Development of a Clinical Decision Aid for Chiropractic Management of Common Conditions Causing Low Back Pain in Veterans: Results of a Consensus Process

Patient and provider characteristics associated with therapeutic intervention selection in a chiropractic clinical encounter: a cross-sectional analysis of the COAST and O-COAST study data

BACKGROUND

Chiropractors use a variety of therapeutic interventions in clinical practice. How the selection of interventions differs across musculoskeletal regions or with different patient and provider characteristics is currently unclear. This study aimed to describe how frequently different interventions are used for patients presenting for chiropractic care, and patient and provider characteristics associated with intervention selection.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the Chiropractic Observation and Analysis STudy (COAST) and Ontario (O-COAST) studies: practice-based, cross-sectional studies in Victoria, Australia (2010-2012) and Ontario, Canada (2014-2015). Chiropractors recorded data on patient diagnosis and intervention selection from up to 100 consecutive patient visits. The frequency of interventions selected overall and for each diagnostic category (e.g., different musculoskeletal regions) were descriptively analysed. Univariable multi-level logistic regression (provider and patient as grouping factors), stratified by diagnostic category, was used to assess the association between patient/provider variables and intervention selection.

RESULTS

Ninety-four chiropractors, representative of chiropractors in Victoria and Ontario for age, sex, and years in practice, participated. Data were collected on 7,966 patient visits (6419 unique patients), including 10,731 individual diagnoses (mean age: 43.7 (SD: 20.7), 57.8% female). Differences in patient characteristics and intervention selection were observed between chiropractors practicing in Australia and Canada. Overall, manipulation was the most common intervention, selected in 63% (95%CI:62-63) of encounters. However, for musculoskeletal conditions presenting in the extremities only, soft tissue therapies were more commonly used (65%, 95%CI:62-68). Manipulation was less likely to be performed if the patient was female (OR:0.74, 95%CI:0.65-0.84), older (OR:0.79, 95%CI:0.77-0.82), presenting for an initial visit (OR:0.73, 95%CI:0.56-0.95) or new complaint (OR:0.82, 95%CI:0.71-0.95), had one or more comorbidities (OR:0.63, 95%CI:0.54-0.72), or was underweight (OR:0.47, 95%CI:0.35-0.63), or obese (OR:0.69, 95%CI:0.58-0.81). Chiropractors with more than five years clinical experience were less likely to provide advice/education (OR:0.37, 95%CI:0.16-0.87) and exercises (OR:0.17, 95%CI:0.06-0.44).

CONCLUSION

In more than 10,000 diagnostic encounters, manipulation was the most common therapeutic intervention for spine-related problems, whereas soft tissue therapies were more common for extremity problems. Different patient and provider characteristics were associated with intervention selection. These data may be used to support further research on appropriate selection of interventions for common musculoskeletal complaints.

Intervention Fidelity in Pain Pragmatic Trials for Nonpharmacologic Pain Management: Nuanced Considerations for Determining PRECIS-2 Flexibility in Delivery and Adherence

Nonpharmacological treatments are considered first-line pain management strategies, but they remain clinically underused. For years, pain-focused pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) have generated evidence for the enhanced use of nonpharmacological interventions in routine clinical settings to help overcome implementation barriers. The Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) framework describes the degree of pragmatism across 9 key domains. Among these, "flexibility in delivery" and "flexibility in adherence," address a key goal of pragmatic research by tailoring approaches to settings in which people receive routine care. However, to maintain scientific and ethical rigor, PCTs must ensure that flexibility features do not compromise delivery of interventions as designed, such that the results are ethically and scientifically sound. Key principles of achieving this balance include clear definitions of intervention core components, intervention monitoring and documentation that is sufficient but not overly burdensome, provider training that meets the demands of delivering an intervention in real-world settings, and use of an ethical lens to recognize and avoid potential trial futility when necessary and appropriate. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents nuances to be considered when applying the PRECIS-2 framework to describe pragmatic clinical trials. Trials must ensure that patient-centered treatment flexibility does not compromise delivery of interventions as designed, such that measurement and analysis of treatment effects is reliable.

Comprehensive evaluation of military training-induced fatigue among soldiers in China: A Delphi consensus study

Objective

Military training-induced fatigue (MIF) often results into non-combat attrition. However, standard evaluation of MIF is unavailable. This study aimed to provide credible suggestions about MIF-evaluation.

