Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain

The perpetual evidence-practice gap: addressing ongoing barriers to chronic pain management in primary care in three steps

Background

Most management of chronic pain, a serious illness affecting the physical and psychological wellbeing of millions, occurs in primary care settings. Primary care practitioners (PCPs) attempt to provide evidence-based practices to treat chronic pain. However, there continues to be a gap between the care people receive and the evidence. The objectives for this study were to (1) explore determinants of evidence-based chronic pain management and (2) develop a novel approach to using implementation science to address the evidence-practice gap.

Method

A convenience sample of twenty-one Pennsylvania PCPs participated in one-time semi-structured telephone interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and both deductive and inductive approaches were used during analysis. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) to inform our analysis and findings.

Results

We identified determinants of evidence-based chronic pain management across the CFIR domains of Intervention Characteristics, Characteristics of Individuals, and the Outer Setting and reported implementation strategies. Based on identified themes, we developed a three-step process to support the ongoing and pragmatic implementation of evidence-based chronic pain management in primary care settings.

Conclusions

Previous efforts exist to integrate implementation science into chronic pain management; yet a gap persists. Implementation approaches should prioritize the needs of people living with chronic pain and their families. Further, future approaches or strategies used should build on the current three-step model to include the fourth step of tailoring existing implementation strategies to the specific needs of chronic pain in the clinical context.

A critical review of the role of manual therapy in the treatment of individuals with low back pain

The number of low back pain (LBP) cases is projected to increase to more than 800 million by 2050. To address the substantial burden of disease associated with this rise in prevalence, effective treatments are needed. While clinical practice guidelines (CPG) consistently recommend non-pharmacological therapies as first-line treatments, recommendations regarding manual therapy (MT) in treating low back pain vary. The goal of this narrative review was to critically summarize the available evidence for MT behind these recommendations, to scrutinize its mechanisms of action, and propose some actionable steps for clinicians on how this knowledge can be integrated into a person-centered approach. Despite disparate recommendations from CPG, MT is as effective as other available treatments and may be offered to patients with LBP, especially as part of a treatment package with exercise and education. Most of the effects of MT are not specific to the technique. MT and other interventions share several mechanisms of action that mediate treatment success. These mechanisms can encompass patients' expectations, prior experiences, beliefs and convictions, epistemic trust, and nonspecific contextual effects. Although MT is safer than opioids for patients with LBP, this alone is insufficient. Our goal is to encourage clinicians to shift away from outdated and refuted ideas in MT and embrace a person-centered approach rooted in a comprehensive biopsychosocial framework while incorporating patients' beliefs, addressing illness behaviors, and seeking to understand each patient's journey.

Psychophysiologic symptom relief therapy for chronic back pain: hypothesis and trial rationale

Chronic pain syndromes affect over one-third of the US adult population and often lead to significant disability and a reduced quality of life. Despite their high prevalence, causal links between chronic pain syndromes and anatomic abnormalities are often not apparent. Most current chronic pain treatments provide modest, if any, relief. Thus, there is a pressing need to understand the causal mechanisms implicated in chronic pain as a means to develop more targeted interventions for improvement in clinical outcomes and reduction in morbidity and financial burden. In the present manuscript, we summarize the current literature on treatment for chronic pain, and hypothesize that non-specific chronic back pain (without a clear organic etiology, such as tumors, infections or fractures) is of psychophysiologic origin. Based on this hypothesis, we developed Psychophysiologic Symptom Relief Therapy (PSRT), a novel pain reduction intervention for understanding and treating chronic pain. In this manuscript, we provide the rationale for PSRT, which we have tested in a pilot trial with a subsequent larger randomized trial underway. In the proposed trial, we will evaluate whether non-specific chronic back pain can be treated by addressing the underlying stressors and psychological underpinnings without specific physical interventions.

Lumbar braces and other assistive devices for treatment of chronic low back pain

OBJECTIVES

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the benefits and harms of assistive technologies (i.e. non-rigid and rigid lumbar braces, belts, supports, and devices to assist mobility and gait) for improving pain and function (and consequently reducing disability) in adults with chronic low back pain.

Chiropractors in Multidisciplinary Teams: Enablers of Colocation Integration in GP-Led Primary Healthcare

The aim of this study was to explore and document the enablers and barriers of chiropractic care colocation in general practice at a large-scale private primary care centre in Australia. This study focused on the perceptions of healthcare professionals regarding this integration. The research setting was a large integrated primary care centre located in an outer metro, low-socioeconomic area in the City of Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia. Participant inclusion criteria included general medical practitioners, practice nurses, and medical managers who self-reported interactions with the physically collocated and integrated chiropractic practice. Data was collected from 22 participants using face-to-face, qualitative, semi-structured interviews with an average duration of 32 min. The data collected included perceptions of chiropractic treatment, enablers to patient referral pathways, and views of the integrated chiropractic care model. A reflexive thematic analysis was conducted on the data set. All participants reported that this was their first exposure to the colocation of a chiropractor within a general medical practice. Four key enablers of chiropractic care integration were identified: (1) the practitioner [chiropractor], (2) the organisation [general practice], (3) consumer flow, and (4) the environment [shared spaces and tenant ecosystem]. The chiropractic integration enhanced knowledge sharing and interprofessional trust among healthcare providers. The formal reporting of patient outcomes and understanding of the chiropractor's scope of practice further enabled referrals to the service. Shared administrative and business processes, including patient records, booking systems, and clinical meetings, facilitated relationship development between the chiropractor and referring health providers. Colocation as part of a larger primary care centre created proximity and convenience for health providers in terms of interprofessional communication, and for patients, in terms of access to chiropractic services. Existing governance structures supported communication, professional education, and shared values related to the delivery of patient-centred care. Identified barriers included limited public funding for chiropractic services resulting in reduced access for patients of low-socioeconomic status. Additionally, scepticism or negativity towards the discipline of chiropractic care was identified as an initial barrier to refer patients. In most cases, this view towards the chiropractor was overcome by regular patient reporting of positive treatment outcomes to their GP, the delivery of education sessions by the chiropractor for the health providers, and the development of interprofessional trust between the chiropractor and referring health providers. This study provides preliminary evidence and a conceptual framework of factors influencing the successful integration of chiropractic care within an Australian large primary care centre. The data collected indicated that integration of chiropractic care into a primary care centre serving a low-socioeconomic region can be achieved with a high degree of health provider satisfaction.

Effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapy on pain intensity and disability in older people with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The aim of the present systematic review was to investigate the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapy on pain intensity and disability in older people with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in the MEDLINE, COCHRANE LIBRARY, EMBASE, AMED, PSYCINFO, and PEDRO databases up to 2022. Risk of bias was appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Estimated mean differences and respective 95% confidence intervals were presented for each paired comparison and the strength of the current evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Thirty-one original trials involving 2120 participants were included. All outcomes were self-rated. Pain intensity was measured using the Visual Analogue Scale or Numerical Rating Scale. Disability was evaluated using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index or Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire. Short-term: Moderate quality of evidence that mindfulness reduces disability compared to patient education (mean difference [MD] =  - 1.38 [95% CI - 2.02 to - 0.73]); low-quality evidence that mixed exercise (MD = - 50.33 [95% CI - 57.11 to - 43.56]) reduces pain compared to no intervention, waiting list, placebo or sham; low quality of evidence that there is no effect for opioid compared to placebo (MD = - 8.26 [95% CI - 19.29 to 2.77]) with regards to reducing pain and opioid/acetaminophen reduces disability more compared to pregabalin (MD = 2.36 [95% CI] 1.86-2.86]).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings showed low or very low quality of evidence for non-pharmacological interventions with a large effect in short- and long-term follow-up. The two studies that provided moderate quality of evidence had a small clinical effect. Only two studies were found that investigated pharmacological therapies-both with low quality of evidence. However, the studies were methodologically weak and had small sample sizes. Given the adverse effects of low back pain and the scarce information on the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for older people, future randomized trials should be encouraged.

High-dose opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

This overview was originally published in 2017, and is being updated in 2022.  Chronic pain is typically described as pain on most days for at least three months. Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is any chronic pain that is not due to a malignancy. Chronic non-cancer pain in adults is a common and complex clinical issue, for which opioids are prescribed by some physicians for pain management. There are concerns that the use of high doses of opioids for CNCP lacks evidence of effectiveness, and may increase the risk of adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the evidence from Cochrane Reviews and overviews regarding the efficacy and safety of high-dose opioids (defined as 200 mg morphine equivalent or more per day) for CNCP.

