Naprapathic manual therapy or evidence-based care for back and neck pain: a randomized, controlled trial

Spinal manipulative therapy in older adults with chronic low back pain: an individual participant data meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Many systematic reviews have reported on the effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for low back pain (LBP) in adults. Much less is known about the older population regarding the effects of SMT.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of SMT on pain and function in older adults with chronic LBP in an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis.

SETTING

Electronic databases from 2000 until June 2020, and reference lists of eligible trials and related reviews.

DESIGN AND SUBJECTS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the effects of SMT in adults with chronic LBP compared to interventions recommended in international LBP guidelines.

METHODS

Authors of trials eligible for our IPD meta-analysis were contacted to share data. Two review authors conducted a risk of bias assessment. Primary results were examined in a one-stage mixed model, and a two-stage analysis was conducted in order to confirm findings.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Pain and functional status examined at 4, 13, 26, and 52 weeks.

RESULTS

10 studies were retrieved, including 786 individuals, of which 261 were between 65 and 91 years of age. There is moderate-quality evidence that SMT results in similar outcomes at 4 weeks (pain: mean difference [MD] - 2.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 5.78 to 0.66; functional status: standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.18, 95% CI - 0.41 to 0.05). Second-stage and sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings.

CONCLUSION

SMT provides similar outcomes to recommended interventions for pain and functional status in the older adult with chronic LBP. SMT should be considered a treatment for this patient population.

Manual therapy versus advice to stay active for nonspecific back and/or neck pain: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Low back and neck pain are the most common musculoskeletal disorders worldwide, and imply suffering and substantial societal costs, hence effective interventions are crucial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of manual therapy compared with advice to stay active for working age persons with nonspecific back and/or neck pain.

METHODS

The two interventions were: a maximum of 6 manual therapy sessions within 6 weeks, including spinal manipulation/mobilization, massage and stretching, performed by a naprapath (index group), respectively information from a physician on the importance to stay active and on how to cope with pain, according to evidence-based advice, at 2 occasions within 3 weeks (control group). A cost-effectiveness analysis with a societal perspective was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial including 409 persons followed for one year, in 2005. The outcomes were health-related Quality of Life (QoL) encoded from the SF-36 and pain intensity. Direct and indirect costs were calculated based on intervention and medication costs and sickness absence data. An incremental cost per health related QoL was calculated, and sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The difference in QoL gains was 0.007 (95% CI - 0.010 to 0.023) and the mean improvement in pain intensity was 0.6 (95% CI 0.068-1.065) in favor of manual therapy after one year. Concerning the QoL outcome, the differences in mean cost per person was estimated at - 437 EUR (95% CI - 1302 to 371) and for the pain outcome the difference was - 635 EUR (95% CI - 1587 to 246) in favor of manual therapy. The results indicate that manual therapy achieves better outcomes at lower costs compared with advice to stay active. The sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main results.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that manual therapy for nonspecific back and/or neck pain is slightly less costly and more beneficial than advice to stay active for this sample of working age persons. Since manual therapy treatment is at least as cost-effective as evidence-based advice from a physician, it may be recommended for neck and low back pain. Further health economic studies that may confirm those findings are warranted. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56954776. Retrospectively registered 12 September 2006, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN56954776 .

Naprapathy versus orthopaedic standard care for common musculoskeletal disorders: an 8-year follow-up of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial in Sweden

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal pain is among the most common reasons for seeking care, specialist competence for its treatment in primary care limited and waiting lists for orthopaedics often amongst the longest. Many referrals to orthopaedics do not concern disorders that benefit from surgery. Manual therapy is effective, yet not integrated in national health care systems, and there is a lack of research on other than neck and low back pain, and a lack of long-term follow-ups. The present study evaluates the long-term effects of a manual therapy (naprapathy) for common orthopaedic disorders.

METHODS

An 8-year follow-up (96 months) of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of naprapathy (experimental group) versus standard orthopaedic care (control group) for non-surgical patients of working age with the most common musculoskeletal disorders on the waiting lists (n = 78). Bodily pain, physical function (SF36), Quality of life (QoL; SF6D), and data on health care utilization were collected. The treatments lasted from January 2007 to November 2007.

RESULTS

N = 75 participants in the original study sample completed the 8-year follow-up. The differences in bodily pain (21.7 (95% CI: 9.1-34.3)), physical function (17.6 (6.7-28.4)), and QoLs (0.823 (95% CI: 0.785-0.862) compared with 0.713 (95% CI: 0.668-0.758)) were statistically significantly in favor of the experimental group (p-values < 0.01). After sensitivity analysis the experimental group had altogether 260 health care visits compared with 1161 in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Naprapathy is a continuously effective treatment. Together with earlier research our study suggests that specialized manual therapy should be considered when triaging patients with common non-surgical musculoskeletal disorders in national health care systems.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable, as per information given by ClinicalTrials.gov.

Vigorous regular leisure-time physical activity is associated with a clinically important improvement in back pain - a secondary analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Neck and back pain are musculoskeletal conditions with serious individual and societal consequences. Current evidence about the prognostic value for neck and back pain is limited and conflicting. This prospective cohort study aimed to assess the association between leisure-time physical activity (LPA) and improvement of neck and/or back pain in a working population receiving manual therapy or general care in one of two randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

Analyses of data from two RCTs evaluating the effect of manual therapies for neck and/or back pain was conducted. Participants (n = 1 464) answered questionnaires about frequency and effort level of LPA at baseline. LPA on moderate or vigorous levels was compared to no or low/irregular moderate and vigorous levels. Pain intensity was assessed with numerical scales at baseline and 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up. The outcome was minimal clinically important improvement in pain intensity, defined as ≥2 points improvement in mean pain intensity at follow-up. Crude- and adjusted risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated with Poisson regression analysis and stratified by pain location.

Results

Participants with neck and/or back pain performing vigorous LPA showed a minimal clinically important improvement after 12 months compared to the control group; RR 1.35 (95% CI; 1.06-1.73). No effect was observed at 3 or 6 months. Moderate LPA did not improve pain intensity in any follow-up. Stratified analyses revealed that the effect of vigorous LPA at 12 months in back pain was RR 1.83 (95% CI; 1.26-2.66) and neck pain RR 1.06 (95% CI; 0.75-1.49).

Conclusions

Persons with neck and/or back pain receiving manual therapy or general evidence-based care have greater chance of improvement after 12 months if they prior to treatment frequently practice vigorous LPA. When analyzed separately, the effect was only present for back pain.

Trial registration

Registration in Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN), Stockholm Manual Intervention Trial (MINT), ISRCTN92249294 BJORN-trial, ISRCTN56954776

Moderators of the Effect of Spinal Manipulative Therapy on Pain Relief and Function in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify which participant characteristics moderate the effect of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) on pain and functioning in chronic LBP.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND

The effects of SMT are comparable to other interventions recommended in guidelines for chronic low back pain (LBP); however, it is unclear which patients are more likely to benefit from SMT compared to other therapies.

METHODS

IPD were requested from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of SMT in adults with chronic LBP for pain and function compared to various other therapies (stratified by comparison). Potential patient moderators (n = 23) were a priori based on their clinical relevance. We investigated each moderator using a one-stage approach with IPD and investigated this interaction with the intervention for each time point (1, 3, 6, and 12 months).

RESULTS

We received IPD from 21 of 46 RCTs (n = 4223). The majority (12 RCTs, n = 2249) compared SMT to recommended interventions. The duration of LBP, baseline pain (confirmatory), smoking, and previous exposure to SMT (exploratory) had a small moderating effect across outcomes and follow-up points; these estimates did not represent minimally relevant differences in effects; for example, patients with <1 year of LBP demonstrated more positive point estimates for SMT versus recommended therapy for the outcome pain (mean differences ranged from 4.97 (95% confidence interval, CI: -3.20 to 13.13) at 3 months, 10.76 (95% CI: 1.06 to 20.47) at 6 months to 5.26 (95% CI: -2.92 to 13.44) at 12 months in patients with over a year LBP. No other moderators demonstrated a consistent pattern across time and outcomes. Few moderator analyses were conducted for the other comparisons because of too few data.

CONCLUSION

We did not identify any moderators that enable clinicians to identify which patients are likely to benefit more from SMT compared to other treatments.Level of Evidence: 2.