Methods

A 3-round Delphi study was performed. The authority of the experts was assessed by the authority coefficient (Aa). In round 1, categories of indicators were collected via anonymous survey of experts, then potential indicators were selected via literature search. In round 2, experts should evaluate the clinical implication, practical value, and importance of each potential indicators, or recommend new indicators based on feedback of round 1. Indicators with recommendation proportions ≥ 70% and new recommended indicators would be included in round 3 to be rated on a 5-point Likert scale. "Consensus in" was achieved when coefficient of concordance (Kendall's W) of a round was between 0.2 and 0.5 and the coefficient of variation (CV) of each aspect for an indicator was < 0.5. If round 3 could not achieve "consensus in," more rounds would be conducted iteratively based on round 3. Indicators included in the recommendation set were ultimately classified into grade I (highly recommended) or grade II (recommended) according to the mean score and CV of the aspects.

Results

Twenty-three experts participated with credible authority coefficient (mean Aa = 0.733). "Consensus in" was achieved in round 3 (Kendall's W = 0.435, p < 0.001; all CV < 0.5). Round 1 recommended 10 categories with 73 indicators identified from 2,971 articles. After 3-round consultation, consensus was reached on 28 indicators focusing on the cardiovascular system (n = 4), oxygen transport system (n = 5), energy metabolism/metabolite level (n = 6), muscle/tissue damage level (n = 3), neurological function (n = 2), neuropsychological/psychological function (n = 3), endocrine function (n = 3), and exercise capacity (n = 2). Among these, 11 indicators were recommended as grade I: basic heart rate, heart-rate recovery time, heart rate variability, hemoglobin, blood lactic acid, urine protein, creatine kinase, reaction time, Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale, testosterone/cortisol, and vertical jump height.

Conclusion

This study developed a reliable foundation for the comprehensive evaluation of MIF among soldiers.

Discrepant Perceptions of Biopsychosocial and Active Care Recommendations Between Doctors of Chiropractic and Midlife and Older Adult Patients: A Descriptive Survey

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess perceptions about the inclusion of biopsychosocial and active care recommendations during chiropractic clinical encounters between doctors of chiropractic (DCs) and their midlife and older adult patients and to identify whether there were any discrepancies between their recollections.

METHODS

This descriptive cross-sectional survey was part of a mixed-methods research project designed to gather information about the role of electronic health interventions for midlife and older adults who use chiropractic care. For this study, a convenience sample of 29 DCs and 48 chiropractic patients aged 50 years and older from 2 metropolitan areas in the United States completed online surveys between December 2020 and May 2021. The survey matched questions about components of chiropractic care discussed by patients and providers over 12 months. We used descriptive statistics to explore congruence in perceptions between groups and qualitative content analysis to describe DC perceptions of working with this population.

RESULTS

Doctors of chiropractic and patients agreed (>90%) that pain management was the top reason midlife and older adults seek chiropractic care, yet differed in their prioritization of maintenance/wellness care, physical function/rehabilitation, and injury treatment as care drivers. While DCs reported frequent discussions about psychosocial recommendations, fewer patients reported talking about treatment goals (51%), self-care (43%), stress reduction (33%), or the impact of psychosocial factors (23%) and beliefs/attitudes (33%) on spinal health. Patients reported varied recollections about discussing activity limitations (2%) and exercise promotion (68%), being taught exercises (48%), or reassessing exercise progress (29%), which differed from higher levels reported by DCs. Qualitative themes from DCs included psychosocial considerations in patient education, importance of exercise/movement, role of chiropractic in lifestyle changes, and reimbursement limitations for older patients.

CONCLUSION

Doctors of chiropractic and their patients reported discrepant perceptions about biopsychosocial and active care recommendations during clinical encounters. Patients reported modest emphasis on exercise promotion and limited discussion on self-care, stress reduction, and psychosocial factors related to spine health compared to the recollections of DCs who reported frequent discussions of these topics.

