Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low-back pain

Are manual therapies, passive physical modalities, or acupuncture effective for the management of patients with whiplash-associated disorders or neck pain and associated disorders? An update of the Bone and Joint Decade Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders by the OPTIMa collaboration

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

In 2008, the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) found limited evidence on the effectiveness of manual therapies, passive physical modalities, or acupuncture for the management of whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) or neck pain and associated disorders (NAD).

PURPOSE

This review aimed to update the findings of the Neck Pain Task Force, which examined the effectiveness of manual therapies, passive physical modalities, and acupuncture for the management of WAD or NAD.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This is a systematic review and best evidence synthesis.

SAMPLE

The sample includes randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies comparing manual therapies, passive physical modalities, or acupuncture with other interventions, placebo or sham, or no intervention.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcome measures were self-rated or functional recovery, pain intensity, health-related quality of life, psychological outcomes, or adverse events.

METHODS

We systematically searched five databases from 2000 to 2014. Random pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Studies with a low risk of bias were stratified by the intervention's stage of development (exploratory vs. evaluation) and synthesized following best evidence synthesis principles. Funding was provided by the Ministry of Finance.

RESULTS

We screened 8,551 citations, and 38 studies were relevant and 22 had a low risk of bias. Evidence from seven exploratory studies suggests that (1) for recent but not persistent NAD grades I-II, thoracic manipulation offers short-term benefits; (2) for persistent NAD grades I-II, technical parameters of cervical mobilization (eg, direction or site of manual contact) do not impact outcomes, whereas one session of cervical manipulation is similar to Kinesio Taping; and (3) for NAD grades I-II, strain-counterstrain treatment is no better than placebo. Evidence from 15 evaluation studies suggests that (1) for recent NAD grades I-II, cervical and thoracic manipulation provides no additional benefit to high-dose supervised exercises, and Swedish or clinical massage adds benefit to self-care advice; (2) for persistent NAD grades I-II, home-based cupping massage has similar outcomes to home-based muscle relaxation, low-level laser therapy (LLLT) does not offer benefits, Western acupuncture provides similar outcomes to non-penetrating placebo electroacupuncture, and needle acupuncture provides similar outcomes to sham-penetrating acupuncture; (3) for WAD grades I-II, needle electroacupuncture offers similar outcomes as simulated electroacupuncture; and (4) for recent NAD grades III, a semi-rigid cervical collar with rest and graded strengthening exercises lead to similar outcomes, and LLLT does not offer benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review adds new evidence to the Neck Pain Task Force and suggests that mobilization, manipulation, and clinical massage are effective interventions for the management of neck pain. It also suggests that electroacupuncture, strain-counterstrain, relaxation massage, and some passive physical modalities (heat, cold, diathermy, hydrotherapy, and ultrasound) are not effective and should not be used to manage neck pain.

Severity of back pain may influence choice and order of practitioner consultations across conventional, allied and complementary health care: a cross-sectional study of 1851 mid-age Australian women

BACKGROUND

Back pain is a common, disabling and costly disorder for which patients often consult with a wide range of health practitioners. Unfortunately, no research to date has directly examined the association between the severity of back pain and back pain sufferers' choice of whom and in what order to consult different health practitioners.

METHODS

This is a sub-study of the large nationally representative Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH). The mid-age cohort women (born 1946-51, n = 13,715) of the ALSWH were recruited from the Australian national Medicare database in 1996. These women have been surveyed six time, with survey 6 being conducted in 2010 (n = 10,011). Mid-age women (n = 1851) who in 2010 had sought help from a health care practitioner for their back pain were mailed a self-report questionnaire targeting their previous 12 months of health services utilisation, health status and their levels of back pain intensity.

RESULTS

A total of 1620 women were deemed eligible and 1310 (80.9 %) returned completed questionnaires. Mid-age women with back pain visited various conventional, allied health and CAM practitioners for care: 75.6 % consulted a CAM practitioner; 58.4 % consulted a medical doctor; and 54.2 % consulted an allied health practitioner. Women with the most severe back pain sought conventional care from a general practitioner, and those who consulted a general practitioner first had more severe back pain than those who consulted another practitioner first. Following the general practitioner visit, the women with more severe back pain were more likely to be referred to a conventional specialist, and those with less severe back pain were more likely to be referred to a physiotherapist.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that women with more severe back pain are likely to visit a conventional practitioner first, whereas women with less severe back pain are likely to explore a range of treatment options including CAM practitioners. The improvement of back pain over time following the various possible sequencing of consultations with different types of health practitioners is a topic with implications for ensuring safe and effective back pain care and worthy of further detailed investigation.

Spinal Manipulation Vs Sham Manipulation for Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to identify and critically evaluate randomized controlled trials of spinal manipulation (SM) vs sham manipulation in the treatment of nonspecific low back pain.