METHODS

We identified Cochrane Reviews and overviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in The Cochrane Library. The date of the last search was 21 July 2022. Two overview authors independently assessed the search results. We planned to analyse data on any opioid agent used at a high dose for two weeks or more for the treatment of CNCP in adults.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any reviews or overviews that met the inclusion criteria. The excluded reviews largely reflected low doses or titrated doses, where all doses were analysed as a single group; we were unable to extract any data for high-dose use only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a critical lack of high-quality evidence, in the form of Cochrane Reviews, about how well high-dose opioids work for the management of CNCP in adults, and regarding the presence and severity of adverse events.  No evidence-based argument can be made on the use of high-dose opioids, i.e. 200 mg morphine equivalent or more daily, in clinical practice. Considering that high-dose opioids have been, and are still being used in clinical practice to treat CNCP, knowing about the efficacy and safety of these higher doses is imperative.

Systemic corticosteroids for radicular and non-radicular low back pain

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids are medications with anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressant properties. Systemic corticosteroids administered through the oral, intravenous, or intramuscular routes have been used to treat various types of low back pain, including radicular back pain (not due to spinal stenosis), non-radicular back pain, and spinal stenosis. However, there is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of systemic corticosteroids for low back pain.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic corticosteroids versus placebo or no corticosteroid for radicular low back pain, non-radicular low back pain, and symptomatic spinal stenosis in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was September 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials in adults of systematic corticosteroids versus placebo or no corticosteroid.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. The major outcomes were pain, function, need for surgery, serious adverse effect, and presence of hyperglycemia. The minor outcomes were quality of life, successful outcomes, non-serious adverse events, and withdrawal due to adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials (1047 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Nine trials included participants with radicular low back pain, two trial with low back pain, and two trials with spinal stenosis. All trials blinded participants to receipt of systemic corticosteroids. Seven trials were at low risk of bias, five at unclear risk, and one at high risk of selection bias. Two trials were at high risk of attrition bias. Doses and duration of systemic corticosteroid therapy varied. Radicular low back pain For radicular low back pain, moderate-certainty evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids probably slightly decrease pain versus placebo at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0.56 points better, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 0.04 on a 0 to 10 scale) and may slightly increase the likelihood of experiencing improvement in pain at short-term follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.66; absolute effect 5% better (95% CI 5% worse to 15% better). Systemic corticosteroids may not improve function at short-term follow-up (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.14 better; range 0.49 better to 0.21 worse) and probably increase the likelihood of improvement in function at short-term follow-up (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.91; absolute effect 19% better, 95% CI 8% better to 30% better). Systemic corticosteroids were associated with greater improvement in function versus placebo at long-term follow-up (MD -7.40, 95% CI -12.55 to -2.25 on the 0 to 100 Oswestry Disability Index) and greater likelihood of functional improvement (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.56), based on a single trial. There was no difference in likelihood of surgery (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47). Evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids (administered as a single dose or as a short course of therapy) are not associated with increased risk of any adverse event, serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, or hyperglycemia, but estimates were imprecise as some trials did not report harms, and harms reporting was suboptimal in trials that did provide data. Limitations included variability across trials in interventions (e.g. corticosteroid used, dose and duration of treatment), clinical settings, and participants (e.g. duration of symptoms, methods for diagnosis); limited utility of subgroup analyses due to small numbers of trials; methodologic limitations or suboptimal reporting of methods by some trials; and too few trials to formally assess for publication bias using graphical or statistical tests for small sample effects. Non-radicular low back pain Evidence on systemic corticosteroids versus placebo for non-radicular pain was limited and suggested that systemic corticosteroids may be associated with slightly worse short-term pain but slightly better function. Spinal stenosis For spinal stenosis, limited evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids are probably no more effective than placebo for short-term pain or function.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Systemic corticosteroids appear to be slightly effective at improving short-term pain and function in people with radicular low back pain not due to spinal stenosis, and might slightly improve long-term function. The effects of systemic corticosteroids in people with non-radicular low back pain are unclear and systemic corticosteroids are probably ineffective for spinal stenosis. A single dose or short course of systemic corticosteroids for low back pain does not appear to cause serious harms, but evidence is limited.

Movement Analysis Could Help in the Assessment of Chronic Low Back Pain Patients: Results from a Preliminary Explorative Study

Introduction: This study aimed to assess the reliability of a qualitative scoring system based on the movement analysis of the spine in different populations and after usual care rehabilitative intervention. If proven true, the results could further future research development in quantitative indexes, leading to a possible subclassification of chronic low back pain (cLBP). Methods: This was a preliminary exploratory observational study. Data of an optoelectronic spine movement analysis from a pathological population (cLBP population, 5 male, 5 female, age 58 ± 16 years) were compared to young healthy participants (5M, 5F, age 22 ± 1) and were analysed via a new qualitative score of the pattern of movement. Internal consistency was calculated. Two independent assessors (experienced and inexperienced) assessed the blinded data, and we calculated inter- and intrarater reliability. We performed an analysis for cLBP pre and post a ten session group rehabilitation program between and within groups. Results: Internal consistency was good for all movements (α = 0.84-0.88). Intra-rater reliability (Intraclass correlation coefficient-ICC) was excellent for overall scores of all movements (ICC_(1,k) = 0.95-0.99), while inter-rater reliability was poor to moderate (ICC_(1,k) = 0.39-0.78). We found a significant difference in the total movement scores between cLBP and healthy participants (p = 0.001). Within-group comparison (cLBP) showed no significant difference in the total movement score in pre and post-treatment. Conclusion: The perception of differences between normal and pathological movements has been confirmed through the proposed scoring system, which proved to be able to distinguish different populations. This study has many limitations, but these results show that movement analysis could be a useful tool and open the door to quantifying the identified parameters through future studies.

Effects of a supervised exercise program in addition to electrical stimulation or kinesio taping in low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Chronic low back pain it is one of the most common health problems worldwide. Usually is accompanied by a complex set of symptoms and generates significant direct and indirect socioeconomic and health costs. From a therapeutic point of view, there are a wide variety of methods to address the treatment of this pathology, however, these therapies have not been shown definitive efficacy. To investigate the effect of a mixed treatment with exercise and electrical stimulation versus exercise and kinesio taping in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain. A total of 58 patients participated in this single-blinded randomised clinical trial. Participants were assigned to the exercises- kinesio taping group, or exercises- analgesic current group, both received 12 treatment sessions. Disability, fear of movement, anxiety, depression, sleeps quality, pain, lower limb mechanosensitivity and pressure-pain thresholds were recorded at baseline and after 4 weeks of treatment. The 2 × 2 mixed analysis of covariance test showed statistically significant differences between groups for pain (P = 0.046). Pair-wise comparisons with baseline demonstrated significant differences for both groups in pain (P ≤ 0.001), disability (P ≤ 0.001), pressure-pain thresholds (P ≤ 0.044), lower limb mechanosensitivity, (P ≤ 0.047), anxiety (P ≤ 0.001), depression (P ≤ 0.001) and sleep quality (P ≤ 0.010). Patients with chronic low back pain who received a combined treatment of exercises and kinesio taping or analgesic current showed an improvement in pain, disability, anxiety, depression and sleep pattern. Moreover, exercises combined with electrotherapy produces greater improvements over these variables.

Trial registration: NCT02812459.

Therapeutic Alliance as Active Inference: The Role of Therapeutic Touch and Biobehavioural Synchrony in Musculoskeletal Care

Touch is recognised as crucial for survival, fostering cooperative communication, accelerating recovery, reducing hospital stays, and promoting overall wellness and the therapeutic alliance. In this hypothesis and theory paper, we present an entwined model that combines touch for alignment and active inference to explain how the brain develops "priors" necessary for the health care provider to engage with the patient effectively. We appeal to active inference to explain the empirically integrative neurophysiological and behavioural mechanisms that underwrite synchronous relationships through touch. Specifically, we offer a formal framework for understanding - and explaining - the role of therapeutic touch and hands-on care in developing a therapeutic alliance and synchrony between health care providers and their patients in musculoskeletal care. We first review the crucial importance of therapeutic touch and its clinical role in facilitating the formation of a solid therapeutic alliance and in regulating allostasis. We then consider how touch is used clinically - to promote cooperative communication, demonstrate empathy, overcome uncertainty, and infer the mental states of others - through the lens of active inference. We conclude that touch plays a crucial role in achieving successful clinical outcomes and adapting previous priors to create intertwined beliefs. The ensuing framework may help healthcare providers in the field of musculoskeletal care to use hands-on care to strengthen the therapeutic alliance, minimise prediction errors (a.k.a., free energy), and thereby promote recovery from physical and psychological impairments.

Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy for Treating Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and safety of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) for the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP).

METHODS

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement standard. We identified relevant studies by searching multiple electronic databases, trial registries, and websites up to April 30, 2021, and examining reference lists. We selected RCTs that compared ESWT, in unimodal or multimodal therapeutic approaches, with sham ESWT or other active therapies. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The main outcomes were pain intensity and disability status, examined as standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias was assessed by using Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Group risk of bias tool and Jadad score, and GRADE was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. Heterogeneity was explored using sensitivity analysis and meta-regression.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs, including a total of 455 young to middle-aged individuals (29.2-55.8 years), were identified. Compared with control, the ESWT group showed lower pain intensity at month 1 (SMD = -0.81, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.42), as well as lower disability score at month 1 (SMD = -1.45, 95% CI -2.68 to -0.22) and at month 3 (SMD = -0.69, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.31). No serious shockwave-related adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

The use of ESWT in CLBP patients results in significant and quantifiable reductions in pain and disability in the short term. However, further well-conducted RCTs are necessary for building high-quality evidence and promoting the application of ESWT in clinical practice.