A systematic review of chiropractic care for fall prevention: rationale, state of the evidence, and recommendations for future research

BACKGROUND

Falls in older adults are a significant and growing public health concern. There are multiple risk factors associated with falls that may be addressed within the scope of chiropractic training and licensure. Few attempts have been made to summarize existing evidence on multimodal chiropractic care and fall risk mitigation. Therefore, the broad purpose of this review was to summarize this research to date. BODY: Systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, PEDro, and Index of Chiropractic Literature. Eligible study designs included randomized controlled trials (RCT), prospective non-randomized controlled, observational, and cross-over studies in which multimodal chiropractic care was the primary intervention and changes in gait, balance and/or falls were outcomes. Risk of bias was also assessed using the 8-item Cochrane Collaboration Tool. The original search yielded 889 articles; 21 met final eligibility including 10 RCTs. One study directly measured the frequency of falls (underpowered secondary outcome) while most studies assessed short-term measurements of gait and balance. The overall methodological quality of identified studies and findings were mixed, limiting interpretation regarding the potential impact of chiropractic care on fall risk to qualitative synthesis.

CONCLUSION

Little high-quality research has been published to inform how multimodal chiropractic care can best address and positively influence fall prevention. We propose strategies for building an evidence base to inform the role of multimodal chiropractic care in fall prevention and outline recommendations for future research to fill current evidence gaps.

Chiropractic Services and Diagnoses for Low Back Pain in 3 U.S. Department of Defense Military Treatment Facilities: A Secondary Analysis of a Pragmatic Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe the diagnoses and chiropractic services performed by doctors of chiropractic operating within 3 military treatment facilities for patients with low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

This was a descriptive secondary analysis of a pragmatic clinical trial comparing usual medical care (UMC) plus chiropractic care to UMC alone for U.S. active-duty military personnel with LBP. Participants who were allocated to receive UMC plus 6 weeks of chiropractic care and who attended at least 1 chiropractic visit (n = 350; 1547 unique visits) were included in this analysis. International Classification of Diseases and Current Procedural Terminology codes were transcribed from chiropractic treatment paper forms. The number of participants receiving each diagnosis and service and the number of each service on unique visits was tabulated. Low back pain and co-occurring diagnoses were grouped into neuropathic, nociceptive, bone and/or joint, general pain, and nonallopathic lesions categories. Services were categorized as evaluation, active interventions, and passive interventions.

RESULTS

The most reported pain diagnoses were lumbalgia (66.1%) and thoracic pain (6.6%). Most reported neuropathic pain diagnoses were sciatica (4.9%) and lumbosacral neuritis or radiculitis (2.9%). For the nociceptive pain, low back sprain and/or strain (15.8%) and lumbar facet syndrome (9.2%) were most common. Most reported diagnoses in the bone and/or joint category were intervertebral disc degeneration (8.6%) and spondylosis (6.0%). Tobacco use disorder (5.7%) was the most common in the other category. Chiropractic care was compromised of passive interventions (94%), with spinal manipulative therapy being the most common, active interventions (77%), with therapeutic exercise being most common, and a combination of passive and active interventions (72%).

CONCLUSION

For the sample in this study, doctors of chiropractic within 3 military treatment facilities diagnosed, managed, and provided clinical evaluations for a range of LBP conditions. Although spinal manipulation was the most commonly used modality, chiropractic care included a multimodal approach, comprising of both active and passive interventions a majority of the time.

The use of patient-led goal setting in the intervention of chronic low back pain in adults: a narrative review

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) impacts millions of adults annually. Several nonsurgical interventions are recommended for treating this condition, however, limited literature exists regarding the impact patient-led goals may have on outcomes in the treatment of cLBP. The purpose of this narrative review is to identify gaps and synthesize literature examining the associations of patient-led goals combined with care for cLBP. A total of 12 studies were reviewed and findings were synthesized. Patient-led goal setting may serve as an effective intervention for adults with cLBP. Current outcome measures may not align with patient-led goals. Further investigation is required to understand patient-led goals with ancillary treatments and specific age groups, such as adults over age 65.

Care Outcomes for Chiropractic Outpatient Veterans (COCOV): a single-arm, pragmatic, pilot trial of multimodal chiropractic care for U.S. veterans with chronic low back pain

Background

Over 25% of veterans seeking care at U.S. Veterans Health Administration facilities have chronic low back pain (LBP), with high rates of mental health comorbidities. The primary objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of participant recruitment, retention, and electronic data collection to prepare for the subsequent randomized trial of multimodal chiropractic care for pain management of veterans with chronic low back pain. The secondary objectives were to estimate effect sizes and variability of the primary outcome and choose secondary outcomes for the full-scale trial.