METHODS

Four electronic databases were searched from their inception to March 2015 to identify all relevant trials. Reference lists of retrieved articles were hand-searched. All data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers, and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Back Review Group Risk of Bias tool.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic review, and 4 were found to be eligible for inclusion in a meta-analysis. Participants in the SM group had improved symptoms compared with participants receiving sham treatment (standardized mean difference = - 0.36; 95% confidence interval, - 0.59 to - 0.12). The majority of studies were of low risk of bias; however, several of the studies were small, the practitioner could not be blinded, and some studies did not conduct intention-to-treat analysis and had a high level of dropouts.

CONCLUSION

There is some evidence that SM has specific treatment effects and is more effective at reducing nonspecific low back pain when compared with an effective sham intervention. However, given the small number of studies included in this analysis, we should be cautious of making strong inferences based on these results.

Effectiveness and Economic Evaluation of Chiropractic Care for the Treatment of Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review of Pragmatic Studies

Background Context

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide and among the most common reasons for seeking primary sector care. Chiropractors, physical therapists and general practitioners are among those providers that treat LBP patients, but there is only limited evidence regarding the effectiveness and economic evaluation of care offered by these provider groups.

Purpose

To estimate the clinical effectiveness and to systematically review the literature of full economic evaluation of chiropractic care compared to other commonly used care approaches among adult patients with non-specific LBP.

Study Design

Systematic reviews of interventions and economic evaluations.

Methods

A comprehensive search strategy was conducted to identify 1) pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and/or 2) full economic evaluations of chiropractic care for low back pain compared to standard care delivered by other healthcare providers. Studies published between 1990 and 4^th June 2015 were considered. Primary outcomes included pain, functional status and global improvement. Study selection, critical quality appraisal and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. Data from RCTs with low risk of bias were included in a meta-analysis to determine effect estimates. Cost estimates of full economic evaluations were converted to 2015 USD and results summarized using Slavin’s qualitative best-evidence synthesis.

Results

Six RCTs and three full economic evaluations were scientifically admissible. Five RCTs with low risk of bias compared chiropractic care to exercise therapy (n = 1), physical therapy (n = 3) and medical care (n = 1). Overall, we found similar effects for chiropractic care and the other types of care and no reports of serious adverse events. Three low to high quality full economic evaluations studies (one cost-effectiveness, one cost-minimization and one cost-benefit) compared chiropractic to medical care. Given the divergent conclusions (favours chiropractic, favours medical care, equivalent options), mixed-evidence was found for economic evaluations of chiropractic care compared to medical care.

Conclusion

Moderate evidence suggests that chiropractic care for LBP appears to be equally effective as physical therapy. Limited evidence suggests the same conclusion when chiropractic care is compared to exercise therapy and medical care although no firm conclusion can be reached at this time. No serious adverse events were reported for any type of care. Our review was also unable to clarify whether chiropractic or medical care is more cost-effective. Given the limited available evidence, the decision to seek or to refer patients for chiropractic care should be based on patient preference and values. Future studies are likely to have an important impact on our estimates as these were based on only a few admissible studies.

Using existing questionnaires in latent class analysis: should we use summary scores or single items as input? A methodological study using a cohort of patients with low back pain

Background

Latent class analysis (LCA) is increasingly being used in health research, but optimal approaches to handling complex clinical data are unclear. One issue is that commonly used questionnaires are multidimensional, but expressed as summary scores. Using the example of low back pain (LBP), the aim of this study was to explore and descriptively compare the application of LCA when using questionnaire summary scores and when using single items to subgrouping of patients based on multidimensional data.

Materials and methods

Baseline data from 928 LBP patients in an observational study were classified into four health domains (psychology, pain, activity, and participation) using the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health framework. LCA was performed within each health domain using the strategies of summary-score and single-item analyses. The resulting subgroups were descriptively compared using statistical measures and clinical interpretability.

Results

For each health domain, the preferred model solution ranged from five to seven subgroups for the summary-score strategy and seven to eight subgroups for the single-item strategy. There was considerable overlap between the results of the two strategies, indicating that they were reflecting the same underlying data structure. However, in three of the four health domains, the single-item strategy resulted in a more nuanced description, in terms of more subgroups and more distinct clinical characteristics.

Conclusion

In these data, application of both the summary-score strategy and the single-item strategy in the LCA subgrouping resulted in clinically interpretable subgroups, but the single-item strategy generally revealed more distinguishing characteristics. These results 1) warrant further analyses in other data sets to determine the consistency of this finding, and 2) warrant investigation in longitudinal data to test whether the finer detail provided by the single-item strategy results in improved prediction of outcomes and treatment response.