The immediate and short-term effects of dynamic taping on pain, endurance, disability, mobility and kinesiophobia in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain: A randomized controlled trial

Evidence suggests that the application of Kinesio Tape (KT) on patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP) is inconclusive. Dynamic tape (DT) is a relatively new treatment technique, which is increasingly being used as an adjunctive method to treat musculoskeletal problems. To our knowledge, no study has investigated the application of DT in individuals with CNLBP. To compare the immediate and short-term effects of DT versus KT and no tape among patients with CNLBP on pain, endurance, disability, mobility, and kinesiophobia. Forty-five patients with CNLBP were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups. Outcomes were measured at baseline, immediately, and on the third day post-application of tapes. The primary outcomes of pain, endurance, and disability were measured through the visual analog scale (VAS), Biering–Sorensen test, and Oswestry disability index (ODI), respectively. Secondary outcome measures of mobility and kinesiophobia were measured using the modified–modified Schober test and the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, respectively. No significant immediate and short-term differences were found between DT and KT in pain, disability, mobility, and kinesiophobia. Improved back extensor endurance was observed for the DT group than KT (p = 0.023) and control group (p = 0.006). The application of DT may result in improvements only in back extensor endurance among individuals with CNLBP. This finding suggests that DT controls the processes that lead to back muscle fatigue.

Epidural corticosteroid injections for lumbosacral radicular pain

BACKGROUND

Lumbosacral radicular pain (commonly called sciatica) is a syndrome involving patients who report radiating leg pain. Epidural corticosteroid injections deliver a corticosteroid dose into the epidural space, with the aim of reducing the local inflammatory process and, consequently, relieving the symptoms of lumbosacral radicular pain. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review published in Annals of Internal Medicine in 2012. Some placebo-controlled trials have been published recently, which highlights the importance of updating the previous review.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and safety of epidural corticosteroid injections compared with placebo injection on pain and disability in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases without language limitations up to 25 September 2019: Cochrane Back and Neck group trial register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and two trial registers. We also performed citation tracking of included studies and relevant systematic reviews in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that compared epidural corticosteroid injections of any corticosteroid drug to placebo injections in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. We accepted all three anatomical approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) to delivering corticosteroids into the epidural space. We considered trials that included a placebo treatment as delivery of an inert substance (i.e. one with no pharmacologic activity), an innocuous substance (e.g. normal saline solution), or a pharmacologically active substance but not one considered to provide sustained benefit (e.g. local anaesthetic), either into the epidural space (i.e. to mimic epidural corticosteroid injection) or adjacent spinal tissue (i.e. subcutaneous, intramuscular, or interspinous tissue). We also included trials in which a local anaesthetic with a short duration of action was used as a placebo and injected together with corticosteroid in the intervention group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently performed the screening, data extraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessments. In case of insufficient information, we contacted the authors of the original studies or estimated the data. We grouped the outcome data into four time points of assessment: immediate (≤ 2 weeks), short term (> 2 weeks but ≤ 3 months), intermediate term (> 3 months but < 12 months), and long term (≥ 12 months). We assessed the overall quality of evidence for each outcome and time point using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 clinical trials (from 29 publications) investigating the effects of epidural corticosteroid injections compared to placebo in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. The included studies provided data for a total of 2470 participants with a mean age ranging from 37.3 to 52.8 years. Seventeen studies included participants with lumbosacral radicular pain with a diagnosis based on clinical assessment and 15 studies included participants with mixed duration of symptoms. The included studies were conducted mainly in North America and Europe. Fifteen studies did not report funding sources, five studies reported not receiving funding, and five reported receiving funding from a non-profit or government source. Eight trials reported data on pain intensity, 12 reported data on disability, and eight studies reported data on adverse events. The duration of the follow-up assessments ranged from 12 hours to 1 year. We considered eight trials to be of high quality because we judged them as having low risk of bias in four out of the five bias domains. We identified one ongoing trial in a trial registry. Epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing leg pain at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -4.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.77 to -1.09 on a 0 to 100 scale; 8 trials, n = 949; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). For disability, epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing disability at short-term follow-up (MD -4.18, 95% CI -6.04 to -2.17, on a 0 to 100 scale; 12 trials, n = 1367; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). The treatment effects are small, however, and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. MD lower than 10%). Most trials provided insufficient information on how or when adverse events were assessed (immediate or short-term follow-up) and only reported adverse drug reactions - that is, adverse events that the trialists attributed to the study treatment. We are very uncertain that epidural corticosteroid injections make no difference compared to placebo injection in the frequency of minor adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.42; 8 trials, n = 877; very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision)). Minor adverse events included increased pain during or after the injection, non-specific headache, post-dural puncture headache, irregular periods, accidental dural puncture, thoracic pain, non-local rash, sinusitis, vasovagal response, hypotension, nausea, and tinnitus. One study reported a major drug reaction for one patient on anticoagulant therapy who had a retroperitoneal haematoma as a complication of the corticosteroid injection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This study found that epidural corticosteroid injections probably slightly reduced leg pain and disability at short-term follow-up in people with lumbosacral radicular pain. In addition, no minor or major adverse events were reported at short-term follow-up after epidural corticosteroid injections or placebo injection. Although the current review identified additional clinical trials, the available evidence still provides only limited support for the use of epidural corticosteroid injections in people with lumbosacral radicular pain as the treatment effects are small, mainly evident at short-term follow-up and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. mean difference lower than 10%). According to GRADE, the quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate, suggesting that further studies are likely to play an important role in clarifying the efficacy and tolerability of this treatment. We recommend that further trials should attend to methodological features such as appropriate allocation concealment and blinding of care providers to minimise the potential for biased estimates of treatment and harmful effects.

The effects of spinal manipulative therapy on lower limb neurodynamic test outcomes in adults: a systematic review

Objective: Spinal Manipulative Therapy (SMT) is a routinely applied treatment modality for various musculoskeletal conditions, including low back pain. The precise mechanisms by which SMT elicits its effects are largely unknown, but recent research supports a multi-system explanation recognizing both biomechanical and neurophysiological mechanisms. Although the evaluation of changes in clinical presentation is complex, objective neurophysiological measures of sensitivity to movement (e.g. neurodynamic tests) can be a valuable clinical indicator in evaluating the effects of SMT. This review aimed to synthesize current literature investigating the effects of SMT on lower limb neurodynamics.Method: Eight electronic databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) that applied SMT (against any control) and evaluated lower limb neurodynamics (Passive Straight Leg Raise or Slump Test). Selection and data extraction were conducted by one researcher, reviewed by a second author. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria.Results: Eight RCTs were included, one with high RoB. SMT produced a clinically meaningful (≥6⁰) difference in five of these studies compared with inert control, hamstring stretching, and as an adjunct to conventional physiotherapy, but not compared with standard care, as an adjunct to home exercise and advice, or when comparing different SMT techniques. Findings compared to sham were mixed. When reported, effects tentatively lasted up to 6 weeks post-intervention.Conclusion: Limited evidence suggests SMT-improved range of motion and was more effective than some other interventions. Future research, using standardized Neurodynamic tests, should explore technique types and evaluate longer-term effects.Level of Evidence: 1a.

Comparative Effectiveness of Chuna Manipulative Therapy for Non-Acute Lower Back Pain: A Multi-Center, Pragmatic, Randomized Controlled Trial

Current evidence on the effectiveness and safety of Chuna manipulative therapy (CMT) for managing non-acute lower back pain (LBP) is insufficient. We investigated the comparative effectiveness and safety of CMT, a Korean style of manipulation, plus usual care (UC) compared to UC alone for non-acute LBP. We conducted a parallel, two-armed, multi-centered, assessor blinded, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial at four major Korean medical hospitals. Overall, 194 patients were randomly allocated to either CMT plus UC (n = 97) or UC alone (n = 97), for six weeks of treatment and six months follow-up. The primary outcome was measured using the numerical rating scale (NRS) of LBP intensity at 7 weeks. Secondary outcomes included NRS of leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for functional disability, patient global impression of change (PGIC) scale, and safety. A total of 194 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, and 174 patients provided complete data for the primary outcome. At 7 weeks, clinically significant differences between groups were observed in the NRS of LBP (CMT + UC: -3.02 ± 1.72, UC: -1.36 ± 1.75, p < 0.001), ODI scores (CMT + UC: -5.65 ± 4.29, UC: -3.72 ± 4.63, p = 0.003), NRS of leg pain (CMT + UC: -2.00 ± 2.33, UC: -0.44 ± 1.86, p < 0.0001), and PGIC (CMT + UC: -0.28 ± 0.85, UC: 0.01 ± 0.66, p = 0.0119). Mild to moderate safety concerns were reported in 21 subjects. CMT plus UC showed higher effectiveness compared to UC alone in patients with non-acute LBP in reducing LBP and leg pain and in improving function with good safety results using a powered sample size and including mid-term follow-up.