Methods

This single-arm pilot trial enrolled 40 veterans with chronic LBP at one Veterans Health Administration facility for a 10-week course of pragmatic multimodal chiropractic care. Recruitment was by (1) provider referral, (2) invitational letter from the electronic health record pre-screening, and (3) standard direct recruitment. We administered patient-reported outcome assessments through an email link to REDCap, an electronic data capture platform, at baseline and 5 additional timepoints. Retention was tracked through adherence to the treatment plan and completion rates of outcome assessments. Descriptive statistics were calculated for baseline characteristics and outcome variables.

Results

We screened 91 veterans over 6 months to enroll our goal of 40 participants. Seventy percent were recruited through provider referrals. Mean age (range) was 53 (22–79) years and 23% were female; 95% had mental health comorbidities. The mean number of chiropractic visits was 4.5 (1–7). Participants adhered to their treatment plan, with exception of 3 who attended only their first visit. All participants completed assessments at the in-person baseline visit and 80% at the week 10 final endpoint. We had no issues administering assessments via REDCap. We observed clinically important improvements on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [mean change (SD): 3.6 (6.1)] and on PROMIS® pain interference [mean change (SD): 3.6 (5.6)], which will be our primary and key secondary outcome, respectively, for the full-scale trial.

Conclusions

We demonstrated the feasibility of participant recruitment, retention, and electronic data collection for conducting a pragmatic clinical trial of chiropractic care in a Veterans Health Administration facility. Using the pilot data and lessons learned, we modified and refined a protocol for a full-scale, multisite, pragmatic, National Institutes of Health-funded randomized trial of multimodal chiropractic care for veterans with chronic LBP that began recruitment in February 2021.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03254719

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-022-01008-0.

Health-related quality of life among United States service members with low back pain receiving usual care plus chiropractic care plus usual care vs usual care alone: Secondary outcomes of a pragmatic clinical trial

Objective

This study examines Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS^®)-29 v1.0 outcomes of chiropractic care in a multi-site, pragmatic clinical trial and compares the PROMIS measures to: 1) worst pain intensity from a numerical pain rating 0–10 scale, 2) 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ); and 3) global improvement (modified visual analog scale).

Design

A pragmatic, prospective, multisite, parallel-group comparative effectiveness clinical trial comparing usual medical care (UMC) with UMC plus chiropractic care (UMC+CC).

Setting

Three military treatment facilities

Subjects

750 active-duty military personnel with low back pain

Methods

Linear mixed effects regression models estimated the treatment group differences. Coefficient of repeatability to estimate significant individual change.

Results

We found statistically significant mean group differences favoring UMC+CC for all PROMIS^®-29 scales and the RMDQ score. Area under the curve estimates for global improvement for the PROMIS^®-29 scales and the RMDQ, ranged from 0.79 to 0.83.

Conclusions

Findings from this pre-planned secondary analysis demonstrate that chiropractic care impacts health-related quality of life beyond pain and pain-related disability. Further, comparable findings were found between the 24-item RMDQ and the PROMIS^®-29 v1.0 briefer scales.

Veteran Response to Dosage in Chiropractic Therapy (VERDICT): Study Protocol of a Pragmatic Randomized Trial for Chronic Low Back Pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is a leading cause of disability in veterans. Chiropractic care is a well-integrated, nonpharmacological therapy in Veterans Affairs health care facilities, where doctors of chiropractic provide therapeutic interventions focused on the management of low back pain and other musculoskeletal conditions. However, important knowledge gaps remain regarding the effectiveness of chiropractic care in terms of the number and frequency of treatment visits needed for optimal outcomes in veterans with low back pain.

DESIGN

This pragmatic, parallel-group randomized trial at four Veterans Affairs sites will include 766 veterans with chronic low back pain who are randomly allocated to a course of low-dose (one to five visits) or higher-dose (eight to 12 visits) chiropractic care for 10 weeks (Phase 1). After Phase 1, participants within each treatment arm will again be randomly allocated to receive either monthly chiropractic chronic pain management for 10 months or no scheduled chiropractic visits (Phase 2). Assessments will be collected electronically. The Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire will be the primary outcome for Phase 1 at week 10 and Phase 2 at week 52.

SUMMARY

This trial will provide evidence to guide the chiropractic dose in an initial course of care and an extended-care approach for veterans with chronic low back pain. Accurate information on the effectiveness of different dosing regimens of chiropractic care can greatly assist health care facilities, including Veterans Affairs, in modeling the number of doctors of chiropractic that will best meet the needs of patients with chronic low back pain.