Motor control exercise for acute non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND

Motor control exercise (MCE) is used by healthcare professionals worldwide as a common treatment for low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of this intervention for acute LBP remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), four other databases and two trial registers from their inception to April 2015, tracked citations and searched reference lists. We placed no limitations on language nor on publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP. We considered trials comparing MCE versus no treatment, versus another type of treatment or added as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were function, quality of life and recurrence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened for potentially eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. A third independent review author resolved disagreements. We examined MCE in the following comparisons: (1) MCE versus spinal manipulative therapy; (2) MCE versus other exercises; and (3) MCE as a supplement to medical management. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of evidence. For missing or unclear information, we contacted study authors. We considered the following follow-up intervals: short term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate term (at least three months but within 12 months after randomisation); and long term (12 months or longer after randomisation).

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials in this review (n = 197 participants). Study sample sizes ranged from 33 to 123 participants. Low-quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy for pain at short term and for disability at short term and long term. Low-quality evidence also suggests no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for pain at short or intermediate term and for disability at intermediate term or long term follow-up. Moderate-quality evidence shows no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for disability at short term follow-up. Finally, very low-quality evidence indicates that addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvement for pain or disability at short term follow-up. For recurrence at one year, very low-quality evidence suggests that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence by 64% compared with medical management alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified only three small trials that also evaluated different comparisons; therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of MCE for acute LBP. Evidence of very low to moderate quality indicates that MCE showed no benefit over spinal manipulative therapy, other forms of exercise or medical treatment in decreasing pain and disability among patients with acute and subacute low back pain. Whether MCE can prevent recurrences of LBP remains uncertain.

Are non-invasive interventions effective for the management of headaches associated with neck pain? An update of the Bone and Joint Decade Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration

PURPOSE

To update findings of the 2000-2010 Bone and Joint Decade Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders and evaluate the effectiveness of non-invasive and non-pharmacological interventions for the management of patients with headaches associated with neck pain (i.e., tension-type, cervicogenic, or whiplash-related headaches).

METHODS

We searched five databases from 1990 to 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies comparing non-invasive interventions with other interventions, placebo/sham, or no interventions. Random pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria to determine scientific admissibility. Studies with a low risk of bias were synthesized following best evidence synthesis principles.

RESULTS

We screened 17,236 citations, 15 studies were relevant, and 10 had a low risk of bias. The evidence suggests that episodic tension-type headaches should be managed with low load endurance craniocervical and cervicoscapular exercises. Patients with chronic tension-type headaches may also benefit from low load endurance craniocervical and cervicoscapular exercises; relaxation training with stress coping therapy; or multimodal care that includes spinal mobilization, craniocervical exercises, and postural correction. For cervicogenic headaches, low load endurance craniocervical and cervicoscapular exercises; or manual therapy (manipulation with or without mobilization) to the cervical and thoracic spine may also be helpful.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of headaches associated with neck pain should include exercise. Patients who suffer from chronic tension-type headaches may also benefit from relaxation training with stress coping therapy or multimodal care. Patients with cervicogenic headache may also benefit from a course of manual therapy.

Manual Therapy by General Medical Practitioners for Nonspecific Low Back Pain in Primary Care: The ManRück Study Protocol of a Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Nonspecific low back pain (LBP) is a common reason for accessing primary care. Manual therapy (MT) may be an effective treatment, but data from clinical studies including relevant subgroups and clinical settings are sparse. The objective of this article is to describe the protocol of a study that will measure whether an MT protocol provided by general medical practitioners will lead to a faster pain reduction in patients with nonspecific LBP than does standard medical care.

METHODS/DESIGN

The study is an experimental pre-/postintervention design. The intervention consists of add-on MT treatment by general medical practitioners who have received MT training but are otherwise inexperienced in mobilization techniques. Participating general medical practitioners (n = 10) will consecutively recruit and treat patients before and after their training, serving as their own internal controls. The primary end point is a combined outcome assessing change in pain score over days 0 to 3 and time until pain is reduced by 2 points on an 11-point numeric pain scale and painkiller use is stopped. Secondary outcomes are patients' functional capacities assessed using a questionnaire, amount of sick leave taken, patient satisfaction, and referrals for further treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German clinical trials register: DRKS-ID DRKS00003240.

The effectiveness of manual therapy for the management of musculoskeletal disorders of the upper and lower extremities: a systematic review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) of the upper and lower extremities are common in the general population and place a significant burden on the health care system. Manual therapy is recommended by clinical practice guidelines for the management of these injuries; however, there is limited evidence to support its effectiveness. The purpose of our review was to investigate the effectiveness of manual therapy in adults or children with MSDs of the upper or lower extremity.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies evaluating the effectiveness of manual therapy were eligible. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1990 to 2015. Paired reviewers screened studies for relevance and critically appraised relevant studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Studies with low risk of bias were synthesized following best-evidence synthesis principles. Where available, we computed mean changes between groups, relative risks and 95 % CI.

