A randomized clinical trial of chiropractic treatment and self-management in patients with acute musculoskeletal chest pain: 1-year follow-up

Lack of pragmatic attitude of self-labelled pragmatic trials on manual therapy: a methodological review

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic randomized controlled trials are getting more interest to improve trials' external validity. This study aimed to assess how pragmatic the design of the self-labelled pragmatic randomised controlled trials in the manual therapy field is.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for self-labelled pragmatic randomised controlled trials in the manual therapy field until January 2024 were included. Two independent reviewers collected and extracted data related to the intention of the trial, the rationale for the intervention, and specific features of the trial and performed an assessment using the PRECIS-2 tool.

RESULTS

Of 39 self-labelled pragmatic trials, the mean PRECIS-2 score was 3.5 (SD: 0.6). Choice of outcome measures, how the interventions were performed, the follow-up of the participants and how all the available data were included in the statistical analysis were the domains rated as most 'pragmatic'. Participants' eligibility, recruitment, and setting obtained lower scores. Less than 25% of the trials claimed that the aim was to investigate an intervention under real-world conditions and to make clinical decisions about its effectiveness. In the 21% of the sample the authors described neither the proof-of-concept of the intervention nor the state of previous studies addressing related research questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-labelled pragmatic randomised controlled trials showed a moderately pragmatic attitude. Beyond the label 'pragmatic', the description of the intention of the trial and the context of every PRECIS-2 domain is crucial to understanding the real pragmatism of a trial.

Musculoskeletal chest pain prevalence in emergency department presentations: A retrospective case notes review

OBJECTIVE

Musculoskeletal (MSK) causes of chest pain are considered common in emergency care, yet management is limited, reported outcomes are poor and prevalence data in New Zealand are lacking. The present study aims to estimate the prevalence of MSK chest pain in New Zealand EDs and describe the characteristics of MSK chest pain cases.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted based on de-identified clinical notes extracted from four hospitals within the South Island of New Zealand from 3 months spanning 1 March to 31 May 2021. Individual cases were categorised to the single best-fitting cause of chest pain using systems-based categorisation, based primarily on the doctors' documented final impression.

RESULTS

A total of 1344 cases were categorised in the present study. MSK chest pain had a prevalence of 15% (range 11-31%) of chest pain presentations across all study sites. This represented the second most common system responsible for chest pain, after the cardiovascular system. The mean age of MSK chest pain cases was 46.9 (standard deviation [SD] 19.1) years, compared to 55.5 (SD 19.7) years in all cases. Age and gender-specific data, data from rural hospitals and MSK sub-type data are presented.

CONCLUSIONS

These data provide a conservative estimate of MSK chest pain prevalence in EDs within the South Island of New Zealand. The findings highlight MSK chest pain as common in emergency care, providing a basis and justification for further research to improve management and outcomes for people with MSK chest pain.

Emergency Department Clinician Experiences and Perceptions Regarding Noncardiac Chest Pain: A Cross-Sectional Survey

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study are to report the responses of emergency department (ED) clinicians regarding the characteristics and management of patients with noncardiac chest pain (NCCP) and to explore clinician experiences with the current standard of care and whether nonpharmacologic or nonsurgical referral options would be considered.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was delivered to 40 ED clinicians from hospitals in Winnipeg, Manitoba from 2012 to 2013. Data were reduced descriptively and thematically summarized to assess the characteristics of patients with NCCP along with the responses of ED clinicians regarding the management of NCCP.

RESULTS

The survey response was 27 (67.5% response rate). They reported that patients with NCCP comprised a considerable amount of ED care and are a variable and heterogeneous population. Respondents agreed (63.0%) that onsite and on-call providers for NCCP referral would assist in patient management. Further, ED clinicians (66.7%) would consider referring patients with NCCP to a nonpharmacologic, nonsurgical clinical research study.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians in this study wanted better access to on-site referrals and outpatient clinics for patients experiencing NCCP after discharge and would consider nonpharmacologic or nonsurgical referral.

