A feasibility study of chiropractic spinal manipulation versus sham spinal manipulation for chronic otitis media with effusion in children

Spinal manipulation and mobilisation in paediatrics - an international evidence-based position statement for physiotherapists

INTRODUCTION

An international taskforce of clinician-scientists was formed by specialty groups of World Physiotherapy - International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) & International Organisation of Physiotherapists in Paediatrics (IOPTP) - to develop evidence-based practice position statements directing physiotherapists clinical reasoning for the safe and effective use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for paediatric populations (<18 years) with varied musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal conditions.

METHOD

A three-stage guideline process using validated methodology was completed: 1. Literature review stage (one scoping review, two reviews exploring psychometric properties); 2. Delphi stage (one 3-Round expert Delphi survey); and 3. Refinement stage (evidence-to-decision summative analysis, position statement development, evidence gap map analyses, and multilayer review processes).

RESULTS

Evidence-based practice position statements were developed to guide the appropriate use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for paediatric populations. All were predicated on clinicians using biopsychosocial clinical reasoning to determine when the intervention is appropriate.1. It is not recommended to perform:• Spinal manipulation and mobilisation on infants.• Cervical and lumbar spine manipulation on children.•Spinal manipulation and mobilisation on infants, children, and adolescents for non-musculoskeletal paediatric conditions including asthma, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, breastfeeding difficulties, cerebral palsy, infantile colic, nocturnal enuresis, and otitis media.2. It may be appropriate to treat musculoskeletal conditions including spinal mobility impairments associated with neck-back pain and neck pain with headache utilising:• Spinal mobilisation and manipulation on adolescents;• Spinal mobilisation on children; or• Thoracic manipulation on children for neck-back pain only.3. No high certainty evidence to recommend these interventions was available.Reports of mild to severe harms exist; however, risk rates could not be determined.

CONCLUSION

Specific directives to guide physiotherapists' clinical reasoning on the appropriate use of spinal manipulation or mobilisation were identified. Future research should focus on trials for priority conditions (neck-back pain) in children and adolescents, psychometric properties of key outcome measures, knowledge translation, and harms.

Spinal manipulation and mobilisation in the treatment of infants, children, and adolescents: a systematic scoping review

PURPOSE

To i) identify and map the available evidence regarding effectiveness and harms of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for infants, children and adolescents with a broad range of conditions; ii) identify and synthesise policies, regulations, position statements and practice guidelines informing their clinical use.

DESIGN

Systematic scoping review, utilising four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINHAL and Cochrane) and grey literature from root to 4th February 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

Infants, children and adolescents (birth to < 18 years) with any childhood disorder/condition.

INTERVENTION

Spinal manipulation and mobilisation OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes relating to common childhood conditions were explored.

METHOD

Two reviewers (A.P., L.L.) independently screened and selected studies, extracted key findings and assessed methodological quality of included papers using Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Synthesis, Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Text and Opinion Papers, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and International Centre for Allied Health Evidence Guideline Quality Checklist. A descriptive synthesis of reported findings was undertaken using a levels of evidence approach.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven articles were included. Methodological quality of articles varied. Spinal manipulation and mobilisation are being utilised clinically by a variety of health professionals to manage paediatric populations with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), asthma, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), back/neck pain, breastfeeding difficulties, cerebral palsy (CP), dysfunctional voiding, excessive crying, headaches, infantile colic, kinetic imbalances due to suboccipital strain (KISS), nocturnal enuresis, otitis media, torticollis and plagiocephaly. The descriptive synthesis revealed: no evidence to explicitly support the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilisation for any condition in paediatric populations. Mild transient symptoms were commonly described in randomised controlled trials and on occasion, moderate-to-severe adverse events were reported in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials and other lower quality studies. There was strong to very strong evidence for 'no significant effect' of spinal manipulation for managing asthma (pulmonary function), headache and nocturnal enuresis, and inconclusive or insufficient evidence for all other conditions explored. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding spinal mobilisation to treat paediatric populations with any condition.

CONCLUSION

Whilst some individual high-quality studies demonstrate positive results for some conditions, our descriptive synthesis of the collective findings does not provide support for spinal manipulation or mobilisation in paediatric populations for any condition. Increased reporting of adverse events is required to determine true risks. Randomised controlled trials examining effectiveness of spinal manipulation and mobilisation in paediatric populations are warranted.