RESULTS

We screened 6047 articles. Seven RCTs were critically appraised and three had low risk of bias. For adults with nonspecific shoulder pain of variable duration, cervicothoracic spinal manipulation and mobilization in addition to usual care may improve self-perceived recovery compared to usual care alone. For adults with subacromial impingement syndrome of variable duration, neck mobilization in addition to a multimodal shoulder program of care provides no added benefit. Finally, for adults with grade I-II ankle sprains of variable duration, lower extremity mobilization in addition to home exercise and advice provides greater short-term improvements in activities and function over home exercise and advice alone. No studies were included that evaluated the effectiveness of manual therapy in children or for the management of other extremity injuries in adults.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence on the effectiveness of manual therapy for MSDs of the upper and lower extremities is limited. The available evidence supports the use of manual therapy for non-specific shoulder pain and ankle sprains, but not for subacromial impingement syndrome in adults. Future research is needed to determine the effectiveness of manual therapy and guide clinical practice.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42014009899.

Pilates for low back pain

BACKGROUND

Non-specific low back pain is a major health problem worldwide. Interventions based on exercises have been the most commonly used treatments for patients with this condition. Over the past few years, the Pilates method has been one of the most popular exercise programmes used in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of the Pilates method for patients with non-specific acute, subacute or chronic low back pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and SPORTDiscus from the date of their inception to March 2014. We updated the search in June 2015 but these results have not yet been incorporated. We also searched the reference lists of eligible papers as well as six trial registry websites. We placed no limitations on language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We only included randomised controlled trials that examined the effectiveness of Pilates intervention in adults with acute, subacute or chronic non-specific low back pain. The primary outcomes considered were pain, disability, global impression of recovery and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent raters performed the assessment of risk of bias in the included studies using the 'Risk of bias' assessment tool recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. We also assessed clinical relevance by scoring five questions related to this domain as 'yes', 'no' or 'unclear'. We evaluated the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach and for effect sizes we used three levels: small (mean difference (MD) < 10% of the scale), medium (MD 10% to 20% of the scale) or large (MD > 20% of the scale). We converted outcome measures to a common 0 to 100 scale when different scales were used.

MAIN RESULTS

The search retrieved 126 trials; 10 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and we included them in the review (a total sample of 510 participants). Seven studies were considered to have low risk of bias, and three were considered as high risk of bias.A total of six trials compared Pilates to minimal intervention. There is low quality evidence that Pilates reduces pain compared with minimal intervention, with a medium effect size at short-term follow-up (less than three months after randomisation) (MD -14.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -18.91 to -9.19). For intermediate-term follow-up (at least three months but less than 12 months after randomisation), two trials provided moderate quality evidence that Pilates reduces pain compared to minimal intervention, with a medium effect size (MD -10.54, 95% CI -18.46 to -2.62). Based on five trials, there is low quality evidence that Pilates improves disability compared with minimal intervention, with a small effect size at short-term follow-up (MD -7.95, 95% CI -13.23 to -2.67), and moderate quality evidence for an intermediate-term effect with a medium effect size (MD -11.17, 95% CI -18.41 to -3.92). Based on one trial and low quality evidence, a significant short-term effect with a small effect size was reported for function (MD 1.10, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.97) and global impression of recovery (MD 1.50, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.30), but not at intermediate-term follow-up for either outcome.Four trials compared Pilates to other exercises. For the outcome pain, we presented the results as a narrative synthesis due to the high level of heterogeneity. At short-term follow-up, based on low quality evidence, two trials demonstrated a significant effect in favour of Pilates and one trial did not find a significant difference. At intermediate-term follow-up, based on low quality evidence, one trial reported a significant effect in favour of Pilates, and one trial reported a non-significant difference for this comparison. For disability, there is moderate quality evidence that there is no significant difference between Pilates and other exercise either in the short term (MD -3.29, 95% CI -6.82 to 0.24) or in the intermediate term (MD -0.91, 95% CI -5.02 to 3.20) based on two studies for each comparison. Based on low quality evidence and one trial, there was no significant difference in function between Pilates and other exercises at short-term follow-up (MD 0.10, 95% CI -2.44 to 2.64), but there was a significant effect in favour of other exercises for intermediate-term function, with a small effect size (MD -3.60, 95% CI -7.00 to -0.20). Global impression of recovery was not assessed in this comparison and none of the trials included quality of life outcomes. Two trials assessed adverse events in this review, one did not find any adverse events, and another reported minor events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find any high quality evidence for any of the treatment comparisons, outcomes or follow-up periods investigated. However, there is low to moderate quality evidence that Pilates is more effective than minimal intervention for pain and disability. When Pilates was compared with other exercises we found a small effect for function at intermediate-term follow-up. Thus, while there is some evidence for the effectiveness of Pilates for low back pain, there is no conclusive evidence that it is superior to other forms of exercises. The decision to use Pilates for low back pain may be based on the patient's or care provider's preferences, and costs.

