A Structured Protocol of Evidence-Based Conservative Care Compared With Usual Care for Acute Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Over Half of Clinical Trials of Mobilization and Manipulation for Patients With Low Back Pain May Have Limited Real-World Applicability: A Systematic Review of 132 Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the existing body of trials assessing manual therapy for low back pain (LBP) to determine where it falls on the efficacyeffectiveness continuum.

DESIGN

Methodology systematic review.

LITERATURE SEARCH

PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) were searched for trials published between January 1, 2000, and April 30, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized clinical trials investigating joint mobilization and manipulation for adults with nonspecific LBP that were available in English.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We used the Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool to score included trials across 4 domains: participant characteristics, trial setting, flexibility of intervention(s), and clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention(s). Proportions of trials with greater emphasis on efficacy or effectiveness were calculated for each domain.

RESULTS

Of the 132 included trials, a greater proportion emphasized efficacy than effectiveness for domains participant characteristics (50% vs 38%), trial setting (71% vs 20%), and flexibility of intervention(s) (61% vs 25%). The domain clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention(s) had lower emphasis on efficacy (41% vs 50%).

CONCLUSION

Most trials investigating manual therapy for LBP lack pragmatism across the RITES domains (ie, they emphasize efficacy). To improve real-world implementation, more research emphasizing effectiveness is needed. This could be accomplished by recruiting from more diverse participant pools, involving multiple centers that reflect common clinical practice settings, involving clinicians with a variety of backgrounds/experience, and allowing flexibility in how interventions are delivered. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(8):532-545. Epub: 19 June 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10962.

Acupuncture for acute non-specific low back pain: a randomised, controlled, multicentre intervention study in general practice-the Acuback study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a single treatment session of acupuncture, when applied in addition to standard treatment for acute low back pain (ALBP), reduces the time to recovery compared with standard treatment alone.

DESIGN

A multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

SETTING

Conducted at 11 Norwegian general practitioners' (GPs') offices.

PARTICIPANTS

171 adults aged 20-55 years seeking their GP for ALBP (≤14 days) between March 2014 and March 2017. Patients with secondary back pain and previous sick leave and acupuncture treatment was excluded.

INTERVENTIONS

The participants were randomised to either the control group (CG) or the acupuncture group (AG) by online software. The CG received standard treatment according to the Norwegian guidelines, while the AG received one session of Western medical acupuncture treatment in addition to standard treatment. The statistician was blinded to group status.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was median days to recovery. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity, global improvement, back-specific functional status, sick leave, medication and adverse effects.

RESULTS

185 participants were randomised, 95 in the CG and 90 in the AG. 14 participants did not receive the allocated intervention and 4 were excluded from the analysis. Thus, 167 participants were included in the analysis, 86 in the CG and 81 in the AG. The groups were similar according to baseline characteristics. The median time to recovery was 14 days for the CG and 9 days for the AG, HR 1.37 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.96), (p=0.089). No serious adverse effects were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find any statistically significant reduction in time-to-recovery after a single session of acupuncture for ALBP compared with standard care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01439412.

Pain and Pain Management Among University Students: Online Survey and Web-Based Education

Pain is common among university students. Unrelieved pain has adverse impacts on their quality of life. In this study, a pain management Web site was developed to distribute an online survey and provide Web-based pain education to university students. Participants were recruited from eight universities in Hong Kong using snowball sampling. The online survey included 37 items examining pain situations, pain management strategies, knowledge about self-medication, and demographic data of the participants. A total of 387 students participated and over 90 percent of them reported pain in the past 6 months. Around one-third of participants did not take any action to manage their pain. Pharmacological method was the most common strategy for students to relieve pain (37.2 percent). The use of over-the-counter (OTC) drug for pain relief was high (n = 214). However, OTC drug knowledge score was significantly higher among health-related group than nonhealth-related group (p < 0.001). There were 188 students who also read the Web-based pain education and completed the evaluation on its usefulness. Nonhealth-related students reported significantly higher scores of self-perceived usefulness for the online education than the health-related students (p < 0.001). Findings suggested the need to consider the service users' background when developing online education program in the future.