The effect of spinal manipulative therapy on pain relief and function in patients with chronic low back pain: an individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A 2019 review concluded that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) results in similar benefit compared to other interventions for chronic low back pain (LBP). Compared to traditional aggregate analyses individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses allows for a more precise estimate of the treatment effect.

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of SMT on pain and function for chronic LBP in a IPD meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases from 2000 until April 2016, and reference lists of eligible trials and related reviews.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) examining the effect of SMT in adults with chronic LBP compared to any comparator.

DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS

We contacted authors from eligible trials. Two review authors independently conducted the study selection and risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. A one-stage mixed model analysis was conducted. Negative point estimates of the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) favors SMT.

RESULTS

Of the 42 RCTs fulfilling the inclusion criteria, we obtained IPD from 21 (n=4223). Most trials (s=12, n=2249) compared SMT to recommended interventions. There is moderate quality evidence that SMT vs recommended interventions resulted in similar outcomes on pain (MD -3.0, 95%CI: -6.9 to 0.9, 10 trials, 1922 participants) and functional status at one month (SMD: -0.2, 95% CI -0.4 to 0.0, 10 trials, 1939 participants). Effects at other follow-up measurements were similar. Results for other comparisons (SMT vs non-recommended interventions; SMT as adjuvant therapy; mobilization vs manipulation) showed similar findings. SMT vs sham SMT analysis was not performed, because we only had data from one study. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings.

LIMITATIONS

Only 50% of the eligible trials were included.

CONCLUSIONS

Sufficient evidence suggest that SMT provides similar outcomes to recommended interventions, for pain relief and improvement of functional status. SMT would appear to be a good option for the treatment of chronic LBP. Systematic Review Registration Number PROSPERO CRD42015025714.

Existing validated clinical prediction rules for predicting response to physiotherapy interventions for musculoskeletal conditions have limited clinical value: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review clinical prediction rules (CPRs) that have undergone validation testing for predicting response to physiotherapy-related interventions for musculoskeletal conditions.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were systematically searched to September 2020. Search terms included musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions, physiotherapy interventions and clinical prediction rules. Controlled studies that validated a prescriptive CPR for physiotherapy treatment response in musculoskeletal conditions were included. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility. Original derivation studies of each CPR were identified. Risk of bias was assessed with the PROBAST tool (derivation studies) and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group criteria (validation studies).

RESULTS

Nine studies aimed to validate seven prescriptive CPRs for treatment response for MSK conditions including back pain, neck pain, shoulder pain and carpal tunnel syndrome. Treatments included manipulation, traction and exercise. Seven studies failed to demonstrate an association between CPR prediction and outcome. Methodological quality of derivation studies was poor and for validation studies was good overall.

CONCLUSION

Results do not support the use of any CPRs identified to aid physiotherapy treatment selection for common musculoskeletal conditions, due to methodological shortcomings in the derivation studies and lack of association between CPR and outcome in validation studies.

Deep tissue massage, strengthening and stretching exercises, and a combination of both compared with advice to stay active for subacute or persistent non-specific neck pain: A cost-effectiveness analysis of the Stockholm Neck trial (STONE)

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of deep tissue massage ('massage'), strengthening and stretching exercises ('exercises') or a combination of both ('combined therapy') in comparison with advice to stay active ('advice') for subacute and persistent neck pain, from a societal perspective.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a four-arm randomized controlled trial of 619 participants followed-up for one year. Health-related quality of life was measured using EQ-5D-3L and costs were calculated from baseline to one year. The interventions were ranked according to quality adjusted life years (QALYs) in a cost-consequence analysis. Thereafter, an incremental cost per QALY was calculated.

RESULTS

In the cost-consequence analysis, in comparison with advice, exercises resulted in higher QALY gains, and massage and the combined therapy were more costly and less beneficial. Exercises may be a cost-effective treatment compared with advice to stay active if society is willing to pay 17 640 EUR per QALY. However, differences in QALY gains were minimal; on average, participants in the massage group, spent a year in a state of health valued at 0.88, exercises: 0.89, combined therapy: 0.88 and, advice: 0.88.

CONCLUSIONS

Exercises are cost-effective compared to advice given that the societal willingness to pay is above 17 640 EUR per year in full health gained. Massage and a combined therapy are not cost-effective. While exercise appeared to have the best cost/benefit profile, even this treatment had only a modest benefit and treatment innovation is needed. Advice to stay active remains as a good therapeutic alternative from an economical perspective.

Effectiveness of deep tissue massage therapy, and supervised strengthening and stretching exercises for subacute or persistent disabling neck pain. The Stockholm Neck (STONE) randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of deep tissue massage, supervised strengthening and stretching exercises, and a combined therapy (exercise followed by massage) (index groups), with advice to stay active (control group).

METHODS

Randomized controlled trial of 619 adults with subacute or persistent neck pain allocated to massage (n = 145), exercise (n = 160), combined therapy (n = 169) or advice (n = 147). Primary outcomes were minimal clinically important improvements in neck pain intensity and pain-related disability based on adapted questions from the Chronic Pain Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were perceived recovery and sickness absence. Outcomes were measured at seven, 12, 26 and 52 weeks.

RESULTS

We found improvement in pain intensity favouring massage and combined therapy compared to advice; at seven weeks (RR = 1.36; 95%CI:1.04-1.77) and 26 weeks (RR = 1.23; 95%CI:0.97-1.56); and seven (RR = 1.39; 95%CI:1.08-1.81) and 12 weeks (RR = 1.28; 95%CI:1.02-1.60) respectively, but not at later follow-ups. Exercise showed higher improvement of pain intensity at 26 weeks (RR = 1.31; 95%CI:1.04-1.65). Perceived recovery was higher in the index groups than in the advice group at all follow-ups. We found no consistent differences in pain related disability or sickness absence.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, at 12-months follow-up, none of the index therapies were more effective than advice in terms of pain intensity in the long term or in terms of pain-related disability in the short or long term. However, the index therapies led to higher incidence of improvement in pain intensity in the short term, and higher incidence of favorable perceived recovery in the short and in the long term than advice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN01453590. Registered 3 July 2014.

Do adverse events after manual therapy for back and/or neck pain have an impact on the chance to recover? A cohort study

Background

Manual therapy is a commonly used treatment for patients with back and neck pain. Studies have shown that manual therapy-related adverse events are mainly short in duration and mild or moderate by their intensity, affecting up to 50% of the patients. If the presence of adverse events has an impact on the chance to recover from back/neck pain is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to investigate if mild or moderate adverse events after manual therapy has an impact on the chance to recover from back/neck pain in men and women.

Methods

A prospective cohort study of 771 patients with at least three treatment sessions in a randomized controlled trial performed in January 2010 – December 2013. Adverse events within 24 h after each treatment were measured with questionnaires and categorized as: no, mild or moderate, based on bothersomeness. Outcome measure was the perceived recovery at seven weeks and at three months follow-up. Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated by Logistic regression to investigate the associations between the exposure and outcome, and to test and adjust for potential confounding.

Results

There were no statistically significant associations observed between the experience of mild or moderate adverse events and being recovered at the seven weeks follow-up. The only statistically significant association observed at the three months follow-up was for mild adverse events in men with an OR of 2.44, 95% CI: 1.24–4.80 in comparison to men with no adverse events.

Conclusion

This study indicates that mild adverse events after manual therapy may be related to a better chance to recover in men.

Trial registration

The study is based on data from a trial registered in Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN92249294).

Benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy for the treatment of chronic low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for the treatment of chronic low back pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Index to Chiropractic Literature, and trial registries up to 4 May 2018, including reference lists of eligible trials and related reviews.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials examining the effect of spinal manipulation or mobilisation in adults (≥18 years) with chronic low back pain with or without referred pain. Studies that exclusively examined sciatica were excluded, as was grey literature. No restrictions were applied to language or setting.

REVIEW METHODS

Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The effect of SMT was compared with recommended therapies, non-recommended therapies, sham (placebo) SMT, and SMT as an adjuvant therapy. Main outcomes were pain and back specific functional status, examined as mean differences and standardised mean differences (SMD), respectively. Outcomes were examined at 1, 6, and 12 months. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. A random effects model was used and statistical heterogeneity explored.

