Skip to content

Generalised versus targeted physiotherapy in childhood hypermobility

A randomised comparative trial of generalised versus targeted physiotherapy in the management of childhood hypermobility

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ISRCTN
Registry ID
ISRCTN58523390
Enrollment
108
Registered
2009-10-02
Start date
2004-06-01
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2015-01-13

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Symptomatic hypermobility Musculoskeletal Diseases Other systemic involvement of connective tissue

Interventions

Each child received six, sequential, weekly appointments for individual half-an-hour physiotherapy treatments, in which the allocated intervention was administered. Patients were randomised to a Gener

Sponsors

Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust (UK)
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Children aged 7 to 16 years, either sex 2. Treated at the Department of Rheumatology, Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK between June 2004 and May 2007 3. Identified as having symptomatic hypermobility* 4. Symptomatic patients had arthralgia for three preceding months or more *Children were hypermobile if they met Revised Criteria for benign joint hypermobility syndrome (BJHS). In brief, they had to fulfil either two major criteria, one major and two minor criteria, four minor criteria, or two minor criteria and a first degree relative with hypermobility. Major criteria were: 1. Beighton score of greater than 4 2. Arthralgia in greater than 4 joints Minor criteria included: 1. Beighton score less than 4 2. Arthralgia in less than 4 joints 3. Mechanical back pain for greater than 3 months 4. Hypermobility in first degree relative Beighton score assesses hypermobility of the following: placing hands flat on floor without bending knees, hyperextension of knees and elbows greater than 100, little finger metacarpalphalangeal hyperextension to greater than 900, bending thumb to forearm.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Patients were excluded if they refused consent.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Improvement in the child's pain assessment score. Younger children used a faces scale ranging from 1 to 5 while older children (age greater than 11 years) used a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Participants were asked to indicate on the linear 100 mm scale their pain level in the past week. Change in pain-VAS was used to assess the impact of therapy on symptoms. Measured at baseline (pre-treatment), midpoint (following 6-week intervention) and follow up (3 months after midpoint).

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
1. Parent's assessment of their child's pain: parental-VAS 2. Parent's global evaluation of the impact of their child's hypermobility in the previous week: global-VAS 3. Functional impairment measured using the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ) 4. Six-minute shuttle test (measured at baseline and midpoint only) Measured at baseline (pre-treatment), midpoint (following 6 week intervention) and follow up (3 months after midpoint).

Countries

United Kingdom

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ISRCTN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Apr 1, 2026