one root affected?

• Are there more than two roots affected?
• Are there more than three roots affected?
• Are there any cord signs?
The following neurological findings during a spinal
examination also need to be considered with a relatively
high index of suspicion:

176
 OBJECTIVE EXAMINATION

• C1–C2: Paraesthesia, occipitoparietal region. Weak-

ness rare.
• C3: No myotomal involvement, cutaneous analgesia
uncommon.
• C4: Anaesthesia in horizontal band along spine of
scapula, mid-deltoid and clavicle.
• C8: alone Pancoast tumour.
• T1: Weakness in the intrinsic muscles of the hand,
paraesthesia and cutaneous analgesia in ulnar aspect
of hand: consider pulmonary tumour, Pancoast
tumour or vertebral metastases.
• T2: Dermatomal numbness, neurological deficit
rare.
• L1/L2 root signs (often associated with lung cancer,
malignancy in the vertebrae or upper femur).

It is interesting to note from the list above that in general

within each spinal region the most cephalad vertebral
segments, i.e. C1/2, T1/2 and L1/2, appear to have a
greater predisposition to serious pathology than the
more caudal segments. This phenomenon appears to
be a subtle addition to Grieve’s observation that the
more cephalad the serious pathology the poorer the
prognosis (Grieve 1981).
Lhermitte’s sign is provoked by cervical flexion; it
consists of an electric shock like feeling which shoots
down the spine and occasionally into the arms.

KEY FACT: Lhermitte’s sign is almost pathognomonic of

multiple sclerosis.

177
 OBJECTIVE EXAMINATION

Rarely, it also occurs in cervical spondylosis and cer-

vical spinal cord tumours. A reversed Lhermitte’s sign
is provoked by cervical extension; this is strongly
associated with cervical spondylosis. However, it is
important to note that very infrequently patients with
multiple sclerosis also complain of a positive reversed
Lhermitte’s sign (Hawkes 2002).

MARKED PARTIAL ARTICULAR RESTRICTION

OF MOVEMENT
Deviation on movement is often associated with
mechanical dysfunction; it could present following a
disc derangement or it could be caused by soft tissue
shortening after trauma. Deviation on movement may
also be associated with neurological deficit. However,
Goodman et al (1998) warn that these signs could also
be present in the case of tumours. It is the first author’s
experience that the most common movement restriction
presenting in the presence of serious pathology, in the
lumbar spine, is a marked restriction of flexion.

LOSS OF SPHINCTER TONE AND ALTERED

S4 SENSATION
As previously stated in Chapter 4, disturbances of
normal bladder and bowel control are rare, serious neu-
rological symptoms that require thorough investigation.
The sphincter of the bladder and musculature control-
ling the rectum are supplied by S3, S4 and S5. These
nerve roots also supply sensation to the saddle area, a

178
 OBJECTIVE EXAMINATION

round area between the upper buttocks and above the

anus.
If cauda equina syndrome is suspected a rectal exam-
ination must be performed by an appropriate clinician,
in a timely manner. A normal rectal reflex would be a
sudden contraction of the anal sphincter on light touch
(Wiesel et al 1996). Saddle sensory disturbance can be
tested either by light touch or by pin-prick. We would
recommend that in any case where the subjective
history suggests S4 sensation abnormalities the sensory
disturbance should be tested. Testing can be carried out
with the patient in either side lying or crook lying,
depending on the patient’s level of discomfort.

SPASM
Muscle spasm is synonymous with low back pain and
is always due to an underlying cause. Its clinical signif-
icance, however, is poorly defined. Occasionally the
muscle contraction is so severe unilaterally that a devi-
ation or scoliosis can occur. The correlation between
muscle spasm, pain and other objective clinical meas-
ures is poorly supported by a strong evidence base.
However, Ombregt et al (2003) suggest that muscle
spasm precluding movement should always be consid-
ered suspicious.

VERTEBRAL ARTERY TESTING

Whilst pre-manipulative protocols have been very
clear, in terms of specific testing routines, there is some

179
 OBJECTIVE EXAMINATION

question over the appropriateness of routine clinical

testing of the vertebral artery. The difficulty lies in the
fact that vertebral artery testing itself is a procedure
associated with some risk (Table 5.1). Therefore there is
a real danger that the clinician may in fact be placing the
patient at unnecessary risk by performing inappropri-
ate vertebral artery testing.
Magarey et al (2004) have published a revised set of
clinical guidelines for the testing of the vertebral artery.
These new clinical guidelines are less rigid and pre-
scriptive than the previous format of the APA (Aus-
tralian Physiotherapy Association) pre-manipulative

TABLE 5.1 SAFETY OF VERTEBRAL ARTERY

TESTING
Authors Conclusions
Refshauge & Gass (1995) Testing must be performed with
extreme caution to avoid
exacerbating potentially serious
pathology
Grant (1994) The test procedures themselves
hold certain risks
Meadows (1992) The testing procedure itself
might provoke the very
occlusion that the therapist is
attempting to avoid

180
 OBJECTIVE EXAMINATION

testing protocol. This is to allow clinicians a greater

degree of autonomy in practice and places much more
emphasis on clinical reasoning. These new guidelines
also place a much greater degree of emphasis on the
importance of detecting potential indicators of risk
during the patient subjective examination. This reflects
the fact that current research evidence is inconclusive
as to which are the most valid vertebral artery screen-
ing tests, and that provocation testing is potentially
harmful.
As adverse incidents involving the vertebral artery
seem to be associated with cervical rotation, sustained
end range rotation is the only mandatory test included
in these new guidelines. Any additional testing should
be guided by clinical reasoning appropriate to the indi-
vidual patient.

