Temporal Trends and Geographic Variations in the Supply of Clinicians Who Provide Spinal Manipulation to Medicare Beneficiaries: A Serial Cross-Sectional Study

Trends in Utilization and Cost of Nonpharmacological Pain Therapies in the United States Under Medicare Part B, 2000-2022

Background: Many clinical practice guidelines for management of pain disorders now favor first-line use of nonpharmacological therapies (NPT). However, Medicare coverage of NPT is limited. Methods: Using a serial cross-sectional design, we examined temporal trends in the utilization and cost of NPT procedures commonly used to treat pain under Medicare. Results: Utilization and costs for physical therapy increased while those for spinal and osteopathic manipulation declined. Discussion: Future research on NPT under Medicare should focus on equity of patient access and comparative outcomes.

Chiropractic spinal manipulation and likelihood of tramadol prescription in adults with radicular low back pain: a retrospective cohort study using US data

OBJECTIVES

Patients receiving chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSM) for low back pain (LBP) are less likely to receive any opioid prescription for subsequent pain management. However, the likelihood of specifically being prescribed tramadol, a less potent opioid, has not been explored. We hypothesised that adults receiving CSM for newly diagnosed radicular LBP would be less likely to receive a tramadol prescription over 1-year follow-up, compared with those receiving usual medical care.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

US medical records-based dataset including >115 million patients attending academic health centres (TriNetX, Inc), queried 9 November 2023.

PARTICIPANTS

Opioid-naive adults aged 18-50 with a new diagnosis of radicular LBP were included. Patients with serious pathology and tramadol use contraindications were excluded. Variables associated with tramadol prescription were controlled via propensity matching.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were divided into two cohorts dependent on treatment received on the index date of radicular LBP diagnosis (CSM or usual medical care).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Risk ratio (RR) for tramadol prescription (primary); markers of usual medical care utilisation (secondary).

RESULTS

After propensity matching, there were 1171 patients per cohort (mean age 35 years). Tramadol prescription was significantly lower in the CSM cohort compared with the usual medical care cohort, with an RR (95% CI) of 0.32 (0.18 to 0.57; p<0.0001). A cumulative incidence graph demonstrated that the reduced incidence of tramadol prescription in the CSM cohort relative to the usual medical care cohort was maintained throughout 1-year follow-up. Utilisation of NSAIDs, physical therapy evaluation and lumbar imaging was similar between cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that US adults initially receiving CSM for radicular LBP had a reduced likelihood of receiving a tramadol prescription over 1-year follow-up. These findings should be corroborated by a prospective study to minimise residual confounding.

Trends in Chiropractic Care and Physical Rehabilitation Use Among Adults with Low Back Pain in the United States, 2002 to 2018

BACKGROUND

While nonpharmacologic treatments are increasingly endorsed as first-line therapy for low back pain (LBP) in clinical practice guidelines, it is unclear if use of these treatments is increasing or equitable.

OBJECTIVE

Examine national trends in chiropractic care and physical rehabilitation (occupational/physical therapy (OT/PT)) use among adults with LBP.

DESIGN/SETTING

Serial cross-sectional analysis of the National Health Interview Survey, 2002 to 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

146,087 adults reporting LBP in prior 3 months.

METHODS

We evaluated the association of survey year with chiropractic care or OT/PT use in prior 12 months. Logistic regression with multilevel linear splines was used to determine if chiropractic care or OT/PT use increased after the introduction of clinical guidelines. We also examined trends in use by age, sex, race, and ethnicity. When trends were similar over time, we present differences by these demographic characteristics as unadjusted ORs using data from all respondents.

RESULTS

Between 2002 and 2018, less than one-third of adults with LBP reported use of either chiropractic care or OT/PT. Rates did not change until 2016 when uptake increased with the introduction of clinical guidelines (2016-2018 vs 2002-2015, OR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.10-1.19). Trends did not differ significantly by sex, race, or ethnicity (p for interactions > 0.05). Racial and ethnic disparities in chiropractic care or OT/PT use were identified and persisted over time. For example, compared to non-Hispanic adults, either chiropractic care or OT/PT use was lower among Hispanic adults (combined OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.65-0.73). By contrast, compared to White adults, Black adults had similar OT/PT use (OR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.94-1.03) but lower for chiropractic care use (OR = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.47-0.53).

CONCLUSIONS

Although use of chiropractic care or OT/PT for LBP increased after the introduction of clinical guidelines in 2016, only about a third of US adults with LBP reported using these services between 2016 and 2018 and disparities in use have not improved.

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 ).

Treatment Patterns and Population Characteristics of Nonpharmacological Management of Chronic Pain in the United States' Medicare Population: A Scoping Review

Background and Objectives

Clinical practice guidelines recommend noninvasive nonpharmacological pain therapies; however, reviews that assess the literature pertaining to nonpharmacological pain management among older adults and people with long-term disabilities who are disproportionately affected by pain are lacking. This scoping review aimed to systematically map and characterize the existing studies about the receipt of noninvasive, nonpharmacological pain therapies by Medicare beneficiaries.

