The 2005 Conference on the Biology of Manual Therapies

Effects of Self-myofascial Release Using a Foam Roller on Range of Motion and Morphological Changes in Muscle: A Crossover Study

ABSTRACT

Yoshimura, A, Inami, T, Schleip, R, Mineta, S, Shudo, K, and Hirose, N. Effects of self-myofascial release using a foam roller on range of motion and morphological changes in muscle: a crossover study. J Strength Cond Res 35(9): 2444-2450, 2021-Self-myofascial release using a foam roller (FR) is effective in improving range of motion (ROM) in at least some conditions. However, its mechanism is still unclear. Therefore, this study investigated potential acute muscle morphological changes after the FR intervention and aimed to clarify the mechanism of increases in ROM by the FR intervention. We hypothesized that the FR intervention may increase ROM because of changes in fascicle length (FL) and aponeurosis displacement. This crossover study, involving 22 male university students (21.5 ± 1.3 years, 170.6 ± 4.0 cm, and 64.1 ± 8.9 kg; mean ± SD), compared the FR intervention targeting the gastrocnemius muscle with the control trial. The outcome measures were maximum passive ankle ROM, morphology of the gastrocnemius muscle (FL and aponeurosis displacement) during passive ankle plantar flexor movement, degree of pain during the FR intervention, and sensation of the triceps surae muscle. Although ROM of both dorsiflexion and plantar flexion increased significantly after the FR intervention (p < 0.01), no significant differences were found in FL and aponeurosis displacement before and after the FR intervention. The mean perception of pain during the FR intervention was rated as "slightly uncomfortable," corresponding to a 2.3 ± 2.4-cm on a 9.5-cm visual analog scale. We found that the FR intervention did not influence the morphology of muscle. It is necessary to investigate other factors related to ROM as the next step of this study.

Manual physical therapy as a novel treatment modality for Autism spectrum disorder - A pilot study

Background Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) fall under neurodevelopmental disorders and are characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, restricted interests, and repetitive behaviors. The current available treatments aim at functional rehabilitation with resultant partial improvement in few and the persistent handicap in rest of them. Manual physical therapy or manual manipulation therapy has the basis in structural rehabilitation of the patient and has been proposed to act by both peripheral and central mechanisms. Case presentation To study improvement in different components of ASD by manual physical therapy, the therapy comprised of soft tissue therapy, in the form of myofascial release (MFR) of deep fascia of leg and foot muscles. The child with ASD, treated by manual physical therapy had global improvement in all the deficits. Conclusions This is probably first case of autism reported to have almost complete symptom resolution, with any single form of treatment and this form of therapy holds promise in integrative and holistic management of the patient.

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.

Essential literature for the chiropractic profession: Results and implementation challenges from a survey of international chiropractic faculty

OBJECTIVE

Scientific literature applicable to chiropractic practice proliferates in quantity, quality, and source. Chiropractic is a worldwide profession and varies in scope between states or provinces and from country to country. It is logical to consider that the focus and emphasis of chiropractic education varies between programs as well. This original research study endeavored to determine "essential literature" recommended by chiropractic faculty. The purpose of this article is (1) to share our results and (2) to promote discussion and explore means for future collaboration of chiropractic faculty through a worldwide platform.

METHODS

A 2-phase recruitment occurred initially at the institutional level and subsequently at the faculty level. A Web-based survey used qualitative data collection methods to gather bibliographic citations. Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographics, and citation responses were ranked per number of recommendations, grouped into categories, and tabulated per journal source and publication date.

RESULTS

Forty-one chiropractic programs were contacted, resulting in 30 participating chiropractic programs (16 US and 14 international). Forty-five faculty members completed the entire survey, submitting 126 peer-reviewed publications and 25 additional citations. Readings emphasized clinical management of spine pain, the science of spinal manipulation, effectiveness of manual therapies, teaching of chiropractic techniques, outcomes assessments, and professional issues.

CONCLUSION

A systematic approach to surveying educators in international chiropractic institutions was accomplished. The results of the survey provide a list of essential literature for the chiropractic profession. We recommend establishing a chiropractic faculty registry for improved communication and collaboration.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

DISCUSSION

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42015025714.

Immediate effects of thoracic spinal mobilisation on erector spinae muscle activity and pain in patients with thoracic spine pain: a preliminary randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the activity of the thoracic erector spinae muscles and perceived pain intensity immediately after central postero-anterior (PA) mobilisation of the thoracic spine.

DESIGN

Randomised, placebo-controlled, experimental design.

