Epidemiology: spinal manipulation utilization. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2012;22:648-654. [PMID: 22289432 DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2012.01.006]

Utilization of Chiropractic Care at The World Games 2017: A Retrospective Descriptive Study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to report utilization of chiropractic care during The World Games 2017 in Wroclaw, Poland.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on treatment records. Thirty-five chiropractors trained in sports injuries provided care for athletes and non-athletes (support personnel) who voluntarily sought chiropractic care. Data included demographics (age, sex, role, country, and sport), category of anatomical regions treated, treatment modality (manipulation, myotherapy, mobilization, taping, and other), and participants' self-reported pain ratings.

RESULTS

A total of 1902 completed treatment forms representing 1902 encounters were included for athletes (n = 1238, 65%) and non-athletes (n = 664, 35%). There were 9385 individuals (athlete or non-athlete). Five hundred ninety of 3666 (16%) athletes and 422 of 5719 (7%) non-athletes received chiropractic treatment. Athletes represented 28 of 31 (90%) sports and 79 of 108 (73%) countries present. The thoracic spine was the most frequently treated spinal region (n = 846, 44%), followed by lumbar spine (n = 831, 44%) and cervical spine (n = 725, 38%). Frequency of treatment modalities was manipulation (n = 1610, 82%), myotherapy (n = 1522, 80%), mobilization (n = 607, 32%), and taping (n = 380, 20%). Acute injuries were more prevalent for athletes (61%) than non-athletes (35%), and athletes sought follow-up care (54%) more than non-athletes (36%). Overall, 89% of participants reported pain reduction immediately after treatment.

CONCLUSION

This article describes chiropractic care utilization at a multisport event as part of a health care team. The range of treatments included manipulation myotherapy, mobilization, and taping. Although a minority of athletes and non-athletes received chiropractic treatment, many participants reported pain reduction immediately after treatment.

A bibliometric study on trends in chiropractic research from 1920 to 2023

OBJECTIVE

An increasing body of evidence suggests a positive role of chiropractic in the treatment of neuro-musculoskeletal disorders. This study aims to explore current research hotspots and trends, providing insights into the broad prospects of this field.

METHODS

A bibliometric review was conducted on all chiropractic articles included in the Web of Science Core Collection before December 31, 2023.

RESULTS

Over the past century, the volume of research in the field of chiropractic has been fluctuating annually, with four peaks observed in total. The United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom are leading countries. Chu, Eric Chun-Pu is the author with the most publications, while Bronfort, Gert has the highest total citation count. The University of Southern Denmark has produced the most publications, while Queens University - Canada is the most central institution. The Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics is the journal with the most publications and citations, while the Journal of the American Medical Association is the most central journal. The two most-cited articles were both authored by Eisenberg DM. Emerging keywords include "chronic pain" and "skills". The theoretical mechanisms and scientific basis of chiropractic, its clinical practice and safety, education and training, integration with other disciplines, and patient experiences and satisfaction are the frontiers and hotspots of research.

CONCLUSION

This study integrates bibliometric analysis to summarize the current state of research and global network centers in the field of chiropractic, further highlighting the hotspots and trends in this field. However, Individual and national rankings should be interpreted with caution due to our focus on Web of Science rather than PubMed.

Waste not, want not: call to action for spinal manipulative therapy researchers

BACKGROUND

Research waste is defined as research outcomes with no or minimal societal benefits. It is a widespread problem in the healthcare field. Four primary sources of research waste have been defined: (1) irrelevant or low priority research questions, (2) poor design or methodology, (3) lack of publication, and (4) biased or inadequate reporting. This commentary, which was developed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) research expertise, discusses waste in SMT research and provides suggestions to improve future research.

MAIN TEXT

This commentary examines common sources of waste in SMT research, focusing on design and methodological issues, by drawing on prior research and examples from clinical and mechanistic SMT studies. Clinical research is dominated by small studies and studies with a high risk of bias. This problem is compounded by systematic reviews that pool heterogenous data from varying populations, settings, and application of SMT. Research focusing on the mechanisms of SMT often fails to address the clinical relevance of mechanisms, relies on very short follow-up periods, and has inadequate control for contextual factors.

CONCLUSIONS

This call to action is directed to researchers in the field of SMT. It is critical that the SMT research community act to improve the way research is designed, conducted, and disseminated. We present specific key action points and resources, which should enhance the quality and usefulness of future SMT research.

Rotation-traction manipulation induced intradiskal pressure changes in cervical spine-an in vitro study

Objective: Evaluate the effect of rotation-traction manipulation on intradiskal pressure in human cervical spine specimen with different force and duration parameters, and compare the intradiskal pressure changes between rotation-traction manipulation and traction. Methods: Seven human cervical spine specimens were included in this study. The intradiskal pressure was measured by miniature pressure sensor implanting in the nucleus pulposus. rotation-traction manipulation and cervical spine traction were simulated using the MTS biomechanical machine. Varied thrust forces (50N, 150N, and 250N) and durations (0.05 s, 0.1 s, and 0.15 s) were applied during rotation-traction manipulation with Intradiscal pressure recorded in the neutral position, rotation-anteflexion position, preloading, and thrusting phases. Futuremore, we documented changes in intradiscal pressure during cervical spine traction with different loading forces (50N, 150N, and 250N). And a comparative analysis was performed to discern the impact on intradiscal pressure between manipulation and traction. Results: Manipulation application induced a significant reduction in intradiscal pressure during preloading and thrusting phases for each cervical intervertebral disc (p < 0.05). When adjusting thrust parameters, a discernible decrease in intradiscal pressure was observed with increasing thrust force, and the variations between different thrust forces were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Conversely, changes in duration did not yield a significant impact on intradiscal pressure (p > 0.05). Additionally, after traction with varying loading forces (50N, 150N, 250N), a noteworthy decrease in intradiscal pressure was observed (p < 0.05). And a comparative analysis revealed that rotation-traction manipulation more markedly reduced intradiscal pressure compared to traction alone (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Both rotation-traction manipulation and cervical spine traction can reduce intradiscal pressure, exhibiting a positive correlation with force. Notably, manipulation elicits more pronounced and immediate decompression effect, contributing a potential biomechanical rationale for its therapeutic efficacy.

A qualitative analysis of free-text patient satisfaction responses in Care Response, a database of patient-reported outcome and experience measures

BACKGROUND

Databases have become important tools in improving health care. Care Response is a database containing information on tens of thousands of chiropractic patients internationally. It has been collecting patient-reported outcomes and patient satisfaction information for more than 10 years. The purpose of this study was to contribute to the understanding of patient perceptions and priorities for chiropractic care by analysing free text entered into the patient reported experience measure (PREM) questionnaires within the Care Response system.

METHODS

There were two questions of interest on the PREM for this study. One requested information about "good points" patients perceived about patients' care experience, and the other requested information on "improvements" that could make the experience better. We conducted a word frequency analysis using a word counting macro in Microsoft Word, then used those results as a starting point for a qualitative analysis. Data were collected on 30 May 2022.

RESULTS

The people who participated in the Care Response system often reported positive experiences with their chiropractors, including that they had reduced pain, improved function, and felt validated in their clinical condition. In addition, they appreciated having diagnostic and treatment procedures explained to them. They valued friendly, professional, and on-time service. The negative experiences were the opposite: being rushed through treatment, that the treatment was not worth the cost, or that they weren't treated professionally, empathetically, or with respect for them as individuals. The most important themes that emerged under "good points" were satisfaction (with care), value (as a person), safety, comfort, and professionalism. Their opposites, dissatisfaction, lack of value, lack of safety, lack of comfort, and lack of professionalism emerged as the most important themes under "improvements". We report some nuances of patient experience that have not previously been explored in the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Respondents seemed to value effective care provided in a safe, professional, friendly, and aesthetically pleasing environment. Chiropractors should note these priorities and engage with patients according to them. Education institutions should consider how good practice in these areas might be incorporated into curricula.

Association between spinal manipulative therapy and lumbar spine reoperation after discectomy: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Patients who undergo lumbar discectomy may experience ongoing lumbosacral radiculopathy (LSR) and seek spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage these symptoms. We hypothesized that adults receiving SMT for LSR at least one year following lumbar discectomy would be less likely to undergo lumbar spine reoperation compared to matched controls not receiving SMT, over two years' follow-up.

METHODS

We searched a United States network of health records (TriNetX, Inc.) for adults aged ≥ 18 years with LSR and lumbar discectomy ≥ 1 year previous, without lumbar fusion or instrumentation, from 2003 to 2023. We divided patients into two cohorts: (1) chiropractic SMT, and (2) usual care without chiropractic SMT. We used propensity matching to adjust for confounding variables associated with lumbar spine reoperation (e.g., age, body mass index, nicotine dependence), calculated risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and explored cumulative incidence of reoperation and the number of SMT follow-up visits.

RESULTS

Following propensity matching there were 378 patients per cohort (mean age 61 years). Lumbar spine reoperation was less frequent in the SMT cohort compared to the usual care cohort (SMT: 7%; usual care: 13%), yielding an RR (95% CIs) of 0.55 (0.35-0.85; P = 0.0062). In the SMT cohort, 72% of patients had ≥ 1 follow-up SMT visit (median = 6).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that adults experiencing LSR at least one year after lumbar discectomy who received SMT were less likely to undergo lumbar spine reoperation compared to matched controls not receiving SMT. While these findings hold promise for clinical implications, they should be corroborated by a prospective study including measures of pain, disability, and safety to confirm their relevance. We cannot exclude the possibility that our results stem from a generalized effect of engaging with a non-surgical clinician, a factor that may extend to related contexts such as physical therapy or acupuncture.

REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/vgrwz ).

Dosing of lumbar spinal manipulative therapy and its association with escalated spine care: A cohort study of insurance claims

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between three distinct spinal manipulative therapy dose groups and escalated spine care by analyzing insurance claims from a cohort of patients with low back pain.

METHODS

We compared three distinct spinal manipulative therapy dose groups (low = 1 SMT visits, moderate = 2-12 SMT visits, high = 13+ SMT visits), to a control group (no spinal manipulative therapy) regarding the outcome of escalated spine care. Escalated spine care procedures include imaging studies, injection procedures, emergency department visits, surgery, and opioid medication use. Propensity score matching was performed to address treatment selection bias. Modified Poisson regression modeling was used to estimate the relative risk of spine care escalation among three spinal manipulative therapy doses, adjusting for age, sex, retrospective risk score and claim count.