Mandatory pre-manipulative vertebral artery testing

(Magarey et al 2004)
• Sustained end range rotation in supine or sitting

UPPER CERVICAL INSTABILITY TESTS

These tests are sometimes used after whiplash injury;
great care should be taken in performing any upper
cervical stability tests. We would recommend that full
training in both the application and the interpretation of
the tests should be undertaken before attempting these
tests on a patient, as they are potentially harmful.

181
 OBJECTIVE EXAMINATION

Subjective findings that may suggest cervical instability

• Occipital numbness or paraesthesia
• Headaches
• Vertigo
• Tinnitus
• Visual disturbances

Petty & Moore (2001) describe the following upper

cervical stress tests:

• distraction test
• posterior stability test of the atlanto-occipital joint
• anterior stability test of the atlanto-occipital joint
• Sharp–Purser test
• anterior translation stress test of the atlas on the axis
• lateral stability stress test for the atlanto-axial joint
• lateral flexion stress test for the alar ligaments
• rotational stress test for the alar ligament.
The tests are considered positive if the patient reports
one or more of the following:

• loss of balance in relation to head movement

• unilateral pain along the length of the tongue
• paraesthesia in face or lip
• bilateral or quadrilateral limb paraesthesia
• nystagmus.

182
 OBJECTIVE EXAMINATION

POSITIVE EXTENSOR PLANTAR

RESPONSE
According to Gifford (2000) this test was first described
by Babinski in 1896.

KEY FACT: This test should be included in any spinal

examination irrespective of level of spine affected.

There is often confusion as to why this test should be

included in the examination of cervical and thoracic
lesions; however, as it is used as a tool to identify upper
motor neuron lesions and the spinal cord ends at L1, its
inclusion in the examination of cervical and thoracic
lesions would appear self-evident.
The plantar reflex is usually tested using a sharp
object such as the sharp end of a tendon hammer. The
sharp object is stroked from the heel, along the
lateral aspect of the foot to the base of the fifth
metatarsal progressing the sweep medially to the base
of the big toe.

• A normal response is flexion of the toes.

• An abnormal response is a slow extension of the
great toe with spreading of the adjacent toes
(Ombregt et al 2003).

In small reflex reactions it can be helpful to observe

the great toe. In some extreme cases an abnormal reac-
tion can be accompanied by hip and knee flexion. This

183
 OBJECTIVE EXAMINATION

abnormal response must not be confused with the

patient’s reaction due to foot sensitivity.
Hawkes (2002) warns that if an easily obtained
abnormal plantar response is elicited, multiple sclerosis
(MS) should be considered. However, he goes on to
suggest that the interpretation of the sign can be con-
troversial so clinicians need to take care. If a patient
reports unilateral symptoms but presents with a bilat-
eral abnormal plantar response, this can also indicate
MS. In these cases the patient will often complain of a
unilateral heavy or numb leg with a completely normal
other leg. The reason for this presentation is the pres-
ence of a number of plaques only some of which will
give rise to symptoms

DISTURBED GAIT
Generalized upper and lower extremity weakness with
associated gait disturbance could suggest myelopathy.
The initial presentation of myelopathy can include neck
pain, numb, cold or painful hands and a reduction in
fine finger movements followed by proprioceptive
changes and a subtle broad-based gait. The presence of
clonus on sustained dorsiflexion of the foot can also be
indicative of myelopathy (Frymoyer 1997).
Cervical myelopathy can occur as a consequence of
cervical spondylosis. Gait disturbance is often the issue
that raises concern. Classical neurological features
include lower motor lesions at the level of the lesion and
upper motor neuron lesions below. Early myelopathy
can masquerade as bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome,

184
 OBJECTIVE EXAMINATION

with patients complaining of paraesthesia and problems

with dexterity (Frymoyer 1997).

SUMMARY
As we have already stated earlier, all examinations of
the spinal column should consider the following:

• general physical appearance

• deformity
• deviation
• muscle spasm
• paravertebral mass
• pattern of neurological deficit
• cord compression.

With respect to specific spinal regions, Table 5.2 gives

other indicators of serious spinal pathology and their
possible interpretation.
The Red Flags are only given as a guide to help
the physiotherapist in the clinical decision-making
process. However, the skill of the practitioner with these
objective tests and their interpretation strengthens
with experience. No two clinical presentations are
exactly the same but clinical reasoning is based on infor-
mation collected from a number of different sources
in each individual patient presentation (Gifford &
Butler 1997). Further investigations may be necessary to
confirm or clarify the clinical picture, but must not
replace the clinical examination. Similarly investigation
findings must not be considered in isolation without

185
 TABLE 5.2 INDICATORS OF SERIOUS SPINAL PATHOLOGY AND THEIR
POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION (FRYMOYER 1997, OMBREGT ET AL 2003,
WIESEL ET AL 1996)
Patient position Test/Action/Movement/Sign Possible interpretation
Lumbar spine
Standing Persistent severe restriction of flexion Non-specific serious pathology
OBJECTIVE EXAMINATION