Trending Tubes: A Social Media Analysis of Tympanostomy Tubes in Children

Objective

To investigate the popular social media platforms Instagram and Facebook for public posts related to tympanostomy tubes in children, to discern attitudes and perceptions surrounding tympanostomy tubes, and to evaluate the content of social media posts related to tympanostomy tubes.

Study Design

Qualitative study.

Setting

Instagram and Facebook social media platforms.

Methods

Instagram and Facebook were searched for public posts from 2018 and 2019 including the search terms “ear tubes,”“ear tube surgery,”“tympanostomy,” and “myringotomy.” Posts were excluded if they were unrelated to pediatric tympanostomy tubes or written in a non-English language. Relevant posts underwent subgroup analysis based on 6 domains: media type, perspective, topic, timeframe, popularity, and overall tone.

Results

Of 1862 public social media posts, the majority (78.2%) were made by the patient’s parents/caregivers and the rest by physicians (6.0%), hospitals (8.2%), and chiropractors (6.1%), with a few posts by the patients themselves (0.4%). The majority (79.3%) of posts portrayed tympanostomy tubes positively. Most negative posts were made by chiropractors (50.8%) and the patient’s parents/caregivers (42.9%). The most common themes of posts were reassurance regarding surgery (74.9%), advertisements (12.5%), apprehension (12.4%), and education (10.3%).

Conclusion

Most social media posts were made by parents/caregivers in the perioperative period, and there was a low percentage of educational posts. This information could be used by otolaryngologists to optimize their interactions with patients and parents and to potentially increase physician involvement and educational material related to tympanostomy tubes on social media.

The safety of spinal manipulative therapy in children under 10 years: a rapid review

INTRODUCTION

The safety of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in children is controversial. We were mandated by the College of Chiropractors of British Columbia to review the evidence on this issue.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a rapid review of the safety of SMT in children (< 10 years). We aimed to: 1) describe adverse events; 2) report the incidence of adverse events; and 3) determine whether SMT increases the risk of adverse events compared to other interventions.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature from January 1, 1990 to August 1, 2019. We used rapid review methodology recommended by the World Health Organization. Eligible studies (case reports/series, cohort studies and randomized controlled trials) were critically appraised. Studies of high and acceptable methodological quality were included. The lead author extracted data. Data extraction was independently validated by a second reviewer. We conducted a qualitative synthesis of the evidence.

FINDINGS

Most adverse events are mild (e.g., increased crying, soreness). One case report describes a severe adverse event (rib fracture in a 21-day-old) and another an indirect harm in a 4-month-old. The incidence of mild adverse events ranges from 0.3% (95% CI: 0.06, 1.82) to 22.22% (95% CI: 6.32, 54.74). Whether SMT increases the risk of adverse events in children is unknown.

CONCLUSION

The risk of moderate and severe adverse events is unknown in children treated with SMT. It is unclear whether SMT increases the risk of adverse events in children < 10 years.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Otitis Media with Effusion

The clinical practice guideline on otitis media with effusion (OME) provides evidence-based recommendations on diagnosing and managing OME in children. This is an update of the 1994 clinical practice guideline “Otitis Media With Effusion in Young Children,” which was developed by the Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research (now the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). In contrast to the earlier guideline, which was limited to children aged 1 to 3 years with no craniofacial or neurologic abnormalities or sensory deficits, the updated guideline applies to children aged 2 months through 12 years with or without developmental disabilities or underlying conditions that predispose to OME and its sequelae. The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American Academy of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery selected a subcommittee composed of experts in the fields of primary care, otolaryngology, infectious diseases, epidemiology, hearing, speech and language, and advanced practice nursing to revise the OME guideline.

The subcommittee made a strong recommendation that clinicians use pneumatic otoscopy as the primary diagnostic method and distinguish OME from acute otitis media (AOM).

The subcommittee made recommendations that clinicians should (1) document the laterality, duration of effusion, and presence and severity of associated symptoms at each assessment of the child with OME; (2) distinguish the child with OME who is at risk for speech, language, or learning problems from other children with OME and more promptly evaluate hearing, speech, language, and need for intervention in children at risk; and (3) manage the child with OME who is not at risk with watchful waiting for 3 months from the date of effusion onset (if known), or from the date of diagnosis (if onset is unknown).