RESULTS

83,025 claims were categorized into 11,114 unique low back pain episodes; 8,137 claims had 0 spinal manipulative therapy visits, with the remaining episodes classified as low dose (n = 404), moderate dose (n = 1,763) or high dose (n = 810). After propensity score matching, 5,348 episodes remained; 2,454 had 0 spinal manipulative therapy visits with the remaining episodes classified as low dose (n = 404), moderate dose (n = 1,761), or high dose (n = 729). The estimated relative risk (vs no spinal manipulative therapy) for any escalated spine care was 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.38, 0.55, p <0.001), 0.58 (95% confidence interval 0.53, 0.63, p <0.001), and 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.95, 1.13, p = 0.461) for low, moderate, and high dose spinal manipulative therapy groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For claims associated with initial episodes of low back pain, low and moderate dose spinal manipulative therapy groups were associated with a 55% and 42% reduction, respectively, in the relative risk of any escalated spine care.

Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Does Targeting a Specific Vertebral Level Make a Difference?: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine whether targeting spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), by applying the intervention to a specific vertebral level, produces superior clinical outcomes than a nontargeted approach in patients with nonspecific low back pain. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, PEDro, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were searched up to May 31, 2023. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing targeted SMT (mobilization or manipulation) to a nontargeted approach in patients with nonspecific low back pain, and measuring the effects on pain intensity and patient-reported disability. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data extraction, risk of bias, and evaluation of the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach were performed by 2 authors independently. Meta-analyses were performed using the restricted maximum likelihood method. RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials (n = 931 patients) were included. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference between targeted SMT and a nontargeted approach for pain intensity at postintervention (weighted mean difference = -0.20 [95% CI: -0.51, 0.10]) and at follow-up (weighted mean difference = 0.05 [95% CI: -0.26, 0.36]). For patient-reported disability, there was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference at postintervention (standardized mean difference = -0.04 [95% CI: -0.36, 0.29]) and at follow-up (standardized mean difference = -0.05 [95% CI: -0.24, 0.13]). Adverse events were reported in 4 trials, and were minor and evenly distributed between groups. CONCLUSION: Targeting a specific vertebral level when administering SMT for patients with nonspecific low back pain did not result in improved outcomes on pain intensity and patient-reported disability compared to a nontargeted approach. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(9):1-11. Epub: 28 July 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11962.

Association between chiropractic spinal manipulation and gabapentin prescription in adults with radicular low back pain: retrospective cohort study using US data

OBJECTIVES

Radicular low back pain (rLBP) is often treated off-label with gabapentin or by chiropractors using chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT). To date, no studies have examined the association between these interventions. We hypothesised that adults under 50 years of age receiving CSMT for newly diagnosed rLBP would have reduced odds of receiving a gabapentin prescription over 1 year-follow-up.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

US network including linked medical records, medical claims and pharmacy claims of >122 million patients attending large healthcare organisations (TriNetX), queried 15 June 2023, yielding data from 2017 to 2023.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged 18-49 were included at their first occurrence of rLBP diagnosis. Exclusions were severe pathology, other spinal conditions, on-label gabapentin indications and gabapentin contraindications. Propensity score matching controlled for variables associated with gabapentin use and receipt of prescription medication over the preceding year.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were divided into CSMT or usual medical care cohorts based on the care received on the index date of rLBP diagnosis.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

OR for gabapentin prescription.

RESULTS

After propensity matching, there were 1635 patients per cohort (mean age 36.3±8.6 years, 60% women). Gabapentin prescription over 1-year follow-up was significantly lower in the CSMT cohort compared with the usual medical care cohort, with an OR (95% CI) of 0.53 (0.40 to 0.71; p<0.0001). Sensitivity analyses revealed early divergence in cumulative incidence of prescription; and no significant between-cohort difference in a negative control outcome (gastrointestinal medication) suggesting adequate control for pharmacological care preference.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that US adults receiving CSMT for newly diagnosed rLBP have significantly reduced odds of receiving a gabapentin prescription over 1-year follow-up compared with those receiving usual medical care. Results may not be generalisable and should be replicated in other healthcare settings and corroborated by a prospective study to reduce confounding.

The effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy procedures for spine pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a guideline-recommended treatment option for spinal pain. The recommendation is based on multiple systematic reviews. However, these reviews fail to consider that clinical effects may depend on SMT "application procedures" (i.e., how and where SMT is applied). Using network meta-analyses, we aim to investigate which SMT "application procedures" have the greatest magnitude of clinical effectiveness for reducing pain and disability, for any spinal complaint, at short-term and long-term follow-up. We will compare application procedural parameters by classifying the thrust application technique and the application site (patient positioning, assisted, vertebral target, region target, Technique name, forces, and vectors, application site selection approach and rationale) against: 1. Waiting list/no treatment; 2. Sham interventions not resembling SMT (e.g., detuned ultrasound); 3. Sham interventions resembling SMT; 4. Other therapies not recommended in clinical practice guidelines; and 5. Other therapies recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Secondly, we will examine how contextual elements, including procedural fidelity (whether the SMT was delivered as planned) and clinical applicability (whether the SMT is similar to clinical practice) of the SMT.

METHODS

We will include randomized controlled trials (RCT) found through three search strategies, (i) exploratory, (ii) systematic, and (iii) other known sources. We define SMT as a high-velocity low-amplitude thrust or grade V mobilization. Eligibility is any RCT assessing SMT against any other type of SMT, any other active or sham intervention, or no treatment control on adult patients with pain in any spinal region. The RCTs must report on continuous pain intensity and/or disability outcomes. Two authors will independently review title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. Spinal manipulative therapy techniques will be classified according to the technique application and choice of application sites. We will conduct a network-meta analysis using a frequentist approach and multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

DISCUSSION

This will be the most extensive review of thrust SMT to date, and will allow us to estimate the importance of different SMT application procedures used in clinical practice and taught across educational settings. Thus, the results are applicable to clinical practice, educational settings, and research studies. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022375836.

Clinician approaches to spinal manipulation for persistent spinal pain after lumbar surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data

BACKGROUND

This review aimed to identify variables influencing clinicians' application of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for persistent spine pain after lumbar surgery (PSPS-2). We hypothesized markers of reduced clinical/surgical complexity would be associated with greater odds of applying SMT to the lumbar region, use of manual-thrust lumbar SMT, and SMT within 1-year post-surgery as primary outcomes; and chiropractors would have increased odds of using lumbar manual-thrust-SMT compared to other practitioners.

METHODS

Per our published protocol, observational studies describing adults receiving SMT for PSPS-2 were included. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, OVID, PEDro, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were searched from inception to January 6, 2022. Individual patient data (IPD) were requested from contact authors when needed for selection criteria. Data extraction and a customized risk-of-bias rubric were completed in duplicate. Odds ratios (ORs) for primary outcomes were calculated using binary logistic regressions, with covariates including age, sex, symptom distribution, provider, motion segments, spinal implant, and surgery-to-SMT interval.

RESULTS

71 articles were included describing 103 patients (mean age 52 ± 15, 55% male). The most common surgeries were laminectomy (40%), fusion (34%), and discectomy (29%). Lumbar SMT was used in 85% of patients; and of these patients was non-manual-thrust in 59%, manual-thrust in 33%, and unclear in 8%. Clinicians were most often chiropractors (68%). SMT was used > 1-year post-surgery in 66% of cases. While no primary outcomes reached significance, non-reduced motion segments approached significance for predicting use of lumbar-manual-thrust SMT (OR 9.07 [0.97-84.64], P = 0.053). Chiropractors were significantly more likely to use lumbar-manual-thrust SMT (OR 32.26 [3.17-327.98], P = 0.003). A sensitivity analysis omitting high risk-of-bias cases (missing ≥ 25% IPD) revealed similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians using SMT for PSPS-2 most often apply non-manual-thrust SMT to the lumbar spine, while chiropractors are more likely to use lumbar-manual-thrust SMT relative to other providers. As non-manual-thrust SMT may be gentler, the proclivity towards this technique suggests providers are cautious when applying SMT after lumbar surgery. Unmeasured variables such as patient or clinician preferences, or limited sample size may have influenced our findings. Large observational studies and/or international surveys are needed for an improved understanding of SMT use for PSPS-2. Systematic review registration PROSPERO (CRD42021250039).

Terminally ill patients' and their relatives' experiences and behaviors regarding complementary and alternative medicine utilization in hospice palliative inpatient care units: a cross-sectional, multicenter survey

BACKGROUND

Terminally ill patients often experience exacerbations of diseases that render mainstream medicine ineffective in relieving symptoms, prompting attempts at complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). This study collected data from terminally ill patients and their relatives to determine differences between CAM use, behavioral patterns, and perceptions of health information about CAM.

METHODS

A cross-sectional design using a self-administered questionnaire was adopted. Eight medical institutions in Taiwan with inpatient hospice palliative care units were chosen. Ninety-two terminally ill patients and 267 relatives met the inclusion criteria. The questions concerned the experience of CAM use, the kinds of products/services CAM provided, the purpose of CAM use, the source of CAM information, and the perceptions and attitudes toward CAM.

RESULTS

Both terminally ill patients and their relatives have a high proportion of lifetime and one-year prevalence of CAM use (88.0% vs. 88.4%; p = 0.929). CAM use for musculoskeletal and neurological discomfort is higher among terminally ill patients than among their relatives. Relatives/friends are the most frequent sources of information on CAM (53.3% vs. 62.2%; p = 0.133). The percentage of terminally ill patients who discontinued mainstream medical treatment because of CAM use was higher than that of their relatives (18.5% vs. 9.3%; p = 0.026). More than half the terminally ill patients and their relatives had never been asked about CAM by medical staff (64.1% vs. 66.7%), nor had they informed medical professionals about the use of CAM products and services (63% vs. 66.9%). Random inquiries by medical professionals may be associated with increased disclosure of CAM use (terminally ill patients: odds ratio, 9.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.97-48.35 vs. relatives: odds ratio, 5.61; 95% confidence interval, 2.66-11.83).