Back pain: Prevention and management in the workplace

Despite all the efforts in studying work-related risk factors for low back pain (LBP), interventions targeting these risk factors to prevent LBP have no proven cost-effectiveness. Even with adequate implementation strategies for these interventions on group level, these did not result in the reduction of incident LBP. Physical exercise, however, does have a primary preventive effect on LBP. For secondary prevention, it seems that there are more opportunities to cost-effectively intervene in reducing the risk of long-term sickness absence due to LBP. Starting at the earliest moment possible with proper assessment of risk factors for long-term sickness absence related to the individual, the underlying mechanisms of the LBP, and also factors related to the workplace by a well-trained clinician, may increase the potential of effective return to work (RTW) management. More research on how to overcome barriers in the uptake of these effective interventions in relation to policy-specific environments, and with regard to proper financing of RTW management is necessary.

Core outcome domains for clinical trials in non-specific low back pain

PURPOSE

Inconsistent reporting of outcomes in clinical trials of patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) hinders comparison of findings and the reliability of systematic reviews. A core outcome set (COS) can address this issue as it defines a minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in all clinical trials. In 1998, Deyo et al. recommended a standardized set of outcomes for LBP clinical research. The aim of this study was to update these recommendations by determining which outcome domains should be included in a COS for clinical trials in NSLBP.

METHODS

An International Steering Committee established the methodology to develop this COS. The OMERACT Filter 2.0 framework was used to draw a list of potential core domains that were presented in a Delphi study. Researchers, care providers and patients were invited to participate in three Delphi rounds and were asked to judge which domains were core. A priori criteria for consensus were established before each round and were analysed together with arguments provided by panellists on importance, overlap, aggregation and/or addition of potential core domains. The Steering Committee discussed the final results and made final decisions.

RESULTS

A set of 280 experts was invited to participate in the Delphi; response rates in the three rounds were 52, 50 and 45%. Of 41 potential core domains presented in the first round, 13 had sufficient support to be presented for rating in the third round. Overall consensus was reached for the inclusion of three domains in this COS: 'physical functioning', 'pain intensity' and 'health-related quality of life'. Consensus on 'physical functioning' and 'pain intensity' was consistent across all stakeholders, 'health-related quality of life' was not supported by the patients, and all the other domains were not supported by two or more groups of stakeholders. Weighting all possible argumentations, the Steering Committee decided to include in the COS the three domains that reached overall consensus and the domain 'number of deaths'.

CONCLUSIONS

The following outcome domains were included in this updated COS: 'physical functioning', 'pain intensity', 'health-related quality of life' and 'number of deaths'. The next step for the development of this COS will be to determine which measurement instruments best measure these domains.

Effectiveness and economic evaluation of chiropractic care for the treatment of low back pain: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Chiropractic care is a common treatment for low back pain (LBP). Previous studies have failed to clarify the relative cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care in comparison with other commonly used approaches because previous attempts to synthetize the economic literature has only included partial economic evaluations. The objective of this project is to estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care compared to other commonly used care approaches among adult patients with non-specific LBP.

METHODS/DESIGN

Two systematic reviews will be conducted to identify 1) randomized controlled trials and 2) full economic evaluations of chiropractic care for low back pain compared to standard care provided by other healthcare providers. We will conduct searches in specialized electronic databases for randomized controlled trials and full economic evaluations published between 1990 and 2014 using a combination of keywords and MeSH terms. This will be supplemented by a search of the gray literature. Citations, abstracts, and relevant papers will be screened for eligibility by two reviewers independently. Studies will be critically appraised using 1) the Cochrane risk of bias tool and 2) the Drummond (BMJ) checklist. Results will be summarized using Slavin's qualitative best-evidence synthesis approach. Data relating to the primary outcomes of the effectiveness study will be evaluated for inclusion in meta-analyses. The costs will be standardized to the same currency (USD) and adjusted to the same year for inflation. The incremental cost-effectiveness, incremental net benefit, and relevant confidant intervals will be recalculated in order to facilitate comparison between studies.

DISCUSSION

Our review will evaluate both the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness associated with chiropractic care for LBP. A more precise estimate of the cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care for LBP relative to other forms of conservative care is needed for decision-makers and third-party payers to offer best care options for LBP. Our results will facilitate evidence-based management of patients with LBP and identify key areas for future research.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The protocol is registered on PROSPERO ( CRD42014008746 ).