RESULTS

47 randomised controlled trials including a total of 9211 participants were identified, who were on average middle aged (35-60 years). Most trials compared SMT with recommended therapies. Moderate quality evidence suggested that SMT has similar effects to other recommended therapies for short term pain relief (mean difference -3.17, 95% confidence interval -7.85 to 1.51) and a small, clinically better improvement in function (SMD -0.25, 95% confidence interval -0.41 to -0.09). High quality evidence suggested that compared with non-recommended therapies SMT results in small, not clinically better effects for short term pain relief (mean difference -7.48, -11.50 to -3.47) and small to moderate clinically better improvement in function (SMD -0.41, -0.67 to -0.15). In general, these results were similar for the intermediate and long term outcomes as were the effects of SMT as an adjuvant therapy. Evidence for sham SMT was low to very low quality; therefore these effects should be considered uncertain. Statistical heterogeneity could not be explained. About half of the studies examined adverse and serious adverse events, but in most of these it was unclear how and whether these events were registered systematically. Most of the observed adverse events were musculoskeletal related, transient in nature, and of mild to moderate severity. One study with a low risk of selection bias and powered to examine risk (n=183) found no increased risk of an adverse event (relative risk 1.24, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.81) or duration of the event (1.13, 0.59 to 2.18) compared with sham SMT. In one study, the Data Safety Monitoring Board judged one serious adverse event to be possibly related to SMT.

CONCLUSION

SMT produces similar effects to recommended therapies for chronic low back pain, whereas SMT seems to be better than non-recommended interventions for improvement in function in the short term. Clinicians should inform their patients of the potential risks of adverse events associated with SMT.

Manipulation and mobilization for treating chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used to benefit patients with chronic low back pain. However, questions remain about their efficacy, dosing, safety, and how these approaches compare with other therapies.

PURPOSE

The present study aims to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The present study measures self-reported pain, function, health-related quality of life, and adverse events.

METHODS

We identified studies by searching multiple electronic databases from January 2000 to March 2017, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation or mobilization therapies with sham, no treatment, other active therapies, and multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Where possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project is funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under Award Number U19AT007912.

RESULTS

Fifty-one trials were included in the systematic review. Nine trials (1,176 patients) provided sufficient data and were judged similar enough to be pooled for meta-analysis. The standardized mean difference for a reduction of pain was SMD=-0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.09, p=.004; I2=57% after treatment; within seven trials (923 patients), the reduction in disability was SMD=-0.33, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.03, p=.03; I2=78% for manipulation or mobilization compared with other active therapies. Subgroup analyses showed that manipulation significantly reduced pain and disability, compared with other active comparators including exercise and physical therapy (SMD=-0.43, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.00; p=.05, I2=79%; SMD=-0.86, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.45; p<.0001, I2=46%). Mobilization interventions, compared with other active comparators including exercise regimens, significantly reduced pain (SMD=-0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.04; p=.01; I2=0%) but not disability (SMD=-0.10, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.07; p=.25; I2=21%). Studies comparing manipulation or mobilization with sham or no treatment were too few or too heterogeneous to allow for pooling as were studies examining relationships between dose and outcomes. Few studies assessed health-related quality of life. Twenty-six of 51 trials were multimodal studies and narratively described.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate-quality evidence that manipulation and mobilization are likely to reduce pain and improve function for patients with chronic low back pain; manipulation appears to produce a larger effect than mobilization. Both therapies appear safe. Multimodal programs may be a promising option.

Spinal Manipulative Therapy and Other Conservative Treatments for Low Back Pain: A Guideline From the Canadian Chiropractic Guideline Initiative

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to develop a clinical practice guideline on the management of acute and chronic low back pain (LBP) in adults. The aim was to develop a guideline to provide best practice recommendations on the initial assessment and monitoring of people with low back pain and address the use of spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) compared with other commonly used conservative treatments.

METHODS

The topic areas were chosen based on an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality comparative effectiveness review, specific to spinal manipulation as a nonpharmacological intervention. The panel updated the search strategies in Medline. We assessed admissible systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials for each question using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Back Review Group criteria. Evidence profiles were used to summarize judgments of the evidence quality and link recommendations to the supporting evidence. Using the Evidence to Decision Framework, the guideline panel determined the certainty of evidence and strength of the recommendations. Consensus was achieved using a modified Delphi technique. The guideline was peer reviewed by an 8-member multidisciplinary external committee.

RESULTS

For patients with acute (0-3 months) back pain, we suggest offering advice (posture, staying active), reassurance, education and self-management strategies in addition to SMT, usual medical care when deemed beneficial, or a combination of SMT and usual medical care to improve pain and disability. For patients with chronic (>3 months) back pain, we suggest offering advice and education, SMT or SMT as part of a multimodal therapy (exercise, myofascial therapy or usual medical care when deemed beneficial). For patients with chronic back-related leg pain, we suggest offering advice and education along with SMT and home exercise (positioning and stabilization exercises).

CONCLUSIONS

A multimodal approach including SMT, other commonly used active interventions, self-management advice, and exercise is an effective treatment strategy for acute and chronic back pain, with or without leg pain.

Predictive factors for reporting adverse events following spinal manipulation in randomized clinical trials - secondary analysis of a systematic review

While spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is recommended for the treatment of spinal disorders, concerns exist about adverse events associated with the intervention. Adequate reporting of adverse events in clinical trials would allow for more accurate estimations of incidence statistics through meta-analysis. However, it is not currently known if there are factors influencing adverse events reporting following SMT in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Thus our objective was to investigate predictive factors for the reporting of adverse events in published RCTs involving SMT. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for RCTs involving SMT. Domains of interest included: sample size; publication date relative to the 2010 CONSORT statement; risk of bias; the region treated; and number of intervention sessions. 7398 records were identified, of which 368 articles were eligible for inclusion. A total of 140 (38.0%) articles reported on adverse events. Articles were more likely to report on adverse events if they possessed larger sample sizes, were published after the 2010 CONSORT statement, had a low risk of bias and involved multiple intervention sessions. The region treated was not a significant predictor for reporting on adverse events. Predictors for reporting on adverse events included larger sample size, publication after the 2010 CONSORT statement, low risk of bias and trials involving multiple intervention sessions. We recommend that researchers focus on developing robust methodologies and participant follow-up regimens for RCTs involving SMT.

Experiences of Older Adults With Mobile Phone Text Messaging as Reminders of Home Exercises After Specialized Manual Therapy for Recurrent Low Back Pain: A Qualitative Study

Background

Clinical experience of manual therapy for musculoskeletal pain is that patients often suffer from recurrent pain and disorders, but that they do not continue to perform their physical home exercises when they are free from symptoms. The chance of positive long-term effects of manual therapy would probably increase if patients were reminded that they are to continue to perform their exercises. Mobile phone text messaging (short messaging service, SMS) is increasingly used as an innovative intervention to remind patient to exercise. However, there are only a few studies on such interventions in the field of low back pain (LBP). Qualitative studies of patients’ experiences of receiving text messages as reminders of home exercises after manual treatment for recurrent LBP have to the best of our knowledge never been published.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to explore older persons’ common experiences of receiving reminders of home exercises through mobile phone text messaging after specialized manual therapy for recurrent LBP.

Methods

A total of 7 men and 8 women (67-86 years), who had sought specialized manual therapy (Naprapathic manual therapy) for recurrent LBP were included in the study. Individual one-way text messages as reminders of home exercises (to be performed on a daily basis) were sent to each patient every third day for 3 weeks, then once a week for another 2 weeks. Semistructured interviews with 2 broad, open-ended questions were held and data were analyzed with systematic text condensation, based on Giorgi’s principles of psychological phenomenological analysis.

Results

The participants appreciated the messages, which were perceived as timely and usable, and also stimulated memorizing. The messages made the participants reflect on the aim of the exercise, value of being reminded, and on their improvement in pain. During the interviews, the participants created their own routines for continued adherence to the exercises.

Conclusions

It seems plausible that mobile phone text messaging may serve as a useful tool for patient empowerment with regard to recurrent LBP in older persons. Further studies are needed to explore whether future compliance with the exercises will be as large if the participants are not being interviewed.

Does structured patient education improve the recovery and clinical outcomes of patients with neck pain? A systematic review from the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

In 2008, the Bone and Joint Decade 2000 to 2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders recommended patient education for the management of neck pain. However, the effectiveness of education interventions has recently been challenged.