CONCLUSIONS

The high prevalence and concealment of CAM use in terminally ill patients should be considered. Medical professionals should establish a friendly and barrier-free communication model, encourage patients to share CAM experiences, and provide evidence-based information on the use of CAM products and services, to reduce the potential damage caused by harmful use.

Identifying Patient Characteristics Associated With the Occurrence of Post Treatment Non-serious Adverse Events After Cervical Spine Manual Therapy Treatment in Patients With Neck Pain

OBJECTIVES

To compare prevalence rates of serious and non-serious adverse events after manipulation and mobilization and to identify risk factors of serious and non-serious adverse events following 4 types of manual therapy treatment in patients with neck pain.

DESIGN

A prospective cohort study in primary care manual therapy practice.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with neck pain (N=686) provided data on adverse events after 1014 manipulation treatments, 829 mobilization treatments, 437 combined manipulation and mobilization treatments, and 891 treatments consisting of "other treatment modality".

INTERVENTIONS

Usual care manual therapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A chi-square test was performed to explore differences in prevalence rates. Logistic regression analysis was performed within the 4 treatment groups. A priori we defined associations between patient-characteristics and adverse events of odds ratio (OR)>2 or OR<0.5 as clinically relevant.

RESULTS

No serious adverse events, such as cervical artery dissection or stroke, were reported. With regard to non-serious adverse events, we found that these are common after manual therapy treatment: prevalence rates are ranging from 0.3% to 64.7%. We found a statistically significant difference between the 4 types of treatments, detrimental to mobilization treatment. Logistic regression analysis resulted in 3 main predictors related to non-serious adverse events after manual therapy treatment: smoking (OR ranges from 2.10 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-3.11] to 3.33 [95% CI 1.83-5.93]), the presence of comorbidity (OR ranges from 2.32 [95% CI 1.22-4.44] to 3.88 [95% CI 1.62-9.26]), and female sex (OR ranges from 0.22 [95% CI 0.11-0.46] to 0.49 [95% CI 0.28-0.86]).

CONCLUSION

There is a significant difference in the occurrence of non-serious adverse events after mobilization compared with manipulation or a combination of manipulation and mobilization. Non-serious adverse events in manual therapy practice are common and are associated with smoking and the presence of comorbidity. In addition, women are more likely to report non-serious adverse events.

A retrospective analysis of the incidence of severe adverse events among recipients of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy

This study examined the incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) of patients receiving chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), with the hypothesis that < 1 per 100,000 SMT sessions results in a grade ≥ 3 (severe) AE. A secondary objective was to examine independent predictors of grade ≥ 3 AEs. We identified patients with SMT-related AEs from January 2017 through August 2022 across 30 chiropractic clinics in Hong Kong. AE data were extracted from a complaint log, including solicited patient surveys, complaints, and clinician reports, and corroborated by medical records. AEs were independently graded 1-5 based on severity (1-mild, 2-moderate, 3-severe, 4-life-threatening, 5-death). Among 960,140 SMT sessions for 54,846 patients, 39 AEs were identified, two were grade 3, both of which were rib fractures occurring in women age > 60 with osteoporosis, while none were grade ≥ 4, yielding an incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs of 0.21 per 100,000 SMT sessions (95% CI 0.00, 0.56 per 100,000). There were no AEs related to stroke or cauda equina syndrome. The sample size was insufficient to identify predictors of grade ≥ 3 AEs using multiple logistic regression. In this study, severe SMT-related AEs were reassuringly very rare.

An ICF-based assessment schedule to facilitate the assessment and reporting of functioning in manual medicine - low back pain as a case in point

PURPOSE

This paper outlines the first steps toward developing the ICF-based assessment schedule for manual medicine with a focus on low back pain (LBP). It reports on the results of a consensus process to develop the default and optional versions of the set of ICF categories (ManMed Set) the assessment schedule should cover, and gives insight in expert input toward building a toolbox of instruments for assessing the ManMed Set categories.

METHODS

A scoping review and qualitative study were conducted, each resulting in a list of ICF categories. These categories, along with the categories of the ICF Generic-30 Set, Comprehensive ICF Core Set for LBP, and from an existing Delphi study, served as the starting point for an established consensus process to decide on the ManMed Set.

RESULTS

After alternating plenary and working group sessions, an iterative ranking process and cut-off calculation, the multi-professional and international group of 20 experts in manual medicine included 23 categories in the default ManMed version (16 + the ICF Generic-7 Set categories) and 25 in the optional version.

CONCLUSIONS

Their development is a major step toward developing an assessment schedule that can be employed in standardizing the assessment and reporting of functioning in manual medicine, initially of LBP patients.Implications for rehabilitationThe ICF assessment schedule for manual medicine has potential use in supporting rehabilitation practice, such as for planning interventions, defining rehabilitation goals, and measuring and documenting functioning outcomes.It can be used to promote interdisciplinary coordination of care and facilitate communication between members of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation team within manual medicine and beyond.The ICF assessment schedule for manual medicine can facilitate rehabilitation and manual medicine research by providing evidence for optimizing rehabilitation practice.

Use of Thrust Cervical Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Complicated Neck Pain: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Asia-Pacific Chiropractors

Background Chiropractors often use manual thrust cervical spinal manipulative therapy (thrust-cSMT) to treat musculoskeletal neck conditions. We hypothesized <50% of surveyed Asia-Pacific chiropractors would report using thrust-cSMT given potential contraindications, and secondarily explored predictors of thrust-cSMT use. Materials and methods We designed, validated, achieved sufficient reliability, and disseminated a survey to explore thrust-cSMT use. The survey queried chiropractors' characteristics (e.g., years in practice, education level, time with patients, importance of subluxation), and use of thrust-cSMT for uncomplicated neck pain and vignettes describing vertebral artery disorders, Arnold-Chiari malformation, and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). We performed logistic regression for each vignette with thrust-cSMT as the dependent variable and chiropractor characteristics as covariates. Results There were 241 respondents, having 12.8±10.9 years in practice, representing >15 countries. Less than 50% of chiropractors reported the use of thrust-cSMT for each vignette, including vertebral artery insufficiency (14%) and stenosis (17%), Arnold-Chiari type I (18%) and type II (5%), C5/6 ACDF (39%) and C3-6 ACDF (27%). Regressions identified significant predictors of increased or decreased use of thrust-cSMT including time spent with new patients, focus on subluxation, degree, group practice environment, use of thrust-cSMT on a healthy patient, and hours reading scientific literature (P<.05 for each). Conclusions This study was the first to chiropractors' use of thrust-cSMT for complicated neck pain and found that most Asia-Pacific chiropractors reported avoiding this treatment in the presence of a potential treatment contraindication. The use of thrust-cSMT in complicated neck pain may be related to practice characteristics. However, further research is needed to identify specific reasons why chiropractors use or avoid thrust-cSMT.

Concurrent Spinal and Intracranial Subdural Hematomas as a Cause of Near-Fatal Low Back Pain in the Chiropractic Office: A Case Report

In older individuals, minor trauma may cause potentially fatal intracranial subdural hematoma (SDH). Rarely, these patients present with only low back and radicular pain as gravity redistributes the SDH to the lumbar spine. A 69-year-old male presented to a chiropractor with a 10-day history of acute on chronic low back pain, which radiated into his lower extremities bilaterally, involving weakness and difficulty walking, and a ground-level fall onto his elbows 16 days prior. He had visited his primary care provider, orthopedist, and traditional Chinese medicine practitioner, received oral analgesics and three ketorolac injections, and had lumbar radiographs, followed by acupuncture, cupping, and spinal manipulation without lasting relief. Considering the patient's concerning presentation, the chiropractor ordered lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on the first visit, revealing findings suggestive of late subacute lumbar SDH, and recommended urgent brain MRI and neurosurgical referral. The patient went to an orthopedic surgeon at a nearby hospital, becoming disoriented upon presentation, prompting admission. Brain MRI confirmed bilateral chronic intracranial SDH, prompting emergency hematoma evacuation via burr hole craniostomy. The patient's gait rapidly improved, and the pain subsided over the following two weeks. This case highlights an older male identified as having spinal SDH by a chiropractor, leading to referral and surgery for concurrent life-threatening intracranial SDH. Clinicians should be aware that spinal SDH may stem from asymptomatic intracranial SDH and should be suspicious of SDH in older individuals after a fall, signs of which warrant emergency referral for MRI and surgical evaluation.

Physical Therapists Are Routinely Performing the Requisite Skills to Directly Refer for Musculoskeletal Imaging: An Observational Study

OBJECTIVES

To explore if physical therapists are practicing skills necessary to refer patients for musculoskeletal imaging.

METHODS

An expert panel established a list of nine requisite skills to refer for musculoskeletal imaging. A blinded expert panel validated the list using a 5-point Likert scale. The skills list was examined via an electronic survey distributed to United States physical therapists.

RESULTS

4,796 respondents were included. Each of the nine skills were routinely performed by a majority of the respondents (range: 54.52-94.72%). Respondents routinely performed 6.95 (± 0.06) skills, with 67.41% routinely performing seven or more skills. Doctors of physical therapy routinely performed more imaging skills (7.15 ± 0.06) compared to their masters- (6.44 ± 0.19) and bachelors-trained (5.95 ± 0.21) counterparts (p < 0.001). Residency/fellowship-trained physical therapists were more likely to routinely perform more imaging skills (7.60 ± 0.11 vs. 6.79 ± 0.07, p < 0.001). Imaging skill performance was greater among board-certified physical therapists (7.39 ± 0.09 vs. 6.71 ± 0.08, p < 0.001) and APTA members (7.06 ± 0.07 vs. 6.65 ± 0.12, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Physical therapists are routinely practicing the requisite imaging skills to directly refer to a radiologist for musculoskeletal imaging.