Non-cardiac chest pain patients in the emergency department: Do physicians have a plan how to diagnose and treat them? A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Non-cardiac chest pain is common and there is no formal recommendation on what diagnostic tests to use to identify underlying diseases after an acute coronary syndrome has been ruled out.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic tests, treatment recommendations and initiated treatments in patients presenting with non-cardiac chest pain to the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

Single-center, retrospective medical chart review of patients presenting to the ED. Included were all medical records of patients aged 18 years and older presenting to the ED with chest pain and a non-cardiac discharge diagnosis between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011. Information on the diagnosis, diagnostic tests performed, treatment initiated and recommendation for further diagnostic testing or treatment were extracted. The primary outcomes of interest were the final diagnosis, diagnostic tests, and treatment recommendations. A formal ACS rule out testing was defined as serial three troponin testing.

RESULTS

In total, 1341 ED admissions for non-cardiac chest pain (4.2% of all ED admissions) were analyzed. Non-specific chest pain remained the discharge diagnosis in 44.7% (n = 599). Identified underlying diseases included musculoskeletal chest pain (n = 602, 44.9%), pulmonary (n = 30, 2.2%), GI-tract (n = 35, 2.6%), or psychiatric diseases (n = 75, 5.6%). In 81.4% at least one troponin test and in 89% one ECG were performed. A formal ACS rule out troponin testing was performed in 9.2% (GI-tract disease 14.3%, non-specific chest pain 14.0%, pulmonary disease 10.0%, musculoskeletal chest pain 4.7%, and psychiatric disease 4.0%). Most frequently analgesics were prescribed (51%). A diagnostic test with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) was prescribed in 20% (mainly in gastrointestinal diseases). At discharge, over 72 different recommendations were given, ranging from no further measures to extensive cardiac evaluation.

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective study, a formal work-up to rule out ACS was found in a minority of patients presenting to the ED with chest pain of non-cardiac origin. A wide variation in diagnostic processes and treatment recommendations reflect the uncertainty of clinicians on how to approach patients after a cardiac cause was considered unlikely. Panic and anxiety disorders were rarely considered and a useful PPI treatment trial to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux disease was infrequently recommended.

Are Nonpharmacologic Pain Interventions Effective at Reducing Pain in Adult Patients Visiting the Emergency Department? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Pain is a common complaint in the emergency department (ED). Its management currently depends heavily on pharmacologic treatment, but evidence suggests that nonpharmacologic interventions may be beneficial. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess whether nonpharmacologic interventions in the ED are effective in reducing pain.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature on all types of nonpharmacologic interventions in the ED with pain reduction as an outcome. We performed a qualitative summary of all studies meeting inclusion criteria and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies measuring postintervention changes in pain. Interventions were divided by type into five categories for more focused subanalyses.

RESULTS

Fifty-six studies met inclusion criteria for summary analysis. The most studied interventions were acupuncture (10 studies) and physical therapy (six studies). The type of pain most studied was musculoskeletal pain (34 studies). Most (42 studies) reported at least one improved outcome after intervention. Of these, 23 studies reported significantly reduced pain compared to control, 24 studies showed no difference, and nine studies had no control group. Meta-analysis included 22 qualifying randomized controlled trials and had a global standardized mean difference of -0.46 (95% confidence interval = -0.66 to -0.27) in favor of nonpharmacologic interventions for reducing pain.

CONCLUSION

Nonpharmacologic interventions are often effective in reducing pain in the ED. However, most existing studies are small, warranting further investigation into their use for optimizing ED pain management.

Spine Care as a Framework for the Chiropractic Identity

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this commentary is to provide an argument for the role and identity of chiropractors as spine care providers within the context of the greater health care system.

DISCUSSION

Surveys of the general public and chiropractors indicate that the majority of patients seek chiropractic services for back and neck pain. Insurance company utilization data confirm these findings. Regulatory and legal language found in chiropractic practice acts reveals that most jurisdictions define the chiropractic scope of practice as based on a foundation of spine care. Educational accrediting and testing organizations have been shaped around a chiropractic education that produces graduates who focus on the diagnosis and treatment of spine and musculoskeletal disorders. Spine care is thus the common denominator and theme throughout all aspects of chiropractic practice, legislation, and education globally.