Evaluation and treatment of acute back pain in the emergency department

Back pain is a common presenting complaint to the emergency department. The key to proper evaluation is a history and physical examination focused on determining if any red flags for serious disease are present. If no red flags are present, the patient most likely has nonspecific back pain and their symptoms will resolve in 4 to 6 weeks. No diagnostic testing is required. For patients with red flags, a focused history and examination in conjunction with diagnostic laboratory tests and imaging determine whether the patient has an emergent condition such as herniated disc, epidural compression, or spinal infection.

Risk of traumatic injury associated with chiropractic spinal manipulation in Medicare Part B beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

In older adults with a neuromusculoskeletal complaint, to evaluate risk of injury to the head, neck, or trunk after an office visit for chiropractic spinal manipulation compared with office visit for evaluation by primary care physician.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The risk of physical injury due to spinal manipulation has not been rigorously evaluated for older adults, a population particularly vulnerable to traumatic injury in general.

METHODS

We analyzed Medicare administrative data on Medicare B beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years with an office visit in 2007 for a neuromusculoskeletal complaint. Using a Cox proportional hazards model, we evaluated for adjusted risk of injury within 7 days, comparing 2 cohorts: those treated by chiropractic spinal manipulation versus those evaluated by a primary care physician. We used direct adjusted survival curves to estimate the cumulative probability of injury. In the chiropractic cohort only, we used logistic regression to evaluate the effect of specific chronic conditions on likelihood of injury.

RESULTS

The adjusted risk of injury in the chiropractic cohort was lower than that of the primary care cohort (hazard ratio, 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.25). The cumulative probability of injury in the chiropractic cohort was 40 injury incidents per 100,000 subjects compared with 153 incidents per 100,000 subjects in the primary care cohort. Among subjects who saw a chiropractic physician, the likelihood of injury was increased in those with a chronic coagulation defect, inflammatory spondylopathy, osteoporosis, aortic aneurysm and dissection, or long-term use of anticoagulant therapy.

CONCLUSION

Among Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years with an office visit risk for a neuromusculoskeletal problem, risk of injury to the head, neck, or trunk within 7 days was 76% lower among subjects with a chiropractic office visit than among those who saw a primary care physician.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

A core outcome set for clinical trials on non-specific low back pain: study protocol for the development of a core domain set

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most disabling and costly disorders affecting modern society, and approximately 90% of patients are labelled as having non-specific LBP (NSLBP). Several interventions for patients with NSLBP have been assessed in clinical trials, but heterogeneous reporting of outcomes in these trials has hindered comparison of results and performance of meta-analyses. Moreover, there is a risk of selective outcome reporting bias. To address these issues, the development of a core outcome set (COS) that should be measured in all clinical trials for a specific health condition has been recommended. A standardized set of outcomes for LBP was proposed in 1998, however, with evolution in COS development methodology, new instruments, interventions, and understanding of measurement properties, it is appropriate to update that proposal. This protocol describes the methods used in the initial step in developing a COS for NSLBP, namely, establishing a core domain set that should be measured in all clinical trials.

METHODS/DESIGN

An International Steering Committee including researchers, clinicians, and patient representatives from four continents was formed to guide the development of this COS. The approach of initiatives like Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) was followed. Participants were invited to participate in a Delphi study aimed at generating a consensus-based core domain set for NSLBP. A list of potential core domains was drafted and presented to the Delphi participants who were asked to judge which domains were core. Participant suggestions about overlap, aggregation, or addition of potential core domains were addressed during the study. The patients' responses were isolated to assess whether there was substantial disagreement with the rest of the Delphi panel. A priori thresholds for consensus were established before each Delphi round. All participants' responses were analysed from a quantitative and qualitative perspective to ascertain that no substantial discrepancies between the two approaches emerged.

DISCUSSION

We present the initial step in developing a COS for NSLBP. The next step will be to determine which measurement instruments adequately cover the domains.

Indicating spinal joint mobilisations or manipulations in patients with neck or low-back pain: protocol of an inter-examiner reliability study among manual therapists

BACKGROUND

Manual spinal joint mobilisations and manipulations are widely used treatments in patients with neck and low-back pain. Inter-examiner reliability of passive intervertebral motion assessment of the cervical and lumbar spine, perceived as important for indicating these interventions, is poor within a univariable approach. The diagnostic process as a whole in daily practice in manual therapy has a multivariable character, however, in which the use and interpretation of passive intervertebral motion assessment depend on earlier results from the diagnostic process. To date, the inter-examiner reliability among manual therapists of a multivariable diagnostic decision-making process in patients with neck or low-back pain is unknown.