Side flexion away: only painful

movement

186
Marked articular signs and absent
dural signs
Gross limitation of both side flexions
Supine Sacroiliac joint Consider osteomyelitis,
Hip joint neoplasm of ilium or upper
Sign of the buttock femoral head, fractured sacrum
Supine Warm foot Non-specific serious pathology
 Thoracic spine
Standing T1 stretch Non-specific serious pathology
Standing Side flexion away: only painful Pulmonary or abdominal tumour
movement Non-specific serious pathology
Full articular pattern
Severe restriction of extension
Flexion with rigid thoracic segment

187
Standing A difference of less than 4.5 cm Ankylosing spondylitis
between full inspiration and full
expiration
Sitting Plantar reflex – positive plantar Upper motor neuron lesion
response
Supine/prone Dermatomal numbness Non-specific serious pathology

table continues
OBJECTIVE EXAMINATION
 TABLE 5.2 INDICATORS OF SERIOUS SPINAL PATHOLOGY AND THEIR
POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION (FRYMOYER 1997, OMBREGT ET AL 2003,
WIESEL ET AL 1996) — Cont’d
Patient position Test/Action/Movement/Sign Possible interpretation
Cervical spine
OBJECTIVE EXAMINATION

Standing Side flexion away from pain: only Possible fracture or metastases of
painful movement scapula, lesion in clavicle, ribs

188
or apex of lung
Resisted cervical movements – Consider vertebral metastases,
weakness fractured rib, spinous process of
C7 or T1, wedge fracture
vertebral body, glandular fever,
post-concussional syndrome,
retropharyngeal abscess
 OBJECTIVE EXAMINATION

the additional data from the subjective and objective

examination.

References
Bickels J, Kahanovitz N, Rubert C K et al 1999 Extraspinal
bone and soft-tissue tumours as a cause of sciatica.
Spine 24(15):1611–1616
Bigos S 1994 Acute low back pain in adults: Clinical
practice guideline, US Department of Health and
Human Services. Rockville, MD. AHCPR 95-0643
Cyriax J 1982 Textbook of orthopaedic medicine, 8th edn.
Baillière Tindall, Eastbourne
Frymoyer J W 1997 The adult spine: principles and practice,
2nd edn. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia
Gifford L 2000, Topical issues in pain 2. CNS Press,
Falmouth
Gifford L, Butler D S 1997 The integration of pain sciences
into clinical practice. Journal of Hand Therapy 10:86–95
Goodman C C, Fuller K S, Boissonnault W G 1998
Pathology implications for physical therapists, 2nd edn.
Saunders, Philadelphia
Grant R 1994 Physical therapy of the cervical and thoracic
spine. Churchill Livingstone, New York
Greenhalgh S, Selfe J 2003 Malignant myeloma of the spine.
Physiotherapy 89(8):486–488 (also available at http://
evolve.elsevier.com/Greenhalgh/redflags/)
Greenhalgh S, Selfe J 2004 Margaret: a tragic case of spinal
Red Flags and Red Herrings, Physiotherapy 90(2):73–76
(also available at http://evolve.elsevier.com/
Greenhalgh/redflags/)
Grieve G P 1981 Common vertebral joint problems.
Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh

189
 OBJECTIVE EXAMINATION

Hawkes C 2002 Smart handles and red flags in neurological

diagnosis. Hospital Medicine 63(12):732–742
Magarey M E, Rebbeck T, Coughlan B et al 2004 Pre-
manipulative testing of the cervical spine: review,
revision and new clinical guidelines. Manual Therapy
9:95–108
Meadows J 1992 Safety considerations in vertebral artery
testing. IFOMT 5th International Conference, Vail, CO
New Zealand Ministry of Health 2004 New Zealand Acute
Low Back Pain Guidelines. Online. Available http://
www.nzgg.org.nz 4 Apr 2005
Ombregt L, Bisschop P, ter Veer H J 2003 A system of
orthopaedic medicine, 2nd edn. Churchill Livingstone,
London
Petty N, Moore A P 2001 Neuromusculoskeletal
examination and assessment, 2nd edn. Churchill
Livingstone, Edinburgh
Refshauge K, Gass E 1995 Musculoskeletal physiotherapy.
Clinical science and practice. Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford
Wiesel S W, Weinstein J N, Herkowitz H et al 1996 The
lumbar spine, International Society for the Study of the
Lumbar Spine, 2nd edn. Saunders, Philadelphia

190
Chapter 6
Conclusion

CHAPTER CONTENTS
Hierarchical list of Red Flags 192
Red Flags not Red Herrings – the clinician’s
perspective 193
References 199

191
 CONCLUSION

HIERARCHICAL LIST OF RED FLAGS

(Note: This list is also available to download at
http://evolve.elsevier.com/Greenhalgh/redflags/)

• Age >50 years + history of cancer + unexplained

weight loss + failure to improve after 1 month of con-
servative therapy

• Age <10 or >51

• Medical history (current or past) of
• Cancer
• TB
• HIV/AIDS or injection drug abuse
• Osteoporosis
• Weight loss >10% body weight (3–6 months)
• Cauda equina syndrome
• Severe night pain
• Loss of sphincter tone and altered S4 sensation
• Positive extensor plantar response

• Age 11–19
• Weight loss 5–10% body weight (3–6 months)
• Constant progressive pain
• Abdominal pain and changed bowel habits but with
no change of medication
• Inability to lie supine
• Bizarre neurological deficit

192
 CONCLUSION

• Spasm
• Disturbed gait

• Weight loss <5% body weight (3–6 months)

• Smoking
• Systemically unwell
• Trauma
• Vertebrobasilar insufficiency
• Bilateral pins and needles in hands and/or feet
• Previous failed treatment
• Thoracic pain
• Headache
• Physical appearance
• Marked partial articular restriction of movement
• Vertebral artery testing
• Upper cervical instability tests

RED FLAGS NOT RED HERRINGS –

THE CLINICIAN’S PERSPECTIVE
One of the questions we have been asked while writing
this book is:
What do I do once I have found a number of Red Flags
and am suspicious that this patient has a serious spinal
pathology?
Although a plethora of guidelines exist in relation
to the management of low back pain, all literature
about suspected serious pathology advises the same
thing:

193
 CONCLUSION

• Refer for early specialist opinion.