The subcommittee also made recommendations that (4) hearing testing be conducted when OME persists for 3 months or longer, or at any time that language delay, learning problems, or a significant hearing loss is suspected in a child with OME; (5) children with persistent OME who are not at risk should be reexamined at 3- to 6-month intervals until the effusion is no longer present, significant hearing loss is identified, or structural abnormalities of the eardrum or middle ear are suspected; and (6) when a child becomes a surgical candidate, tympanostomy tube insertion is the preferred initial procedure. Adenoidectomy should not be performed unless a distinct indication exists (nasal obstruction, chronic adenoiditis); repeat surgery consists of adenoidectomy plus myringotomy, with or without tube insertion. Tonsillectomy alone or myringotomy alone should not be used to treat OME. The subcommittee made negative recommendations that (1) population-based screening programs for OME not be performed in healthy, asymptomatic children and (2) antihistamines and decongestants are ineffective for OME and should not be used for treatment; antimicrobials and corticosteroids do not have long-term efficacy and should not be used for routine management.

The subcommittee gave as options that (1) tympanometry can be used to confirm the diagnosis of OME and (2) when children with OME are referred by the primary clinician for evaluation by an otolaryngologist, audiologist, or speech-language pathologist, the referring clinician should document the effusion duration and specific reason for referral (evaluation, surgery), and provide additional relevant information such as history of AOM and developmental status of the child. The subcommittee made no recommendations for (1) complementary and alternative medicine as a treatment for OME based on a lack of scientific evidence documenting efficacy and (2) allergy management as a treatment for OME based on insufficient evidence of therapeutic efficacy or a causal relationship between allergy and OME. Last, the panel compiled a list of research needs based on limitations of the evidence reviewed.

The purpose of this guideline is to inform clinicians of evidence-based methods to identify, monitor, and manage OME in children aged 2 months through 12 years. The guideline may not apply to children older than 12 years because OME is uncommon and the natural history is likely to differ from younger children who experience rapid developmental change. The target population includes children with or without developmental disabilities or underlying conditions that predispose to OME and its sequelae. The guideline is intended for use by providers of health care to children, including primary care and specialist physicians, nurses and nurse practitioners, physician assistants, audiologists, speech-language pathologists, and child development specialists. The guideline is applicable to any setting in which children with OME would be identified, monitored, or managed.

This guideline is not intended as a sole source of guidance in evaluating children with OME. Rather, it is designed to assist primary care and other clinicians by providing an evidence-based framework for decision-making strategies. It is not intended to replace clinical judgment or establish a protocol for all children with this condition, and may not provide the only appropriate approach to diagnosing and managing this problem. (Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:S95.)

Chiropractor interaction and treatment equivalence in a pilot randomized controlled trial: an observational analysis of clinical encounter video-recordings

Background

Chiropractic care is a complex health intervention composed of both treatment effects and non-specific, or placebo, effects. While doctor-patient interactions are a component of the non-specific effects of chiropractic, these effects are not evaluated in most clinical trials. This study aimed to: 1) develop an instrument to assess practitioner-patient interactions; 2) determine the equivalence of a chiropractor’s verbal interactions and treatment delivery for participants allocated to active or sham chiropractic groups; and 3) describe the perceptions of a treatment-masked evaluator and study participants regarding treatment group assignment.

Methods

We conducted an observational analysis of digital video-recordings derived from study visits conducted during a pilot randomized trial of conservative therapies for temporomandibular pain. A theory-based, iterative process developed the 13-item Chiropractor Interaction and Treatment Equivalence Instrument. A trained evaluator masked to treatment assignment coded video-recordings of clinical encounters between one chiropractor and multiple visits of 26 participants allocated to active or sham chiropractic treatment groups. Non-parametric statistics were calculated.