Research Design and Methods

We conducted a literature search in MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCO), SocINDEX (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, Web of Science citation indices, and various sources of gray literature. The initial search was conducted on November 2, 2021, and updated on March 9, 2022. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for inclusion and extracted the characteristics of the studies, studied populations, and nonpharmacological pain therapies. Data were summarized using tabular and narrative formats.

Results

The final review included 33 studies. Of these, 24 were quantitative, 7 were qualitative, and 2 were mixed-methods studies. Of 32 studies that focused on Medicare beneficiaries, 10 did not specify the Medicare type, and all but one of the remaining studies were restricted to fee-for-service enrollees. Back and neck pain and arthritis were the most commonly studied pain types. Chiropractic care (n = 19) and physical therapy (n = 17) appeared frequently among included studies. The frequency and/or duration of nonpharmacological treatment were mentioned in 13 studies. Trends in the utilization of nonpharmacological pain therapies were assessed in 6 studies but none of these studies went beyond 2008.

Discussion and Implications

This scoping review found that manipulative therapies, mainly chiropractic, have been the most widely studied approaches for nonpharmacological pain management in the Medicare population. The review also identified the need for future research that updates trend data and addresses contemporary issues such as rising Medicare Advantage enrollment and promulgation of practice guidelines for pain management.

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.

Prevalence of opioid and nonopioid pain management therapies among Medicare beneficiaries with musculoskeletal pain conditions from 2016 to 2019

INTRODUCTION

Pain treatment guidelines prioritize nonopioid therapies over opioid medications to prevent opioid-related harms. We examined trends in receipt and intensity of nonpharmacologic, nonopioid medication, and opioid therapies among Medicare beneficiaries.

METHODS

Using a 20% national random sample of Medicare data from 2016 to 2019, we identified fee-for-service beneficiaries with ≥2 diagnoses of back, neck, fibromyalgia, or osteoarthritis/joint pain annually. We excluded beneficiaries with cancer. We calculated annual proportions of beneficiaries who received physical therapy (PT), chiropractic care, gabapentin, and opioids, overall and in demographic, geographic, and clinical subgroups. We estimated the intensity of therapies using the annual number of visitsor prescription fills, prescription days' supply, and opioid dose.

RESULTS

During 2016-2019, PT receipt increased (22.8% to 25.5%) and the mean number of visits among recipients of PT went from 12 to 13. Chiropractic receipt (~18%) and mean annual visits (~10) remained unchanged. The prevalence of gabapentin receipt was stable at ~22% and the mean annual number of fills was unchanged though gabapentin days increased slightly. Opioid prescribing decreased (56.7% to 46.5%) and reductions in opioid dose and duration were observed. Opioid receipt was high among beneficiaries who were under 65 years, American Indian/Alaska Native, Black/African American, or had opioid use disorder (OUD), in whom nonpharmacologic therapies were also received the least.

CONCLUSION

Utilization of nonopioid therapies lagged opioids among Medicare beneficiaries with musculoskeletal pain, with limited changes from 2016 to 2019. As opioid prescribing declines and alternative pain therapy receipt remains low, there are potential increasing risks of pain going untreated or undertreated and individuals seeking illicit opioids to alleviate their pain.

Patients With a History of Spine Surgery Receiving Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation in US Academic Health Centers: A Cross-Sectional Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

The number and characteristics of patients with previous spine surgery receiving chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSM) are largely unknown. This study aimed to explore the proportion of patients receiving CSM with a history of spine surgery, the characteristics of these patients, and the treatments received compared to a broader population of patients receiving CSM.

METHODS

We queried a 110-million-patient United States (US) network of aggregated records and claims data from patients attending integrated academic health centers (TriNetX, Inc.) on March 6, 2023, yielding data spanning 2013-2023. We identified two patient groups: (1) those receiving CSM and (2) a subset receiving CSM with prior spine surgery. We compared baseline characteristics and treatments received over a one-year follow-up after CSM.

RESULTS

Of the 81,291 patients receiving CSM, 8,808 (10.8%) had at least one prior spine surgery. Patients with prior spine surgery receiving CSM were older, more often female, more often non-Hispanic/Latino and White, less often Black, had a greater body mass index, and had a higher prevalence of low back and neck pain compared to the broader CSM cohort (p<0.0001 for each). Those with prior spine surgery were also more likely to receive multiple medications, physiotherapy procedures, and spinal injections (p<0.0001 for each).

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving CSM with a history of spine surgery comprise a substantial proportion of CSM patients in large US academic health centers. This subset of patients differs characteristically from the broader CSM population and more often receives medications, physiotherapy, and spinal injections. Further research is needed to examine the safety and efficacy of CSM in this population, given the high proportion of patients and limited research on this topic.