Predictive factors for reporting adverse events following spinal manipulation in randomized clinical trials - secondary analysis of a systematic review

While spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is recommended for the treatment of spinal disorders, concerns exist about adverse events associated with the intervention. Adequate reporting of adverse events in clinical trials would allow for more accurate estimations of incidence statistics through meta-analysis. However, it is not currently known if there are factors influencing adverse events reporting following SMT in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Thus our objective was to investigate predictive factors for the reporting of adverse events in published RCTs involving SMT. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for RCTs involving SMT. Domains of interest included: sample size; publication date relative to the 2010 CONSORT statement; risk of bias; the region treated; and number of intervention sessions. 7398 records were identified, of which 368 articles were eligible for inclusion. A total of 140 (38.0%) articles reported on adverse events. Articles were more likely to report on adverse events if they possessed larger sample sizes, were published after the 2010 CONSORT statement, had a low risk of bias and involved multiple intervention sessions. The region treated was not a significant predictor for reporting on adverse events. Predictors for reporting on adverse events included larger sample size, publication after the 2010 CONSORT statement, low risk of bias and trials involving multiple intervention sessions. We recommend that researchers focus on developing robust methodologies and participant follow-up regimens for RCTs involving SMT.

Clinical Outcomes of Total Disc Replacement Versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Surgical Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease

STUDY DESIGN

The authors performed a retrospective controlled study of patients diagnosed with lumbar degenerative disc disease who received surgical intervention (either total disc replacement [TDR]/Activ-L or anterior lumbar interbody fusion [ALIF]) at a single tertiary-care hospital from 2007-2010.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the clinical outcomes after TDR in comparison with ALIF for surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD).

METHODS

Analyzed data included intra-operative blood loss, time to return to work, and clinical outcomes as evaluated through the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain questionnaires pre-operatively and at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperative follow-up.

RESULTS

At the univariate analysis, patients submitted to TDR presented significantly lower VAS pain scores than patients who received ALIF starting at 6 weeks (P < .001) and continuing through one year postoperatively (P = .007). Patients submitted to TDR also presented significantly lower ODI disability scores at all time points. There was a significant difference in the number of days to return to work, with TDR patients returning to work on average 65 days sooner than ALIF patients (P = .011). There was no significant difference in the total blood loss between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this retrospective controlled study suggest that, in comparison with patients submitted to ALIF, patients submitted to TDR present quicker return to work, less back pain, and lower disability scores at 1 year follow-up.

Manual care of residents with spinal pain within a therapeutic community

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to examine the outcomes of chiropractic manipulative and manual therapy (MMT) provided to residents experiencing spinal pain in a substance misuse therapeutic community (TC).

Design/methodology/approach

Clinical audit to explore the potential benefits of the interventions offered to residents experiencing spinal pain in a TC. Residents seeking care underwent an assessment by either general practitioner or chiropractic intern. Eligible participants could choose one of the four interventions: usual care without any additional treatment (Group 1), usual care with simple analgesics (Group 2), usual care plus MMT without simple analgesics (Group 3), or usual care plus MMT with simple analgesics (Group 4). Outcome measures were the RAND-36-item short form health-related quality-of-life survey and the patient satisfaction questionnaire (PSQ). Data were collected at baseline and after six weeks for each participant, with those participants choosing MMT receiving up to six treatments over the study period. Two cycles of six weeks of data collection was used. Data were analysed for statistically significant (repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni correction) and clinically meaningful changes in scores.

Findings

Of 71 self-presenting residents seeking care, 68 were eligible to participate. Of these, 32 chose usual care with simple analgesics (Group 2) and 36 chose usual care plus the package of MMT but without simple analgesics (Group 3). None chose usual care without additional treatment or usual care plus the package of MMT with analgesics, thus offering only the data from two groups for analysis. Group allocation was non-random and based on patient choice. Between-group analysis of the cumulative and component RAND-36 data indicated a significant difference between the two groups (p=0.034), particularly in the physical outcomes (p=0.012), indicating that Group 3 had improved scores over Group 2. Group 3 showed a significant change in RAND-36 scores (p<0.01) when compared with Group 2 (p=0.23) over the six-week treatment period. The PSQ scores of the two groups showed a statistically significant difference (p=0.0093), suggesting that Group 3 had greater patient satisfaction with care. The outcomes suggest that the package of MMT in Group 3, delivered by an appropriately trained clinician may have added to therapeutic effect that extended beyond physical outcomes but also influenced psychological outcomes.

Research limitations/implications

The results of this clinical outcome-based audit suggest that the addition of a package of chiropractic MMT to usual care may be of benefit over usual care with simple analgesics for residents of a TC with spinal pain. The results intimate that benefits may extend across both the physical and psychological components of the pain experience, although a confirmatory study is recommended to substantiate these insights.

Originality/value

As far as the authors are aware, this trial is the first of this type in a TC, with the insights and experience gained supporting a definitive trial.