PURPOSE

To update the findings of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000 to 2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders and evaluate the effectiveness of structured patient education for the management of patients with whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) or neck pain and associated disorders (NAD).

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Systematic review of the literature and best-evidence synthesis.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Randomized controlled trials that compared structured patient education with other conservative interventions.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Self-rated recovery, functional recovery (eg, disability, return to activities, work, or school), pain intensity, health-related quality of life, psychological outcomes such as depression or fear, or adverse effects.

METHODS

We systematically searched eight electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, DARE, PubMed, and ICL) from 2000 to 2012. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies meeting our selection criteria were eligible for critical appraisal. Random pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Scientifically admissible studies were summarized in evidence tables and synthesized following best-evidence synthesis principles.

RESULTS

We retrieved 4,477 articles. Of those, nine were eligible for critical appraisal and six were scientifically admissible. Four admissible articles investigated patients with WAD and two targeted patients with NAD. All structured patient education interventions included advice on activation or exercises delivered orally combined with written information or as written information alone. Overall, as a therapeutic intervention, structured patient education was equal or less effective than other conservative treatments including massage, supervised exercise, and physiotherapy. However, structured patient education may provide small benefits when combined with physiotherapy. Either mode of delivery (ie, oral or written education) provides similar results in patients with recent WAD.

CONCLUSIONS

This review adds to the Bone and Joint Decade 2000 to 2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders by defining more specifically the role of structured patient education in the management of WAD and NAD. Results suggest that structured patient education alone cannot be expected to yield large benefits in clinical effectiveness compared with other conservative interventions for patients with WAD or NAD. Moreover, structured patient education may be of benefit during the recovery of patients with WAD when used as an adjunct therapy to physiotherapy or emergency room care. These benefits are small and short lived.

Is multimodal care effective for the management of patients with whiplash-associated disorders or neck pain and associated disorders? A systematic review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Little is known about the effectiveness of multimodal care for individuals with whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) and neck pain and associated disorders (NAD).

PURPOSE

To update findings of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders and evaluate the effectiveness of multimodal care for the management of patients with WAD or NAD.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Systematic review and best-evidence synthesis.

PATIENT SAMPLE

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Self-rated recovery, functional recovery (eg, disability, return to activities, work, or school), pain intensity, health-related quality of life, psychological outcomes (eg, depression, fear), or adverse events.

METHODS

We systematically searched five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 2000 to 2013. RCTs, cohort, and case-control studies meeting our selection criteria were eligible for critical appraisal. Random pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Scientifically admissible studies were summarized using evidence tables and synthesized following best-evidence synthesis principles.

RESULTS

We retrieved 2,187 articles, and 23 articles were eligible for critical appraisal. Of those, 18 articles from 14 different RCTs were scientifically admissible. There were a total of 31 treatment arms, including 27 unique multimodal programs of care. Overall, the evidence suggests that multimodal care that includes manual therapy, education, and exercise may benefit patients with grades I and II WAD and NAD. General practitioner care that includes reassurance, advice to stay active, and resumption of regular activities may be an option for the early management of WAD grades I and II. Our synthesis suggests that patients receiving high-intensity health care tend to experience poorer outcomes than those who receive fewer treatments for WAD and NAD.

CONCLUSIONS

Multimodal care can benefit patients with WAD and NAD with early or persistent symptoms. The evidence does not indicate that one multimodal care package is superior to another. Clinicians should avoid high utilization of care for patients with WAD and NAD.

Three combinations of manual therapy techniques within naprapathy in the treatment of neck and/or back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Manual therapy as spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, stretching and massage are common treatment methods for neck and back pain. The objective was to compare the treatment effect on pain intensity, pain related disability and perceived recovery from a) naprapathic manual therapy (spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, stretching and massage) to b) naprapathic manual therapy without spinal manipulation and to c) naprapathic manual therapy without stretching for male and female patients seeking care for back and/or neck pain.

Method

Participants were recruited among patients, ages 18–65, seeking care at the educational clinic of Naprapathögskolan - the Scandinavian College of Naprapathic Manual Medicine in Stockholm. The patients (n = 1057) were randomized to one of three treatment arms a) manual therapy (i.e. spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, stretching and massage), b) manual therapy excluding spinal manipulation and c) manual therapy excluding stretching. The primary outcomes were minimal clinically important improvement in pain intensity and pain related disability. Treatments were provided by naprapath students in the seventh semester of eight total semesters. Generalized estimating equations and logistic regression were used to examine the association between the treatments and the outcomes.

Results

At 12 weeks follow-up, 64 % had a minimal clinically important improvement in pain intensity and 42 % in pain related disability. The corresponding chances to be improved at the 52 weeks follow-up were 58 % and 40 % respectively. No systematic differences in effect when excluding spinal manipulation and stretching respectively from the treatment were found over 1 year follow-up, concerning minimal clinically important improvement in pain intensity (p = 0.41) and pain related disability (p = 0.85) and perceived recovery (p = 0.98). Neither were there disparities in effect when male and female patients were analyzed separately.

Conclusion

The effect of manual therapy for male and female patients seeking care for neck and/or back pain at an educational clinic is similar regardless if spinal manipulation or if stretching is excluded from the treatment option.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN92249294

Management of neck pain and associated disorders: A clinical practice guideline from the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration

PURPOSE

To develop an evidence-based guideline for the management of grades I-III neck pain and associated disorders (NAD).

METHODS

This guideline is based on recent systematic reviews of high-quality studies. A multidisciplinary expert panel considered the evidence of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, societal and ethical values, and patient experiences (obtained from qualitative research) when formulating recommendations. Target audience includes clinicians; target population is adults with grades I-III NAD <6 months duration.

RECOMMENDATION 1

Clinicians should rule out major structural or other pathologies as the cause of NAD. Once major pathology has been ruled out, clinicians should classify NAD as grade I, II, or III.

RECOMMENDATION 2

Clinicians should assess prognostic factors for delayed recovery from NAD.

RECOMMENDATION 3

Clinicians should educate and reassure patients about the benign and self-limited nature of the typical course of NAD grades I-III and the importance of maintaining activity and movement. Patients with worsening symptoms and those who develop new physical or psychological symptoms should be referred to a physician for further evaluation at any time during their care.

RECOMMENDATION 4

For NAD grades I-II ≤3 months duration, clinicians may consider structured patient education in combination with: range of motion exercise, multimodal care (range of motion exercise with manipulation or mobilization), or muscle relaxants. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer structured patient education alone, strain-counterstrain therapy, relaxation massage, cervical collar, electroacupuncture, electrotherapy, or clinic-based heat.

RECOMMENDATION 5

For NAD grades I-II >3 months duration, clinicians may consider structured patient education in combination with: range of motion and strengthening exercises, qigong, yoga, multimodal care (exercise with manipulation or mobilization), clinical massage, low-level laser therapy, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer strengthening exercises alone, strain-counterstrain therapy, relaxation massage, relaxation therapy for pain or disability, electrotherapy, shortwave diathermy, clinic-based heat, electroacupuncture, or botulinum toxin injections.

RECOMMENDATION 6

For NAD grade III ≤3 months duration, clinicians may consider supervised strengthening exercises in addition to structured patient education. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer structured patient education alone, cervical collar, low-level laser therapy, or traction. RECOMMENDATION 7: For NAD grade III >3 months duration, clinicians should not offer a cervical collar. Patients who continue to experience neurological signs and disability more than 3 months after injury should be referred to a physician for investigation and management. RECOMMENDATION 8: Clinicians should reassess the patient at every visit to determine if additional care is necessary, the condition is worsening, or the patient has recovered. Patients reporting significant recovery should be discharged.

The effect of massage therapy and/or exercise therapy on subacute or long-lasting neck pain--the Stockholm neck trial (STONE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Neck pain is a major health problem in populations worldwide and an economic burden in modern societies due to its high prevalence and costs in terms of health care expenditures and lost productivity. Massage and exercise therapy are widely used management options for neck pain. However, there is a lack of scientific evidence regarding their effectiveness for subacute and long-lasting neck pain. This study protocol describes a randomized controlled trial aiming to determine the effect of massage and/or exercise therapy on subacute and long-lasting neck pain over the course of 1 year.