Association between chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy and benzodiazepine prescription in patients with radicular low back pain: a retrospective cohort study using real-world data from the USA

OBJECTIVES

Although chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) and prescription benzodiazepines are common treatments for radicular low back pain (rLBP), no research has examined the relationship between these interventions. We hypothesise that utilisation of CSMT for newly diagnosed rLBP is associated with reduced odds of benzodiazepine prescription through 12 months' follow-up.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

National, multicentre 73-million-patient electronic health records-based network (TriNetX) in the USA, queried on 30 July 2021, yielding data from 2003 to the date of query.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged 18-49 with an index diagnosis of rLBP were included. Serious aetiologies of low back pain, structural deformities, alternative neurological lesions and absolute benzodiazepine contraindications were excluded. Patients were assigned to cohorts according to CSMT receipt or absence. Propensity score matching was used to control for covariates that could influence the likelihood of benzodiazepine utilisation.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The number, percentage and OR of patients receiving a benzodiazepine prescription over 3, 6 and 12 months' follow-up prematching and postmatching.

RESULTS

After matching, there were 9206 patients (mean (SD) age, 37.6 (8.3) years, 54% male) per cohort. Odds of receiving a benzodiazepine prescription were significantly lower in the CSMT cohort over all follow-up windows prematching and postmatching (p<0.0001). After matching, the OR (95% CI) of benzodiazepine prescription at 3 months was 0.56 (0.50 to 0.64), at 6 months 0.61 (0.55 to 0.68) and 12 months 0.67 (0.62 to 0.74). Sensitivity analysis suggested a patient preference to avoid prescription medications did not explain the study findings.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that receiving CSMT for newly diagnosed rLBP is associated with reduced odds of receiving a benzodiazepine prescription during follow-up. These results provide real-world evidence of practice guideline-concordance among patients entering this care pathway. Benzodiazepine prescription for rLBP should be further examined in a randomised trial including patients receiving chiropractic or usual medical care, to reduce residual confounding.

Guideline-concordant utilization of magnetic resonance imaging in adults receiving chiropractic manipulative therapy vs other care for radicular low back pain: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (LMRI) is often performed early in the course of care, which can be discordant with guidelines for non-serious low back pain. Our primary hypothesis was that adults receiving chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) for incident radicular low back pain (rLBP) would have reduced odds of early LMRI over 6-weeks' follow-up compared to those receiving other care (a range of medical care, excluding CSMT). As a secondary hypothesis, CSMT recipients were also expected to have reduced odds of LMRI over 6-months' and 1-years' follow-up.

METHODS

A national 84-million-patient health records database including large academic healthcare organizations (TriNetX) was queried for adults age 20-70 with rLBP newly-diagnosed between January 31, 2012 and January 31, 2022. Receipt or non-receipt of CSMT determined cohort allocation. Patients with prior lumbar imaging and serious pathology within 90 days of diagnosis were excluded. Propensity score matching controlled for variables associated with LMRI utilization (e.g., demographics). Odds ratios (ORs) of LMRI over 6-weeks', 6-months', and 1-years' follow-up after rLBP diagnosis were calculated.

RESULTS

After matching, there were 12,353 patients per cohort (mean age 50 years, 56% female), with a small but statistically significant reduction in odds of early LMRI in the CSMT compared to other care cohort over 6-weeks' follow-up (9%, 10%, OR [95% CI] 0.88 [0.81-0.96] P = 0.0046). There was a small but statistically significant increase in odds of LMRI among patients in the CSMT relative to the other care cohort over 6-months' (12%, 11%, OR [95% CI] 1.10 [1.02-1.19], P < 0.0174) and 1-years' follow-up (14%, 12%, OR [95% CI] 1.21 [1.13-1.31], P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that patients receiving CSMT for newly-diagnosed rLBP are less likely to receive early LMRI than patients receiving other care. However, CSMT recipients have a small increase in odds of LMRI over the long-term. Both cohorts in this study had a relatively low rate of early LMRI, possibly because the data were derived from academic healthcare organizations. The relationship of these findings to other patient care outcomes and cost should be explored in a future randomized controlled trial.

REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/t9myp ).

Force Distribution Within Spinal Tissues During Posterior to Anterior Spinal Manipulative Therapy: A Secondary Analysis

Background

Previous studies observed that the intervertebral disc experiences the greatest forces during spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and that the distribution of forces among spinal tissues changes as a function of the SMT parameters. However, contextualized SMT forces, relative to the ones applied to and experienced by the whole functional spinal unit, is needed to understand SMT’s underlying mechanisms.

Aim

To describe the percentage force distribution between spinal tissues relative to the applied SMT forces and total force experienced by the functional unit.

Methods

This secondary analysis combined data from 35 fresh porcine cadavers exposed to a simulated 300N SMT to the skin overlying the L3/L4 facet joint via servo-controlled linear motor actuator. Vertebral kinematics were tracked optically using indwelling bone pins. The functional spinal unit was then removed and mounted on a parallel robotic platform equipped with a 6-axis load cell. The kinematics of the spine during SMT were replayed by the robotic platform. By using serial dissection, peak and mean forces induced by the simulated SMT experienced by spinal structures in all three axes of motion were recorded. Forces experienced by spinal structures were analyzed descriptively and the resultant force magnitude was calculated.

Results

During SMT, the functional spinal unit experienced a median peak resultant force of 36.4N (IQR: 14.1N) and a mean resultant force of 25.4N (IQR: 11.9N). Peak resultant force experienced by the spinal segment corresponded to 12.1% of the total applied SMT force (300N). When the resultant force experienced by the functional spinal unit was considered to be 100%, the supra and interspinous ligaments experienced 0.3% of the peak forces and 0.5% of the mean forces. Facet joints and ligamentum flavum experienced 0.7% of the peak forces and 3% of the mean forces. Intervertebral disc and longitudinal ligaments experienced 99% of the peak and 96.5% of the mean forces.

Conclusion

In this animal model, a small percentage of the forces applied during a posterior-to-anterior SMT reached spinal structures in the lumbar spine. Most SMT forces (over 96%) are experienced by the intervertebral disc. This study provides a novel perspective on SMT force distribution within spinal tissues.

Safety of Chuna Manipulation Therapy in 289,953 Patients with Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Retrospective Study

Studies have reported that mild adverse events (AEs) are common after manual therapy and that there is a risk of serious injury. We aimed to assess the safety of Chuna manipulation therapy (CMT), a traditional manual Korean therapy, by analysing AEs in patients who underwent this treatment. Patients who received at least one session of CMT between December 2009 and March 2019 at 14 Korean medicine hospitals were included. Electronic patient charts and internal audit data obtained from situation report logs were retrospectively analysed. All data were reviewed by two researchers. The inter-rater agreement was assessed using the Cohen’s kappa coefficient, and reliability analysis among hospitals was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient. In total, 2,682,258 CMT procedures were performed in 289,953 patients during the study period. There were 50 AEs, including worsened pain (n = 29), rib fracture (n = 11), falls during treatment (n = 6), chest pain (n = 2), dizziness (n = 1), and unpleasant feeling (n = 1). The incidence of mild to moderate AEs was 1.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36–2.39) per 100,000 treatment sessions, and that of severe AEs was 0.04 (95% CI 0.00–0.16) per 100,000 treatment sessions. Thus, AEs of any level of severity were very rare after CMT. Moreover, there were no instances of carotid artery dissection or spinal cord injury, which are the most severe AEs associated with manual therapy in other countries.

Clinical decision-making for spinal manipulation for persistent spinal pain following lumbar surgery: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data

INTRODUCTION

There are limited available research and guidance regarding the use of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in patients with low back-related symptoms following lumbar spine surgery, a condition called persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 (PSPS-2). This publication outlines a review protocol to identify and synthesise individual participant data (IPD) to examine associations between patient, clinical and surgical variables and SMT application in adults with PSPS-2.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PubMed, OVID, Web of Science, Scopus, PEDro, Index to Chiropractic Literature and KoreaMed will be searched from inception to 1 January 2022 without language restrictions. Case reports, series, observational studies and cases from grey literature of adults receiving SMT for PSPS-2 will be included. Two investigators will independently screen citations, abstracts and full-text articles. A risk-of-bias assessment will be performed in duplicate to rate cases according to exposure and outcome ascertainment and data completeness. Data extraction will be performed in duplicate and missing IPD will be requested from corresponding authors. Multiple binary logistic regression will be used to identify independent predictors of the use of lumbar-SMT, lumbar-manual-thrust SMT and SMT within 1-year postsurgery. Patient, clinical and surgical variables will be summarised using descriptive statistics, while SMT-related outcomes (lumbar-SMT, lumbar-manual-thrust SMT and 1-year surgery-to-SMT interval) will be described using adjusted ORs with 95% CIs.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was deemed not human subjects research by the University Hospitals' institutional review board. The results of this review will be disseminated at conferences and/or published in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021250039.

What are the effects of diagnostic imaging on clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care: a matched observational study

Background

Evidence suggests that diagnostic imaging for low back pain does not improve care in the absence of suspicion of serious pathology. However, the effect of imaging use on clinical outcomes has not been investigated in patients presenting to chiropractors. The aim of this study was to determine if diagnostic imaging affects clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care.

Methods

A matched observational study using prospective longitudinal observational data with one year follow up was performed in primary care chiropractic clinics in Denmark. Data was collected from November 2016 to December 2019. Participants included low back pain patients presenting for chiropractic care, who were either referred or not referred for diagnostic imaging during their initial visit. Patients were excluded if they were less than 18 years old, had a diagnosis of underlying pathology, or had previous imaging relevant to their current clinical presentation. Coarsened exact matching was used to match participants referred for diagnostic imaging with participants not referred for diagnostic imaging on baseline variables including participant demographics, pain characteristics, and clinical history. Mixed linear and logistic regression models were used to assess the effect of imaging on back pain intensity and disability at two-weeks, three-months, and one-year, and on global perceived effect and satisfaction with care at two-weeks.

Results

2162 patients were included, with 24.1% referred for imaging. Near perfect balance between matched groups was achieved for baseline variables except age and leg pain. Participants referred for imaging had slightly higher back pain intensity at two-weeks (0.4, 95%CI: 0.1, 0.8) and one-year (0.4, 95%CI: 0.0, 0.7), and disability at two-weeks (5.7, 95%CI: 1.4, 10.0), but the changes are unlikely to be clinically meaningful. No difference between groups was found for the other outcome measures. Similar results were found when sensitivity analysis, adjusted for age and leg pain intensity, was performed.