Association between chiropractic spinal manipulation and lumbar discectomy in adults with lumbar disc herniation and radiculopathy: retrospective cohort study using United States' data

OBJECTIVES

Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) and lumbar discectomy are both used for lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and lumbosacral radiculopathy (LSR); however, limited research has examined the relationship between these therapies. We hypothesised that adults receiving CSMT for newly diagnosed LDH or LSR would have reduced odds of lumbar discectomy over 1-year and 2-year follow-up compared with those receiving other care.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

101 million patient US health records network (TriNetX), queried on 24 October 2022, yielding data from 2012 query.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults age 18-49 with newly diagnosed LDH/LSR (first date of diagnosis) were included. Exclusions were prior lumbar surgery, absolute indications for surgery, trauma, spondylolisthesis and scoliosis. Propensity score matching controlled for variables associated with the likelihood of discectomy (eg, demographics, medications).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were divided into cohorts according to receipt of CSMT.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

ORs for lumbar discectomy; calculated by dividing odds in the CSMT cohort by odds in the cohort receiving other care.

RESULTS

After matching, there were 5785 patients per cohort (mean age 36.9±8.2). The ORs (95% CI) for discectomy were significantly reduced in the CSMT cohort compared with the cohort receiving other care over 1-year (0.69 (0.52 to 0.90), p=0.006) and 2-year follow-up (0.77 (0.60 to 0.99), p=0.040). E-value sensitivity analysis estimated the strength in terms of risk ratio an unmeasured confounding variable would need to account for study results, yielding point estimates for each follow-up (1 year: 2.26; 2 years: 1.92), which no variables in the literature reached.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest receiving CSMT compared with other care for newly diagnosed LDH/LSR is associated with significantly reduced odds of discectomy over 2-year follow-up. Given socioeconomic variables were unavailable and an observational design precludes inferring causality, the efficacy of CSMT for LDH/LSR should be examined via randomised controlled trial to eliminate residual confounding.

Three Patterns of Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Back Pain and Their Association With Imaging Studies, Injection Procedures, and Surgery: A Cohort Study of Insurance Claims

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between procedures and care patterns in back pain episodes by analyzing health insurance claims.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of insurance claims data from a single Fortune 500 company. The 3 care patterns we analyzed were initial spinal manipulative therapy, delayed spinal manipulative therapy, and no spinal manipulative therapy. The 3 procedures analyzed were imaging studies, injection procedures, and back surgery. We considered "escalated care" to be any claims with diagnostic imaging, injection procedures, or back surgery. Modified-Poisson regression modeling was used to determine relative risk of escalated care.

RESULTS

There were 83 025 claims that were categorized into 10 372 unique patient first episodes. Spinal manipulative therapy was present in 2943 episodes (28%). Initial spinal manipulation was present in 2519 episodes (24%), delayed spinal manipulation was present in 424 episodes (4%), and 7429 (72%) had no evidence of spinal manipulative therapy. The estimated relative risk, adjusted for age, sex, and risk score, for care escalation (eg, imaging, injections, or surgery) was 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.65-0.75, P < .001) for initial spinal manipulation and 1.22 (95% confidence interval 1.10-1.35, P < .001) for delayed spinal manipulation with no spinal manipulation used as the reference group.

CONCLUSION

For claims associated with initial episodes of back pain, initial spinal manipulative therapy was associated with an approximately 30% decrease in the risk of imaging studies, injection procedures, or back surgery compared with no spinal manipulative therapy. The risk of imaging studies, injection procedures, or back surgery in episodes in the delayed spinal manipulative therapy group was higher than those without spinal manipulative therapy.

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 ).

Long-Term Medicare Costs Associated With Opioid Analgesic Therapy vs Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain in a Cohort of Older Adults

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare Medicare healthcare expenditures for patients who received long-term treatment of chronic low back pain (cLBP) with either opioid analgesic therapy (OAT) or spinal manipulative therapy (SMT).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study using a cohort design for analysis of Medicare claims data. The study population included Medicare beneficiaries enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D from 2012 through 2016. We assembled cohorts of patients who received long-term management of cLBP with OAT or SMT (such as delivered by chiropractic or osteopathic practitioners) and evaluated the comparative effect of OAT vs SMT upon expenditures, using multivariable regression to control for beneficiary characteristics and measures of health status, and propensity score weighting and binning to account for selection bias.

RESULTS

The study sample totaled 28,160 participants, of whom 77% initiated long-term care of cLBP with OAT, and 23% initiated care with SMT. For care of low back pain specifically, average long-term costs for patients who initiated care with OAT were 58% lower than those who initiated care with SMT. However, overall long-term healthcare expenditures under Medicare were 1.87 times higher for patients who initiated care via OAT compared with those initiated care with SMT (95% CI 1.65-2.11; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Adults aged 65 to 84 who initiated long-term treatment for cLBP via OAT incurred lower long-term costs for low back pain but higher long-term total healthcare costs under Medicare compared with patients who initiated long-term treatment with SMT.

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.