The effect of spinal manipulation on brain neurometabolites in chronic nonspecific low back pain patients: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

In patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (NCLBP), brain function changes due to the neuroplastic changes in different regions.

AIM

The current study aimed to evaluate the brain metabolite changes after spinal manipulation, using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (¹H-MRS).

METHODS

In the current study, 25 patients with NCLBP aged 20-50 years were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to lumbopelvic manipulation or sham. Patients were evaluated before and 5 weeks after treatment by the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and ¹H-MRS.

RESULTS

After treatment, severity of pain and functional disability were significantly reduced in the treatment group vs. sham group (p < 0.05). After treatment, N-acetyl aspartate (NAA) in thalamus, insula, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) regions, as well as choline (Cho) in the thalamus, insula, and somatosensory cortex (SSC) regions, had increased significantly in the treatment group compared with the sham group (p < 0.05). A significant increase was further observed in NAA in thalamus, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and SCC regions along with Cho metabolite in thalamus and SCC regions after treatment in the treatment group compared with the baseline measures (p < 0.05). Also, a significant increase was observed in Glx (glutamate and glutamine) levels of thalamus (p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in terms of brain metabolites at baseline and after treatment in the sham group.

CONCLUSION

In the patient with low back pain, spinal manipulation affects the central nervous system and changes the brain metabolites. Consequently, pain and functional disability are reduced.

Which specific modes of exercise training are most effective for treating low back pain? Network meta-analysis

Objective

Examine the effectiveness of specific modes of exercise training in non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP).

Design

Network meta-analysis (NMA).

Data sources

MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, EMBASE, CENTRAL.

Eligibility criteria

Exercise training randomised controlled/clinical trials in adults with NSCLBP.

Results

Among 9543 records, 89 studies (patients=5578) were eligible for qualitative synthesis and 70 (pain), 63 (physical function), 16 (mental health) and 4 (trunk muscle strength) for NMA. The NMA consistency model revealed that the following exercise training modalities had the highest probability (surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA)) of being best when compared with true control: Pilates for pain (SUCRA=100%; pooled standardised mean difference (95% CI): −1.86 (–2.54 to –1.19)), resistance (SUCRA=80%; −1.14 (–1.71 to –0.56)) and stabilisation/motor control (SUCRA=80%; −1.13 (–1.53 to –0.74)) for physical function and resistance (SUCRA=80%; −1.26 (–2.10 to –0.41)) and aerobic (SUCRA=80%; −1.18 (–2.20 to –0.15)) for mental health. True control was most likely (SUCRA≤10%) to be the worst treatment for all outcomes, followed by therapist hands-off control for pain (SUCRA=10%; 0.09 (–0.71 to 0.89)) and physical function (SUCRA=20%; −0.31 (–0.94 to 0.32)) and therapist hands-on control for mental health (SUCRA=20%; −0.31 (–1.31 to 0.70)). Stretching and McKenzie exercise effect sizes did not differ to true control for pain or function (p>0.095; SUCRA<40%). NMA was not possible for trunk muscle endurance or analgesic medication. The quality of the synthesised evidence was low according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria.

Summary/conclusion

There is low quality evidence that Pilates, stabilisation/motor control, resistance training and aerobic exercise training are the most effective treatments, pending outcome of interest, for adults with NSCLBP. Exercise training may also be more effective than therapist hands-on treatment. Heterogeneity among studies and the fact that there are few studies with low risk of bias are both limitations.

Best Evidence Rehabilitation for Chronic Pain Part 3: Low Back Pain

Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) is a major and highly prevalent health problem. Given the high number of papers available, clinicians might be overwhelmed by the evidence on CLBP management. Taking into account the scale and costs of CLBP, it is imperative that healthcare professionals have access to up-to-date, evidence-based information to assist them in treatment decision-making. Therefore, this paper provides a state-of-the-art overview of the best evidence non-invasive rehabilitation for CLBP. Taking together up-to-date evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analysis and available treatment guidelines, most physically inactive therapies should not be considered for CLBP management, except for pain neuroscience education and spinal manipulative therapy if combined with exercise therapy, with or without psychological therapy. Regarding active therapy, back schools, sensory discrimination training, proprioceptive exercises, and sling exercises should not be considered due to low-quality and/or conflicting evidence. Exercise interventions on the other hand are recommended, but while all exercise modalities appear effective compared to minimal/passive/conservative/no intervention, there is no evidence that some specific types of exercises are superior to others. Therefore, we recommend choosing exercises in line with the patient's preferences and abilities. When exercise interventions are combined with a psychological component, effects are better and maintain longer over time.

Spinal manual therapy in infants, children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis on treatment indication, technique and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Studies on effectiveness and safety of specific spinal manual therapy (SMT) techniques in children, which distinguish between age groups, are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of the evidence for effectiveness and harms of specific SMT techniques for infants, children and adolescents.

METHODS

PubMed, Index to Chiropractic Literature, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were searched up to December 2017. Controlled studies, describing primary SMT treatment in infants (<1 year) and children/adolescents (1-18 years), were included to determine effectiveness. Controlled and observational studies and case reports were included to examine harms. One author screened titles and abstracts and two authors independently screened the full text of potentially eligible studies for inclusion. Two authors assessed risk of bias of included studies and quality of the body of evidence using the GRADE methodology. Data were described according to PRISMA guidelines and CONSORT and TIDieR checklists. If appropriate, random-effects meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 1,236 identified studies, 26 studies were eligible. Infants and children/adolescents were treated for various (non-)musculoskeletal indications, hypothesized to be related to spinal joint dysfunction. Studies examining the same population, indication and treatment comparison were scarce. Due to very low quality evidence, it is uncertain whether gentle, low-velocity mobilizations reduce complaints in infants with colic or torticollis, and whether high-velocity, low-amplitude manipulations reduce complaints in children/adolescents with autism, asthma, nocturnal enuresis, headache or idiopathic scoliosis. Five case reports described severe harms after HVLA manipulations in four infants and one child. Mild, transient harms were reported after gentle spinal mobilizations in infants and children, and could be interpreted as side effect of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on GRADE methodology, we found the evidence was of very low quality; this prevented us from drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of specific SMT techniques in infants, children and adolescents. Outcomes in the included studies were mostly parent or patient-reported; studies did not report on intermediate outcomes to assess the effectiveness of SMT techniques in relation to the hypothesized spinal dysfunction. Severe harms were relatively scarce, poorly described and likely to be associated with underlying missed pathology. Gentle, low-velocity spinal mobilizations seem to be a safe treatment technique in infants, children and adolescents. We encourage future research to describe effectiveness and safety of specific SMT techniques instead of SMT as a general treatment approach.

Exercise therapy in the treatment of tendinopathies of the lower limbs: a protocol of a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Tendinopathies are specific degenerative conditions of the tendon characterized by pain and disability. The most common tendinopathies of the lower limbs are patellar, Achilles, gluteal, and proximal tendinopathy of the hamstring muscles. Exercise therapy has been studied for the treatment of these tendinopathies; however, different types of muscle contraction, exercise, dose, and intensity are found in the literature, which can make choosing the best treatment option difficult. The purpose of this systematic review is to analyze the available evidence about the effectiveness of exercise therapy in the treatment of patients with lower limb tendinopathies and the effects of different types of exercise therapy in the treatment of these patients.

METHODS

The search strategy will be performed in the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL. The inclusion criteria of the studies will be randomized controlled trials with patients with one of the following tendinopathies: patellar, Achilles, gluteal, and proximal tendinopathy of the hamstring muscles. The primary outcomes will be pain and disability. The intervention will be exercise therapy, and the comparators will be different types of exercise, control groups, or any other type of intervention.

DISCUSSION

Other systematic reviews have been published about the prescription of exercise therapy in the treatment of tendinopathies of the lower limbs. However, the results of these reviews are limited to only one type of tendinopathy or specific exercise. Because some of these reviews are also outdated, this systematic review will investigate whether exercise therapy is more effective than any other type of intervention and if there is a best form of exercise therapy, considering modality, dose, and intensity, for the treatment of lower limb tendinopathies. Furthermore, this study will present data related to the sample size, recruitment period, methodological quality, and visibility of the eligible studies.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ( CRD42018093011 ).

Shiatsu for chronic lower back pain: Randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Although Shiatsu, a kind of complementary alternative medicine, was developed in Japan and is practiced around the world, no experimental studies on Shiatsu have been conducted. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy of Shiatsu therapy for chronic lower back pain.