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Thirty-four participants with non-specific thoracic pain were randomised to the experimental group [grade III central PA mobilisation performed for 3minutes at the level of the seventh thoracic vertebra (T7)] or the placebo group (less than grade I central PA mobilisation performed for 3minutes at T7).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Before and immediately after PA mobilisation, surface electromyography (EMG) was recorded from the thoracic erector spinae muscles as the participants performed 10° spine extension from a prone position for 10seconds. Each participant rated their pain intensity as an investigator performed grade III central PA over the most symptomatic thoracic segment, and the pressure pain threshold (PPT) was evaluated bilaterally over the erector spinae muscles.

RESULTS

The EMG amplitude of thoracic erector spinae activity was reduced significantly after the intervention in the experimental group (P<0.05), but not in the placebo group. The difference between the groups was significant {pre-post change: placebo -14 [standard deviation (SD) 50]mV, experimental 28 (SD 48)mV; mean difference -42mV; 95% confidence interval of the difference -76 to 7; P<0.05} albeit small (Grissom=0.44). However, both groups showed a significant reduction in pain immediately after the intervention, and both groups showed a similar pre-post change in PPT.

CONCLUSION

These preliminary findings indicate that grade III central mobilisation over the most symptomatic thoracic segment reduces thoracic erector spinae activity during extension of the trunk in people with non-specific thoracic spine pain.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN47601528.

Kinematic measures during a clinical diagnostic technique for human neck disorder: inter- and intraexaminer comparisons

Diagnoses of human musculoskeletal dysfunction of the cervical spine are indicated by palpable clues of a patient's structural compliance/noncompliance as this body segment responds to diagnostic motion demands applied by a clinician. This process includes assessments of motion range, motion performance, and changes in tissue responses. However, biomechanical quantification of these diagnostic actions and their reproducible components is lacking. As a result, this study sought to use objective kinematic measures to capture aspects of the diagnostic process to compare inter- and intraexaminer motion behaviors when performing a specific clinical diagnostic protocol. Pain-free volunteers and a group determined to be symptomatic based on a psychometric pain score were examined by two clinicians while three-dimensional kinematic data were collected. Intraexaminer diagnostic motion ranges of cervical lateral flexion and secondary rotations were consistent for each examiner and for each subject group. However, interexaminer comparisons for motion range, secondary rotations, and average velocities yielded consistently larger measures for one examiner for both subject groups (P < 0.05). This research demonstrates that fundamental aspects of the clinical diagnostic process for human neck disorders can be identified and measured using kinematic parameters. Further, these objective data have the potential to be linked to clinical decision making.

Effect of a single session of muscle-biased therapy on pain sensitivity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Muscle-biased therapies (MBT) are commonly used to treat pain, yet several reviews suggest evidence for the clinical effectiveness of these therapies is lacking. Inadequate treatment parameters have been suggested to account for inconsistent effects across studies. Pain sensitivity may serve as an intermediate physiologic endpoint helping to establish optimal MBT treatment parameters. The purpose of this review was to summarize the current literature investigating the short-term effect of a single dose of MBT on pain sensitivity in both healthy and clinical populations, with particular attention to specific MBT parameters of intensity and duration.

METHODS

A systematic search for articles meeting our prespecified criteria was conducted using Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and MEDLINE from the inception of each database until July 2012, in accordance with guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis. Relevant characteristics from studies included type, intensity, and duration of MBT and whether short-term changes in pain sensitivity and clinical pain were noted with MBT application. Study results were pooled using a random-effects model to estimate the overall effect size of a single dose of MBT on pain sensitivity as well as the effect of MBT, dependent on comparison group and population type.

RESULTS

Reports from 24 randomized controlled trials (23 articles) were included, representing 36 MBT treatment arms and 29 comparative groups, where 10 groups received active agents, 11 received sham/inert treatments, and eight received no treatment. MBT demonstrated a favorable and consistent ability to modulate pain sensitivity. Short-term modulation of pain sensitivity was associated with short-term beneficial effects on clinical pain. Intensity of MBT, but not duration, was linked with change in pain sensitivity. A meta-analysis was conducted on 17 studies that assessed the effect of MBT on pressure pain thresholds. The results suggest that MBT had a favorable effect on pressure pain thresholds when compared with no-treatment and sham/inert groups, and effects comparable with those of other active treatments.

CONCLUSION

The evidence supports the use of pain sensitivity measures by future research to help elucidate optimal therapeutic parameters for MBT as an intermediate physiologic marker.

Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low back pain: an update of the cochrane review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for acute low back pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

SMT is one of many therapies for the treatment of low back pain, which is a worldwide, extensively practiced intervention.

METHODS

An experienced librarian searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in multiple databases up to March 13, 2011. RCTs that examined manipulation or mobilization in adults with acute low back pain (<6-week duration) were included. The primary outcomes were pain, functional status and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life. Two authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) was used to assess the quality of the evidence. The effects were examined for SMT versus (1) inert interventions, (2) sham SMT, (3) other interventions, and (4) SMT as adjunct therapy.

RESULTS

We identified 20 RCTs (total participants = 2674), 12 (60%) of which were not included in the previous review. In total, 6 trials (30% of all included studies) had a low risk of bias. In general, for the outcomes of pain and functional status, there is low- to very low-quality evidence suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared with inert interventions, sham SMT or as adjunct therapy. There was varying quality of evidence (from very low to moderate) suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared with other interventions. Data were particularly sparse for recovery, return-to-work, quality of life, and costs of care. No serious complications were observed with SMT.

CONCLUSION

SMT is no more effective for acute low back pain than inert interventions, sham SMT or as adjunct therapy. SMT also seems to be no better than other recommended therapies. Our evaluation is limited by the few numbers of studies; therefore, future research is likely to have an important impact on these estimates. Future RCTs should examine specific subgroups and include an economic evaluation.

Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Many therapies exist for the treatment of low-back pain including spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), which is a worldwide, extensively practised intervention. This report is an update of the earlier Cochrane review, first published in January 2004 with the last search for studies up to January 2000.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of SMT for acute low-back pain, which is defined as pain of less than six weeks duration.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted on 31 March 2011 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature. Other search strategies were employed for completeness. No limitations were placed on language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilization in adults with acute low-back pain were included. In addition, studies were included if the pain was predominantly in the lower back but the study allowed mixed populations, including participants with radiation of pain into the buttocks and legs. Studies which exclusively evaluated sciatica were excluded. No other restrictions were placed on the setting nor the type of pain. The primary outcomes were back pain, back-pain specific functional status, and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life. SMT was defined as any hands-on therapy directed towards the spine, which includes both manipulation and mobilization, and includes studies from chiropractors, manual therapists, and osteopaths.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted the study selection and risk of bias (RoB) assessment. Data extraction was checked by the second review author. The effects were examined in the following comparisons: SMT versus 1) inert interventions, 2) sham SMT, 3) other interventions, and 4) SMT as an additional therapy. In addition, we examined the effects of different SMT techniques compared to one another. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. Authors were contacted, where possible, for missing or unclear data. Outcomes were evaluated at the following time intervals: short-term (one week and one month), intermediate (three to six months), and long-term (12 months or longer). Clinical relevance was defined as: 1) small, mean difference (MD) < 10% of the scale or standardized mean difference (SMD) < 0.4; 2) medium, MD = 10% to 20% of the scale or SMD = 0.41 to 0.7; and 3) large, MD > 20% of the scale or SMD > 0.7.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 20 RCTs (total number of participants = 2674), 12 (60%) of which were not included in the previous review. Sample sizes ranged from 36 to 323 (median (IQR) = 108 (61 to 189)). In total, six trials (30% of all included studies) had a low RoB. At most, three RCTs could be identified per comparison, outcome, and time interval; therefore, the amount of data should not be considered robust. In general, for the primary outcomes, there is low to very low quality evidence suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared to inert interventions, sham SMT, or when added to another intervention. There was varying quality of evidence (from very low to moderate) suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared with other interventions, with the exception of low quality evidence from one trial demonstrating a significant and moderately clinically relevant short-term effect of SMT on pain relief when compared to inert interventions, as well as low quality evidence demonstrating a significant short-term and moderately clinically relevant effect of SMT on functional status when added to another intervention. In general, side-lying and supine thrust SMT techniques demonstrate a short-term significant difference when compared to non-thrust SMT techniques for the outcomes of pain, functional status, and recovery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

SMT is no more effective in participants with acute low-back pain than inert interventions, sham SMT, or when added to another intervention. SMT also appears to be no better than other recommended therapies. Our evaluation is limited by the small number of studies per comparison, outcome, and time interval. Therefore, future research is likely to have an important impact on these estimates. The decision to refer patients for SMT should be based upon costs, preferences of the patients and providers, and relative safety of SMT compared to other treatment options. Future RCTs should examine specific subgroups and include an economic evaluation.