Evidence-based practice, research utilization, and knowledge translation in chiropractic: a scoping review

Background

Evidence-based practice (EBP) gaps are widespread across health disciplines. Understanding factors supporting the uptake of evidence can inform the design of strategies to narrow these EBP gaps. Although research utilization (RU) and the factors associated with EBP have been reported in several health disciplines, to date this area has not been reviewed comprehensively in the chiropractic profession. The purpose of this review was to report on the current state of knowledge on EBP, RU, and knowledge translation (KT) in chiropractic.

Methods

A scoping review using the Arksey and O’Malley framework was used to systematically select and summarize existing literature. Searches were conducted using a combination of keywords and MeSH terms from the earliest date available in each database to May 2015. Quantitative and thematic analyses of the selected literature were conducted.

Results

Nearly 85 % (56/67) of the included studies were conducted in Canada, USA, UK or Australia. Thematic analysis for the three categories (EBP, RU, KT) revealed two themes related to EBP (attitudes and beliefs of chiropractors; implementation of EBP), three related to RU (guideline adherence; frequency and sources of information accessed; and perceived value of websites and search engines), and three related to KT (knowledge practice gaps; barriers and facilitators to knowledge use; and selection, tailoring, and implementation of interventions). EBP gaps were noted in the areas of assessment of activity limitation, determination of psychosocial factors influencing pain, general health indicators, establishing a prognosis, and exercise prescription. While most practitioners believed EBP and research to be important and a few studies suggested that traditional and online educational strategies could improve patient care, use of EBP and guideline adherence varied widely.

Conclusion

Findings suggest that the majority of chiropractors hold favourable attitudes and beliefs toward EBP. However, much remains to be done for chiropractors to routinely apply evidence into clinical practice. Educational strategies aimed at practicing chiropractors can lead to more EBP and improved patient care. The chiropractic profession requires more robust dissemination and implementation research to improve guideline adherence and patient health outcomes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12906-016-1175-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Spinal pain: current understanding, trends, and the future of care

This commissioned review paper offers a summary of our current understanding of nonmalignant spinal pain, particularly persistent pain. Spinal pain can be a complex problem, requiring management that addresses both the physical and psychosocial components of the pain experience. We propose a model of care that includes the necessary components of care services that would address the multidimensional nature of spinal pain. Emerging care services that tailor care to the individual person with pain seems to achieve better outcomes and greater consumer satisfaction with care, while most likely containing costs. However, we recommend that any model of care and care framework should be developed on the basis of a multidisciplinary approach to care, with the scaffold being the principles of evidence-based practice. Importantly, we propose that any care services recommended in new models or frameworks be matched with available resources and services - this matching we promote as the fourth principle of evidence-based practice. Ongoing research will be necessary to offer insight into clinical outcomes of complex interventions, while practice-based research would uncover consumer needs and workforce capacity. This kind of research data is essential to inform health care policy and practice.

Enhanced therapeutic alliance modulates pain intensity and muscle pain sensitivity in patients with chronic low back pain: an experimental controlled study

BACKGROUND

Physical therapy influences chronic pain by means of the specific ingredient of an intervention as well as contextual factors including the setting and therapeutic alliance (TA) between provider and patient.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of enhanced versus limited TA on pain intensity and muscle pain sensitivity in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) receiving either active or sham interferential current therapy (IFC).

DESIGN

An experimental controlled study with repeated measures was conducted. Participants were randomly divided into 4 groups: (1) AL (n=30), which included the application of active IFC combined with a limited TA; (2) SL (n=29), which received sham IFC combined with a limited TA; (3) AE (n=29), which received active IFC combined with an enhanced TA; and (4) SE (n=29), which received sham IFC combined with an enhanced TA.

METHODS

One hundred seventeen individuals with CLBP received a single session of active or sham IFC. Measurements included pain intensity as assessed with a numerical rating scale (PI-NRS) and muscle pain sensitivity as assessed via pressure pain threshold (PPT).

RESULTS

Mean differences on the PI-NRS were 1.83 cm (95% CI=14.3-20.3), 1.03 cm (95% CI=6.6-12.7), 3.13 cm (95% CI=27.2-33.3), and 2.22 cm (95% CI=18.9-25.0) for the AL, SL, AE, and SE groups, respectively. Mean differences on PPTs were 1.2 kg (95% CI=0.7-1.6), 0.3 kg (95% CI=0.2-0.8), 2.0 kg (95% CI=1.6-2.5), and 1.7 kg (95% CI=1.3-2.1), for the AL, SL, AE, and SE groups, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

The study protocol aimed to test the immediate effect of the TA within a clinical laboratory setting.

CONCLUSIONS

The context in which physical therapy interventions are offered has the potential to dramatically improve therapeutic effects. Enhanced TA combined with active IFC appears to lead to clinically meaningful improvements in outcomes when treating patients with CLBP.