METHOD

We conducted a prospective, randomized, open, blinded-endpoint design study at St. Luke's International Hospital, Tokyo, Japan from 2015 to 2017. Patients with lower back pain for more than 12 weeks and a score of four or more on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) at baseline were included in this study. We excluded patients with severe conditions, such as bone metastasis, or dementia. Patients were randomly allocated to either Shiatsu therapy in addition to standard care or standard care only by computer randomization. Those allocated to Shiatsu received one-hour Shiatsu every week for four weeks. Our primary outcome was improvement of RMDQ, and secondary outcomes were improvement of Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and EQ-5D after 4 weeks and 8 weeks. Bivariate analyses were applied for assessing statistical significance.

RESULT

Fifty-nine patients were included; 30 were allocated to Shiatsu, and 29 to the control group. None of the baseline characteristics were significantly different between groups. Twenty seven patients (90%) in the Shiatsu group and 24 patients (83%) in the control group completed the study. At week 4, Shiatsu group tended to show greater improvement only in EQ-5D (difference 0.068, p = 0.07), but not statistically significant, compared to control group, wheres other outcome measures were similar between the groups. At week 8, those in the Shiatsu group tended to have greater improvement in RMDQ (difference 1.7, p = 0.08) compared to the control group. The Shiatsu group showed greater improvement in present pain scale of SF-MPQ (difference 0.5, p < 0.05), ODI (difference 4.0, p < 0.01) and EQ-5D (difference 0.099, p = 0.01) compared to control group.

CONCLUSION

In our limited sample trail, Shiatsu therapy combined with standard care for lower back pain improves some symptoms and QOL shortly after Shiatsu therapy.

Comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for non-acute low back pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is common, with a lifetime prevalence of 80%, and as such it places substantial social and economic burden on individuals and society. Chuna manual therapy (CMT) combines aspects of physiology, biodynamics of spine and joint motion, and basic theory of movement dynamics. This study aimed to test the comparative effectiveness and safety of CMT for non-acute LBP.

Methods

A three-arm, multicenter, pragmatic, randomized controlled pilot trial was conducted from 28 March 2016 to 19 September 2016, at four medical institutions. A total of 60 patients were randomly allocated to the CMT group (n = 20), usual care (UC) group (n = 20), or combined treatment (CMT + UC) group (n = 20), and received the relevant treatments for 6 weeks. The primary outcome was a numeric rating scale (NRS) representation of LBP intensity, while secondary outcomes included NRS of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), the EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D), lumbar range of motion, and safety.

Results

A total of 60 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis and 55 patients (CMT, 18; UC, 18; CMT + UC, 19) were included in the per-protocol analysis (drop-out rate 5.3%). Over the treatment period there were significant differences in the NRS score for LBP (CMT mean − 3.28 (95% CI − 4.08, − 2.47); UC − 1.95 (− 2.82, − 1.08); CMT + UC − 1.75 (− 2.70, − 0.80), P < 0.01) and the ODI scores in each group (CMT − 12.29 (− 16.86, − 7.72); UC − 10.34 (− 14.63, − 6.06); CMT + UC − 9.27 (− 14.28, − 4.26), P < 0.01). The changes in other secondary outcomes did not significantly differ among the three groups. Sixteen minor-to-moderate safety concerns were reported.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that CMT has comparative efficacy for non-acute LBP and is generally safe. As this was a preliminary study, a well-powered (over 192 participants) two-arm (CMT versus UC) verification trial will be performed to assess the generalizability of these results.

Trial registration

Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS), KCT0001850. Registered on 12 March 2016.

Benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy for the treatment of chronic low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for the treatment of chronic low back pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Index to Chiropractic Literature, and trial registries up to 4 May 2018, including reference lists of eligible trials and related reviews.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials examining the effect of spinal manipulation or mobilisation in adults (≥18 years) with chronic low back pain with or without referred pain. Studies that exclusively examined sciatica were excluded, as was grey literature. No restrictions were applied to language or setting.

REVIEW METHODS

Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The effect of SMT was compared with recommended therapies, non-recommended therapies, sham (placebo) SMT, and SMT as an adjuvant therapy. Main outcomes were pain and back specific functional status, examined as mean differences and standardised mean differences (SMD), respectively. Outcomes were examined at 1, 6, and 12 months. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. A random effects model was used and statistical heterogeneity explored.

RESULTS

47 randomised controlled trials including a total of 9211 participants were identified, who were on average middle aged (35-60 years). Most trials compared SMT with recommended therapies. Moderate quality evidence suggested that SMT has similar effects to other recommended therapies for short term pain relief (mean difference -3.17, 95% confidence interval -7.85 to 1.51) and a small, clinically better improvement in function (SMD -0.25, 95% confidence interval -0.41 to -0.09). High quality evidence suggested that compared with non-recommended therapies SMT results in small, not clinically better effects for short term pain relief (mean difference -7.48, -11.50 to -3.47) and small to moderate clinically better improvement in function (SMD -0.41, -0.67 to -0.15). In general, these results were similar for the intermediate and long term outcomes as were the effects of SMT as an adjuvant therapy. Evidence for sham SMT was low to very low quality; therefore these effects should be considered uncertain. Statistical heterogeneity could not be explained. About half of the studies examined adverse and serious adverse events, but in most of these it was unclear how and whether these events were registered systematically. Most of the observed adverse events were musculoskeletal related, transient in nature, and of mild to moderate severity. One study with a low risk of selection bias and powered to examine risk (n=183) found no increased risk of an adverse event (relative risk 1.24, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.81) or duration of the event (1.13, 0.59 to 2.18) compared with sham SMT. In one study, the Data Safety Monitoring Board judged one serious adverse event to be possibly related to SMT.

CONCLUSION

SMT produces similar effects to recommended therapies for chronic low back pain, whereas SMT seems to be better than non-recommended interventions for improvement in function in the short term. Clinicians should inform their patients of the potential risks of adverse events associated with SMT.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Team-Based Integrative Medicine Approach to the Treatment of Back Pain

OBJECTIVES

To report the results of health economic analyses comparing two treatment approaches for chronic low back pain (CLBP).

DESIGN

Observational prospective cohort study comparing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CLBP care provided at an integrative care clinic with that provided in other clinics within the same hospital. CLBP-related medical utilization, function, quality of life, and days of work incapacity were self-reported at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months.

SETTINGS/LOCATION

Osher Clinical Center (OCC) based at a tertiary academic hospital (Brigham and Women's Hospital [BWH]) and other clinics at BWH.

SUBJECTS

CLBP patients seeking care at OCC or non-OCC BWH clinics.

INTERVENTIONS

Integrative or conventional care for CLBP as prescribed by the treating clinician(s).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated per treatment approach based on the SF-12. Cost per QALY gained was evaluated using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). ICERs based on CLBP-specific effectiveness measures (Roland Disability Questionnaire [RDQ] and bothersomeness of pain [BOP]) were exploratory outcomes.

RESULTS

Total adjusted annual CLBP-related costs per patient were greater in the OCC versus non-OCC group ($11,526.73 vs. $6,810.63). Between group differences in QALYs were small and ICER estimate of cost per QALY gained was high ($436,676). However, unadjusted mean direct costs per patient decreased over time in the OCC group. Savings in direct costs of $391 (95% confidence interval: -1,078 to 1,861) were observed in the OCC group for the 6- to 12-month period, driven primarily by reduced medication usage. ICERs based on adjusted RDQ and BOP group differences showed cost of $2,073 and $4,203 for a one-point reduction per respective scale.

CONCLUSIONS

When adjusted for baseline differences, self-reported costs were higher in the OCC group with only small effects on QALYs. However, trends toward decreased direct expenditures and medication usage over time warrant further investigation. Future studies evaluating potential benefits of integrative care models for the management of CLBP should employ randomized designs, longer observational periods, and explore multiple metrics of cost-effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation, exercise, and self-management for spinal pain using an individual participant data meta-analysis approach: a study protocol

Background

Spinal pain is a common and disabling condition with considerable socioeconomic burden. Spine pain management in the United States has gathered increased scrutiny amidst concerns of overutilization of costly and potentially harmful interventions and diagnostic tests. Conservative interventions such as spinal manipulation, exercise and self-management may provide value for the care of spinal pain, but little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions in the U.S. Our primary objective for this project is to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, and self-management for spinal pain using an individual patient data meta-analysis approach.

Methods/design

We will estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, and self-management using cost and clinical outcome data collected in eight randomized clinical trials performed in the U.S. Cost-effectiveness will be assessed from both societal and healthcare perspectives using QALYs, pain intensity, and disability as effectiveness measures. The eight randomized clinical trials used similar methods and included different combinations of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, or self-management for spinal pain. They also collected similar clinical outcome, healthcare utilization, and work productivity data. A two-stage approach to individual patient data meta-analysis will be conducted.

Discussion

This project capitalizes on a unique opportunity to combine clinical and economic data collected in a several clinical trials that used similar methods. The findings will provide important information on the value of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, and self-management for spinal pain management in the U.S.