CONCLUSION

Although the chiropractic profession may debate internally about its professional identity, the chiropractic identity seems to have already been established by society, practice, legislation, and education as a profession of health care providers whose area of expertise is spine care.

Spinal manipulative therapy, Graston technique® and placebo for non-specific thoracic spine pain: a randomised controlled trial

Background

Few controlled trials have assessed the efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for thoracic spine pain. No high quality trials have been performed to test the efficacy and effectiveness of Graston Technique® (GT), an instrument-assisted soft tissue therapy. The objective of this trial was to determine the efficacy of SMT and GT compared to sham therapy for the treatment of non-specific thoracic spine pain.

Methods

People with non-specific thoracic pain were randomly allocated to one of three groups: SMT, GT, or a placebo (de-tuned ultrasound). Each participant received up to 10 supervised treatment sessions at Murdoch University chiropractic student clinic over a 4 week period. The participants and treatment providers were not blinded to the treatment allocation as it was clear which therapy they were receiving, however outcome assessors were blinded and we attempted to blind the participants allocated to the placebo group. Treatment outcomes were measured at baseline, 1 week, and at one, three, six and 12 months. Primary outcome measures included a modified Oswestry Disability Index, and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Treatment effects were estimated with intention to treat analysis and linear mixed models.

Results

One hundred and forty three participants were randomly allocated to the three groups (SMT = 36, GT = 63 and Placebo = 44). Baseline data for the three groups did not show any meaningful differences. Results of the intention to treat analyses revealed no time by group interactions, indicating no statistically significant between-group differences in pain or disability at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, or 12 months. There were significant main effects of time (p < 0.01) indicating improvements in pain and disability from baseline among all participants regardless of intervention. No significant adverse events were reported.

Conclusion

This study indicates that there is no difference in outcome at any time point for pain or disability when comparing SMT, Graston Technique® or sham therapy for thoracic spine pain, however all groups improved with time. These results constitute the first from a fully powered randomised controlled trial comparing SMT, Graston technique® and a placebo.

Trial Registration

This trial was registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on the 7^th February, 2008. Trial number: ACTRN12608000070336

Cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care versus self-management in patients with musculoskeletal chest pain

Aims

To assess whether primary sector healthcare in the form of chiropractic care is cost-effective compared with self-management in patients with musculoskeletal chest pain, that is, a subgroup of patients with non-specific chest pain.

Methods and results

115 adults aged 18–75 years with acute, non-specific chest pain of musculoskeletal origin were recruited from a cardiology department in Denmark. After ruling out acute coronary syndrome and receiving usual care, patients with musculoskeletal chest pain were randomised to 4 weeks of community-based chiropractic care (n=59) or to a single information session aimed at encouraging self-management as complementary to usual care (n=56). Data on resource use were obtained from Danish national registries and valued from a societal perspective. Patient cost and health-related quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; based on EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) and Short Form 36-item Health Survey (SF-36)) were compared in cost-effectiveness analyses over 12 months from baseline. Mean costs were €2183 lower for the group with chiropractic care, but not statistically significant (95% CI −4410.5 to 43.0). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio suggested that chiropractic care was cost-effective with a probability of 97%, given a threshold value of €30 000 per QALY gained. In both groups, there was an increase in the health-related quality of life, and the mean increases were similar over the 12-month evaluation period. The mean differences in QALYs between the groups were negligible.

Conclusions

Chiropractic care was more cost-effective than self-management. Therefore, chiropractic care can be seen as a good example of a targeted primary care approach for a subgroup of patients with non-specific chest pain.

Trial registration number

NCT00462241.