Conclusions

Diagnostic imaging did not result in better clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care. These results support that current guideline recommendations against routine imaging apply equally to chiropractic practice.

Expert consensus on a standardised definition and severity classification for adverse events associated with spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilisation: protocol for an international e-Delphi study

INTRODUCTION

Spinal and peripheral joint manipulation (SMT) and mobilisation (MOB) are widely used and recommended in the best practice guidelines for managing musculoskeletal conditions. Although adverse events (AEs) have been reported following these interventions, a clear definition and classification system for AEs remains unsettled. With many professionals using SMT and MOB, establishing consensus on a definition and classification system is needed to assist with the assimilation of AEs data across professions and to inform research priorities to optimise safety in clinical practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This international multidisciplinary electronic Delphi study protocol is informed by a scoping review and in accordance with the 'Guidance on Conduction and Reporting Delphi Studies'. With oversight from an expert steering committee, the study comprises three rounds using online questionnaires. Experts in manual therapy and patient safety meeting strict eligibility criteria from the following fields will be invited to participate: clinical, medical and legal practice, health records, regulatory bodies, researchers and patients. Round 1 will include open-ended questions on participants' working definition and/or understanding of AEs following SMT and MOB and their severity classification. In round 2, participants will rate their level of agreement with statements generated from round 1 and our scoping review. In round 3, participants will rerate their agreement with statements achieving consensus in round 2. Statements reaching consensus must meet the a priori criteria, as determined by descriptive analysis. Inferential statistics will be used to evaluate agreement between participants and stability of responses between rounds. Statements achieving consensus in round 3 will provide an expert-derived definition and classification system for AEs following SMT and MOB.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College Research Ethics Board and deemed exempt by Parker University's Institutional Review Board. Results will be disseminated through scientific, professional and educational reports, publications and presentations.

Clinical Effectiveness and Efficacy of Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation for Spine Pain

Spine pain is a highly prevalent condition affecting over 11% of the world's population. It is the single leading cause of activity limitation and ranks fourth in years lost to disability globally, representing a significant personal, social, and economic burden. For the vast majority of patients with back and neck pain, a specific pathology cannot be identified as the cause for their pain, which is then labeled as non-specific. In a growing proportion of these cases, pain persists beyond 3 months and is referred to as chronic primary back or neck pain. To decrease the global burden of spine pain, current data suggest that a conservative approach may be preferable. One of the conservative management options available is spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), the main intervention used by chiropractors and other manual therapists. The aim of this narrative review is to highlight the most relevant and up-to-date evidence on the effectiveness (as it compares to other interventions in more pragmatic settings) and efficacy (as it compares to inactive controls under highly controlled conditions) of SMT for the management of neck pain and low back pain. Additionally, a perspective on the current recommendations on SMT for spine pain and the needs for future research will be provided. In summary, SMT may be as effective as other recommended therapies for the management of non-specific and chronic primary spine pain, including standard medical care or physical therapy. Currently, SMT is recommended in combination with exercise for neck pain as part of a multimodal approach. It may also be recommended as a frontline intervention for low back pain. Despite some remaining discrepancies, current clinical practice guidelines almost universally recommend the use of SMT for spine pain. Due to the low quality of evidence, the efficacy of SMT compared with a placebo or no treatment remains uncertain. Therefore, future research is needed to clarify the specific effects of SMT to further validate this intervention. In addition, factors that predict these effects remain to be determined to target patients who are more likely to obtain positive outcomes from SMT.

Measuring the Appropriateness of Spinal Manipulation for Chronic Low Back and Chronic Neck Pain in Chiropractic Patients

STUDY DESIGN

RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) applied to chiropractic manipulation for patients with chronic low-back pain (CLBP) and chronic neck pain (CNP).

OBJECTIVE

Determine the rate of appropriate care provided by US chiropractors.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Spinal manipulation has been shown effective for CLBP and CNP but may not be appropriate for all patients with these conditions.

METHODS

Ratings of the appropriateness of spinal and cervical manipulation previously developed by two RUAM expert panels were applied to data abstracted from random samples of patient charts from chiropractors in six US regions to determine the appropriateness of manipulation for each patient.

RESULTS

Of 125 chiropractors sampled, 89 provided charts that could be abstracted. Of the 2128 charts received, 1054 were abstracted. Charts received but not abstracted included 460 that were unusable (e.g., illegible), and 555 did not have CLBP or CNP. Across the abstracted charts 72% had CLBP, 57% had CNP, and 29% had both; 84% of patients with CLBP and 86% with CNP received manipulation. Patients with CLBP who had minor neurologic findings, sciatic nerve irritation, or no joint dysfunction were significantly less likely to receive manipulation. Patients with CNP who had substantial trauma etiology, no joint dysfunction, or no radiographs were significantly less likely to receive manipulation. Most manipulation for CLBP (64%) was appropriate and most manipulation for CNP (93%) was for patients where appropriateness was uncertain or equivocal. The proportions of patients receiving inappropriate manipulation for either condition were low (1%-3%) as were the numbers of patients presenting to these chiropractors for which manipulation was inappropriate.

CONCLUSION

Chiropractors in this US sample tend to provide manipulation to very few patients with CLBP or CNP for which it is inappropriate. However, more research is needed to determine which patients with CNP benefit from manipulation.Level of Evidence: 4.

Spinal epidural hematoma after spinal manipulation therapy: Report of three cases and a literature review

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) has been widely used worldwide to treat musculoskeletal diseases, but it can cause serious adverse events. Spinal epidural hematoma (SEH) caused by SMT is a rare emergency that can cause neurological dysfunction. We herein report three cases of SEH after SMT.

CASE SUMMARY

The first case was a 30-year-old woman who experienced neck pain and numbness in both upper limbs immediately after SMT. Her symptoms persisted after 3 d of conservative treatment, and she was admitted to our hospital. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated an SEH, extending from C6 to C7. The second case was a 55-year-old man with sudden back pain 1 d after SMT, numbness in both lower limbs, an inability to stand or walk, and difficulty urinating. MRI revealed an SEH, extending from T1 to T3. The third case was a 28-year-old man who suddenly developed symptoms of numbness in both lower limbs 4 h after SMT. He was unable to stand or walk and experienced mild back pain. MRI revealed an SEH, extending from T1 to T2. All three patients underwent surgery after failed conservative treatment. The three cases recovered to ASIA grade E on day 5, 1 wk, and day 10 after surgery, respectively. All patients returned to normal after 3 mo of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

SEH caused by SMT is very rare, and the condition of each patient should be evaluated in full detail before operation. SEH should be diagnosed immediately and actively treated by surgery.

Risk of Treatment Escalation in Recipients vs Nonrecipients of Spinal Manipulation for Musculoskeletal Cervical Spine Disorders: An Analysis of Insurance Claims

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between treatment escalation and spinal manipulation in a retrospective cohort of people diagnosed with musculoskeletal disorders of the cervical spine.

METHODS

We used retrospective analysis of insurance claims data (2012-2018) from a single Fortune 500 company. After isolating the first episode of care, we categorized 58 147 claims into 7951 unique patient episodes. Treatment escalation included claims where imaging, injection, emergency room, or surgery was present. Modified Poisson regression was used to determine the relative risk of treatment escalation comparing recipients vs nonrecipients of spinal manipulation, adjusted for age, sex, episode duration, and risk scores.

RESULTS

The sample was 55% women, with a mean age of 44 years (range, 18-103). Treatment escalation was present in 42% of episodes overall: 2448 (46%) associated with other care and 876 (26%) associated with spinal manipulation. The estimated risk of any treatment escalation was 2.38 times higher in those who received other care than in those who received spinal manipulation (95% confidence interval, 2.22-2.55, P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Among episodes of care associated with neck pain diagnoses, those associated with other care had twice the risk of any treatment escalation compared with those associated with spinal manipulation. In the United States, over 90% of spinal manipulation is provided by doctors of chiropractic; therefore, these findings are relevant and should be considered in addressing solutions for neck pain. Additional research investigating the factors influencing treatment escalation is necessary to moderate the use of high-cost and guideline-incongruent procedures in people with neck pain.

Clinical Scenarios for Which Cervical Mobilization and Manipulation Are Considered by an Expert Panel to Be Appropriate (and Inappropriate) for Patients With Chronic Neck Pain

OBJECTIVES

Cervical mobilization and manipulation are 2 therapies commonly used for chronic neck pain (CNP). However, safety, especially of cervical manipulation, is controversial. This study identifies the clinical scenarios for which an expert panel rated cervical mobilization and manipulation as appropriate and inappropriate.

METHODS

An expert panel, following a well-validated modified-Delphi approach, used an evidence synthesis and clinical acumen to develop and then rate the appropriateness of cervical mobilization and manipulation for each of an exhaustive list of clinical scenarios for CNP. Key patient characteristics were identified using decision tree analysis (DTA).

RESULTS

Three hundred seventy-two clinical scenarios were defined and rated by an 11-member expert panel as to the appropriateness of cervical mobilization and manipulation. Across clinical scenarios more were rated inappropriate than appropriate for both therapies, and more scenarios were rated inappropriate for manipulation than mobilization. However, the number of patients presenting with each scenario is not yet known. Nevertheless, DTA indicates that all clinical scenarios that included red flags (eg, fever, cancer, inflammatory arthritides, or vasculitides), and some others involving major neurological findings, especially if previous manual therapy was unfavorable, were rated as inappropriate for both cervical mobilization and manipulation. DTA also identified the absence of cervical disk herniation, stenosis, or foraminal osteophytosis on additional testing as the most important patient characteristic in predicting ratings of appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical guidelines for CNP should include information on the clinical scenarios for which cervical mobilization and manipulation were found inappropriate, including those with red flags, and others involving major neurological findings if previous manual therapy was unfavorable.

Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation Prevents Secondary Hyperalgesia Induced by Topical Capsaicin in Healthy Individuals

Background and Aims: Spinal manipulation (SM) is currently recommended for the management of back pain. Experimental studies indicate that the hypoalgesic mechanisms of SM may rely on inhibition of segmental processes related to temporal summation of pain and, possibly, on central sensitization, although this remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine whether experimental back pain, secondary hyperalgesia, and pain-related brain activity induced by capsaicin are decreased by segmental SM. Methods: Seventy-three healthy volunteers were randomly allocated to one of four experimental groups: SM at T5 vertebral level (segmental), SM at T9 vertebral level (heterosegmental), placebo intervention at T5 vertebral level, or no intervention. Topical capsaicin was applied to the area of T5 vertebra for 40 min. After 20 min, the interventions were administered. Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) were assessed outside the area of capsaicin application at 0 and 40 min to examine secondary hyperalgesia. Capsaicin pain intensity and unpleasantness were reported every 4 min. Frontal high-gamma oscillations were also measured with electroencephalography. Results: Pain ratings and brain activity were not significantly different between groups over time (p > 0.5). However, PPTs were significantly decreased in the placebo and control groups (p < 0.01), indicative of secondary hyperalgesia, while no hyperalgesia was observed for groups receiving SM (p = 1.0). This effect was independent of expectations and greater than placebo for segmental (p < 0.01) but not heterosegmental SM (p = 1.0). Conclusions: These results indicate that segmental SM can prevent secondary hyperalgesia, independently of expectations. This has implications for the management of back pain, particularly when central sensitization is involved.

How Does the Measurement of Disability in Low Back Pain Map Unto the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health?: A Scoping Review of the Manual Medicine Literature

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to catalog items from instruments used to measure functioning, disability, and contextual factors in patients with low back pain treated with manual medicine (manipulation and mobilization) according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. This catalog will be used to inform the development of an International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-based assessment schedule for low back pain patients treated with manual medicine. In this scoping review, we systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We identified instruments (questionnaires, clinical tests, single questions) used to measure functioning, disability, and contextual factors, extracted the relevant items, and then linked these items to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. We included 95 articles and identified 1510 meaningful concepts. All but 70 items were linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Of the concepts linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, body functions accounted for 34.7%, body structures accounted for 0%, activities and participation accounted for 41%, environmental factors accounted for 3.6%, and personal factors accounted for 16%. Most items used to measure functioning and disability in low back pain patient treated with manual medicine focus on body functions, as well as activities and participation. The lack of measures that address environmental factors warrants further investigation.

Doctors of chiropractic working with or within integrated healthcare delivery systems: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Back and neck pain are the leading causes of disability worldwide. Doctors of chiropractic (DCs) are trained to manage these common conditions and can provide non-pharmacological treatment aligned with international clinical practice guidelines. Although DCs practice in over 90 countries, chiropractic care is rarely available within integrated healthcare delivery systems. A lack of DCs in private practice, particularly in low-income communities, may also limit access to chiropractic care. Improving collaboration between medical providers and community-based DCs, or embedding DCs in medical settings such as hospitals or community health centres, will improve access to evidence-based care for musculoskeletal conditions.

METHODS AND ANALYSES

This scoping review will map studies of DCs working with or within integrated healthcare delivery systems. We will use the recommended six-step approach for scoping reviews. We will search three electronic data bases including Medline, Embase and Web of Science. Two investigators will independently review all titles and abstracts to identify relevant records, screen the full-text articles of potentially admissible records, and systematically extract data from selected articles. We will include studies published in English from 1998 to 2020 describing medical settings that have established formal relationships with community-based DCs (eg, shared medical record) or where DCs practice in medical settings. Data extraction and reporting will be guided by the Proctor Conceptual Model for Implementation Research, which has three domains: clinical intervention, implementation strategies and outcome measurement. Stakeholders from diverse clinical fields will offer feedback on the implications of our findings via a web-based survey.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval will not be obtained for this review of published and publicly accessible data, but will be obtained for the web-based survey. Our results will be disseminated through conference presentations and a peer-reviewed publication. Our findings will inform implementation strategies that support the adoption of chiropractic care within integrated healthcare delivery systems.

Characteristics of Forces at the Clinician–Patient and Patient–Table Interfaces During Thoracic Spinal Manipulation in Asymptomatic Adults Are Consistent With Deformable Body Models

Investigating all forces exerted on the patient’s body during high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) remains fundamental to elucidate how these may contribute to SMT’s effects. Previous conflicting findings preclude our understanding of the relationship between SMT forces acting at the clinician–patient and patient–table interfaces. This study aimed to quantify forces at the clinician–participant and participant–table interfaces during thoracic SMT in asymptnomatic adults. An experienced clinician provided a posterior to anterior SMT centered to T7 transverse processes using predetermined force–time characteristics to 40 asymptomatic volunteers (20 females; average age = 27.2 [4.9] y). Forces at the clinician–participant interface were recorded by triaxial load cells; whereas, forces at the participant–table interface were recorded by the force-sensing table technology. Preload force, total peak force, time to peak, and loading rate at each interface were analyzed descriptively. Total peak vertical forces at the clinician–participant interface averaged 532 (71) N while total peak forces at the participant–table interface averaged 658 (33) N. Forces at the participant–table interface were, on average, 1.27 (0.25) times larger than the ones at the clinician–participant interface. Larger forces at the participant–table interface compared with the ones at the clinician–participant interface during thoracic SMT are consistent with mathematical models developed to investigate thoracic impact simulating a dynamic force-deflection response.

The Acute Effects of Manual and Instrument-Assisted Cervical Spine Manipulation on Pressure Pain Threshold, Pressure Pain Perception, and Muscle-Related Variables in Asymptomatic Subjects: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the immediate effects in asymptomatic participants of manual and instrument-assisted cervical manipulation on pressure pain thresholds, pressure pain perception, and muscle mechanical properties (tone, stiffness, and elasticity) over muscles anatomically related and unrelated to the manipulated level.

METHODS

Fifty-nine asymptomatic participants (34 women and 25 men; age [mean ± standard deviation] = 21.1 ± 1.6 years) were randomly assigned to 4 groups in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Two groups received cervical (C3/C4) manipulation, 1 manual and the other instrument-assisted; the third group received a sham manipulation; and the fourth group served as the control. Bilateral pressure pain threshold, pressure pain perception, muscle tone, stiffness, and elasticity in the upper trapezius and biceps brachii were evaluated before and immediately after the interventions.

RESULTS

At baseline, there were no differences among the groups on any variable. After the interventions, a significant increase in pressure pain threshold was observed with both manual and instrument-assisted manipulation at local and distal sites (P < .05), whereas no changes were observed in either the control or the placebo group. The perception of pain pressure did not change significantly in any group. The interventions did not promote any statistically significant differences in muscle tone, elasticity, or stiffness at any site (local or distal).

CONCLUSION

Cervical (C3/C4) manual and instrument-assisted manipulations produced an increase in pressure pain threshold bilaterally and over muscles related and unrelated to the vertebral segment, but had no effect on muscle tone, elasticity, or stiffness.

Beliefs, perceptions and practices of chiropractors and patients about mitigation strategies for benign adverse events after spinal manipulation therapy

BACKGROUND

Approximately 50% of patients who receive spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) experience some kind of adverse event (AE), typically benign and transient in nature. Regardless of their severity, mitigating benign AEs is important to improve patient experience and quality of care. The aim of this study was to identify beliefs, perceptions and practices of chiropractors and patients regarding benign AEs post-SMT and potential strategies to mitigate them.

METHODS

Clinicians and patients from two chiropractic teaching clinics were invited to respond to an 11-question survey exploring their beliefs, perceptions and practices regarding benign AEs post-SMT and strategies to mitigate them. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 39 clinicians (67% response rate) and 203 patients (82.9% response rate) completed the survey. Most clinicians (97%) believed benign AEs occur, and 82% reported their own patients have experienced one. For patients, 55% reported experiencing benign AEs post-SMT, with the most common symptoms being pain/soreness, headache and stiffness. While most clinicians (61.5%) reported trying a mitigation strategy with their patients, only 21.2% of patients perceived their clinicians had tried any mitigation strategy. Clinicians perceived that patient education is most likely to mitigate benign AEs, followed by soft tissue therapy and/or icing after SMT. Patients perceived stretching was most likely to mitigate benign AEs, followed by education and/or massage.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study comparing beliefs, perceptions and practices from clinicians and patients regarding benign AEs post-SMT and strategies to mitigate them. This study provides an important step towards identifying the best strategies to improve patient safety and improve quality of care.

Misinformation about spinal manipulation and boosting immunity: an analysis of Twitter activity during the COVID-19 crisis

Background

Social media has become an increasingly important tool in monitoring the onset and spread of infectious diseases globally as well monitoring the spread of information about those diseases. This includes the spread of misinformation, which has been documented within the context of the emerging COVID-19 crisis. Understanding the creation, spread and uptake of social media misinformation is of critical importance to public safety. In this descriptive study, we detail Twitter activity regarding spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and claims it increases, or “boosts”, immunity. Spinal manipulation is a common intervention used by many health professions, most commonly by chiropractors. There is no clinical evidence that SMT improves human immunity.

Methods

Social media searching software (Talkwalker Quick Search) was used to describe Twitter activity regarding SMT and improving or boosting immunity. Searches were performed for the 3 months and 12 months before March 31, 2020 using terms related to 1) SMT, 2) the professions that most often provide SMT and 3) immunity. From these searches, we determined the magnitude and time course of Twitter activity then coded this activity into content that promoted or refuted a SMT/immunity link. Content themes, high-influence users and user demographics were then stratified as either promoting or refuting this linkage.

Results

Twitter misinformation regarding a SMT/immunity link increased dramatically during the onset of the COVID crisis. Activity levels (number of tweets) and engagement scores (likes + retweets) were roughly equal between content promoting or refuting a SMT/immunity link, however, the potential reach (audience) of tweets refuting a SMT/immunity link was 3 times higher than those promoting a link. Users with the greatest influence on Twitter, as either promoters or refuters, were individuals, not institutions or organizations. The majority of tweets promoting a SMT/immunity link were generated in the USA while the majority of refuting tweets originated from Canada.

Conclusion

Twitter activity about SMT and immunity increased during the COVID-19 crisis. Results from this work have the potential to help policy makers and others understand the impact of SMT misinformation and devise strategies to mitigate its impact.

Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine Practice Patterns of Third-Year and Fourth-Year Osteopathic Medical Students: An Educational Research Project

Context

Colleges of osteopathic medicine (COMs) are required to provide hands-on osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) training during clerkship years, but this can be challenging given that students are in a variety of clinical sites and often train with allopathic physicians.