[Nonpharmacological pain therapy for chronic pain]

The treatment of chronic pain should be a multimodal combination of pharmacological and nonpharmacological components. This article describes some of the nonpharmacological treatment options and their evidence (e.g. physical therapy, massage, manual therapy, electrotherapy, acupuncture and music therapy). The evidence for an empirically detected effectiveness of all these forms of therapy is not very high and often inconsistent. Nevertheless, this does not mean that these forms of treatment should not be used but that they should be selected on an individual basis to improve the well-being of patients by being adjusted to their needs.

Management of Functional Somatic Syndromes and Bodily Distress

Functional somatic syndromes (FSS), like irritable bowel syndrome or fibromyalgia and other symptoms reflecting bodily distress, are common in practically all areas of medicine worldwide. Diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to these symptoms and syndromes vary substantially across and within medical specialties from biomedicine to psychiatry. Patients may become frustrated with the lack of effective treatment, doctors may experience these disorders as difficult to treat, and this type of health problem forms an important component of the global burden of disease. This review intends to develop a unifying perspective on the understanding and management of FSS and bodily distress. Firstly, we present the clinical problem and review current concepts for classification. Secondly, we propose an integrated etiological model which encompasses a wide range of biopsychosocial vulnerability and triggering factors and considers consecutive aggravating and maintaining factors. Thirdly, we systematically scrutinize the current evidence base in terms of an umbrella review of systematic reviews from 2007 to 2017 and give recommendations for treatment for all levels of care, concentrating on developments over the last 10 years. We conclude that activating, patient-involving, and centrally acting therapies appear to be more effective than passive ones that primarily act on peripheral physiology, and we recommend stepped care approaches that translate a truly biopsychosocial approach into actual management of the patient.

The Nordic Maintenance Care program: Effectiveness of chiropractic maintenance care versus symptom-guided treatment for recurrent and persistent low back pain-A pragmatic randomized controlled trial

Background

For individuals with recurrent or persistent non-specific low back pain (LBP), exercise and exercise combined with education have been shown to be effective in preventing new episodes or in reducing the impact of the condition. Chiropractors have traditionally used Maintenance Care (MC), as secondary and tertiary prevention strategies. The aim of this trial was to investigate the effectiveness of MC on pain trajectories for patients with recurrent or persistent LBP.

Method

This pragmatic, investigator-blinded, two arm randomized controlled trial included consecutive patients (18–65 years old) with non-specific LBP, who had an early favorable response to chiropractic care. After an initial course of treatment, eligible subjects were randomized to either MC or control (symptom-guided treatment). The primary outcome was total number of days with bothersome LBP during 52 weeks collected weekly with text-messages (SMS) and estimated by a GEE model.

Results

Three hundred and twenty-eight subjects were randomly allocated to one of the two treatment groups. MC resulted in a reduction in the total number of days per week with bothersome LBP compared with symptom-guided treatment. During the 12 month study period, the MC group (n = 163, 3 dropouts) reported 12.8 (95% CI = 10.1, 15.5; p = <0.001) fewer days in total with bothersome LBP compared to the control group (n = 158, 4 dropouts) and received 1.7 (95% CI = 1.8, 2.1; p = <0.001) more treatments. Numbers presented are means. No serious adverse events were recorded.

Conclusion

MC was more effective than symptom-guided treatment in reducing the total number of days over 52 weeks with bothersome non-specific LBP but it resulted in a higher number of treatments. For selected patients with recurrent or persistent non-specific LBP who respond well to an initial course of chiropractic care, MC should be considered an option for tertiary prevention.

Elevated Production of Nociceptive CC Chemokines and sE-Selectin in Patients With Low Back Pain and the Effects of Spinal Manipulation: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The involvement of inflammatory components in the pathophysiology of low back pain (LBP) is poorly understood. It has been suggested that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) may exert anti-inflammatory effects.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the involvement of inflammation-associated chemokines (CC series) in the pathogenesis of nonspecific LBP and to evaluate the effect of SMT on that process.

METHODS

Patients presenting with nonradicular, nonspecific LBP (minimum pain score 3 on 10-point visual analog scale) were recruited according to stringent inclusion criteria. They were evaluated for appropriateness to treat using a high velocity low amplitude manipulative thrust in the lumbar-lumbosacral region. Blood samples were obtained at baseline and following the administration of a series of 6 high velocity low amplitude manipulative thrusts on alternate days over the period of 2 weeks. The in vitro levels of CC chemokine ligands (CCL2, CCL3, and CCL4) production and plasma levels of an inflammatory biomarker, soluble E-selectin (sE-selectin), were determined at baseline and at the termination of treatments 2 weeks later.

RESULTS

Compared with asymptomatic controls baseline production of all chemokines was significantly elevated in acute (P=0.004 to <0.0001), and that of CCL2 and CCL4 in chronic LBP patients (P<0.0001). Furthermore, CCL4 production was significantly higher (P<0.0001) in the acute versus chronic LBP group. sE-selectin levels were significantly higher (P=0.003) in chronic but not in acute LBP patients. Following SMT, patient-reported outcomes showed significant (P<0.0001) improvements in visual analog scale and Oswestry Disability Index scores. This was accompanied by a significant decline in CCL3 production (P<0.0001) in both groups of patients. Change scores for CCL4 production differed significantly (P<0.0001) only for the acute LBP cohort, and no effect on the production of CCL2 or plasma sE-selectin levels was noted in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

The production of chemotactic cytokines is significantly and protractedly elevated in LBP patients. Changes in chemokine production levels, which might be related to SMT, differ in the acute and chronic LBP patient cohorts.

Failure to define low back pain as a disease or an episode renders research on causality unsuitable: results of a systematic review

Background

Causative factors may be different for the very first onset of symptoms of the ‘disease’ of low back pain (LBP) than for ensuing episodes that occur after a pain-free period. This differentiation hinges on a life-time absence of low back pain at first onset and short-term absence for further episodes. In this systematic review, we explored whether researchers make these distinctions when investigating the causality of LBP.

Methods

A literature search of PUBMED, CINAHL, and SCOPUS databases was performed from January 2010 until September 2016 using the search terms ‘low back pain’ or ‘back pain’ and ‘risk factor’ or ‘caus*’ or ‘predict*’ or ‘onset’ or ‘first-time’ or ‘inception’ or ‘incidence’. Two reviewers extracted information on study design, types of episodes of back pain to distinguish the disease of LBP and recurring episodes, and also to determine the definitions of disease- or pain-free periods.

Results

Thirty-three articles purporting to study causes of LBP were included. Upon scrutiny, 31 of the 33 articles were unclear as to what type of causality they were studying, that of the ‘disease’ or the episode, or a mere association with LBP. Only 9 studies used a prospective study design. Five studies appeared to investigate the onset of the disease of LBP, however, only one study truly captured the first incidence of LBP, which was the result of sports injury. Six appeared to study episodes but only one clearly related to the concept of episodes. Therefore, among those 11 studies, nine included both first-time LBP and episodes of LBP. Consequently, 22 studies related to the prevalence of LBP, as they probably included a mixture of first-time, recurring and ongoing episodes without distinction.

Conclusion

Recent literature concerning the causality of LBP does not differentiate between the ‘disease’ of LBP and its recurring episodes mainly due to a lack of a clear definition of absence of LBP at baseline. Therefore, current research is not capable of providing a valid answer on this topic.

A pilot study to determine the effect of one physical therapy session on physical activity levels for individuals with chronic low back pain

Background

A pilot study was conducted to quantify the effect size of changes in physical activity after of one session of physical therapy for individuals with chronic low back pain and to determine factors that predict daily sedentary activity time.

Methods

Fourteen subjects with at least 3 days of physical activity accelerometer data were analyzed before and after one session of physical therapy. Data was analyzed using 1-tailed, paired t-tests with level of significance set at 0.05. Effect sizes were computed using the baseline and post intervention mean differences divided by the baseline and post-intervention differences in the standard deviation.

Results

A nonsignificant reduction in steps-per-day and time spent performing sedentary activities, with increases in light and moderate–vigorous physical activity were found (effect size: 0.15–0.33). A nonsignificant decrease in daily sitting and standing time 1 week immediately following the physical therapy session and an increase in daily lying time (p = 0.03) (effect size: 0.23–0.69) were found.

Conclusion

One physical therapy session resulted in a small physical activity change for individuals with chronic low back pain. Baseline and post intervention levels of pain catastrophisation and perceptions of disability need to be explored in future studies to determine if these are factors that influence levels of physical activity change for these individuals Results are limited by the small sample size, however the ability to increase physical activity in this population may be of clinical relevance.