METHODS/DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial in which at least 600 study participants with subacute or long-lasting nonspecific neck pain will be recruited and randomly allocated to one of four treatment arms: massage therapy (A), exercise therapy (B), exercise therapy plus massage therapy (C) and advice to stay active (D). The study has an E-health approach, and study participants are being recruited through advertising with a mix of traditional and online marketing channels. Web-based self-report questionnaires measure the main outcomes at 7, 12, 26 and 52 weeks after inclusion. The primary outcomes are a clinically important improvement in pain intensity and pain-related disability at follow-up, measured with a modified version of the Chronic Pain Questionnaire (CPQ). The secondary outcomes are global improvement, health-related quality of life (EQ-5D), sick leave, drug consumption and healthcare utilization. Adverse events are measured by questionnaires at return visits to the clinic, and automated text messages (SMSes) survey neck pain intensity and pain-related disability every week over one year.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study will provide clinicians and stakeholders much needed knowledge to plan medical care for subacute and long-lasting neck pain disorders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN01453590. Date of registration: 3 July 2014.

Cognitive-behavioural treatment for subacute and chronic neck pain

EDITORIAL NOTE

EXPRESSION OF CONCERN - Professor Marco Monticone has acted as the first author of this Cochrane review. Readers should be informed that multiple randomized controlled trials authored by Professor Monticone have been scrutinized because of potential research integrity issues, including irregularities in the data (doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002659). One of the trials suspected of research integrity issues is included in this Cochrane review (doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2287-y). The Cochrane editorial team has concerns about the trustworthiness of the trial data and is applying Cochrane's policy on managing potentially problematic studies (https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/editorial-policies#problematic-studies). No major differences to the conclusions of this review were found after performing a sensitivity analysis on the main outcomes, whether the potentially problematic trial was included or excluded. Cochrane will take further action as needed on this review once additional investigations into the potentially problematic trial are concluded. In the meantime, a new version of this review topic is underway with a new author team. The new review will supersede this review.

BACKGROUND

Although research on non-surgical treatments for neck pain (NP) is progressing, there remains uncertainty about the efficacy of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for this population. Addressing cognitive and behavioural factors might reduce the clinical burden and the costs of NP in society.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of CBT among individuals with subacute and chronic NP. Specifically, the following comparisons were investigated: (1) cognitive-behavioural therapy versus placebo, no treatment, or waiting list controls; (2) cognitive-behavioural therapy versus other types of interventions; (3) cognitive-behavioural therapy in addition to another intervention (e.g. physiotherapy) versus the other intervention alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to November 2014. Reference lists and citations of identified trials and relevant systematic reviews were screened.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the use of CBT in adults with subacute and chronic NP.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in each study and extracted the data. If sufficient homogeneity existed among studies in the pre-defined comparisons, a meta-analysis was performed. We determined the quality of the evidence for each comparison with the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 randomised trials (836 participants) in this review. Four trials (40%) had low risk of bias, the remaining 60% of trials had a high risk of bias.The quality of the evidence for the effects of CBT on patients with chronic NP was from very low to moderate. There was low quality evidence that CBT was better than no treatment for improving pain (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to -0.16), disability (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.01), and quality of life (SMD -0.93, 95% CI -1.54 to -0.31) at short-term follow-up, while there was from very low to low quality evidence of no effect on various psychological indicators at short-term follow-up. Both at short- and intermediate-term follow-up, CBT did not affect pain (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.21, low quality, at short-term follow-up; MD -0.89, 95% CI -2.73 to 0.94, low quality, at intermediate-term follow-up) or disability (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.20, moderate quality, at short-term follow-up; SMD -0.24, 95% CI-0.54 to 0.07, moderate quality, at intermediate-term follow-up) compared to other types of interventions. There was moderate quality evidence that CBT was better than other interventions for improving kinesiophobia at intermediate-term follow-up (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.08, I(2) = 0%). Finally, there was very low quality evidence that CBT in addition to another intervention did not differ from the other intervention alone in terms of effect on pain (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.02) and disability (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.36) at short-term follow-up.For patients with subacute NP, there was low quality evidence that CBT was better than other interventions at reducing pain at short-term follow-up (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.00), while no difference was found in terms of effect on disability (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.12) and kinesiophobia.None of the included studies reported on adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

With regard to chronic neck pain, CBT was found to be statistically significantly more effective for short-term pain reduction only when compared to no treatment, but these effects could not be considered clinically meaningful. When comparing both CBT to other types of interventions and CBT in addition to another intervention to the other intervention alone, no differences were found. For patients with subacute NP, CBT was significantly better than other types of interventions at reducing pain at short-term follow-up, while no difference was found for disability and kinesiophobia. Further research is recommended to investigate the long-term benefits and risks of CBT including for the different subgroups of subjects with NP.

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders

BACKGROUND

Neck pain is common, disabling and costly. Exercise is one treatment approach.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of exercises to improve pain, disability, function, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults with neck pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, MANTIS, ClinicalTrials.gov and three other computerized databases up to between January and May 2014 plus additional sources (reference checking, citation searching, contact with authors).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing single therapeutic exercise with a control for adults suffering from neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radiculopathy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted trial selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment and clinical relevance. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. Meta-analyses were performed for relative risk and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) after judging clinical and statistical heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-seven trials (2485 analyzed /3005 randomized participants) met our inclusion criteria.For acute neck pain only, no evidence was found.For chronic neck pain, moderate quality evidence supports 1) cervico-scapulothoracic and upper extremity strength training to improve pain of a moderate to large amount immediately post treatment [pooled SMD (SMDp) -0.71 (95% CI: -1.33 to -0.10)] and at short-term follow-up; 2) scapulothoracic and upper extremity endurance training for slight beneficial effect on pain at immediate post treatment and short-term follow-up; 3) combined cervical, shoulder and scapulothoracic strengthening and stretching exercises varied from a small to large magnitude of beneficial effect on pain at immediate post treatment [SMDp -0.33 (95% CI: -0.55 to -0.10)] and up to long-term follow-up and a medium magnitude of effect improving function at both immediate post treatment and at short-term follow-up [SMDp -0.45 (95%CI: -0.72 to -0.18)]; 4) cervico-scapulothoracic strengthening/stabilization exercises to improve pain and function at intermediate term [SMDp -14.90 (95% CI:-22.40 to -7.39)]; 5) Mindfulness exercises (Qigong) minimally improved function but not global perceived effect at short term. Low evidence suggests 1) breathing exercises; 2) general fitness training; 3) stretching alone; and 4) feedback exercises combined with pattern synchronization may not change pain or function at immediate post treatment to short-term follow-up. Very low evidence suggests neuromuscular eye-neck co-ordination/proprioceptive exercises may improve pain and function at short-term follow-up.For chronic cervicogenic headache, moderate quality evidence supports static-dynamic cervico-scapulothoracic strengthening/endurance exercises including pressure biofeedback immediate post treatment and probably improves pain, function and global perceived effect at long-term follow-up. Low grade evidence supports sustained natural apophyseal glides (SNAG) exercises.For acute radiculopathy, low quality evidence suggests a small benefit for pain reduction at immediate post treatment with cervical stretch/strengthening/stabilization exercises.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No high quality evidence was found, indicating that there is still uncertainty about the effectiveness of exercise for neck pain. Using specific strengthening exercises as a part of routine practice for chronic neck pain, cervicogenic headache and radiculopathy may be beneficial. Research showed the use of strengthening and endurance exercises for the cervico-scapulothoracic and shoulder may be beneficial in reducing pain and improving function. However, when only stretching exercises were used no beneficial effects may be expected. Future research should explore optimal dosage.

A behavioral medicine intervention for older women living alone with chronic pain - a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

To be an older woman, live alone, have chronic pain, and be dependent on support are all factors that may have an impact on daily life. One way to promote ability in everyday activities in people with pain-related conditions is to use individualized, integrated behavioral medicine in physical therapy interventions. How this kind of intervention works for older women living alone at home, with chronic pain, and dependent on formal care to manage their everyday lives has not been studied. The aim was to explore the feasibility of a study and to evaluate an individually tailored integrated behavioral medicine in physical therapy intervention for the target group of women.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was a 12-week randomized trial with two-group design. Primary effect outcomes were pain-related disability and morale. Secondary effect outcomes focused on pain-related beliefs, self-efficacy for exercise, concerns of falling, physical activity, and physical performance.