The CSAG (1994) guidelines suggest:

Urgent referral for specialist investigation, generally to
an orthopaedic surgeon or rheumatologist; depending
on local availability.
The Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance (ARMA
2004) recommend:
People in whom serious disease is suspected should be
referred without delay to specialist services for investi-
gation and treatment in accordance with National
Guidelines, such as NICE referral protocols.
The Prodigy (2005) guidelines recommend:
Consider prompt investigation or specialist referral
(less than 4 weeks) for anyone with a red flag for pos-
sible spinal pathology.
The route to this early specialist opinion will be pecu-
liar to each medical subculture. The key to successfully
managing these serious cases is to have a robust, well-
established pathway in place to access, once these
patients present (Fig. 6.1). Whether the patient is iden-
tified in primary care, secondary care or the private
sector, the pathway needs to be understood; indeed, a
well-established pathway may already be in place. If
there is no developed route it is important that stake-
holders communicate and work together to develop a
fast, effective patient journey, enhancing optimum
outcome. This pathway is as important as a thorough

194
 CONCLUSION

Patient GP Physiotherapist

Investigations

Secondary care

Patient GP Physiotherapist

Secondary care Investigations Triage Service

Figure 6.1 Examples of referral pathways.

195
 CONCLUSION

subjective and objective assessment. Consideration of

how these serious cases will be managed can enhance
early detection and appropriate intervention, which can
have a huge impact on the patient’s medical manage-
ment and final outcome. Although these cases account
for only 1% of spinal cases, pattern recognition of that
clinical experience is profound and the memory will
often remain with the clinician for some time. Both the
patient and the clinician deserve the best support pos-
sible; consider how familiar you are with your local
pathway before you need to use it.
Investigations may include a combination of some of
the following:

• X-ray
• magnetic resonance scan
• computer tomography
• bone scan.
Although many readers of this pocket guide will not be
responsible for organizing complex investigations,
those who are should consider the following questions
before proceeding:

• Why do I order these tests?

• What am I going to look for in the result?
• If I find it, will it affect my diagnosis?
• How will this affect my management of the case?
• Will this ultimately benefit the patient? (Asher 1954)
Ordering unnecessary investigations not only wastes
valuable resources but can also cause unnecessary
anxiety and distress for patients and their families. If in

196
 CONCLUSION

doubt it is recommended that clinicians discuss indi-

vidual cases with a radiologist who will be able to
advise on the most appropriate test.
Sensitive, empathic communication is essential with
any patient. Remember good eye contact and body lan-
guage, use listening skills carefully (the patient gives
good clues to the condition in their general conversa-
tion). Reassure appropriately and do not create unnec-
essary anxiety. Be prepared for the question: ‘Do you
think that something is seriously wrong with me?’
Phrases such as: ‘I think that we need to look into
your problem a little further so that we can see more
clearly what is going on. We need to make absolutely
sure that you are given the best and most appropriate
treatment’ are particularly useful.
These phrases create much less anxiety than phrases
indicating a large element of doubt or phrases express-
ing alarm or inappropriate concern, such as: ‘I think
there may be something seriously wrong that is causing
your pain. I think we need to get you seen by a special-
ist as soon as possible.’
On the other hand, do not give unrealistic reassur-
ance – ‘I am 100% sure that there is nothing seriously
wrong with you’ – when there is some doubt in your
mind.
Do not be afraid to suggest: ‘You are obviously really
struggling, physiotherapy is not appropriate at this
stage but we do need to find out exactly what might be
causing it. I am going to . . .
Explain carefully to the patient the next step on your
particular pathway and give the patient and carer time

197
 CONCLUSION

to ask any questions. Do not guess or bluff, as this can

easily be picked up by the patient and confidence in the
clinician lost. However, be emotionally intelligent with
your answers.
Do not forget that the purpose of this book is to
enable the physiotherapist to identify patients who have
a high index of suspicion for serious spinal pathology
and then alert the appropriate authorities. It is not
encouraging clinicians to attempt to diagnose these
cases. In addition, it was never the intention of the
authors to cause the reader to over-focus on serious
spinal pathology, consequently putting most patients in
a ‘possible serious pathology’ box. It attempts to give
further tools to equip physiotherapists in their three-
dimensional thinking process and clinical reasoning.
Finally, to equip the physiotherapist in accordance
with the principles advocated by the NHS Modernisa-
tion Agency, we would suggest the following care
bundle. This is an evidence-based, simple list of key
steps to equip the physiotherapist to identify serious
pathology of the spine.