Trial Registration NCT02823756; June 30, 2016: Retrospectively Registered

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13104-017-3006-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

High-dose opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is typically described as pain on most days for at least three months. Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is any chronic pain that is not due to a malignancy. Chronic non-cancer pain in adults is a common and complex clinical issue where opioids are routinely used for pain management. There are concerns that the use of high doses of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain lacks evidence of effectiveness and may increase the risk of adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the evidence from Cochrane Reviews and Overviews regarding the efficacy and safety of high-dose opioids (here defined as 200 mg morphine equivalent or more per day) for chronic non-cancer pain.

METHODS

We identified Cochrane Reviews and Overviews through a search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The Cochrane Library). The date of the last search was 18 April 2017. Two review authors independently assessed the search results. We planned to analyse data on any opioid agent used at high dose for two weeks or more for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain in adults.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any reviews or overviews meeting the inclusion criteria. The excluded reviews largely reflected low doses or titrated doses where all doses were analysed as a single group; no data for high dose only could be extracted.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a critical lack of high-quality evidence regarding how well high-dose opioids work for the management of chronic non-cancer pain in adults, and regarding the presence and severity of adverse events. No evidence-based argument can be made on the use of high-dose opioids, i.e. 200 mg morphine equivalent or more daily, in clinical practice. Trials typically used doses below our cut-off; we need to know the efficacy and harm of higher doses, which are often used in clinical practice.

Adverse events associated with medium- and long-term use of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is common and can be challenging to manage. Despite increased utilisation of opioids, the safety and efficacy of long-term use of these compounds for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) remains controversial. This overview of Cochrane Reviews complements the overview entitled 'High-dose opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews'.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the occurrence and nature of adverse events associated with any opioid agent (any dose, frequency, or route of administration) used on a medium- or long-term basis for the treatment of CNCP in adults.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (the Cochrane Library) Issue 3, 2017 on 8 March 2017 to identify all Cochrane Reviews of studies of medium- or long-term opioid use (2 weeks or more) for CNCP in adults aged 18 and over. We assessed the quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR criteria (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) as adapted for Cochrane Overviews. We assessed the quality of the evidence for the outcomes using the GRADE framework.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 16 reviews in our overview, of which 14 presented unique quantitative data. These 14 Cochrane Reviews investigated 14 different opioid agents that were administered for time periods of two weeks or longer. The longest study was 13 months in duration, with most in the 6- to 16-week range. The quality of the included reviews was high using AMSTAR criteria, with 11 reviews meeting all 10 criteria, and 5 of the reviews meeting 9 out of 10, not scoring a point for either duplicate study selection and data extraction, or searching for articles irrespective of language and publication type. The quality of the evidence for the generic adverse event outcomes according to GRADE ranged from very low to moderate, with risk of bias and imprecision being identified for the following generic adverse event outcomes: any adverse event, any serious adverse event, and withdrawals due to adverse events. A GRADE assessment of the quality of the evidence for specific adverse events led to a downgrading to very low- to moderate-quality evidence due to risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision.We calculated the equivalent milligrams of morphine per 24 hours for each opioid studied (buprenorphine, codeine, dextropropoxyphene, dihydrocodeine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, levorphanol, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, tapentadol, tilidine, and tramadol). In the 14 Cochrane Reviews providing unique quantitative data, there were 61 studies with a total of 18,679 randomised participants; 12 of these studies had a cross-over design with two to four arms and a total of 796 participants. Based on the 14 selected Cochrane Reviews, there was a significantly increased risk of experiencing any adverse event with opioids compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.66) as well as with opioids compared to a non-opioid active pharmacological comparator, with a similar risk ratio (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.33). There was also a significantly increased risk of experiencing a serious adverse event with opioids compared to placebo (RR 2.75, 95% CI 2.06 to 3.67). Furthermore, we found significantly increased risk ratios with opioids compared to placebo for a number of specific adverse events: constipation, dizziness, drowsiness, fatigue, hot flushes, increased sweating, nausea, pruritus, and vomiting.There was no data on any of the following prespecified adverse events of interest in any of the included reviews in this overview of Cochrane Reviews: addiction, cognitive dysfunction, depressive symptoms or mood disturbances, hypogonadism or other endocrine dysfunction, respiratory depression, sexual dysfunction, and sleep apnoea or sleep-disordered breathing. We found no data for adverse events analysed by sex or ethnicity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A number of adverse events, including serious adverse events, are associated with the medium- and long-term use of opioids for CNCP. The absolute event rate for any adverse event with opioids in trials using a placebo as comparison was 78%, with an absolute event rate of 7.5% for any serious adverse event. Based on the adverse events identified, clinically relevant benefit would need to be clearly demonstrated before long-term use could be considered in people with CNCP in clinical practice. A number of adverse events that we would have expected to occur with opioid use were not reported in the included Cochrane Reviews. Going forward, we recommend more rigorous identification and reporting of all adverse events in randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews on opioid therapy. The absence of data for many adverse events represents a serious limitation of the evidence on opioids. We also recommend extending study follow-up, as a latency of onset may exist for some adverse events.

Systematic review of management of chronic pain after surgery

BACKGROUND

Pain present for at least 3 months after a surgical procedure is considered chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) and affects 10-50 per cent of patients. Interventions for CPSP may focus on the underlying condition that indicated surgery, the aetiology of new-onset pain or be multifactorial in recognition of the diverse causes of this pain. The aim of this systematic review was to identify RCTs of interventions for the management of CPSP, and synthesize data across treatment type to estimate their effectiveness and safety.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to March 2016. Trials of pain interventions received by patients at 3 months or more after surgery were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

RESULTS

Some 66 trials with data from 3149 participants were included. Most trials included patients with chronic pain after spinal surgery (25 trials) or phantom limb pain (21 trials). Interventions were predominantly pharmacological, including antiepileptics, capsaicin, epidural steroid injections, local anaesthetic, neurotoxins, N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antagonists and opioids. Other interventions included acupuncture, exercise, postamputation limb liner, spinal cord stimulation, further surgery, laser therapy, magnetic stimulation, mindfulness-based stress reduction, mirror therapy and sensory discrimination training. Opportunities for meta-analysis were limited by heterogeneity. For all interventions, there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for more evidence about interventions for CPSP. High-quality trials of multimodal interventions matched to pain characteristics are needed to provide robust evidence to guide management of CPSP.

Esoteric Connective Tissue Therapy for chronic low back pain to reduce pain, and improve functionality and general well-being compared with physiotherapy: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Low back pain causes more global disability than any other condition. Once the acute pain becomes chronic, about two-thirds of sufferers will not fully recover after 1-2 years. There is a paucity of effective treatments for non-specific, chronic low back pain. It has been noted that low back pain is associated with changes in the connective tissue in the affected area, and a very low-impact treatment, Esoteric Connective Tissue Therapy (ECTT), has been developed to restore flexibility in connective tissue. ECTT uses patterns of very small, circular movements, to the legs, arms, spine, sacrum and head, which anecdotally are effective in pain relief. In an unpublished single-arm phase I/II trial with chronic pain patients, ECTT showed a 56% reduction in pain after five treatments and 45% and 54% improvements at 6 months and 7-9 years of follow-up respectively.

METHODS

The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to compare ECTT with physiotherapy for reducing pain and improving physical function and physical and mental well-being in patients with chronic low back pain. The trial will be held at two hospitals in Vietnam. One hundred participants with chronic low back pain greater than or equal to 40/100 on the visual analogue scale will be recruited and randomised to either ECTT or physiotherapy. Four weekly treatments will be provided by two experienced ECTT practitioners (Treatment Group, 40 minutes each) and hospital-employed physiotherapy nurses (Control Group, 50 minutes). The primary outcomes will be changes in pain, physical function per the Quebec Pain Functionality Questionnaire and physical and mental well-being recorded by the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), with mixed modelling used as the primary statistical tool because the data are longitudinal. Initial follow-up will be at either 4 or 8 months, with a second follow-up after 12 months.

DISCUSSION

The trial design has important strengths, because it is to be conducted in hospitals under medical supervision, because ECTT is to be compared with a standard therapy and because the assessor and analyst are to be blinded. The findings from this trial will provide evidence of the efficacy of ECTT for chronic low back pain compared with standard physiotherapy treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616001196437 . Registered on 30 August 2016.

Manual therapy compared with physical therapy in patients with non-specific neck pain: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Manual therapy according to the School of Manual Therapy Utrecht (MTU) is a specific type of passive manual joint mobilization. MTU has not yet been systematically compared to other manual therapies and physical therapy. In this study the effectiveness of MTU is compared to physical therapy, particularly active exercise therapy (PT) in patients with non-specific neck pain.

Methods

Patients neck pain, aged between 18–70 years, were included in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial with a one-year follow-up. Primary outcome measures were global perceived effect and functioning (Neck Disability Index), the secondary outcome was pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale for Pain). Outcomes were measured at 3, 7, 13, 26 and 52 weeks. Multilevel analyses (intention-to-treat) were the primary analyses for overall between-group differences. Additional to the primary and secondary outcomes the number of treatment sessions of the MTU group and PT group was analyzed. Data were collected from September 2008 to February 2011.