Results

The trial ran from January 2010 to October 2011. We analyzed 111 complete video-recordings (54 active, 57 sham). Chiropractor interactions differed between the treatment groups in 7 categories. Active participants received more interactions with clinical information (8 vs. 4) or explanations (3.5 vs. 1) than sham participants within the therapeutic domain. Active participants received more directions (63 vs. 58) and adjusting instrument thrusts (41.5 vs. 23) in the procedural domain and more optimistic (2.5 vs. 0) or neutral (7.5 vs. 5) outcome statements in the treatment effectiveness domain. Active participants recorded longer visit durations (13.5 vs. 10 minutes). The evaluator correctly identified 61% of active care video-recordings as active treatments but categorized only 31% of the sham treatments correctly. Following the first treatment, 82% of active and 11% of sham participants correctly identified their treatment group. At 2-months, 93% of active and 42% of sham participants correctly identified their group assignment.

Conclusions

Our findings show the feasibility of evaluating doctor-patient interactions in chiropractic clinical trials using video-recordings and standardized instrumentation. Clinical trial design and clinician training protocols should improve and assess the equivalence of doctor-patient interactions between treatment groups.

Trial registration

This trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01021306 on 24 November 2009.

Adverse Events Due to Chiropractic and Other Manual Therapies for Infants and Children: A Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to review the literature for cases of adverse events in infants and children treated by chiropractors or other manual therapists, identifying treatment type and if a preexisting pathology was present.

METHOD

English language, peer-reviewed journals and non-peer-reviewed case reports discussing adverse events (ranging from minor to serious) were systematically searched from inception of the relevant searchable bibliographic databases through March 2014. Articles not referring to infants or children were excluded.

RESULTS

Thirty-one articles met the selection criteria. A total of 12 articles reporting 15 serious adverse events were found. Three deaths occurred under the care of various providers (1 physical therapist, 1 unknown practitioner, and 1 craniosacral therapist) and 12 serious injuries were reported (7 chiropractors/doctors of chiropractic, 1 medical practitioner, 1 osteopath, 2 physical therapists, and 1 unknown practitioner). High-velocity, extension, and rotational spinal manipulation was reported in most cases, with 1 case involving forcibly applied craniosacral dural tension and another involving use of an adjusting instrument. Underlying preexisting pathology was identified in a majority of the cases.

CONCLUSION

Published cases of serious adverse events in infants and children receiving chiropractic, osteopathic, physiotherapy, or manual medical therapy are rare. The 3 deaths that have been reported were associated with various manual therapists; however, no deaths associated with chiropractic care were found in the literature to date. Because underlying preexisting pathology was associated in a majority of reported cases, performing a thorough history and examination to exclude anatomical or neurologic anomalies before applying any manual therapy may further reduce adverse events across all manual therapy professions.

Otitis media and spinal manipulative therapy: a literature review

OBJECTIVE

Otitis media (OM) is one of the common conditions for doctor visits in the pediatric population. Spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) may be a potential conservative treatment of OM. The purpose of this study is to review the literature for OM in children, outlining the diagnosis of OM, SMT description, and adverse event notation.

METHODS

Databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, Index to Chiropractic Literature, The Allied and Complementary Medicine, and Alt Health Watch) were queried and hand searches were performed to identify relevant articles. All potential studies were independently screened for inclusion by both authors. The inclusion criteria were as follows: written in the English language, addressed OM, involved human participants 6 years or younger, and addressed SMT. Studies were evaluated for overall quality using standardized checklists performed independently by both authors.

RESULTS

Forty-nine articles were reviewed: 17 commentaries, 15 case reports, 5 case series, 8 reviews, and 4 clinical trials. Magnitude of effect was lower in higher-quality articles. No serious adverse events were found; minor transient adverse effects were noted in 1 case series article and 2 of the clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

From the studies found in this report, there was limited quality evidence for the use of SMT for children with OM. There are currently no evidence to support or refute using SMT for OM and no evidence to suggest that SMT produces serious adverse effects for children with OM. It is possible that some children with OM may benefit from SMT or SMT combined with other therapies. More rigorous studies are needed to provide evidence and a clearer picture for both practitioner and patients.

Possible adverse events in children treated by manual therapy: a review

BACKGROUND

Pediatric manual therapy is controversial within the medical community particularly with respect to adverse events. Pediatric manual therapy (Ped MT) is commonly used by a number of professions such as chiropractors, osteopaths and naturopaths for a variety of treatments in children. Ped MT interventions range from advice, light touch, massage, through to mobilisation and high velocity spinal manipulation. However, current evidence related to adverse events associated with Ped MT is not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

To update the clinical research literature from the 2007 report by Vohra, Johnston, Cramer and Humphreys on possible adverse events in children treated by spinal manipulation.