Care bundle
• Diagnostic triage
• Biopsychosocial approach
• Red Flags
• Red Herrings
• Patient referral pathway for serious pathology

198
 CONCLUSION

References
ARMA 2004 Standards of care for people with low back
pain. Online. Available: www.arma.uk.net
Asher R 1954 Straight and crooked thinking. BMJ
September: 460–462
CSAG 1994 Report of a Clinical Standards Advisory Group
on Back Pain. HMSO, London
Prodigy 2005 Low back pain. Online. Available: www.
prodigy.nhs.uk/guidance

199
 Index

Please note that page references to any non-textual information

in boxes are in italic print

Abdominal lymphoma, 101 Ancient Greece,

Abdominal pain, 137–138 rehabilitation in, 7
Africa, AIDS-related deaths, Antibiotics, tuberculosis, 39
40 Appearance
Age mass, 174
above 55, as Red Flag, 93 spinal deformity, 174
breast cancer, 95 unwell, looking, 172–173
cancer type and age Arthritis and
group, 93–94 Musculoskeletal
index of suspicion, 96 Alliance (ARMA), 194
lung cancer, 94, 95 Australian Physiotherapy
myeloma, 94, 95 Association, 133
prostate cancer, 94
subjective examination, Babinkski, Joseph François
91–96 Felix, 183
Agency for Health Care Back pain, 17–18
Policy and Research activity, related to, 92
(AHCPR) 1994 cancer, 92, 97, 99
clinical guidelines, 19–20 Linton and Halden Initial
AIDS see HIV/AIDS Back Pain
American Cancer Society, 26 Questionnaire, 56
Analgesia, 136, 138 low, 20, 97, 99

201
 INDEX

mechanical, non-specific Breast cancer, 30–31

diagnosis, 92 age, 94, 95
Back Pain Revolution BRCA2 mutation, 100
(G Waddle), 52 female gender, as risk
Basal metabolic rate, factor, 99–100
increase, 118 hypercalcaemia, 137–138
Bayes’ theorem, clinical metastatic disease, 77, 99
reasoning, 64, 66 and smoking, 66
Bayes, Thomas, 64 British Association for
Bence Jones proteins, 126 Parenteral and Enteral
Bias, clinical reasoning, 70–71 Nutrition, 118
Bichat, Marie François Brucellosis, Red Flag list,
Xavier, 27 35–36
Bickels, J, 136, 174 Butler, D S, 2, 51
Biopsychosocial models
health, 71 Cachexia (weight loss),
illness, and pain cancer, 68–69, 118, 119
presentation, 52–53, Cancer
55–56 and age see under Age
Black Flags, occupational asymptomatic, early
factors, 52 detection, 30
Blue Flags, social and and back pain, 92, 97, 99
economic factors, 52 bone, 101
Boissonnault, W G, 22, 23, breast see Breast cancer
117 carcinogens, 26–27, 109
Bone cancer, 101 caudal/cephalad site, 31
Bone mass, post-menopausal definition, 27
loss, 106 early stages, patient
Bone tumours, 31 behaviour, 75–76
Bowel habits, altered, electrolyte imbalance, 102
137–138 family history, 96–97
absence of medication, historical evidence, 26
138 Hodgkin’s disease, 100,
Bowel/bladder disturbances, 101
178, 179 intraspinal tumours, 91,
Brain tumour, and headache, 98
21, 22, 141–142 leukaemia, 68, 125

202
 INDEX

life expectancy, 27 CD4+ T cells, HIV/AIDS, 40,

lung see Lung cancer 103
lymphoma, 100, 101 Cephalad vertebral
medical history, 68, segments,
96–102 neurological deficit,
myeloma see Myeloma 177
non-Hodgkin’s Cervical spondylosis
lymphoma, 100, 101 cervical myelopathy, 184
presenting factors, neurological deficit, 178
combination, 68 Chalmers, A F, 64–65
previous, history-taking, Chartered Society of
68 Physiotherapy (CSP)
prostate, 94 establishment, 8
Red Flag list, 26–33, 28, extended scope
29, 30 practitioners (ESPs),
risk factors, 28 establishment of
scrotum, 27 clinical interest group,
spread of see Metastases 6
stages of development, 29 Clinical decision making,
timescale of type, 33 index of suspicion, 3
warning signs, 97 Clinical guidelines, 14–20
weight loss, 68–69, 118, Agency for Health Care
119 Policy and Research
see also Tumours (AHCPR) 1994, 19–
Carcinogens, 26–27, 109 20
Cardiovascular system, signs Clinical Standards
and symptoms, 22 Advisory Group
Carpal tunnel syndrome, (CSAG) 1994 report,
bilateral, 184–185 16–18
Cauda equina syndrome European Union, 20
current episode New Zealand Acute Low
questions, 122–125 Back Pain Guide,
incontinence, 123 20
sacral nerve roots, injury, Royal College of General
122–123 Practitioners, 20
saddle disturbance, 179 Quebec Task Force Report
symptoms, 122 1987, 14–16, 20