Preliminary investigation of the mechanisms underlying the effects of manipulation: exploration of a multivariate model including spinal stiffness, multifidus recruitment, and clinical findings

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective case series.

OBJECTIVE

To examine spinal stiffness in patients with low back pain (LBP) receiving spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), evaluate associations between stiffness characteristics and clinical outcome, and explore a multivariate model of SMT mechanisms as related to effects on stiffness, lumbar multifidus (LM) recruitment, and status on a clinical prediction rule (CPR) for SMT outcomes.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Mechanisms underlying the clinical effects of SMT are poorly understood. Many explanations have been proposed, but few studies have related potential mechanisms to clinical outcomes or considered multiple mechanisms concurrently.

METHODS

Patients with LBP were treated with two SMT sessions over 1 week. CPR status was assessed at baseline. Clinical outcome was based on the Oswestry disability index (ODI). Mechanized indentation measures of spinal stiffness and ultrasonic measures of LM recruitment were taken before and after each SMT, and after 1 week. Global and terminal stiffness were calculated. Multivariate regression was used to evaluate the relationship between stiffness variables and percentage ODI improvement. Zero-order correlations among stiffness variables, LM recruitment changes, CPR status, and clinical outcome were examined. A path analysis was used to evaluate a multivariate model of SMT effects.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients (54% women) had complete stiffness data. Significant immediate decreases in global and terminal stiffness occurred post-SMT regardless of outcome. ODI improvement was related to greater immediate decrease in global stiffness (P = 0.025), and less initial terminal stiffness (P = 0.01). Zero-order correlations and path analysis supported a multivariate model suggesting that clinical outcome of SMT is mediated by improvements in LM recruitment and immediate decrease in global stiffness. Initial terminal stiffness and CPR status may relate to outcome though their relationship with LM recruitment.

CONCLUSION

The underlying mechanisms explaining the benefits of SMT appear to be multifactorial. Both spinal stiffness characteristics and LM recruitment changes appear to play a role.

Investigation of abdominal muscle thickness changes after spinal manipulation in patients who meet a clinical prediction rule for lumbar stabilization

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective case series.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate changes in abdominal muscle thickness with ultrasound imaging, after spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), in a subgroup of patients with low back pain (LBP) who meet a proposed clinical prediction rule for lumbar stabilization exercise (LSE).

BACKGROUND

The characteristics of a subgroup of patients with LBP who respond clinically to LSE has been proposed. Although the pathoanatomical characteristics of this subgroup have not been determined, clinicians often assume that this type of LBP is related, in part, to neuromuscular deficits of the lateral abdominal muscles. Recent evidence suggests that SMT may facilitate abdominal muscle activity and, therefore, enhance exercises targeting these deficits.

METHODS

Nineteen patients (mean age ± SD, 32.5 ± 7.8 years; 11 female) with LBP, who met the criteria for LSE, underwent ultrasound imaging of the transversus abdominis (TrA) and internal oblique (IO) muscles before, immediately after, and 3 to 4 days after lumbopelvic SMT. Measurements of resting thickness, contracted thickness during the abdominal drawing-in maneuver, and percent thickness change from rest to contraction of the TrA and IO muscles were analyzed with repeated-measures analysis of variance. Numeric pain rating scale and Oswestry Disability Index data were also collected.

RESULTS

No significant differences in resting, contracted, or percent thickness change in the TrA or IO were found over the 3 time periods. There were statistically significant reductions in numeric pain rating scale and Oswestry Disability Index scores, but mean differences failed to meet the minimal clinically important difference.

CONCLUSION

The results provide preliminary evidence that TrA and IO muscle resting and contracted thicknesses do not change post-SMT in patients with LBP in the LSE subgroup. In addition, while reductions in pain and disability were noted, they were not clinically meaningful.

Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain: an update of a Cochrane review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for chronic low-back pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

SMT is one of the many therapies for the treatment of low-back pain, which is a worldwide, extensively practiced intervention.

METHODS

Search methods. An experienced librarian searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in multiple databases up to June 2009. Selection criteria. RCTs that examined manipulation or mobilization in adults with chronic low-back pain were included. The primary outcomes were pain, functional status, and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life. Data collection and analysis. Two authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence.

RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs (total participants = 6070), 9 of which had a low risk of bias. Approximately two-thirds of the included studies (N = 18) were not evaluated in the previous review. There is a high-quality evidence that SMT has a small, significant, but not clinically relevant, short-term effect on pain relief (mean difference -4.16, 95% confidence interval -6.97 to -1.36) and functional status (standardized mean difference -0.22, 95% confidence interval -0.36 to -0.07) in comparison with other interventions. There is varying quality of evidence that SMT has a significant short-term effect on pain relief and functional status when added to another intervention. There is a very low-quality evidence that SMT is not more effective than inert interventions or sham SMT for short-term pain relief or functional status. Data were particularly sparse for recovery, return-to-work, quality of life, and costs of care. No serious complications were observed with SMT.

CONCLUSIONS

High-quality evidence suggests that there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low-back pain. Determining cost-effectiveness of care has high priority.

Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Many therapies exist for the treatment of low-back pain including spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), which is a worldwide, extensively practiced intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SMT for chronic low-back pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

An updated search was conducted by an experienced librarian to June 2009 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature.  

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs which examined the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilisation in adults with chronic low-back pain were included. No restrictions were placed on the setting or type of pain; studies which exclusively examined sciatica were excluded. The primary outcomes were pain, functional status and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. Sensitivity analyses and investigation of heterogeneity were performed, where possible, for the meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs (total participants = 6070), nine of which had a low risk of bias. Approximately two-thirds of the included studies (N = 18) were not evaluated in the previous review. In general, there is high quality evidence that SMT has a small, statistically significant but not clinically relevant, short-term effect on pain relief (MD: -4.16, 95% CI -6.97 to -1.36) and functional status (SMD: -0.22, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.07) compared to other interventions. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. There is varying quality of evidence (ranging from low to high) that SMT has a statistically significant short-term effect on pain relief and functional status when added to another intervention. There is very low quality evidence that SMT is not statistically significantly more effective than inert interventions or sham SMT for short-term pain relief or functional status. Data were particularly sparse for recovery, return-to-work, quality of life, and costs of care. No serious complications were observed with SMT.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High quality evidence suggests that there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low-back pain. Determining cost-effectiveness of care has high priority. Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect in relation to inert interventions and sham SMT, and data related to recovery.

Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions.

METHODS

The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories. The strength/quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs.

RESULTS

By September 2009, 26 categories of conditions were located containing RCT evidence for the use of manual therapy: 13 musculoskeletal conditions, four types of chronic headache and nine non-musculoskeletal conditions. We identified 49 recent relevant systematic reviews and 16 evidence-based clinical guidelines plus an additional 46 RCTs not yet included in systematic reviews and guidelines.Additionally, brief references are made to other effective non-pharmacological, non-invasive physical treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal manipulation/mobilization is effective in adults for: acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain; migraine and cervicogenic headache; cervicogenic dizziness; manipulation/mobilization is effective for several extremity joint conditions; and thoracic manipulation/mobilization is effective for acute/subacute neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for cervical manipulation/mobilization alone for neck pain of any duration, and for manipulation/mobilization for mid back pain, sciatica, tension-type headache, coccydynia, temporomandibular joint disorders, fibromyalgia, premenstrual syndrome, and pneumonia in older adults. Spinal manipulation is not effective for asthma and dysmenorrhea when compared to sham manipulation, or for Stage 1 hypertension when added to an antihypertensive diet. In children, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the effectiveness for otitis media and enuresis, and it is not effective for infantile colic and asthma when compared to sham manipulation.Massage is effective in adults for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for knee osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain syndrome, migraine headache, and premenstrual syndrome. In children, the evidence is inconclusive for asthma and infantile colic.

Developing biologically-based assessment tools for physical therapy management of neck pain

SYNOPSIS

Neck pain is a common and episodic condition that is treated using a spectrum of interventions known to be moderately effective but is associated with a significant incidence of chronic pain. Recently, there has been increased focus on defining biological aspects of neck pain. Studies have indicated that neurophysiological, biomechanical, and motor control abnormalities are present and may be useful either in prognosis or classification. We review some of these findings in the context of our own work defining biological markers that may form the basis for clinical tests that can be used for prognosis, classification, or outcome evaluation in patients with neck pain. We have identified abnormalities in neurophysiology using quantitative sensory testing (vibration, touch, and current perception) and response to cold provocation that are related to neck disability. We have identified altered muscle biochemistry by measuring circulating muscle proteins in a lumbar surgery model and are now applying those methods to whiplash injury. We have incorporated capnography into treatment to address central physiological changes present in some patients by monitoring and training CO2 levels. We have developed an innovative new test, the Neck Walk Index, that captures abnormal control of head movement during slow gait as a means of differentiating patients with neck pain from either unaffected controls or individuals with other pathologies. We have used time-varying 3-dimensional joint orientation kinematics to assess deficits in motor control during an upper extremity reach task, the results showing that poor coordination and control of the shoulder girdle leads to shoulder guarding and inconsistencies in elbow joint movement. Despite some promising early results, future research is needed to determine how these measures help clinicians to diagnose, evaluate, and forecast future outcome for patients who present with neck pain.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnosis, level 5.