METHODS

A review of the clinical research literature from June 2004 until January 2010 as reported in MEDLINE, PubMed and PubMed Central for adverse events specifically related to the treatment of pediatric cases by manual therapy.

RESULTS

Only three new clinical studies, one systematic review with meta-analysis and one evidence report were identified. Two clinical studies reported on chiropractic care and one on osteopathic spinal manipulation in children. The systematic review investigated all studies of adverse events and manual therapy and was not specific for pediatric patients. The evidence review focused on effectiveness of spinal manipulation in a variety of musculoskeletal conditions. No serious or catastrophic adverse events were reported in the clinical studies or systematic review. However for adults, it has been estimated that between 0.003% and 0.13% of manual therapy treatments may result in a serious adverse event. Although mild to moderate adverse events are common in adults, an accurate estimate from high quality pediatric studies is currently not available.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient research evidence related to adverse events and manual therapy. However, clinical studies and systematic reviews from adult patients undergoing manual therapy, particularly spinal manipulation report that mild to moderate adverse events are common and self limiting. However serious adverse events are rare and much less than for medication commonly prescribed for these problems. More high quality research specifically addressing adverse events and pediatric manual therapy is needed.

Echinacea purpurea and osteopathic manipulative treatment in children with recurrent otitis media: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Recurrent otitis media is a common problem in young children. Echinacea and osteopathic manipulative treatment have been proposed as preventive measures, but have been inadequately studied. This study was designed to assess the efficacy of Echinacea purpurea and/or osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) for prevention of acute otitis media in otitis-prone children.

METHODS

A randomized, placebo-controlled, two-by-two factorial trial with 6-month follow-up, conducted 1999 - 2002 in Tucson, Arizona. Patients were aged 12-60 months with recurrent otitis media, defined as three or more separate episodes of acute otitis media within six months, or at least four episodes in one year. Ninety children (44% white non-Hispanic, 39% Hispanic, 57% male) were enrolled, of which 84 had follow-up for at least 3 months. Children were randomly assigned to one of four protocol groups: double placebo, echinacea plus sham OMT, true OMT (including cranial manipulation) plus placebo echinacea, or true echinacea plus OMT. An alcohol extract of Echinacea purpurea roots and seeds (or placebo) was administered for 10 days at the first sign of each common cold. Five OMT visits (or sham treatments) were offered over 3 months.

RESULTS

No interaction was found between echinacea and OMT. Echinacea was associated with a borderline increased risk of having at least one episode of acute otitis media during 6-month follow-up compared to placebo (65% versus 41%; relative risk, 1.59, 95% CI 1.04, 2.42). OMT did not significantly affect risk compared to sham (44% versus 61%; relative risk, 0.72, 95% CI 0.48, 1.10).

CONCLUSION

In otitis-prone young children, treating colds with this form of echinacea does not decrease the risk of acute otitis media, and may in fact increase risk. A regimen of up to five osteopathic manipulative treatments does not significantly decrease the risk of acute otitis media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00010465.

Chiropractic manipulation in pediatric health conditions--an updated systematic review

Objective

Our purpose was to review the biomedical literature from January 2004 to June 2007 inclusive to determine the extent of new evidence related to the therapeutic application of manipulation for pediatric health conditions. This updates a previous systematic review published in 2005. No critical appraisal of the evidence is undertaken.

Data Sources

We searched both the indexed and non-indexed biomedical manual therapy literature. This included PubMed, MANTIS, CINAHL, ICL, as well as reference tracking. Other resources included the Cochrane Library, CCOHTA, PEDro, WHO ICTRP, AMED, EMBASE and AHRQ databases, as well as research conferences and symposium proceedings.

Results

The search identified 1275 citations of which 57 discrete citations met the eligibility criteria determined by three reviewers who then determined by consensus, each citation's appropriate level on the strength of evidence scale. The new evidence from the relevant time period was 1 systematic review, 1 RCT, 2 observational studies, 36 descriptive case studies and 17 conference abstracts. When this additional evidence is combined with the previous systematic review undertaken up to 2003, there are now in total, 2 systematic reviews, 10 RCT's, 3 observational studies, 177 descriptive studies, and 31 conference abstracts defining this body of knowledge.