203
 INDEX

Clinical reasoning, 49–87 Clinical Standards Advisory

as analytic process, 2 Group (CSAG)
Bayes’ theorem, 64, 66 and AHCPR guidelines,
bias, 70–71 19
categories, 60–61, 72, 73 clinical guidelines, 16–18,
definition, 58 194
diagnostic reasoning biopsychosocial
model, 61–62, 66–67 approach, 55–56
positive paradigm, 71 on diagnostic triage, 17
theorem use, 66 drug addiction, Red Flag
error, 70 list, 34
ethical, 61, 72, 73 and Red Herrings, 20–21
health behaviour, 73–77 Coman, W, 131
history-taking, 67–68 Communication skills, 197
horse/zebra illustration, Conditional probabilities, 3,
63–64, 65 66, 68
hypothetico-deductive Conner, M, 74
reasoning model, 61, Crouch, M, 76
62 CSAG see Clinical Standards
metacognition, 60 Advisory Group
narrative categories, 60 (CSAG)
non-verbal cues, 61–62 CSP see Chartered Society of
osteoporosis, 69 Physiotherapy (CSP)
pain and psychosocial Current episode questions
flags, 51–57 cauda equina syndrome,
pattern recognition, 61 122–125
positivist paradigm, 61 pins and needles,
pragmatic, 61, 72, 73 bilateral, 133
scientific categories, 60 previous failed treatment,
spinal infection, 70 133–135
thought processes, systemic illness, 125–127
clinician’s reflections trauma, 127–130, 128,
on own, 58, 60 129
three-dimensional vertebrobasilar
thinking, 58, 59 insufficiency (VBI),
weighted Red Flag list, 131–133
80, 81–82 weight loss, 117–121

204
 INDEX

Cyriax, James Edwin Smith papyrus, 26

on pathology, Electrolyte imbalance, 102
development of physical examination, 173
indicators, 8–9 Erythrocyte sedimentation
on physical examination, rate (ESR), 126–127,
173 128
on physiotherapy, 7 ESPs see Extended scope
Red Flags of, 10 practitioners (ESPs)
on tuberculosis, 38–39, Ethical reasoning, 61, 72, 73
103 Extended scope practitioners
(ESPs)
Danger signs, hierarchy, 80 clinical interest group,
Deyo, R A establishment by CSP,
on cancer, 68–69, 75 6
on history-taking, 67–68 role, 6–7
on subjective
examination, 90, 98 Family history, cancer, 96–97
on tuberculosis, 103 Female gender, as cancer risk
Diagnostic reasoning model, factor, 99–100
61–62, 66–67 Finland, breast cancer, 95
positive paradigm, 71 Frymoyer, J W, 68, 174, 175
theorem use, 66
Diagnostic tests, as funding Gait, disturbed, 184–185
priority, 67 Gifford, L, 2, 51, 183
Dillin, W H, 92, 93 Goodman, C C, 178
Distraction test, cervical Grieve, GP
instability, 182 on brucellosis, 36
Dizziness, vertebrobasilar on cancer, 31, 32–33
insufficiency, 131 on cauda equina
Downing, A M, 70 syndrome, 124
Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan, 63 on neurological deficit,
Drug addiction, Red Flag list, 177
34 on pain diagnosis, 52
Durie, B G M, 66 on pathology, 2, 23
on Red Herrings and
Edeling, J, 140 masquerades, 20–21,
Edwards, I, 61, 71 22

205
 INDEX

on thoracic dysfunction, Hypercalcaemia

21 breast/lung cancer,
137–138
Hack, L M, 71 physical examination, 173
Hawkes, C, 184 systemic illness, 126
Head, Henry, 175 Hypogammaglobulinaemia,
Headache, 139–142 systemic illness, 126
and brain tumour, 21, 22, Hypothetico-deductive
141–142 reasoning model, 61,
Health behaviour, clinical 62
reasoning, 73–77, 74
Health beliefs, 75 IASP (International
Hip fractures, osteoporosis, Association for the
106 Study of Pain), 50–51
Hippocrates, 7, 26 Illness, biopsychosocial
History-taking see Medical model, 52–53, 55–56
history Immunoglobulin, and
HIV/AIDS multiple myeloma,
in Africa, 40 100
CD4+ T cells, 40, 103 Incontinence, cauda equina
diagnosis, 40–41, 104–105 syndrome, 123
drug use, injections, Index of suspicion
105–106 age, 96
medical history, 103–105 clinical decision making,
Red Flag list, 40–42 3
transmission, 104 lung cancer, 94
tuberculosis, 38, 39, myeloma, 94
41–42 neurological deficit,
in United States, 40 176–177
Hodgkin’s disease, 100, 101 Red Flag items, 2–3
Horse/zebra illustration, weight loss, 120
clinical reasoning, Infections
63–64, 65 brucellosis, 35–36
Human immunodeficiency fever, 70
virus see HIV/AIDS HIV/AIDS see HIV/AIDS
Hunter, D G, 70 pyogenic, 34–35
Hurley, D A, 56 spinal, 70

206
 INDEX

Staphylococcus, 35 Linton and Halden Initial

tuberculosis see Back Pain
Tuberculosis (TB) Questionnaire, 56
International Association for Luk, K D K, 35
the Study of Pain Lung cancer
(IASP), 50–51 age, 94, 95
International Myeloma deaths from, 29
Foundation, 65, 66 hypercalcaemia, 137–138
Intraspinal tumours, 91 index of suspicion, 94
Investigations, examples, 196 smoking, 108–109
Ipsilateral Horner’s Lupus erythematosus,
syndrome, whiplash, malignant lymphoma
130 masquerading as, 101
Ischaemia, and Lymphadenopathy, in non-
vertebrobasilar Hodgkin’s disease,
insufficiency, 131 101
Lymphoma, 100, 101
Jarvik, J G, 75, 98
Jones, M A, 58, 60, 61, 62, Macfarlane, R, 124
63–64, 65 McKenzie, Robin A, 11, 67,
91, 134, 135
Kaposi’s sarcoma, and AIDS, McMillan Report, on
105 physiotherapy
King, H, 92 profession (1973), 8
Koch, Robert, 37 Magarey, M E, 131, 180
Maitland, Geoffrey, 11, 12
Leong, J C Y, 35 Malignant disease see Cancer;
Leukaemia, 68 Tumours
as systemic illness, 125 Malnutrition, and cachexia
Leventhal, E, 76 (weight loss), 69, 119
Lhermitte’s sign, and Malnutrition and Universal
multiple sclerosis, 177, Screening Tool
178 (MUST), weight loss,
Life expectancy, cancer, 27 119–120
Lifestyle questions, 108–110 Maltzman, J D, 102
Likelihood ratios, calculation, Massage scandal, London
66–67 (1894), 7–8