RESULTS

In total, 23 women agreed to participate in the study and 16 women completed the intervention. The results showed that the behavioral medicine in physical therapy intervention was feasible. No effects were seen on the primary effect outcomes. The experimental intervention seemed to improve the level of physical activity and self-efficacy for exercise. Some of the participants in both groups perceived that they could manage their everyday life in a better way after participation in the study.

CONCLUSION

Results from this study are encouraging, but the study procedure and interventions have to be refined and tested in a larger feasibility study to be able to evaluate the effects of these kinds of interventions on pain-related disability, pain-related beliefs, self-efficacy in everyday activities, and morale in the target group. Further research is also needed to refine and evaluate effects from individualized reminder routines, support to collect self-report data, safety procedures for balance training, and training of personnel to enhance self-efficacy.

Adverse events after manual therapy among patients seeking care for neck and/or back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Background

The safety of the manual treatment techniques such as spinal manipulation has been discussed and there is a need for more information about potential adverse events after manual therapy. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to investigate differences in occurrence of adverse events between three different combinations of manual treatment techniques used by manual therapists (i.e. chiropractors, naprapaths, osteopaths, physicians and physiotherapists) for patients seeking care for back and/or neck pain. In addition women and men were compared regarding the occurrence of adverse events.

Methods

Participants were recruited among patients, ages 18–65, seeking care at the educational clinic of the Scandinavian College of Naprapathic Manual Medicine in Stockholm. The patients (n = 767) were randomized to one of three treatment arms 1) manual therapy (i.e. spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, stretching and massage) (n = 249), 2) manual therapy excluding spinal manipulation (n = 258) and 3) manual therapy excluding stretching (n = 260). Treatments were provided by students in the seventh semester of total eight. Adverse events were measured with a questionnaire after each return visit and categorized in to five levels; 1) short minor, 2) long minor, 3) short moderate, 4) long moderate and 5) serious adverse events, based on the duration and/or severity of the event. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine the association between adverse event and treatments arms.

Results

The most common adverse events were soreness in muscles, increased pain and stiffness. No differences were found between the treatment arms concerning the occurrence of adverse event. Fifty-one percent of patients, who received at least three treatments, experienced at least one adverse event after one or more visits. Women more often had short moderate adverse events (OR = 2.19 (95% CI: 1.52-3.15)), and long moderate adverse events (OR = 2.49 (95% CI: 1.77-3.52)) compared to men.

Conclusion

Adverse events after manual therapy are common and transient. Excluding spinal manipulation or stretching do not affect the occurrence of adverse events. The most common adverse event is soreness in the muscles. Women reports more adverse events than men.

Trial registration

This trial was registered in a public registry (Current Controlled Trials) (ISRCTN92249294).

Psychological Care, Patient Education, Orthotics, Ergonomics and Prevention Strategies for Neck Pain: An Systematic Overview Update as Part of the ICON Project

OBJECTIVES

To conduct an overview on psychological interventions, orthoses, patient education, ergonomics, and 1⁰/2⁰ neck pain prevention for adults with acute-chronic neck pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerized databases and grey literature were searched (2006-2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pain, function/disability, global perceived effect, quality-of-life and patient satisfaction were retrieved.

DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS

Two independent authors selected articles, assessed risk of bias using AMSTAR tool and extracted data. The GRADE tool was used to evaluate the body of evidence and an external panel to provide critical review.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved 30 reviews (5-9 AMSTAR score) reporting on 75 RCTs with the following moderate GRADE evidence. For acute whiplash associated disorder (WAD), an education video in emergency rooms (1RCT, 405participants] favoured pain reduction at long-term follow-up thus helping 1 in 23 people [Standard Mean Difference: -0.44(95%CI: -0.66 to -0.23)). Use of a soft collar (2RCTs, 1278participants) was not beneficial in the long-term. For chronic neck pain, a mind-body intervention (2RCTs, 1 meta-analysis, 191participants) improved short-term pain/function in 1 of 4 or 6 participants. In workers, 2-minutes of daily scapula-thoracic endurance training (1RCT, 127participants) over 10 weeks was beneficial in 1 of 4 participants. A number of psychosocial interventions, workplace interventions, collar use and self-management educational strategies were not beneficial.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate evidence exists for quantifying beneficial and non-beneficial effects of a limited number of interventions for acute WAD and chronic neck pain. Larger trials with more rigorous controls need to target promising interventions.

Complementary and alternative medicine treatments for low back pain

Complementary and alternative medicine, often referred to as integrated medicine, is often used for the treatment of low back pain. This article presents 6 therapies (ie, behavioral treatment, acupuncture, manipulation, prolotherapy, neuroreflexotherapy, and herbal treatments), which are discussed in terms of the specifics of the modality, as well as the empirical evidence related to their effectiveness.

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders

BACKGROUND

Neck disorders are common, disabling and costly. The effectiveness of exercise as a physiotherapy intervention remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To improve pain, disability, function, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults with neck pain.

SEARCH METHODS

Computerized searches were conducted up to February 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included single therapeutic exercise randomized controlled trials for adults with neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radiculopathy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and clinical relevance. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Relative risk and standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated.  After judging clinical and statistical heterogeneity, we performed meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Six of the 21 selected trials had low risk of bias. Moderate quality evidence shows that combined cervical, scapulothoracic stretching and strengthening are beneficial for pain relief post treatment (pooled SMD -0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.60, -0.10) and at intermediate follow-up (pooled SMD -0.31, 95% CI: -0.57, -0.06), and improved function short term and intermediate term (pooled SMD -0.45, 95% CI: -0.72, -0.18) for chronic neck pain. Moderate quality evidence demonstrates patients are very satisfied with their care when treated with therapeutic exercise. Low quality evidence shows exercise is of benefit for pain in the short term and for function up to long-term follow-up for chronic neck pain. Low to moderate quality evidence shows that chronic neck pain does not respond to upper extremity stretching and strengthening or a general exercise program.Low to moderate quality evidence supports self-mobilization, craniocervical endurance and low load cervical-scapular endurance exercises in reducing pain, improving function and global perceived effect in the long term for subacute/chronic cervicogenic headache. Low quality evidence supports neck strengthening exercise in acute cervical radiculopathy for pain relief in the short term.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low to moderate quality evidence supports the use of specific cervical and scapular stretching and strengthening exercise for chronic neck pain immediately post treatment and intermediate term, and cervicogenic headaches in the long term. Low to moderate evidence suggests no benefit for some upper extremity stretching and strengthening exercises or a general exercise program.  Future trials should consider using an exercise classification system to establish similarity between protocols and adequate sample sizes. Factorial trials would help determine the active treatment agent within a treatment regimen where a standardized representation of dosage is essential. Standardized reporting of adverse events is needed for balancing the likelihood of treatment benefits over potential harms.

Ottawa Panel evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on therapeutic massage for neck pain

OBJECTIVE

To update evidence-based clinical practice guideline (EBCPG) on the use of massage compared to a control or other treatments for adults (>18 years) suffering from sub-acute and chronic neck pain.

METHODS

A literature search was performed from January 1, 1948 to December 31, 2010 for relevant articles. The Ottawa Panel created inclusion criteria focusing on high methodological quality and grading methods. Recommendations were assigned a grade (A, B, C, C+, D, D+, D-) based on strength of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 45 recommendations from ten articles were developed including 8 positive recommendations (6 grade A and 2 grade C+) and 23 neutral recommendations (12 grade C and 11 grade D).

DISCUSSION

Therapeutic massage can decrease pain, tenderness, and improve range of motion for sub-acute and chronic neck pain.

CONCLUSION

The Ottawa Panel was able to demonstrate that the massage interventions are effective for relieving immediate post-treatment neck pain symptoms, but data is insufficient for long-term effects.

The occurrence and severity of musculoskeletal disorders in Swedish military personnel during peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan

BACKGROUND

Not much is known about musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) in peacekeeping missions and to what extent such conditions are disabling. The objective of this study was to assess the occurrence and severity of MSD in Swedish military personnel on 6 months duty in Afghanistan.