Multimodal chiropractic care for migraine: A pilot randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulation may reduce migraine frequency, but effects of multimodal chiropractic care on migraine frequency have not been evaluated.

METHODS

We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial comparing multimodal chiropractic care + enhanced usual care (MCC+) versus enhanced usual care alone (EUC) among adult women with episodic migraine. EUC was comprised of usual medical care and migraine education literature. MCC+ participants received 10 sessions of chiropractic care over 14 weeks. Primary aims evaluated feasibility of recruitment, retention, protocol adherence, and safety. Change in migraine days was a secondary aim.

RESULTS

Of 422 patients screened, 61 were randomized over 20 months. Fifty-seven (93%) completed daily migraine logs during the intervention, 51 (84%) completed final follow-up, and 45 (74%) completed all assessments. Twenty-four of 29 MCC+ participants (83%) attended > 75% of the chiropractic sessions. Ninety-eight non-serious adverse events were reported by 26 participants (43%) with 39 events among 11 EUC participants and 59 events among 15 MCC+ participants. MCC+ participants experienced greater reductions in migraine days (-2.9 days for MCC+ vs. -1.0 days for EUC, difference = -1.9; 95% confidence interval: -3.5, -0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-specified feasibility criteria were not met, but deficits were remediable. Preliminary data support a definitive trial of MCC+ for migraine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03177616).

Current Evidence for Diagnosis of Common Conditions Causing Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Standardized Terminology Recommendations

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate and summarize current evidence for diagnosis of common conditions causing low back pain and to propose standardized terminology use.

METHODS

A systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted from inception through December 2018. Electronic databases searched included PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Index to Chiropractic Literature. Methodological quality was assessed with the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists.

RESULTS

Of the 3995 articles screened, 36 (8 systematic reviews and 28 individual studies) met final eligibility criteria. Diagnostic criteria for identifying likely discogenic, sacroiliac joint, and zygapophyseal (facet) joint pain are supported by clinical studies using injection-confirmed tissue provocation or anesthetic procedures. Diagnostic criteria for myofascial pain, sensitization (central and peripheral), and radicular pain are supported by expert consensus-level evidence. Criteria for radiculopathy and neurogenic claudication are supported by studies using combined expert-level consensus and imaging findings.

CONCLUSION

The absence of high-quality, objective, gold-standard diagnostic methods limits the accuracy of current evidence-based criteria and results in few high-quality studies with a low risk of bias in patient selection and reference standard diagnosis. These limitations suggest practitioners should use evidence-based criteria to inform working diagnoses rather than definitive diagnoses for low back pain. To avoid the unnecessary complexity and confusion created by multiple overlapping and nonspecific terms, adopting International Association for the Study of Pain terminology and definitions is recommended.

Development of an Evidence-Based Practical Diagnostic Checklist and Corresponding Clinical Exam for Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to use scientific evidence to develop a practical diagnostic checklist and corresponding clinical exam for patients presenting with low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

An iterative process was conducted to develop a diagnostic checklist and clinical exam for LBP using evidence-based diagnostic criteria. The checklist and exam were informed by a systematic review focused on summarizing current research evidence for office-based clinical evaluation of common conditions causing LBP.

RESULTS

Diagnostic categories contained within the checklist and exam include nociceptive pain, neuropathic pain, and sensitization. Nociceptive pain subcategories include discogenic, myofascial, sacroiliac, and zygapophyseal (facet) joint pain. Neuropathic pain categories include neurogenic claudication, radicular pain, radiculopathy, and peripheral entrapment (piriformis and thoracolumbar syndrome). Sensitization contains 2 subtypes, central and peripheral sensitization. The diagnostic checklist contains individual diagnostic categories containing evidence-based criteria, applicable examination procedures, and checkboxes to record clinical findings. The checklist organizes and displays evidence for or against a working diagnosis. The checklist may help to ensure needed information is obtained from a patient interview and exam in a variety of primary spine care settings (eg, medical, chiropractic).

CONCLUSION

The available evidence informs reasonable working diagnoses for many conditions causing or contributing to LBP. A practical diagnostic process including an exam and checklist is offered to guide clinical evaluation and demonstrate evidence for working diagnoses in clinical settings.