207
 INDEX

May, S, 67, 134 Multiple sclerosis, 184

Mechanical disc disorders, Lhermitte’s sign, 177,
thoracic pain, 137 178
Mechanical dysfunction, Murphy, E A, 70
night pain, 139 Mycobacterium tuberculosis,
Medical history 37, 38
cancer, 96–102 Myeloma
previous, 68 age, 94, 95
clinical reasoning, 67–68 index of suspicion, 94
current episode multiple, incidence of,
questions, 117–135 100
HIV/AIDS, 103–105 neutropenia, 126
drug use, 105–106 physical examination, 173
oesophageal candidiasis, predisposing factors, 65,
105 66
osteoporosis, 106, 107 systemic illness, 125–126
subjective markers, weight loss, 69
67–68 Myelopathy
tuberculosis, 102–103 carpal tunnel syndrome,
Mennell, James, 8 184–185
Red Flags of, 10 cervical spondylosis, 184
Science and Art of Joint
Manipulation, 9 Narrative reasoning, 71, 72
Metacognition, 60 Neck pain, whiplash, 130
Metastases Neoplastic disease see Cancer
breast cancer, 77, 99 Neurological deficit
and cure, unlikelihood of, bizarre, 175–178
75 cephalad vertebral
spine, 31, 32 segments, 177
spread mechanisms, 30, cervical spondylosis, 178
32 gross multiple, 175–176
thoracic pain, 137 index of suspicion,
Migraine, 140 176–177
Moore, A P, 182 tumours, spinal cord, 178
Movement, marked partial Neutropenia, myeloma, 126
articular restriction, New Zealand Acute Low
178 Back Pain Guide, 20

208
 INDEX

NHS Modernisation Agency, see also Subjective

principles advocated examination
by, 198 Ockham, William of, 63
Night pain, 138–139 Oesophageal candidiasis,
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, medical history, 105
100, 101 Ombregt, L, 179
Non-steroidal anti- Opioids, 138
inflammatories, 136 Orange Flags, psychiatric
Norman, P, 74 factors, 52
Numbness, cauda equina Osteoblastoma, spinal
syndrome, 122 deformity, 174
Nutrition Risk Score, weight Osteoid osteoma, spinal
loss, 119 deformity, 174
Osteomyelitis, spinal regions
Objective examination affected by, 34
gait, disturbed, 184–185 Osteoporosis
movement, marked clinical reasoning, 69
partial articular medical history, 106, 107
restriction, 178 presenting factors,
neurological deficit, combination, 69
bizarre, 175–178
physical appearance see Paget, Rosalind, 8
Appearance Pain
positive extensor plantar abdominal, 137–138
response, 183–184 back see Back pain
S4 sensation, altered, changed bowel habits,
178–179 137–138
spasm, 179 constant progressive,
sphincter tone, loss of, 135–136
178–179 definition, 50–51
supine position, inability dimensions, interacting,
to maintain, 174–175 51
upper cervical instability headache, 139–141
tests, 181–182 mnemonic for physicians,
vertebral artery testing, 56
179–181 neck, 130
warning signs, 12–13 night, 138–139

209
 INDEX

presentation of, and Posterior stability test,

biopsychosocial model cervical instability,
of illness, 52–53, 55–56 182
and psychosocial flags, Pragmatic reasoning, 61, 72,
51–57 73
thoracic see Thoracic pain Pre-manipulative protocols,
urogenital systems, pain vertebral artery
referral, 22, 23, 24 testing, 179, 180–181
Palmer, Daniel David, 7 Previous failed treatment,
Pancoast, Henry, 101 current episode
Pancoast tumours, 101–102 questions, 133–135
Passive smoking, lung cancer Primary care, patient
deaths, 109 management, 6
Pathology, early Prostate cancer, 94
development of Pyogenic infections, Red Flag
indicators, 8–14 list, 34–35
Patient–clinician
consultation, extract, Quebec Task Force
143–165 clinical guidelines (1987
Petty, N, 182 Report), 14–16
Physiotherapy profession diagnostic categories,
challenges for, 3–4 spinal disorders,
historical perspective, 7–8 14–16, 15, 57
McMillan Report (1973), 8 on whiplash, 127, 128,
medical profession, 129, 130
reliance on, 11–12
physiotherapists, increase Red Flag list (pathologies)
in number (EU), 6 brucellosis, 35–36
professional autonomy, 8 cancer, 26–33, 28, 29, 30
Pins and needles, bilateral, drug addiction, 34
133 hierarchical, 192
Plantar reflex, testing, 183 HIV/AIDS, 40–42
Plantar response, positive pyogenic infections,
extensor, 183–184 34–35
Pneumonia, 102, 126 tuberculosis (TB), 36–39,
Positivist paradigm, clinical 37
reasoning, 61 weighted, 80, 81–82