Summary

There has been no substantive shift in this body of knowledge during the past 3 1/2 years. The health claims made by chiropractors with respect to the application of manipulation as a health care intervention for pediatric health conditions continue to be supported by only low levels of scientific evidence. Chiropractors continue to treat a wide variety of pediatric health conditions. The evidence rests primarily with clinical experience, descriptive case studies and very few observational and experimental studies. The health interests of pediatric patients would be advanced if more rigorous scientific inquiry was undertaken to examine the value of manipulative therapy in the treatment of pediatric conditions.

Chiropractic care for nonmusculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review with implications for whole systems research

OBJECTIVES

(1) To evaluate the evidence on the effect of chiropractic care, rather than spinal manipulation only, on patients with nonmusculoskeletal conditions; and (2) to identify shortcomings in the evidence base on this topic, from a Whole Systems Research perspective.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

Databases included were PubMed, Ovid, Mantis, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and CINAHL. Search restrictions were human subjects, peer-reviewed journal, English language, and publication before May 2005. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were evaluated using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and Jadad checklists; a checklist developed from the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines; and one developed by the authors to evaluate studies in terms of Whole Systems Research (WSR) considerations.

RESULTS

The search yielded 179 papers addressing 50 different nonmusculoskeletal conditions. There were 122 case reports or case series, 47 experimental designs, including 14 RCTs, 9 systematic reviews, and 1 a large cohort study. The 14 RCTs addressed 10 conditions. Six RCTs were rated "high" on the 3 conventional checklists; one of these 6 was rated "high" in terms of WSR considerations.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) Adverse effects should be routinely reported. For the few studies that did report, adverse effects of spinal manipulation for all ages and conditions were rare, transient, and not severe. (2) Evidence from controlled studies and usual practice supports chiropractic care (the entire clinical encounter) as providing benefit to patients with asthma, cervicogenic vertigo, and infantile colic. Evidence was promising for potential benefit of manual procedures for children with otitis media and elderly patients with pneumonia. (3) The RCT design is not necessarily incompatible with WSR. RCTs could improve generalizability by basing protocols on usual practice. (4) Case reports could contribute more to WSR by increasing their emphasis on patient characteristics and patient-based outcomes. (5) Chiropractic investigators, practitioners, and funding agencies should increase their attention to observational designs.

Adverse events associated with pediatric spinal manipulation: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulation is a noninvasive manual procedure applied to specific body tissues with therapeutic intent. Although spinal manipulation is commonly used in children, there is limited understanding of the pediatric risk estimates.

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to systematically identify and synthesize available data on adverse events associated with pediatric spinal manipulation.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed of 8 major electronic databases (eg, Medline, AMED, MANTIS) from inception to June 2004 irrespective of language. Reports were included if they (1) were a primary investigation of spinal manipulation (eg, observation studies, controlled trials, surveys), (2) included a study population of children who were aged 18 years or younger, and (3) reported data on adverse events. Data were summarized to demonstrate the nature and severity of adverse events that may result rather than their incidence.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies (2 randomized trials, 11 observational reports) were identified for inclusion. We identified 14 cases of direct adverse events involving neurologic or musculoskeletal events. Nine cases involved serious adverse events (eg, subarachnoidal hemorrhage, paraplegia), 2 involved moderately adverse events that required medical attention (eg, severe headache), and 3 involved minor adverse events (eg, midback soreness). Another 20 cases of indirect adverse events involved delayed diagnosis (eg, diabetes, neuroblastoma) and/or inappropriate provision of spinal manipulation for serious medical conditions (ie, meningitis, rhabdomyosarcoma).

CONCLUSIONS

Serious adverse events may be associated with pediatric spinal manipulation; neither causation nor incidence rates can be inferred from observational data. Conduct of a prospective population-based active surveillance study is required to properly assess the possibility of rare, yet serious, adverse events as a result of spinal manipulation on pediatric patients.