The mechanisms of manual therapy in the treatment of musculoskeletal pain: a comprehensive model

Prior studies suggest manual therapy (MT) as effective in the treatment of musculoskeletal pain; however, the mechanisms through which MT exerts its effects are not established. In this paper we present a comprehensive model to direct future studies in MT. This model provides visualization of potential individual mechanisms of MT that the current literature suggests as pertinent and provides a framework for the consideration of the potential interaction between these individual mechanisms. Specifically, this model suggests that a mechanical force from MT initiates a cascade of neurophysiological responses from the peripheral and central nervous system which are then responsible for the clinical outcomes. This model provides clear direction so that future studies may provide appropriate methodology to account for multiple potential pertinent mechanisms.

Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with spinal manipulation and mobilization

The management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) has proven very challenging in North America, as evidenced by its mounting socioeconomic burden. Choosing among available nonsurgical therapies can be overwhelming for many stakeholders, including patients, health providers, policy makers, and third-party payers. Although all parties share a common goal and wish to use limited health-care resources to support interventions most likely to result in clinically meaningful improvements, there is often uncertainty about the most appropriate intervention for a particular patient. To help understand and evaluate the various commonly used nonsurgical approaches to CLBP, the North American Spine Society has sponsored this special focus issue of The Spine Journal, titled Evidence Informed Management of Chronic Low Back Pain Without Surgery. Articles in this special focus issue were contributed by leading spine practitioners and researchers, who were invited to summarize the best available evidence for a particular intervention and encouraged to make this information accessible to nonexperts. Each of the articles contains five sections (description, theory, evidence of efficacy, harms, and summary) with common subheadings to facilitate comparison across the 24 different interventions profiled in this special focus issue, blending narrative and systematic review methodology as deemed appropriate by the authors. It is hoped that articles in this special focus issue will be informative and aid in decision making for the many stakeholders evaluating nonsurgical interventions for CLBP.

Improved activation of lumbar multifidus following spinal manipulation: a case report applying rehabilitative ultrasound imaging

STUDY DESIGN

Case report.

BACKGROUND

The use of spinal manipulation as a treatment to facilitate neuromuscular control of the paraspinal musculature is not well described in the literature. The use of rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI) may offer a convenient way to investigate and document possible changes occurring in the lumbar multifidus associated with manipulation intervention.

CASE DESCRIPTION

The patient was a 33-year-old male with a 21-year history of low back pain and left posterior thigh pain who presented with lumbar hypomobility and met a previously published clinical prediction rule for spinal manipulation. During examination, the patient was asked to perform a prone upper extremity lifting task to assess activation in the lumbar multifidus during an automatic task. Through palpation the examiner noted a decreased contraction of the left multifidus between L4-S1 compared to the right. To explore this further, a decision was made to assess the multifidus with RUSI, which confirmed the activation deficit noted during palpation. A lumbar regional manipulation was performed with the intention of reducing spinal hypomobility and of assessing changes in multifidus activation. Imaging of the multifidus muscles at the L4-5 and L5-S1 levels were obtained premanipulation, immediately postmanipulation, and 1 day after manipulation.

OUTCOMES

An increased ability to thicken the multifidus during a prone upper extremity lifting task was noted immediately and 1 day after manipulation. Average percent change in thickness at the L4-5 and L5-S1 levels with the prone arm lift was 3.6% premanipulation, 17.2% immediately postmanipulation, and 20.6% approximately 24 hours postmanipulation. Improvements in the thickening of the multifidus muscle during the upper extremity lifting task were greater than 3 standard errors of the measurement. Other changes included immediate palpable improvement in the contraction of the multifidus during the upper extremity lifting task, along with the patient report of increased ease of lifting.

DISCUSSION

In this case report we quantified the short-term influence of spinal manipulation on multifidus muscular activation using RUSI. No cause-and-effect claims can be made; however, the results provide preliminary evidence to suggest that spinal manipulation may influence multifidus muscle function. RUSI offers a convenient way to investigate and document these changes.