Those who reported recovery had a mean BPPT elbow extension angle of 25.1 ± 15.8 while those who did not report recovery had a mean BPPT elbow extension angle of 58.4 ± 15.9. The VAS score was 1.8 ± 1.1 for recovered subjects and 2.7 ± 1.1 for non-recovered. There was a moderate correlation (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient) between self-reported recovery and BPPT elbow extension angle (−0.44) and a lower correlation between self-reported recovery and VAS score (−0.30). This study shows that self-reported recovery correlates well with the physical examination findings of the BPPT. Both could be used interchangeably to assess recovery, or the inclusion of the BPPT

may give this website the practitioner additional information on which to make treatment decisions. Clearly the use of a self-report recovery question alone is simpler for the busy clinician. The problem with the BPPT is that there is as yet no normative database in the

healthy population for this test. At best, we have limited samples of control groups with which to compare.2 All one may find is that groups differ in terms of the BPPT results, i.e., recovered subjects have different results than non-recovered subjects. The BPPT results from this study agree in some aspects with other cohorts.2 The recovered group of this study and that reported by Sterling et al.2 have similar BPPT results. The non-recovered subjects of the current study have significantly more abnormal BPPT results than reported for non-recovered subjects Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Library datasheet studied by Sterling et al.2 but small sample sizes, and the different time points of assessment (3 months in this study vs. 6 months with Sterling et al.2) do not allow for reliable, direct comparisons of these data. If central sensitization is an important mechanism in chronic pain after whiplash injury, it is important to understand its correlation to self-reported recovery. Given the constraints of primary practice, practitioners can most

easily assess recovery by asking a single question: “Do you feel you have recovered fully from your accident injuries?” with responses of “yes”, “no”, or “not sure”. Those Suplatast tosilate who report self-recovery will have essentially a “more normal” BPPT test, and might not be labelled as having central sensitization by this test. On the other hand, those who do not report recovery will have significantly higher BPPT angles and VAS scores. Perhaps, if central sensitization persists in those reporting non-recovery, then treatment directed at central sensitization may be important to assist recovery; although, the best way to treat central sensitization is unknown, and even whether we should treat it is unclear. This study is limited by the fact that there were no other physical examination findings, such as spine range of motion taken into consideration. Yet, spine range of motion at a single assessment may not be relevant if previous range is unknown.