Short-term effectiveness of the flexion-distraction technique in comparison with high-velocity vertebral manipulation in patients suffering from low-back pain

Does manual therapy meaningfully change quantitative sensory testing and patient reported outcome measures in patients with musculoskeletal impairments related to the spine?: A 'trustworthy' systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To perform a 'trustworthy' systematic review (SR) with meta-analysis on the potential mechanisms of manual therapy used to treat spinal impairments.

DESIGN

SR with meta-analysis.

LITERATURE SEARCH

Articles published between January 2010 and October 2022 from CENTRAL, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, ProQuest, and PEDro.

METHODS

This SR included English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving manual therapy to treat spinal impairments in adults. The primary outcome was pressure pain thresholds (PPTs). To synthesize RCTs with high confidence in estimated effects using the GRADE, RCTs with questionable prospective, external, and internal validity, and high risk of bias (RoB) were excluded.

RESULTS

Following title and abstract screening, 89 full-text RCTs were reviewed. Twenty-two studies included the criteria of interest. Sixteen were not prospectively registered, two contained discussion/conclusions judged to be inconsistent with the registry, and one was rated as having a high RoB. Three studies met the inclusion criteria; heterogeneous interventions and locations for PPT testing prevented synthesis into practice recommendations. The two studies with high confidence in estimated effects had small effect sizes, and one study had confidence intervals that crossed zero for the outcome measures of interest.

DISCUSSION

Standardized PPT testing, as a potential measure of centrally mediated pain, could provide clues regarding the mechanisms of manual therapy or help identify/refine research questions.

CONCLUSION

High-quality RCTs could not be synthesized into strong conclusions secondary to the dissimilarity in research designs. Future research regarding quantitative sensory testing should develop RCTs with high confidence in estimated effects that can be translated into strong recommendations.

Is there 'trustworthy' evidence for using manual therapy to treat patients with shoulder dysfunction?: A systematic review

The primary objective of this review was to create a 'trustworthy,' living systematic review and meta-analysis for the application of manual therapy interventions in treating patients with shoulder dysfunction. Included studies were English-language randomized controlled trials published between 1/1/2010 and 8/3/2023, with searches performed in: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINHAL, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health, EBSCO Medline, and PEDro. The population of focus included adults 18 years and older with musculoskeletal impairments related to shoulder dysfunction. Our primary outcomes included pain and region-specific outcome measures. We excluded trials, including participants having shoulder dysfunction resulting from surgery, radicular pain, instability/dislocation, fracture, lymphedema, and radiation. Our screening methodology was based upon a previously published 'trustworthy' systematic review protocol. This included the application of our PICOTS criteria in addition to screening for prospective clinical trial registration and following of prospective intent, as well as assessment of PEDro scores, risk-of-bias ratings, GRADE scoring, and examination of confidence in estimated effects. Twenty-six randomized controlled trials met our PICOTS criteria; however, only 15 of these were registered. Only three were registered prospectively. Two of these did not have discussions and conclusions that aligned with their primary outcome. The remaining single study was found to have a high risk-of-bias, meaning the remainder of the protocol could not be employed and that no randomized controlled trials could undergo further assessment or meta-analysis. The results of this systematic review indicate there are no 'trustworthy' randomized controlled trials examining the effectiveness of manual therapy interventions for the treatment of patients with shoulder dysfunction, as defined by the prospectively established methodology. Therefore, these findings signal that creating a 'trustworthy,' living systematic review on this clinically relevant topic is not yet possible due to a lack of 'trustworthy' randomized controlled trials.

The relationships between spinal amplitude of movement, pain and disability in low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The role of spinal movement alterations in low back pain (LBP) remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analyses examined the relationships between spinal amplitude of movement, disability and pain intensity in patients with LBP.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Pedro and Web of Science for relevant articles until 14th March 2023. Risk of bias was assessed with the Quality in Prognostic Studies Tool. We analysed the relationships between amplitude of movement, disability and pain intensity with standard correlational meta-analyses and meta-analytic structural equation modelling (MASEM) in cross-sectional and longitudinal data.

RESULTS

A total of 106 studies (9001 participants) were included. In cross-sectional data, larger amplitude of movement was associated with lower disability (pooled coefficient: -0.25, 95% confidence interval: [-0.29 to -0.21]; 69/5899 studies/participants) and pain intensity (-0.13, [-0.17 to -0.09]; 74/5806). An increase in amplitude of movement was associated with a decrease in disability (-0.23, [-0.31 to -0.15]; 33/2437) and pain intensity (-0.25, [-0.33 to -0.17]; 38/2172) in longitudinal data. MASEM revealed similar results and, in addition, showed that amplitude of movement had a very small influence on the pain intensity-disability relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

These results showed a significant but small association between amplitude of movement and disability or pain intensity. Moreover, they demonstrated a direct association between an increase in amplitude of movement and a decrease in pain intensity or disability, supporting interventions aiming to reduce protective spinal movements in patients with LBP.

SIGNIFICANCE

The large meta-analyses performed in this work revealed an association between reductions in spinal amplitude of movement and increased levels of disability and pain intensity in people with LBP. Moreover, it highlighted that LBP recovery is associated with a reduction in protective motor behaviour (increased amplitude of movement), supporting the inclusion of spinal movement in the biopsychosocial understanding and management of LBP.

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.

Manipulative and manual therapies in the management of patients with prior lumbar surgery: A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Pain and disability may persist following lumbar spine surgery and patients may subsequently seek providers trained in manipulative and manual therapy (MMT). This systematic review investigates the effectiveness of MMT after lumbar surgery through identifying, summarizing, assessing quality, and grading the strength of available evidence. Secondarily, we synthesized the impact on medication utilization, and reports on adverse events.

METHODS

Databases and grey literature were searched from inception through August 2020. Article extraction consisted of principal findings, pain and function/disability, medication consumption, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Literature search yielded 2025 articles,117 full-text articles were screened and 51 citations met inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate evidence to recommend neural mobilization and myofascial release after lumbar fusion, but inconclusive evidence to recommend for or against most manual therapies after most surgical interventions. The literature is primarily limited to low-level studies. More high-quality studies are needed to make recommendations.