210
 INDEX

Red Flags Rome, rehabilitation in, 7

age above 55 as, 93 Rothman, R H, 99
benign conditions, 43 Round, A, 66
current teaching, Royal College of General
orthopaedic medicine, Practitioners, 20
12–13
defined, 18 S4 sensation, altered, 178–179
government initiatives, Sacral nerve roots injury
14 cauda equina syndrome,
index of suspicion, 2–3 122–123
see also Index of Saddle area, sensations,
suspicion 178–179
and Red Herrings, Schell, B B, 60, 71, 72
193–198, 195 Sciatica, and tumours, 136,
sensitivity and specificity, 174
43–44 Science and Art of Joint
weight loss, 118 Manipulation
see also Black Flags; Blue ( J Mennell), 9
Flags; Orange Flags; Scientific reasoning, 72
Red Flag list Scoliosis, spinal deformity,
(pathologies); Yellow 174
Flags Scott, I, 70
Red Herrings, 20–25 Scrotum, cancer of, 27
concept, 3 Self-diagnosis, 76, 77
and Red Flags, 193–198, Selfe, J, 55
195 Sharp-Purser test, cervical
and self-diagnosis, 77 instability, 182
Referral pathways, examples, Simeone, F A, 99
195 Skin warmth, and tumours,
Rehabilitation, historical 174
perspective of SLR (straight leg raise) test,
physiotherapy, 7 175
Research priorities, 90 Smoking
Rivett, D A, 58, 61, 62, 65 lifestyle questions,
Roberts, L, 53, 79 108–110
Roberts, P, 8 spine, effects on, 110
Robinson, Lucy, 8 Soot, as carcinogen, 26–27

211
 INDEX

Spasm, objective Supine position, inability to

examination, 179 maintain, 174–175
Sphincter tone, loss of, Systemic illness, current
178–179 episode questions,
cauda equina syndrome, 125–127
122
Spinal disorders diagnostic Thoracic pain, 136–137
categories (Quebec causes, 21
Task Force), 14–16, 15, Thoracolumbar region, pain
57 in, 103
Spinal infection, clinical Three-dimensional thinking,
reasoning, 70 3, 58, 116
Spine models, 59
deformity, 174–175 Tobacco, as carcinogen, 109
metastases in, 31, 32 Toe, small reflex reactions,
smoking, effects on, 110 183–184
Staphylococcus, 35 Toxoplasmosis, and AIDS,
Sterling, M, 130 105
Steroids, systemic, 69 Trauma, 127–130, 128, 129
Straight leg raise (SLR) test, Triage, diagnostic
175 back pain, 17–18
Subjective examination, Clinical Standards
89–169 Advisory Group
age, 91–96 guidelines, 17
current episode Tuberculosis (TB)
questions, 117–135 anterior granuloma, 39
lifestyle questions, antibiotics, 39
108–110 BCG vaccination, 38
medical history see declining death rate, 37
Medical history fever (tuberculosis
pain questions, osteomyelitis), 70
135–141 HIV/AIDS, 38, 39,
patient–clinician 41–42
consultation, extract, Mycobacterium, 37, 38
143–165 Neolithic age, 36
see also Objective paradiscal lesions, 39
examination Red Flag list, 36–39, 37

212
 INDEX

symptoms, 102–103 Vertebral artery

thoracic pain, 137 anatomy, 131
thoracolumbar region, pre-manipulative
pain in, 103 protocols, 179,
Tumours 180–181
back pain, 92 testing, 179–181
benign and malignant, Vertebral bodies, metastases
26 in, 31
bone, 31 Vertebral fractures,
brain, 21, 22 osteoporosis, 106
in dinosaurs, 26 Vertebrobasilar insufficiency
in Egyptian mummies, (VBI), 131–133
26 5D’s + 1, 132
intraspinal, 91, 98 symptoms, 132
Pancoast, 101–102
pelvic, 32 WAD (whiplash-associated
primary, 31 disorder) see
and sciatica, 136, 174 Whiplash-associated
skin warmth, 174 disorder (WAD)
spinal, 98, 178 Waddell, Gordon, 52, 53, 55,
see also Cancer 56
Wardle, F M, 68
United States Warning signs, 12–13
Agency for Health Care articular/non-articular, 13
Policy and Research cancer, 97
(AHCPR), 19–20 Watkins, R G, 92, 93
AIDS-related deaths, 40 Weight loss
University of Alabama cancer, 68–69
(UAB), pain behaviour current episode
scale, 53–55 questions, 117–121
Upper cervical instability guide, 121
tests, 181–182 index of suspicion, 120
Urogenital systems, pain Malnutrition and
referral, 22, 23, 24 Universal Screening
Tool (MUST), 119–120
VBI see Vertebrobasilar Nutrition Risk Score,
insufficiency (VBI) 119

213
 INDEX

physical examination, International

173 Classification of
as Red Flag, 118 Functioning, Disability
systemic illness, 126 and Health, 51, 71
Whiplash-associated disorder Wiesel, S W, 76–77, 175
(WAD), 127, 128 Wilson, A, 77
clinical classification, 130
upper cervical instability Yellow Flags, emotional and
tests, 181, 182 behavioural factors,
VBI, 132 52, 53, 134
WHO (World Health
Organization) Zambia, AIDS-related deaths,
on cancer, 27 40

214