Objective

To identify student OMM practice patterns documented on required OMM practice logs detailing 10 OMM treatments each semester as part of a 3-semester third- and fourth-year clerkship curriculum and to determine whether these practice patterns varied by supervisor type (osteopathic vs allopathic) and semester.

Methods

The OMM practice logs from 2 class years were retrospectively reviewed for patient and supervisor characteristics and OMM treatment details. Semesters included 2 third-year semesters and an extended fourth-year semester.

Results

Between July 2015 and March 2018, 1018 OMM practice logs were submitted detailing 10,150 treatments involving 4655 clinical (45.9%) and 5474 volunteer (53.9%) patients. Logs contained up to 10 treatments per log; 26.0% included only clinical patients, 17.4% included only volunteer patients, and 56.6% included both. Significantly more clinical patients (1708 [36.7%]) were treated during the first semester of the third year than the other 2 semesters (P<.001). The supervisor's credentials were identified as an osteopathic physician for 6639 treatments (65.4%) and an allopathic physician for 768 (7.6%). No difference was found in the proportion of clinical to volunteer patients supervised by osteopathic or allopathic physicians (P=.34). Neuromusculoskeletal complaints accounted for 10,847 (90.7%) chief complaints, and nonneuromusculoskeletal complaints accounted for 1115 (9.3%). The most commonly treated body regions were the thoracic (6255 [61.4%]), cervical (4932 [48.4%]), and lumbar (4249 [41.7%]). More body regions were treated on clinical patients than on volunteer patients (mean, 2.7 vs 2.6, respectively; P=.04). Commonly used techniques were muscle energy (6570 [64.5%]); high-velocity, low-amplitude (4054 [39.8%]); soft tissue (3615 [35.5%]); balanced ligamentous tension/indirect techniques (2700 [26.5%]); and myofascial release (1944 [19.2%]).

Conclusion

More than 80% of students documented OMM practice on clinical patients for their required OMM practice logs. Both osteopathic and allopathic physicians provided supervision. Chief complaints and types of osteopathic manipulative treatment used were consistent with current clinical practice. Areas identified for enhanced didactic education included OMM for nonneuromusculoskeletal complaints.

Spinal Mobilization Prevents NGF-Induced Trunk Mechanical Hyperalgesia and Attenuates Expression of CGRP

Introduction

Low back pain (LBP) is a complex and growing global health problem in need of more effective pain management strategies. Spinal mobilization (SM) is a non-pharmacological approach recommended by most clinical guidelines for LBP, but greater utilization and treatment optimization are hampered by a lack of mechanistic knowledge underlying its hypoalgesic clinical effects.

Methods

Groups of female Sprague-Dawley rats received unilateral trunk (L5 vertebral level) injections (50 μl) of either vehicle (phosphate-buffer solution, PBS; VEH) or nerve growth factor (NGF; 0.8 μM) on Days 0 and 5 with or without daily L5 SM (VEH, NGF, VEH + SM, VEH + SM). Daily passive SM (10 min) was delivered by a feedback motor (1.2 Hz, 0.9N) from Days 1 to 12. Changes in pain assays were determined for mechanical and thermal reflexive behavior, exploratory behavior (open field events) and spontaneous pain behavior (rat grimace scale). On Day 12, lumbar (L1–L6) dorsal root ganglia (DRG) were harvested bilaterally and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) positive immunoreactive neurons were quantified from 3 animals (1 DRG tissue section per segmental level) per experimental group.

Results

NGF induced bilateral trunk (left P = 0.006, right P = 0.001) mechanical hyperalgesia and unilateral hindpaw allodynia (P = 0.006) compared to the vehicle group by Day 12. Additionally, we found for the first time that NGF animals demonstrated decreased exploratory behaviors (total distance traveled) and increased grimace scale scoring compared to the VEH group. Passive SM prevented this development of local (trunk) mechanical hyperalgesia and distant (hindpaw) allodynia, and normalized grimace scale scores. NGF increased CGRP positive immunoreactive neurons in ipsilateral lumbar DRGs compared to the VEH group ([L1]P = 0.02; [L2]P = 0.007) and SM effectively negated this increase in pain-related neuropeptide CGRP expression.

Conclusion

SM prevents the development of local (trunk) NGF-induced mechanical hyperalgesia and distant (hindpaw) allodynia, in part, through attenuation of CGRP expression in lumbar DRG sensory neurons. NGF decreases rat exploratory behavior and increases spontaneous pain for which passive SM acts to mitigate these pain-related behavioral changes. These initial study findings suggest that beginning daily SM soon after injury onset might act to minimize or prevent the development of LBP by reducing production of pain-related neuropeptides.

The effect of a single spinal manipulation on cardiovascular autonomic activity and the relationship to pressure pain threshold: a randomized, cross-over, sham-controlled trial

Background

The autonomic nervous system interacts with the pain system. Knowledge on the effects of high velocity low amplitude spinal manipulations (SM) on autonomic activity and experimentally induced pain is limited. In particular, the effects of SM on autonomic activity and pain beyond the immediate post intervention period as well as the relationship between these two outcomes are understudied. Thus, new research is needed to provide further insight on this issue.

Objectives

The aim was to assess the effect of a single SM (i.e. SM vs. sham) on cardiovascular autonomic activity. Also, we assessed the relationship between cardiovascular autonomic activity and level of pain threshold after the interventions.

Method

We conducted a randomized, cross-over, sham-controlled trial on healthy first-year chiropractic students comprising two experimental sessions separated by 48 h. During each session, subjects received, in a random order, either a thoracic SM or a sham manipulation. Cardiovascular autonomic activity was assessed using heart rate and systolic blood pressure variabilities. Pain sensitivity was assessed using pressure pain threshold. Measurements were performed at baseline and repeated three times (every 12 min) during the post intervention period. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded. The effect of the SM was tested with linear mixed models. The relationship between autonomic outcomes and pressure pain threshold was tested with bivariate correlations.

Results

Fifty-one participants were included, forty-one were finally analyzed. We found no statistically significant difference between SM and sham in cardiovascular autonomic activity post intervention. Similarly, we found no post-intervention relationship between cardiovascular autonomic activity and pressure pain threshold.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that a single SM of the thoracic spine has no specific effect on cardiovascular autonomic activity. Also, we found no relationship between cardiovascular autonomic activity and pressure pain threshold after the SM. Further experimental research should consider the use of several markers of autonomic activity and a more comprehensive pain assessment.

Trial registration

N° NCT03273868. Registered September 6, 2017.

Potential treatment effect modifiers for manipulative therapy for children complaining of spinal pain.Secondary analyses of a randomised controlled trial

Background

In children, spinal pain is transitory for most, but up to 20% experience recurrent and bothersome complaints. It is generally acknowledged that interventions may be more effective for subgroups of those affected with low back pain. In this secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial, we tested whether five indicators of a potential increased need for treatment might act as effect modifiers for manipulative therapy in the treatment of spinal pain in children. We hypothesized that the most severely affected children would benefit more from manipulative therapy.

Method

This study was a secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial comparing advice, exercises and soft tissue treatment with and without the addition of manipulative therapy in 238 Danish school children aged 9-15 years complaining of spinal pain. A text message system (SMS) and clinical examinations were used for data collection (February 2012 to April 2014).Five pre-specified potential effect modifiers were explored: Number of weeks with spinal pain 6 months prior to inclusion, number of weeks with co-occurring musculoskeletal pain 6 months prior to inclusion, expectations of the clinical course, pain intensity, and quality of life.Outcomes were number of recurrences of spinal pain, number of weeks with pain, length of episodes, global perceived effect, and change in pain intensity. To explore potential effect modification, various types of regression models were used depending on the type of outcome, including interaction tests.

Results

We found that children with long duration of spinal pain or co-occurring musculoskeletal pain prior to inclusion as well as low quality of life at baseline tended to benefit from manipulative therapy over non-manipulative therapy, whereas the opposite was seen for children reporting high intensity of pain. However, most results were statistically insignificant.

Conclusions

This secondary analysis indicates that children more effected by certain baseline characteristics, but not pain intensity, have a greater chance to benefit from treatment that include manipulative therapy. However, these analyses were both secondary and underpowered, and therefore merely exploratory. The results underline the need for a careful choice of inclusion criteria in future investigations of manipulative therapy in children.

Trial registration

NCT01504698; results.

Who Uses Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment? A Prospective, Observational Study Conducted by DO-Touch.NET

Context

Information about the characteristics of patients who use osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is limited.

Objective

To determine the scope of conditions being managed with OMT and describe the characteristics of patients who receive OMT.

Methods

Researchers conducted a longitudinal, observational study on the use and effectiveness of OMT at 17 clinics where clinicians (ie, osteopathic and allopathic physicians and Canadian-trained osteopaths) provided OMT. Adult patients receiving OMT completed questionnaires immediately before, immediately after, and daily for 7 days after treatment. Data collected from patients included demographic information, chief complaint(s) and their severity, and health-related quality of life. Physical examination findings, treatment, and medical diagnosis documentation were extracted from medical records. Census data were used to assess whether patients were representative of the population of the county where the clinic was located.

Results

Data were collected from 927 patients at 1924 office visits. A majority of patients were women (690 [75%]), white (854 [96%]), and not Hispanic or Latinx (707 [95%]). The mean (SD) age was 51.9 (15.9) years. When compared with census data, the sample had higher percentages of women, people aged 65 years and older, people who identified as white, people who were high school and college graduates, and people with higher household incomes than that of the county population. The most common chief complaints from patients were pain or discomfort in the lower back (311 [34%]) and neck (277 [30%]), which corresponded with the most common medical diagnoses. Patients reported that OMT, surgery, and medications were the most helpful treatments they had used previously for their chief complaint(s). Before receiving OMT, patients' health-related quality of life was significantly worse (P≤.05) than that of the general US population.

Conclusions

Adult patients receiving OMT are being treated primarily for musculoskeletal pain conditions, are not representative of the population of the county where the clinic was located, and have worse health-related quality of life than that of the general population. Information about the characteristics of patients who use OMT is important for defining osteopathic distinctiveness and identifying potential areas for increasing the use of OMT. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02395965).