METHODS

This study will be conducted as a repeated-measures design in which 14 pairs of manual therapists independently examine a consecutive series of a planned total of 165 patients with neck or low-back pain presenting in primary care physiotherapy. Primary outcome measure is therapists' decision about whether or not manual spinal joint mobilisations or manipulations, or both, are indicated in each patient, alone or as part of a multimodal treatment. Therapists will largely be free to conduct the full diagnostic process based on their formulated examination objectives. For each pair of therapists, 2×2 tables will be constructed and reliability for the dichotomous decision will be expressed using Cohen's kappa. In addition, observed agreement, prevalence of positive decisions, prevalence index, bias index, and specific agreement in positive and negative decisions will be calculated. Univariable logistic regression analysis of concordant decisions will be performed to explore which demographic, professional, or clinical factors contributed to reliability.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide an estimate of the inter-examiner reliability among manual therapists of indicating spinal joint mobilisations or manipulations in patients with neck or low-back pain based on a multivariable diagnostic reasoning and decision-making process, as opposed to reliability of individual tests. As such, it is proposed as an initial step toward the development of an alternative approach to current classification systems and prediction rules for identifying those patients with spinal disorders that may show a better response to manual therapy which can be incorporated in randomised clinical trials. Potential methodological limitations of this study are discussed.

Role of rehabilitation medicine and physical agents in the treatment of cancer-associated pain

PURPOSE

To provide an overview of rehabilitation medicine- and physical modality-based approaches to cancer pain management, and to highlight the fact that these approaches are generally used in conjunction and that a majority are focused on minimizing pain during periods of mobility and the performance of activities of daily living.

METHODS

We performed a nonsystematic literature review and provide a description of the current standard of care.

RESULTS

Rehabilitative and physical modalities used to manage pain can be grouped into four categories: those that modulate nociception, stabilize or unload painful structures, influence physiological processes that indirectly influence nociception, or alleviate pain arising from the overloading of muscles and connective tissues that often occurs after surgery or with sarcopenia in late-stage cancer. Most modalities have been pragmatically refined over the years, and many have an evidence base, although few have been explicitly validated in the oncologic setting. With few exceptions, they are patient controlled and free of adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Physical modalities and rehabilitation medicine offer a range of pain management approaches that may serve as beneficial adjuncts to the conventional systemic and interventional analgesic strategies used to control cancer-related pain. These approaches may be particularly beneficial to patients with movement-associated pain and those who are ambivalent regarding pharmacoanalgesia.

Low back pain

Low back pain is a common, frequently recurring condition that often has a nonspecific cause. Most nonspecific acute low back pain will improve within several weeks with or without treatment. The diagnostic workup should focus on evaluation for evidence of systemic or pathologic causes. Psychosocial distress, poor coping skills, and high initial disability increase the risk for a prolonged disability course. All patients with acute or chronic low back pain should be advised to remain active. The treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain involves a multidisciplinary approach targeted at preserving function and preventing disability. Surgical referral is indicated in the presence of severe or progressive neurologic deficits or signs and symptoms of cauda equina syndrome.

The efficacy of manual therapy and exercise for different stages of non-specific low back pain: an update of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

to review and update the evidence for different forms of manual therapy (MT) for patients with different stages of non-specific low back pain (LBP).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Cochrane-Register-of-Controlled-Trials, PEDro, EMBASE.

METHOD

A systematic review of MT with a literature search covering the period of January 2000 to April 2013 was conducted by two independent reviewers according to Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. A total of 360 studies were evaluated using qualitative criteria. Two stages of LBP were categorized; combined acute-subacute and chronic. Further sub-classification was made according to MT intervention: MT1 (manipulation); MT2 (mobilization and soft-tissue-techniques); and MT3 (MT1 combined with MT2). In each sub-category, MT could be combined or not with exercise or usual medical care (UMC). Consequently, quantitative evaluation criteria were applied to 56 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and hence 23 low-risk of bias RCTs were identified for review. Only studies providing new updated information (11/23 RCTs) are presented here.

RESULTS

Acute-subacute LBP: STRONG-evidence in favour of MT1 when compared to sham for pain, function and health improvements in the short-term (1-3 months). MODERATE-evidence to support MT1 and MT3 combined with UMC in comparison to UMC alone for pain, function and health improvements in the short-term. Chronic LBP: MODERATE to STRONG-evidence in favour of MT1 in comparison to sham for pain, function and overall-health in the short-term. MODERATE-evidence in favour of MT3 combined with exercise or UMC in comparison to exercise and back-school was established for pain, function and quality-of-life in the short and long-term. LIMITED-evidence in favour of MT2 combined with exercise and UMC in comparison to UMC alone for pain and function from short to long-term. LIMITED-evidence of no effect for MT1 with extension-exercise compared to extension-exercise alone for pain in the short to long-term.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review updates the evidence for MT with exercise or UMC for different stages of LBP and provides recommendations for future studies.