METHODS

When returning from Afghanistan 440 individuals received a questionnaire including questions about pain conditions during their mission abroad. A manikin was used to mark the area(s) in pain and which body area had bothered them the most. A modified version of chronic pain questionnaire was used to assess pain and disability.

RESULTS

The response rate was 78% (n = 344). Any MSD during the 6 months was reported by 70% (95% CI 65-75). The three most bothersome areas were lumbar spine [17% (95% CI 13-20)], shoulders [17% (95% CI 13-21)] and lower extremities [14% (95% CI 11-18)]. 57% (95% CI 49-65) had grade I pain (low pain/low disability), 36% (95% CI 28-45) had grade II pain (high pain/low disability) and 5% (95% CI 3-10) had grade III pain (any pain/high disability). Of all MSD, more than half were new episodes since arrival and gradual onset was common.

CONCLUSION

Musculoskeletal pain was common during peacekeeping mission and gradual onset was dominating. Most often, it did not affect the daily activities. Nevertheless, it may be of important to consider broadening the medical disciplines onsite to provide preventive measures and treatment at an early stage, and thereby reducing the risk of chronicity.

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

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of interventions.

OBJECTIVE

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

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Evaluation of a treatment-based classification algorithm for low back pain: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Several studies have investigated criteria for classifying patients with low back pain (LBP) into treatment-based subgroups. A comprehensive algorithm was created to translate these criteria into a clinical decision-making guide.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the translation of the individual subgroup criteria into a comprehensive algorithm by studying the prevalence of patients meeting the criteria for each treatment subgroup and the reliability of the classification.

DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional, observational study.

METHODS

Two hundred fifty patients with acute or subacute LBP were recruited from the United States and Australia to participate in the study. Trained physical therapists performed standardized assessments on all participants. The researchers used these findings to classify participants into subgroups. Thirty-one participants were reassessed to determine interrater reliability of the algorithm decision.

RESULTS

Based on individual subgroup criteria, 25.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]=19.8%-30.6%) of the participants did not meet the criteria for any subgroup, 49.6% (95% CI=43.4%-55.8%) of the participants met the criteria for only one subgroup, and 25.2% (95% CI=19.8%-30.6%) of the participants met the criteria for more than one subgroup. The most common combination of subgroups was manipulation + specific exercise (68.4% of the participants who met the criteria for 2 subgroups). Reliability of the algorithm decision was moderate (kappa=0.52, 95% CI=0.27-0.77, percentage of agreement=67%).

LIMITATIONS

Due to a relatively small patient sample, reliability estimates are somewhat imprecise.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide important clinical data to guide future research and revisions to the algorithm. The finding that 25% of the participants met the criteria for more than one subgroup has important implications for the sequencing of treatments in the algorithm. Likewise, the finding that 25% of the participants did not meet the criteria for any subgroup provides important information regarding potential revisions to the algorithm's bottom table (which guides unclear classifications). Reliability of the algorithm is sufficient for clinical use.

Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Naprapathic manual therapy or conventional orthopedic care for outpatients on orthopedic waiting lists?: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Traditionally, orthopedic outpatient waiting lists are long, and many referrals are for conditions that do not respond to interventions available at an orthopedic outpatient department. The overall objective of this trial was to investigate whether it is possible to reduce orthopedic waiting lists through integrative medicine. Specific aims were to compare the effects of naprapathic manual therapy to conventional orthopedic care for outpatients with nonurgent musculoskeletal disorders unlikely to benefit from surgery regarding pain, physical function, and perceived recovery.

METHODS

Seventy-eight patients referred to an orthopedic outpatient department in Sweden were included in this pragmatic randomized controlled trial. The 2 interventions compared were naprapathic manual therapy (index group) and conventional orthopedic care (control group). Pain, physical function, and perceived recovery were measured by questionnaires at baseline and after 12, 24, and 52 weeks. The number of patients being discharged from the waiting lists and the level of agreement concerning management decisions between the naprapath and the orthopedists were also estimated.

RESULTS

After 52 weeks, statistically significant differences between the groups were found regarding impairment in pain, increased physical function, and regarding perceived recovery, favoring the index group. Sixty-two percent of the patients in the index group agreed to be discharged from the waiting list. The level of agreement concerning the management decisions was 80%.

DISCUSSION

The trial suggests that naprapathic manual therapy may be an alternative to consider for orthopedic outpatients with disorders unlikely to benefit from surgery.

NASS Contemporary Concepts in Spine Care: spinal manipulation therapy for acute low back pain

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Low back pain (LBP) continues to be a very prevalent, disabling, and costly spinal disorder. Numerous interventions are routinely used for symptoms of acute LBP. One of the most common approaches is spinal manipulation therapy (SMT).

PURPOSE

To assess the current scientific literature related to SMT for acute LBP.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Not applicable.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Not applicable.

DESIGN

Systematic review (SR).

METHODS

Literature was identified by searching MEDLINE using indexed and free text terms. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English, and SMT was administered to a group of patients with LBP of less than 3 months. RCTs included in two previous SRs were also screened, as were reference lists of included studies. Combined search results were screened for relevance by two reviewers. Data related to methods, risk of bias, harms, and results were abstracted independently by two reviewers.

RESULTS

The MEDLINE search returned 699 studies, of which six were included; an additional eight studies were identified from two previous SRs. There were 2,027 participants in the 14 included RCTs, which combined SMT with education (n=5), mobilization (MOB) (n=4), exercise (n=3), modalities (n=3), or medication (n=2). The groups that received SMT were most commonly compared with those receiving physical modalities (n=7), education (n=6), medication (n=5), exercise (n=5), MOB (n=3), or sham SMT (n=2). The most common providers of SMT were chiropractors (n=5) and physical therapists (n=5). Most studies (n=6) administered 5 to 10 sessions of SMT over 2 to 4 weeks for acute LBP. Outcomes measured included pain (n=10), function (n=10), health-care utilization (n=6), and global effect (n=5). Studies had a follow-up of less than 1 month (n=7), 3 months (n=1), 6 months (n=3), 1 year (n=2), or 2 years (n=1). When compared with various control groups, results for improvement in pain in the SMT groups were superior in three RCTs and equivalent in three RCTs in the short term, equivalent in four RCTs in the intermediate term, and equivalent in two RCTs in the long term. For improvement in function, results from the SMT groups were superior in one RCT and equivalent in four RCTs in the short term, superior in one RCT and equivalent in one RCT in the intermediate term, and equivalent in one RCT and inferior in one RCT in the long term. No harms related to SMT were reported in these RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

Several RCTs have been conducted to assess the efficacy of SMT for acute LBP using various methods. Results from most studies suggest that 5 to 10 sessions of SMT administered over 2 to 4 weeks achieve equivalent or superior improvement in pain and function when compared with other commonly used interventions, such as physical modalities, medication, education, or exercise, for short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up. Spine care clinicians should discuss the role of SMT as a treatment option for patients with acute LBP who do not find adequate symptomatic relief with self-care and education alone.

Conservative interventions provide short-term relief for non-specific neck pain: a systematic review

QUESTION

Which interventions for non-specific neck pain are effective in reducing pain or disability?

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with non-specific neck pain.

INTERVENTION

All interventions for neck pain that were evaluated in trials with a placebo, minimal- or no-intervention control.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Pain and disability outcomes (0-100 scale) at the conclusion of a course of treatment (short term), and in the medium (3 to 9 months) and long (> 9 months) term.

RESULTS

33 trials were identified. The interventions with significant short-term effects on pain were manipulation (MD -22, 95% CI -32 to -11), multimodal intervention (MD -21, 95% CI -34 to -7), specific exercise (MD -12, 95% CI -22 to -2), combination orphenadrine/paracetamol (MD -17, 95% CI -32 to -2), and manual therapy (MD -12, 95% CI -16 to -7). There was a significant short-term effect on disability for acupuncture (MD -8, 95% CI -13 to -2) and manual therapy (MD -6, 95% CI -11 to -2). Treatment with laser therapy resulted in better pain outcomes at medium-term follow-up but not at short-term follow-up. No other intervention demonstrated medium- or long-term effects.

CONCLUSION

Some conservative interventions for neck pain are effective in the short term. Few interventions that have been investigated have shown longer term effects that are better than placebo or minimal intervention.