History and overview of theories and methods of chiropractic: a counterpoint

Spinal manipulation has been used for its therapeutic effects for at least 2500 years. Chiropractic as we know it today began a century ago in a simplistic manner but has developed into to a well-established profession with 33 colleges throughout the world. During the initial, bumpy years, many people thought it had little more value than a placebo. Nevertheless, there have always been satisfied recipients of chiropractic care during the years, and the profession slowly gained prominence--mostly by word of mouth. More recently, personal opinions based on isolated incidents have given way to the results of numerous clinical and basic science studies, primarily regarding low back pain. As of 2002, 43 randomized trials of spinal manipulation for low back pain had been published with 30 showing more improvement than with the comparison treatment, and none showing it to be less effective. Other studies have shown that chiropractic care compared with medical care is safer, costs no more and often costs much less, and has consistently greater patient satisfaction for treatment of similar conditions. Consequently, there is now better public and professional opinion of chiropractic with coverage by insurance companies and government agencies. That trend is likely to continue.

Validation of a sham manipulative procedure for the cervical spine for use in clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To develop a sham manipulation procedure for the cervical spine for use in randomized clinical trials of cervical disorders.

METHODS

A single-group, single-intervention study design was used. Adult neck pain subjects underwent a screening examination that included palpation for a site of cervical spine joint dysfunction. Eligible subjects underwent measurements of regional cervical ranges of motion as well as pressure algometry (tenderness) at the site of cervical joint dysfunction. Subjects were instructed that they would receive one of several types of manipulative procedures. A newly developed sham manipulation was delivered once. Subjects were then remeasured for ranges of motion and tenderness. They were asked if they had experienced any pain during the procedure, if they had experienced a "cavitation" sound, and if they thought that the procedure they received was a "real" manipulation. Finally, they were debriefed as to the deception involved in this study. A prior level of 65% was set for endorsement that the procedure was a real manipulation. Changes in pre-post measures of ranges of motion and tenderness were analyzed descriptively for clinically important differences.

RESULTS

Twenty eligible subjects were included (12 males, 8 females) with an average age of 30.4 (2.8) years. Twelve of the subjects were not students, with 3 of these having no prior experience with chiropractic treatment; 8 were students. Of the total sample (N = 19), 8 (42.1%) indicated that the procedure was a "real adjustment"; of the 12 nonstudents, 8 (58.3%) indicated similarly. None of the procedures in the final sample resulted in a cavitation, and none of the subjects registered the procedure as painful. None of the measures for ranges of motion or tenderness showed clinically important changes.

CONCLUSIONS

The sham cervical manipulation studied here appears to approximate the necessary features of a placebo maneuver in that it is perceived by a majority of nonstudent neck pain subjects to be a real manipulation, although it does not produce any important change in cervical status. The small sample size of nonstudent participants precludes a strong recommendation for this procedure at this time.

Complementary and alternative medicine for upper-respiratory-tract infection in children

PURPOSE

Evidence on the efficacy and safety of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for the prevention and treatment of upper-respiratory-tract infection (URTI) in children is reviewed.

SUMMARY

A search of the literature to June 2005 identified six clinical trials examining the use of herbal medicines and nine trials of other CAM therapies. All articles were critically evaluated for adherence to standards of efficacy and safety research. Echinacea did not reduce the duration and severity of URTI. Andrographis paniculata or echinacea decreased nasal secretions (p < 0.01) but not URTI symptoms. A combination of echinacea, propolis, and ascorbic acid decreased the number of URTI episodes, the duration of symptoms, and the number of days of illness (p < 0.001). Echinacea was associated with a higher frequency of rash compared with placebo (p = 0.008). Neither ascorbic acid nor homeopathy was effective. The efficacy of zinc was not clear, and zinc may be associated with adverse effects in children. Osteopathic manipulation decreased episodes of acute otitis media (p = 0.04) and the need for tympanostomy tube insertion (p = 0.03) in children with recurrent acute otitis media. Stress-management therapy reduced the duration of URTI compared with relaxation therapy with guided imagery or standard care (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Current data are generally inadequate to support CAM for the prevention or treatment of URTI in children.