Vertebral Displacements and Muscle Activity During Manual Therapy: Distinct Behaviors Between Spinal Manipulation and Mobilization

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare vertebral displacements (absolute and relative) and muscle responses induced by spinal manipulative therapy of short (spinal manipulation) and long (spinal mobilization) impulse duration.

METHODS

Twenty-five healthy adults (without thoracic pain) were recruited for this crossover study. Six spinal manipulative therapies (255 N peak force) of different impulse durations (100, 125, 200, 500, 1000, and 1500 ms) were delivered to each participant's T7 transverse process using a mechanical device. Impulse duration effect on the vertebral displacement (absolute displacement of T6, T7, and T8 and relative displacement between T7 and T6 and between T7 and T8) and the thoracic muscle response (surface electromyography) were assessed using mixed-model analyses of variance and predefined linear trend analyses.

RESULTS

Results showed a linear increase in the absolute vertebral displacement for T8 (P = .002) and a linear decrease in the T7/T6 and T7/T8 relative displacement (P < .0001) when impulse duration was increased. The data of 24 participants were available for electromyography analysis. A significant main effect of impulse duration on surface electromyography response was observed (P < .0001, ƞ_p²=0.43). Planned comparisons for a linear trend between these variables revealed a negative relationship (P < .0001). Only 13 of the 24 participants with available data presented a muscle response at every impulse duration.

CONCLUSION

These results support the assumption that spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization might operate under distinct mechanisms.

Effects of an 8-week physical exercise program on spinal manipulation biomechanical parameters in a group of 1st-year chiropractic students

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of a physical exercise program on spinal manipulation (SM) performance in 1st-year chiropractic students.

METHODS

One hundred and thirteen students from 2 chiropractic schools were assigned to 1 of 2 groups: exercise group (EG) for campus A students or control group (CG) (no training) for campus B students. All participated in 2 1-hour experimental training sessions that were added to the usual technique curriculum. At the beginning and at the end of each session, SM thrust duration and preload force release were recorded as dependent variables in 5 trials performed on a force-sensing table for a total of 10 recorded trials per session. The session consisted of several drills during which augmented feedback was provided to students to improve their skills. The EG performed physical exercises (push-ups, core stabilization, and speeder board exercises) 3 times per week for an 8-week period between the 2 training sessions.

RESULTS

The mean thrust duration increased between the 2 sessions [+0.8 ms (±15.6)]. No difference between groups was found using a t test for independent samples (p = .94). The mean preload force release decreased between the 2 sessions (-6.1 N [±17.1]). Differences between groups were found using a t test for independent samples (p = .03); the results showed a reduction of preload force release in the participants in the EG group compared to those in the CG group (-8.1 N [±16.9] vs -0.3 N [±16.5]).

CONCLUSION

A physical exercise program seems to be beneficial in the SM learning process; chiropractic students should therefore be encouraged to do home physical exercises to develop their physical capabilities and improve SM delivery.

The Effects Induced by Spinal Manipulative Therapy on the Immune and Endocrine Systems

Background and Objectives: Spinal manipulations are interventions widely used by different healthcare professionals for the management of musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders. While previous theoretical principles focused predominantly on biomechanical accounts, recent models propose that the observed pain modulatory effects of this form of manual therapy may be the result of more complex mechanisms. It has been suggested that other phenomena like neurophysiological responses and the activation of the immune-endocrine system may explain variability in pain inhibition after the administration of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the available evidence supporting the biological plausibility of high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust (HVLAT) on the immune-endocrine system. Materials and Methods: Narrative critical review. An electronic search on MEDLINE, ProQUEST, and Google Scholar followed by a hand and "snowballing" search were conducted to find relevant articles. Studies were included if they evaluated the effects of HVLAT on participants' biomarkers Results: The electronic search retrieved 13 relevant articles and two themes of discussion were developed. Nine studies investigated the effects of SMT on cortisol levels and five of them were conducted on symptomatic populations. Four studies examined the effects of SMT on the immune system and all of them were conducted on healthy individuals. Conclusions: Although spinal manipulations seem to trigger the activation of the neuroimmunoendocrine system, the evidence supporting a biological account for the application of HVLAT in clinical practice is mixed and conflicting. Further research on subjects with spinal MSK conditions with larger sample sizes are needed to obtain more insights about the biological effects of spinal manipulative therapy.

The effects of spinal manipulation on performance-related outcomes in healthy asymptomatic adult population: a systematic review of best evidence

Introduction

The effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for improving athletic performance in healthy athletes is unclear. Assessing the effect of SMT on other performance outcomes in asymptomatic populations may provide insight into the management of athletes where direct evidence may not be available. Our objective was to systematically review the literature on the effect of SMT on performance-related outcomes in asymptomatic adults.

Methods

MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched from 1990 to March 23, 2018. Inclusion criteria was any study examining a performance-related outcome of SMT in asymptomatic adults. Methodological quality was assessed using the SIGN criteria. Studies with a low risk of bias were considered scientifically admissible for a best evidence synthesis. We calculated the between group mean change and 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Of 1415 articles screened, 20 studies had low risk of bias, seven were randomized crossover trials, 10 were randomized controlled trials (RCT) and three were RCT pilot trials. Four studies showed SMT had no effect on physiological parameters at rest or during exercise. There was no effect of SMT on scapular kinematics or transversus abdominus thickness. Three studies identified changes in muscle activation of the upper or lower limb, compared to two that did not. Five studies showed changes in range of motion (ROM). One study showed an increase lumbar proprioception and two identified changes in baropodometric variables after SMT. Sport-specific studies show no effect of SMT except for a small increase in basketball free-throw accuracy.

Conclusion

The preponderance of evidence suggests that SMT in comparison to sham or other interventions does not enhance performance-based outcomes in asymptomatic adult population. All studies are exploratory with immediate effects. In the few studies suggesting a positive immediate effect, the importance of such change is uncertain. Further high-quality performance specific studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12998-019-0246-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Expectations influence treatment outcomes in patients with low back pain. A secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is a global public health challenge, which causes high healthcare costs and the highest burden on society in terms of years lived with disability. While patients’ expectations for improvement may have effects on LBP treatment outcomes, it remains unclear if psychological profiles modify this relationship. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to investigate if (a) patients’ expectations predicted short‐term outcome, and (b) psychological profile, pain intensity and self‐rated health modified the relationship between expectations and outcome.

Methods

Data were collected between April 2012 and January 2016 during the inclusion into a randomized controlled trial. Potentially eligible participants were identified through 40 chiropractic clinics located across Sweden. Patients’ expectations, psychological profile, pain intensity, activity limitation and self‐rated health were collected from patients with recurrent persistent LBP during their first chiropractic visit (n = 593). Subjective improvement was measured at the fourth visit.

Results

Patients with a high expectation of improvement had 58% higher risk to report an improvement at the fourth visit (RR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.28, 1.95). Controlling for potential confounders only slightly decreased the strength of this association (RR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.20, 1.86). Baseline pain intensity, psychological profile and self‐rated health did not modify the effect of expectation on outcome.

Conclusions

Baseline patients’ expectations play an important role when predicting LBP treatment outcomes. Clinicians should consider and address patients’ expectations at the first visit to best inform prognosis.

Significance

This study confirms the importance of patients’ expectations in a clinical setting. Patients’ expectations predict the short‐term outcome of chiropractic care for LBP. Pain intensity, psychological profile and self‐rated health did not modify this relationship.

Patient Willingness to Pay for Reductions in Chronic Low Back Pain and Chronic Neck Pain

Many recommended nonpharmacologic therapies for patients with chronic spinal pain require visits to providers such as acupuncturists and chiropractors. Little information is available to inform third-party payers' coverage policies regarding ongoing use of these therapies. This study offers contingent valuation-based estimates of patient willingness to pay (WTP) for pain reductions from a large (n = 1,583) sample of patients using ongoing chiropractic care to manage their chronic low back and neck pain. Average WTP estimates were $45.98 (45.8) per month per 1-point reduction in current pain for chronic low back pain and $37.32 (38.0) for chronic neck pain. These estimates met a variety of validity checks including that individuals' values define a downward-sloping demand curve for these services. Comparing these WTP estimates with patients' actual use of chiropractic care over the next 3 months indicates that these patients are likely "buying" perceived pain reductions from what they believe their pain would have been if they didn't see their chiropractor-that is, they value maintenance of their current mild pain levels. These results provide some evidence for copay levels and their relationship to patient demand, but call into question ongoing coverage policies that require the documentation of continued improvement or of experienced clinical deterioration with treatment withdrawal. PERSPECTIVE: This study provides estimates of reported WTP for pain reduction from a large sample of patients using chiropractic care to manage their chronic spinal pain and compares these estimates to what these patients do for care over the next 3 months, to inform coverage policies for ongoing care.

Clinical Scenarios for Which Spinal Mobilization and Manipulation Are Considered by an Expert Panel to be Inappropriate (and Appropriate) for Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain

BACKGROUND

Spinal mobilization and manipulation are 2 therapies found to be generally safe and effective for chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, the question remains whether they are appropriate for all CLBP patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN

An expert panel used a well-validated approach, including an evidence synthesis and clinical acumen, to develop and then rate the appropriateness of the use of spinal mobilization and manipulation across an exhaustive list of clinical scenarios which could present for CLBP. Decision tree analysis (DTA) was used to identify the key patient characteristics that affected the ratings.

RESULTS

Nine hundred clinical scenarios were defined and then rated by a 9-member expert panel as to the appropriateness of spinal mobilization and manipulation. Across clinical scenarios more were rated appropriate than inappropriate. However, the number patients presenting with each scenario is not yet known. Nevertheless, DTA indicates that all clinical scenarios that included major neurological findings, and some others involving imaging findings of central herniated nucleus pulposus, spinal stenosis, or free fragments, were rated as inappropriate for both spinal mobilization and manipulation. DTA also identified the absence of these imaging findings and no previous laminectomy as the most important patient characteristics in predicting ratings of appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

A well-validated expert panel-based approach was used to develop and then rate the appropriateness of the use of spinal mobilization and manipulation across the clinical scenarios which could present for CLBP. Information on the clinical scenarios for which these therapies are inappropriate should be added to clinical guidelines for CLBP.