The efficacy of Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glides with and without Isometric Exercise Training in Non-specific Neck Pain

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glides (SNAGs) with and without Isometric Exercise Training Program (IETP) in Non-specific Neck Pain (NSNP) Methods: This randomized control trial of one year duration was conducted at out-patient department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Khyber Teaching Hospital (KTH) Peshawar, Pakistan from July 2012 to June 2013. The sample of 102 patients of NSNP were randomly selected through simple random sampling technique, and placed into two groups. The SNAGs manual physical therapy technique with IETP was applied on 51 patients in group A and SNAGs manual physical therapy techniques was applied alone on 51 patients in group B. The duration of intervention was 6 weeks, at 4 times per week. The Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for neck pain were assessment tools used for all patients before and after 6 weeks of physical therapy intervention. All the patients were assessed through NDI and VAS before intervention and at the completion of 6 weeks program. The data of all 102 was analyzed by SPSS-20 and statistical test was applied at 95% level of significance determine the efficacy of both the treatments interventions and compare with each other.

RESULTS

The patients in group A, treated with SNAGs and followed by IETP for 6 weeks, demonstrated more improvement in pain and physical activity as assessed by VAS (p=0.013) and NDI (p=0.003), as compared to the patients treated with SNAGS alone, as pain and function assessed by VAS (p=0.047) and NDI (p=0.164). In group A the NDI score improved from 40 to 15 and VAS from 7 to 4, while in group B the NDI score improved from 42 to 30 and VAS from 7 to 4.

CONCLUSION

Patients with non-specific neck pain treated with SNAGs manual physical therapy techniques and followed by IETP was more effective in reduction of pain and enhancement of function, as compared to those patients treated with SNAGs manual physical therapy techniques alone.

On Vaccination & Chiropractic: when ideology, history, perception, politics and jurisprudence collide

The Palmers espoused anti-vaccination opinions in the early part of the 20(th) century, rejecting the germ theory of disease in favor of a worldview that a subluxation-free spine, achieved by spinal adjustments, would result in an unfettered innate intelligence; this, along with other healthful lifestyle choices, would allow a person to thwart disease by marshaling the body's natural recuperative abilities. Some chiropractors continue to staunchly champion the Palmer postulates, while others do not. At the national level, advocacy organizations publish conflicting position statements. We explore how this divisiveness has impacted chiropractic ideology, perceptions among students and practitioners, politics and issues of jurisprudence as reflected by the evolution of a standard of chiropractic practice in at least one Canadian province (Ontario). We opine that the chiropractic profession should champion a health promotion and disease prevention approach to vaccination, which would allow it to align itself with the broader healthcare community while not abandoning its traditional tenets.

Rheumatologists' opinions towards complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review

People with chronic musculoskeletal conditions are high users of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM). This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the attitudes of rheumatologists towards CAM and to identify whether these attitudes are affected by the personal or practice characteristics of the rheumatologists. A systematic search of electronic databases identified five eligible studies and one supplementary abstract, published before 1 December 2012. Outcomes measuring rheumatologists' attitudes towards CAM were extracted, as were any analysis of correlations with characteristics of the rheumatologist. Study quality was assessed using the STROBE checklist. Six studies from the USA, Canada and the Netherlands met inclusion criteria, with sample sizes ranging from 101 to 2,000. The studies were of variable methodological quality. Rheumatologists' opinions towards CAM varied according to therapy type. Many held favourable opinions towards bodywork and meditation, believed in their benefits and provided referrals for use. Other therapies, such as energy-based medicine, were regarded with scepticism. There were no demographic characteristics that consistently correlated with CAM attitudes or use. The limited data describing rheumatologist's attitudes to CAM is of varying quality but suggests that attitudes are influenced by the rheumatologist's familiarity with the CAM therapy and the degree to which a therapy has been assessed in a scientific manner. Given the high use of CAM amongst individuals seen in rheumatology clinics, physicians should undertake high-quality research to assess effectiveness of CAM therapy.

How to proceed when evidence-based practice is required but very little evidence available?

Background

All clinicians of today know that scientific evidence is the base on which clinical practice should rest. However, this is not always easy, in particular in those disciplines, where the evidence is scarce. Although the last decades have brought an impressive production of research that is of interest to chiropractors, there are still many areas such as diagnosis, prognosis, choice of treatment, and management that have not been subjected to extensive scrutiny.

Discussion

In this paper we argue that a simple system consisting of three questions will help clinicians deal with some of the complexities of clinical practice, in particular what to do when clear clinical evidence is lacking. Question 1 asks: are there objectively tested facts to support the concept? Question 2: are the concepts that form the basis for this clinical act or decision based on scientifically acceptable concepts? And question three; is the concept based on long-term and widely accepted experience? This method that we call the “Traffic Light System” can be applied to most clinical processes.

Summary

We explain how the Traffic Light System can be used as a simple framework to help chiropractors make clinical decisions in a simple and lucid manner. We do this by explaining the roles of biological plausibility and clinical experience and how they should be weighted in relation to scientific evidence in the clinical decision making process, and in particular how to proceed, when evidence is missing.