The effectiveness of noninvasive interventions for musculoskeletal thoracic spine and chest wall pain: a systematic review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) collaboration

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to critically appraise and synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of noninvasive interventions, excluding pharmacological treatments, for musculoskeletal thoracic pain.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies evaluating the effectiveness of noninvasive interventions were eligible. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials accessed through Ovid Technologies, Inc, and CINAHL Plus with Full Text accessed through EBSCOhost from 1990 to 2015. Our search strategies combined controlled vocabulary relevant to each database (eg, MeSH for MEDLINE) and text words relevant to our research question and the inclusion criteria. Random pairs of independent reviewers screened studies for relevance and critically appraised relevant studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Studies with a low risk of bias were synthesized following best evidence synthesis principles.

RESULTS

We screened 6988 articles and critically appraised 2 studies. Both studies had a low risk of bias and were included in our synthesis. One RCT compared thoracic spinal manipulation, needle acupuncture, and placebo electrotherapy for recent thoracic spine pain. There were statistically significant but clinically nonimportant short-term reductions in pain favoring manipulation. There were no differences between acupuncture and placebo electrotherapy. Another RCT compared a multimodal program of care and a session of education for recent musculoskeletal chest wall pain. The multimodal care resulted in statistically significant but clinically nonimportant short-term reductions in pain over education. However, participants receiving multimodal care were more likely to report important improvements in chest pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality evidence on the management of musculoskeletal thoracic pain is sparse. The current evidence suggests that compared to placebo, spinal manipulation is associated with a small and clinically nonimportant reduction in pain intensity and that acupuncture leads to similar outcomes as placebo. Furthermore, a multimodal program of care (ie, manual therapy, soft tissue therapy, exercises, heat/ice, and advice) and a single education session lead to similar pain reduction for recent-onset musculoskeletal chest wall pain. However, patients who receive multimodal care are more likely to report pain improvements.

Treatment efficacy for non-cardiovascular chest pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-cardiovascular chest pain (NCCP) leads to impaired quality of life and is associated with a high disease burden. Upon ruling out cardiovascular disease, only vague recommendations exist for further treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize treatment efficacy for patients presenting with NCCP.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis. In July 2013, Medline, Web of Knowledge, Embase, EBSCOhost, Cochrane Reviews and Trials, and Scopus were searched. Hand and bibliography searches were also conducted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating non-surgical treatments in patients with NCCP were included. Exclusion criteria were poor study quality and small sample size (<10 patients per group).

RESULTS

Thirty eligible RCT's were included. Most studies assessed PPI efficacy for gastroesophageal reflux disorders (GERD, n = 10). Two RCTs included musculoskeletal chest pain, seven psychotropic drugs, and eleven various psychological interventions. Study quality was high in five RCTs and acceptable in 25. PPI treatment in patients with GERD (5 RCTs, 192 patients) was more effective than placebo [pooled OR 11.7 (95% CI 5.5 to 25.0, heterogeneity I2 = 6.1%)]. The pooled OR in GERD negative patients (4 RCTs, 156 patients) was 0.8 (95% CI 0.2 to 2.8, heterogeneity I2 = 50.4%). In musculoskeletal NCCP (2 RCTs, 229 patients) manual therapy was more effective than usual care but not than home exercise [pooled mean difference 0.5 (95% CI -0.3 to 1.3, heterogeneity I2 = 46.2%)]. The findings for cognitive behavioral treatment, serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants were mixed. Most evidence was available for cognitive behavioral treatment interventions.

LIMITATIONS

Only a small number of studies were available.

CONCLUSIONS

Timely diagnostic evaluation and treatment of the disease underlying NCCP is important. For patients with suspected GERD, high-dose treatment with PPI is effective. Only limited evidence was available for most prevalent diseases manifesting with chest pain. In patients with idiopathic NCCP, treatments based on cognitive behavioral principles might be considered.

The John A. Sweaney Lecture: Durbin, South Africa, April 2013, given by Dr Louis Sportelli. The 100 year test: can that tell us something?

The following is The John A. Sweaney Lecture delivered by Dr Louis Sportelli at the Biannual Assembly of the World Federation of Chiropractic in Durban, South Africa, on April 12, 2013.