Results

A total of 181 patients were included. Multilevel analyses showed no statistically significant overall differences at one year between the MTU and PT groups on any of the primary and secondary outcomes. The MTU group showed significantly lower treatment sessions compared to the PT group (respectively 3.1 vs. 5.9 after 7 weeks; 6.1 vs. 10.0 after 52 weeks).

Conclusions

Patients with neck pain improved in both groups without statistical significantly or clinically relevant differences between the MTU and PT groups during one-year follow-up.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00713843.

The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a widely used manual treatment, but many reviews exist with conflicting conclusions about the safety of SMT. We performed an overview of reviews to elucidate and quantify the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with SMT.

METHODS

We searched five electronic databases from inception to December 8, 2015. We included reviews on any type of studies, patients, and SMT technique. Our primary outcome was SAEs. Quality of the included reviews was assessed using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). Since there were insufficient data for calculating incidence rates of SAEs, we used an alternative approach; the conclusions regarding safety of SMT were extracted for each review, and the communicated opinion were judged by two reviewers independently as safe, harmful, or neutral/unclear. Risk ratios (RRs) of a review communicating that SMT is safe and meeting the requirements for each AMSTAR item, were calculated.

RESULTS

We identified 283 eligible reviews, but only 118 provided data for synthesis. The most frequently described adverse events (AEs) were stroke, headache, and vertebral artery dissection. Fifty-four reviews (46%) expressed that SMT is safe, 15 (13%) expressed that SMT is harmful, and 49 reviews (42%) were neutral or unclear. Thirteen reviews reported incidence estimates for SAEs, roughly ranging from 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 250,000,000 manipulations. Low methodological quality was present, with a median of 4 of 11 AMSTAR items met (interquartile range, 3 to 6). Reviews meeting the requirements for each of the AMSTAR items (i.e. good internal validity) had a higher chance of expressing that SMT is safe.

CONCLUSIONS

It is currently not possible to provide an overall conclusion about the safety of SMT; however, the types of SAEs reported can indeed be significant, sustaining that some risk is present. High quality research and consistent reporting of AEs and SAEs are needed.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42015030068 .

Non-specific low back pain

Non-specific low back pain affects people of all ages and is a leading contributor to disease burden worldwide. Management guidelines endorse triage to identify the rare cases of low back pain that are caused by medically serious pathology, and so require diagnostic work-up or specialist referral, or both. Because non-specific low back pain does not have a known pathoanatomical cause, treatment focuses on reducing pain and its consequences. Management consists of education and reassurance, analgesic medicines, non-pharmacological therapies, and timely review. The clinical course of low back pain is often favourable, thus many patients require little if any formal medical care. Two treatment strategies are currently used, a stepped approach beginning with more simple care that is progressed if the patient does not respond, and the use of simple risk prediction methods to individualise the amount and type of care provided. The overuse of imaging, opioids, and surgery remains a widespread problem.

Rational and design of an individual participant data meta-analysis of spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain-a protocol

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of pain and disability, resulting in a major socioeconomic impact. The Cochrane Review which examined the effect of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for chronic LBP concluded that SMT is moderately effective, but was based on conventional meta-analysis of aggregate data. The use of individual participant data (IPD) from trials allows for a more precise estimate of the treatment effect and has the potential to identify moderators and/or mediators. The aim is (1) to assess the overall treatment effect of SMT for primary and secondary outcomes in adults with chronic LBP, (2) to determine possible moderation of baseline characteristics on treatment effect, (3) to identify characteristics of intervention (e.g., manipulation/mobilization) that influence the treatment effect, and (4) to identify mediators of treatment effects.

METHODS

All trials included in the Cochrane Review on SMT for chronic LBP will be included which were published after the year 2000, and the search will be updated. No restrictions will be placed on the type of comparison or size of the study. Primary outcomes are pain intensity and physical functioning. A dataset will be compiled consisting of individual trials and variables included according to a predefined coding scheme. Variables to be included are descriptive of characteristics of the study, treatment, comparison, participant characteristics, and outcomes at all follow-up periods. A one-stage approach with a mixed model technique based on the intention-to-treat principle will be used for the analysis. Subsequent analyses will focus on treatment effect moderators and mediators.

DISCUSSION

We will analyze IPD for LBP trials in which SMT is one of the interventions. IPD meta-analysis has been shown to be more reliable and valid than aggregate data meta-analysis, although this difference might also be attributed to the number of studies that can be used or the amount of data that can be utilized. Therefore, this project may identify important gaps in our knowledge with respect to prognostic factors of treatment effects.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42015025714.

Revisiting the Corticomotor Plasticity in Low Back Pain: Challenges and Perspectives

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a recurrent debilitating condition that costs billions to society. Refractoriness to conventional treatment, lack of improvement, and associated movement disorders could be related to the extensive brain plasticity present in this condition, especially in the sensorimotor cortices. This narrative review on corticomotor plasticity in CLBP will try to delineate how interventions such as training and neuromodulation can improve the condition. The review recommends subgrouping classification in CLBP owing to brain plasticity markers with a view of better understanding and treating this complex condition.

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.

Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in chiropractic using the CONSORT checklist

BACKGROUND

Reviews indicate that the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the medical literature is less than optimal, poor to moderate, and require improving. However, the reporting quality of chiropractic RCTs is unknown. As a result, the aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of chiropractic RCTs and identify factors associated with better reporting quality. We hypothesized that quality of reporting of RCTs was influenced by industry funding, positive findings, larger sample sizes, latter year of publication and publication in non-chiropractic journals.

METHODS

RCTs published between 2005 and 2014 were sourced from clinical trial registers, PubMed and the Cochrane Reviews. RCTs were included if they involved high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) spinal and/or extremity manipulation and were conducted by a chiropractor or within a chiropractic department. Data extraction, and reviews were conducted by all authors independently. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

OUTCOMES

a 39-point overall quality of reporting score checklist was developed based on the CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT for Non-Pharmacological Treatments statements. Four key methodological items, based on allocation concealment, blinding of participants and assessors, and use of intention-to-treat analysis (ITT) were also investigated.

RESULTS

Thirty-five RCTs were included. The overall quality of reporting score ranged between 10 and 33 (median score 26.0; IQR = 8.00). Allocation concealment, blinding of participants and assessors and ITT analysis were reported in 31 (87 %), 16 (46 %), 25 (71 %) and 21 (60 %) of the 35 RCTs respectively. Items most underreported were from the CONSORT for Non-Pharmacological Treatments statement. Multivariate regression analysis, revealed that year of publication (t32 = 5.17, p = 0.000, 95 % CI: 0.76, 1.76), and sample size (t32 = 3.01, p = 0.005, 95 % CI: 1.36, 7.02), were the only two factors associated with reporting quality.

CONCLUSION

The overall quality of reporting RCTs in chiropractic ranged from poor to excellent, improving between 2005 and 2014. This study suggests that quality of reporting, was influenced by year of publication and sample size but not journal type, funding source or outcome positivity. Reporting of some key methodological items and uptake of items from the CONSORT Extension for Non-Pharmacological Treatments items was suboptimal. Future recommendations were made.

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.

Three combinations of manual therapy techniques within naprapathy in the treatment of neck and/or back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Manual therapy as spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, stretching and massage are common treatment methods for neck and back pain. The objective was to compare the treatment effect on pain intensity, pain related disability and perceived recovery from a) naprapathic manual therapy (spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, stretching and massage) to b) naprapathic manual therapy without spinal manipulation and to c) naprapathic manual therapy without stretching for male and female patients seeking care for back and/or neck pain.

Method

Participants were recruited among patients, ages 18–65, seeking care at the educational clinic of Naprapathögskolan - the Scandinavian College of Naprapathic Manual Medicine in Stockholm. The patients (n = 1057) were randomized to one of three treatment arms a) manual therapy (i.e. spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, stretching and massage), b) manual therapy excluding spinal manipulation and c) manual therapy excluding stretching. The primary outcomes were minimal clinically important improvement in pain intensity and pain related disability. Treatments were provided by naprapath students in the seventh semester of eight total semesters. Generalized estimating equations and logistic regression were used to examine the association between the treatments and the outcomes.

Results

At 12 weeks follow-up, 64 % had a minimal clinically important improvement in pain intensity and 42 % in pain related disability. The corresponding chances to be improved at the 52 weeks follow-up were 58 % and 40 % respectively. No systematic differences in effect when excluding spinal manipulation and stretching respectively from the treatment were found over 1 year follow-up, concerning minimal clinically important improvement in pain intensity (p = 0.41) and pain related disability (p = 0.85) and perceived recovery (p = 0.98). Neither were there disparities in effect when male and female patients were analyzed separately.

Conclusion

The effect of manual therapy for male and female patients seeking care for neck and/or back pain at an educational clinic is similar regardless if spinal manipulation or if stretching is excluded from the treatment option.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN92249294