Otitis media with effusion

The clinical practice guideline on otitis media with effusion (OME) provides evidence-based recommendations on diagnosing and managing OME in children. This is an update of the 1994 clinical practice guideline "Otitis Media With Effusion in Young Children," which was developed by the Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research (now the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). In contrast to the earlier guideline, which was limited to children 1 to 3 years old with no craniofacial or neurologic abnormalities or sensory deficits, the updated guideline applies to children aged 2 months through 12 years with or without developmental disabilities or underlying conditions that predispose to OME and its sequelae. The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery selected a subcommittee composed of experts in the fields of primary care, otolaryngology, infectious diseases, epidemiology, hearing, speech and language, and advanced-practice nursing to revise the OME guideline. The subcommittee made a strong recommendation that clinicians use pneumatic otoscopy as the primary diagnostic method and distinguish OME from acute otitis media. The subcommittee made recommendations that clinicians should 1) document the laterality, duration of effusion, and presence and severity of associated symptoms at each assessment of the child with OME, 2) distinguish the child with OME who is at risk for speech, language, or learning problems from other children with OME and more promptly evaluate hearing, speech, language, and need for intervention in children at risk, and 3) manage the child with OME who is not at risk with watchful waiting for 3 months from the date of effusion onset (if known) or diagnosis (if onset is unknown). The subcommittee also made recommendations that 4) hearing testing be conducted when OME persists for 3 months or longer or at any time that language delay, learning problems, or a significant hearing loss is suspected in a child with OME, 5) children with persistent OME who are not at risk should be reexamined at 3- to 6-month intervals until the effusion is no longer present, significant hearing loss is identified, or structural abnormalities of the eardrum or middle ear are suspected, and 6) when a child becomes a surgical candidate (tympanostomy tube insertion is the preferred initial procedure). Adenoidectomy should not be performed unless a distinct indication exists (nasal obstruction, chronic adenoiditis); repeat surgery consists of adenoidectomy plus myringotomy with or without tube insertion. Tonsillectomy alone or myringotomy alone should not be used to treat OME. The subcommittee made negative recommendations that 1) population-based screening programs for OME not be performed in healthy, asymptomatic children, and 2) because antihistamines and decongestants are ineffective for OME, they should not be used for treatment; antimicrobials and corticosteroids do not have long-term efficacy and should not be used for routine management. The subcommittee gave as options that 1) tympanometry can be used to confirm the diagnosis of OME and 2) when children with OME are referred by the primary clinician for evaluation by an otolaryngologist, audiologist, or speech-language pathologist, the referring clinician should document the effusion duration and specific reason for referral (evaluation, surgery) and provide additional relevant information such as history of acute otitis media and developmental status of the child. The subcommittee made no recommendations for 1) complementary and alternative medicine as a treatment for OME, based on a lack of scientific evidence documenting efficacy, or 2) allergy management as a treatment for OME, based on insufficient evidence of therapeutic efficacy or a causal relationship between allergy and OME. Last, the panel compiled a list of research needs based on limitations of the evidence reviewed. The purpose of this guideline is to inform clinicians of evidence-based methods to identify, monitor, and manage OME in children aged 2 months through 12 years. The guideline may not apply to children more than 12 years old, because OME is uncommon and the natural history is likely to differ from younger children who experience rapid developmental change. The target population includes children with or without developmental disabilities or underlying conditions that predispose to OME and its sequelae. The guideline is intended for use by providers of health care to children, including primary care and specialist physicians, nurses and nurse practitioners, physician assistants, audiologists, speech-language pathologists, and child-development specialists. The guideline is applicable to any setting in which children with OME would be identified, monitored, or managed. This guideline is not intended as a sole source of guidance in evaluating children with OME. Rather, it is designed to assist primary care and other clinicians by providing an evidence-based framework for decision-making strategies. It is not intended to replace clinical judgment or establish a protocol for all children with this condition and may not provide the only appropriate approach to diagnosing and managing this problem.

Randomised controlled trial of infantile colic treated with chiropractic spinal manipulation

AIMS

To investigate the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulation in the management of infantile colic.

METHODS

One hundred infants with typical colicky pain were recruited to a randomised, blinded, placebo controlled clinical trial.

RESULTS

Nine infants were excluded because inclusion criteria were not met, and five dropped out, leaving 86 who completed the study. There was no significant effect of chiropractic spinal manipulation. Thirty two of 46 infants in the treatment group (69.9%), and 24 of 40 in the control group (60.0%), showed some degree of improvement.

CONCLUSION

Chiropractic spinal manipulation is no more effective than placebo in the treatment of infantile colic. This study emphasises the need for placebo controlled and blinded studies when investigating alternative methods to treat unpredictable conditions such as infantile colic.