How is recovery from low back pain measured? A systematic review of the literature

Recovery is commonly used as an outcome measure in low back pain (LBP) research. There is, however, no accepted definition of what recovery involves or guidance as to how it should be measured. The objective of the study was designed to appraise the LBP literature from the last 10 years to review the methods used to measure recovery. The research design includes electronic searches of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane database of clinical trials and PEDro from the beginning of 1999 to December 2008. All prospective studies of subjects with non-specific LBP that measured recovery as an outcome were included. The way in which recovery was measured was extracted and categorised according to the domain used to assess recovery. Eighty-two included studies used 66 different measures of recovery. Fifty-nine of the measures did not appear in more than one study. Seventeen measures used pain as a proxy for recovery, seven used disability or function and seventeen were based on a combination of two or more constructs. There were nine single-item recovery rating scales. Eleven studies used a global change scale that included an anchor of 'completely recovered'. Three measures used return to work as the recovery criterion, two used time to insurance claim closure and six used physical performance. In conclusion, almost every study that measured recovery from LBP in the last 10 years did so differently. This lack of consistency makes interpretation and comparison of the LBP literature problematic. It is likely that the failure to use a standardised measure of recovery is due to the absence of an established definition, and highlights the need for such a definition in back pain research.

Critical appraisal of clinical prediction rules that aim to optimize treatment selection for musculoskeletal conditions

BACKGROUND

Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) for treatment selection in musculoskeletal conditions have become increasingly popular.

PURPOSE

The purposes of this review are: (1) to critically appraise studies evaluating CPRs and (2) to consider the clinical utility and stage of development of each CPR.

DATA SOURCES

Pertinent databases were searched up to April 2009. Studies aiming to develop or evaluate a CPR for treatment response in musculoskeletal conditions were included. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility and extracted methodological data, stage of development, and effect size information. STUDY SELECTION/DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Eighteen studies, evaluating 15 separate CPRs, were included. Fourteen CPRs were at the derivation stage, and all CPRs had been evaluated using a single-arm trial design, thus it is not possible to determine whether the CPRs identify prognosis (regardless of treatment) or specifically response to treatment. The CPR at the validation stage investigated spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for low back pain and had been evaluated in 2 separate well-conducted randomized controlled trials. The first trial demonstrated a clinically meaningful effect of the SMT CPR; the additional effect from SMT in patients "positive-on-the-rule" was 15 Oswestry disability units at week 1 and 9 units at week 4. The second trial showed that the CPR did not generalize to a different clinical setting, including a modified treatment.

LIMITATIONS

Due to differences in methods of reporting and journal publication restraints (eg, word count restrictions), some quality assessment items may have been completed in the included studies, but not captured in this review.

CONCLUSIONS

There is, at present, little evidence that CPRs can be used to predict effects of treatment for musculoskeletal conditions. The principal problem is that most studies use designs that cannot differentiate between predictors of response to treatment and general predictors of outcome. Only 1 CPR has been evaluated within an RCT designed to predict response to treatment. Validation of these rules is imperative to allow clinical application.

Adverse events associated with the use of cervical manipulation and mobilization for the treatment of neck pain in adults: a systematic review

Adverse events (AE) are a concern for practitioners utilizing cervical manipulation or mobilization. While efficacious, these techniques are associated with rare but serious adverse events. Five bibliographic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro, AMED, EMBASE) and the gray literature were searched from 1998 to 2009 for any AE associated with cervical manipulation or mobilization for neck pain. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective or cross-sectional observational studies were included. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection, method quality assessment and data abstraction. Pooled relative risks (RR) were calculated. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane system, a modified Critical Appraisal Skills Program form and the McHarm scale to assess the reporting of harms. Seventeen of 76 identified citations resulted in no major AE. Two pooled estimates for minor AE found transient neurological symptoms [RR 1.96 (95% CI: 1.09-3.54) p < 0.05]; and increased neck pain [RR 1.23 (95% CI: 0.85-1.77) p > .05]. Forty-four studies (58%) were excluded for not reporting AE. No definitive conclusions can be made due to a small number of studies, weak association, moderate study quality, and notable ascertainment bias. Improved reporting of AE in manual therapy trials as recommended by the CONSORT statement extension on harms reporting is warranted.

The long-term effects of naprapathic manual therapy on back and neck pain - results from a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Back and neck pain are very common, disabling and recurrent disorders in the general population and the knowledge of long-term effect of treatments are sparse. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term effects (up to one year) of naprapathic manual therapy and evidence-based advice on staying active regarding non-specific back and/or neck pain. Naprapathy, a health profession mainly practiced in Sweden, Finland, Norway and in the USA, is characterized by a combination of manual musculoskeletal manipulations, aiming to decrease pain and disability in the neuromusculoskeletal system.

METHODS

Subjects with non-specific pain/disability in the back and/or neck lasting for at least two weeks (n = 409), recruited at public companies in Sweden, were included in this pragmatic randomized controlled trial. The two interventions compared were naprapathic manual therapy such as spinal manipulation/mobilization, massage and stretching, (Index Group), and advice to stay active and on how to cope with pain, provided by a physician (Control Group). Pain intensity, disability and health status were measured by questionnaires.

RESULTS

89% completed the 26-week follow-up and 85% the 52-week follow-up. A higher proportion in the Index Group had a clinically important decrease in pain (risk difference (RD) = 21%, 95% CI: 10-30) and disability (RD = 11%, 95% CI: 4-22) at 26-week, as well as at 52-week follow-ups (pain: RD = 17%, 95% CI: 7-27 and disability: RD = 17%, 95% CI: 5-28). The differences between the groups in pain and disability considered over one year were statistically significant favoring naprapathy (p < or = 0.005). There were also significant differences in improvement in bodily pain and social function (subscales of SF-36 health status) favoring the Index Group.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined manual therapy, like naprapathy, is effective in the short and in the long term, and might be considered for patients with non-specific back and/or neck pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56954776.

Exploring integrative medicine for back and neck pain - a pragmatic randomised clinical pilot trial

BACKGROUND

A model for integrative medicine (IM) adapted to Swedish primary care was previously developed. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of a pragmatic randomised clinical trial to investigate the effectiveness of the IM model versus conventional primary care in the management of patients with non-specific back/neck pain. Specific objectives included the exploration of recruitment and retention rates, patient and care characteristics, clinical differences and effect sizes between groups, selected outcome measures and power calculations to inform the basis of a full-scale trial.

METHODS

Eighty patients with back/neck pain of at least two weeks duration were randomised to the two types of care. Outcome measures were standardised health related quality of life (the eight domains of SF-36) complemented by a set of exploratory "IM tailored" outcomes targeting self-rated disability, stress and well-being (0-10 scales); days in pain (0-14); and the use of analgesics and health care over the last two weeks (yes/no). Data on clinical management were derived from medical records. Outcome changes from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks were used to explore the differences between the groups.

RESULTS

Seventy-five percent (80/107) of screened patients in general practice were eligible and feasible to enroll into the trial. Eighty-two percent (36/44) of the integrative and 75% (27/36) of the conventional care group completed follow-up after 16 weeks. Most patients had back/neck pain of at least three months duration. Conventional care typically comprised advice and prescription of analgesics, occasionally complemented with sick leave or a written referral to physiotherapy. IM care generally integrated seven treatment sessions from two different types of complementary therapies with conventional care over ten weeks. The study was underpowered to detect any statistically significant differences between the groups. One SF-36 domain showed a clinically relevant difference between groups that was also supported by a small distribution based effect size, i.e. vitality (-7.3 points, Cohen's d -0.34) which was in favour of IM. There was a clinical trend between groups showing that IM contributed to less use of prescription and non-prescription analgesics (-11.7 and - 9.7 percent units respectively) compared to conventional care. Exploring clinically relevant differences and the SF-36 as the basis for a main outcome measure showed that the sample sizes needed per arm to adequately power a full-scale trial depended on the target domain, i.e. ranging from 60 (vitality) to 339 (role emotion).

CONCLUSION

This pilot study investigated the implementation of IM in the primary care management of non-specific back and neck pain. Recruiting patients and implementing IM in routine clinical practice was feasible. The results warrant further exploration into different perspectives and relevant combinations of outcome measures including the use of health resources, drugs and cost-effectiveness to help understand the relevance of IM in primary care. Future research should prioritize larger scale studies considering variability, pain duration and small to moderate treatment effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trials NCT00565942.