Similar Effects of Thrust and Nonthrust Spinal Manipulation Found in Adults With Subacute and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Controlled Trial With Adaptive Allocation

A critical review of the role of manual therapy in the treatment of individuals with low back pain

The number of low back pain (LBP) cases is projected to increase to more than 800 million by 2050. To address the substantial burden of disease associated with this rise in prevalence, effective treatments are needed. While clinical practice guidelines (CPG) consistently recommend non-pharmacological therapies as first-line treatments, recommendations regarding manual therapy (MT) in treating low back pain vary. The goal of this narrative review was to critically summarize the available evidence for MT behind these recommendations, to scrutinize its mechanisms of action, and propose some actionable steps for clinicians on how this knowledge can be integrated into a person-centered approach. Despite disparate recommendations from CPG, MT is as effective as other available treatments and may be offered to patients with LBP, especially as part of a treatment package with exercise and education. Most of the effects of MT are not specific to the technique. MT and other interventions share several mechanisms of action that mediate treatment success. These mechanisms can encompass patients' expectations, prior experiences, beliefs and convictions, epistemic trust, and nonspecific contextual effects. Although MT is safer than opioids for patients with LBP, this alone is insufficient. Our goal is to encourage clinicians to shift away from outdated and refuted ideas in MT and embrace a person-centered approach rooted in a comprehensive biopsychosocial framework while incorporating patients' beliefs, addressing illness behaviors, and seeking to understand each patient's journey.

Management of low back pain and lumbosacral radicular syndrome: the Guideline of the Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF)

BACKGROUND

Significant progress and new insights have been gained since the Dutch Physical Therapy guideline on low back pain (LBP) in 2013 and the Cesar en Mensendieck guideline in 2009, necessitating an update of these guidelines.

AIM

To update and develop an evidence-based guideline for the comprehensive management of LBP and lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS) without serious specific conditions (red flags) for Dutch physical therapists and Cesar and Mensendieck Therapists.

DESIGN

Clinical practice guideline.

SETTING

Inpatient and outpatient.

POPULATION

Adults with LBP and/or LRS.

METHODS

Clinically relevant questions were identified based on perceived barriers in current practice of physical therapy. All clinical questions were answered using published guidelines, systematic reviews, narrative reviews or systematic reviews performed by the project group. Recommendations were formulated based on evidence and additional considerations, as described in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision framework. Patients participated in every phase.

RESULTS

The guideline describes a comprehensive assessment based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Set for LBP and LRS, including the identification of alarm symptoms and red flags. Patients are assigned to three treatment profiles (low, moderate and high risk of persistent symptoms) based on prognostic factors for persistent LBP. The guideline recommends offering simple and less intensive support to people who are likely to recover quickly (low-risk profile) and more complex and intensive support to people with a moderate or high risk of persistent complaints. Criteria for initiating and discontinuing physical therapy, and referral to a general practitioner are specified. Recommendations are formulated for information and advice, measurement instruments, active and passive interventions and behavior-oriented treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

An evidence based physical therapy guideline for the management of patients with LBP and LRS without red flags for physical therapists and Cesar and Mensendieck therapists was developed. Cornerstones of physical therapy assessment and treatment are risk stratification, shared decision-making, information and advice, and exercises.

CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT

This guideline provides guidance for clinicians and patients to optimize treatment outcomes in patients with LBP and LRS and offers transparency for other healthcare providers and stakeholders.

In trials of physiotherapy for chronic low back pain, clinical relevance is rarely interpreted, with great heterogeneity in the frameworks and thresholds used: a meta-research study

QUESTIONS

How do authors of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) interpret the clinical relevance of the effects of physiotherapy interventions compared with no intervention on pain intensity, physical function and time to recovery in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP)? How can the clinical relevance be re-interpreted based on the available smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) threshold for this comparison? Are the studies in this field adequately powered?

DESIGN

Cross-sectional meta-research study.

PARTICIPANTS

People with CLBP.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Pain intensity, physical function and time to recovery.

RESULTS

This review included 23 RCTs with 1,645 participants. Twenty-two and 18 studies were included in the analysis of pain intensity and physical function, respectively. No studies investigated time to recovery. Sixteen studies reported varying thresholds to interpret clinical relevance for physical function and pain intensity. Discrepancies between interpretation using the minimal important difference and SWE values were observed in five studies. Study power ranged from 9% to 98%, with only four studies having a power > 80%.

CONCLUSION

Little attention is given to the interpretation of clinical relevance in RCTs comparing physiotherapy with no intervention in CLBP, with great heterogeneity in the frameworks and thresholds used. Future trials should inform patients and clinicians on whether the effect of an intervention is large enough to be worthwhile, using a reliable and comprehensive approach like available SWE estimates.

REGISTRATION

medRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.14.22283454.

Partial mixed neuropathy of the fourth lumbar spinal nerve misdiagnosed as "shin splints."

A case of anteromedial leg pain diagnosed and treated for 10 years as "shin splints" (medial tibial stress syndrome) is described. A history and examination was performed focused on anatomy, biomechanics, and peripheral nerves. Detailed sensory testing was performed in the painful area, and imaging was obtained to confirm the diagnosis. The clinical investigation was consistent with dynamic stenosis of the left L4-5 intervertebral foramen, causing a mixed partial mononeuropathy of the L4 spinal nerve that presented as pain and hypersensitivity in the anteromedial shin. Manual therapy maneuvers intended to open the intervertebral foramen led to resolution of the pain and sensory deficits. After three additional treatments performed within a month, resolution was maintained for >3 years. This case highlights how concepts from preclinical studies, coupled with basic anatomical, neurological, and biomechanical investigations, can be critical for accurate diagnosis and treatment for a case previously considered unresponsive to care.

Clinician approaches to spinal manipulation for persistent spinal pain after lumbar surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data

BACKGROUND

This review aimed to identify variables influencing clinicians' application of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for persistent spine pain after lumbar surgery (PSPS-2). We hypothesized markers of reduced clinical/surgical complexity would be associated with greater odds of applying SMT to the lumbar region, use of manual-thrust lumbar SMT, and SMT within 1-year post-surgery as primary outcomes; and chiropractors would have increased odds of using lumbar manual-thrust-SMT compared to other practitioners.

METHODS

Per our published protocol, observational studies describing adults receiving SMT for PSPS-2 were included. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, OVID, PEDro, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were searched from inception to January 6, 2022. Individual patient data (IPD) were requested from contact authors when needed for selection criteria. Data extraction and a customized risk-of-bias rubric were completed in duplicate. Odds ratios (ORs) for primary outcomes were calculated using binary logistic regressions, with covariates including age, sex, symptom distribution, provider, motion segments, spinal implant, and surgery-to-SMT interval.

RESULTS

71 articles were included describing 103 patients (mean age 52 ± 15, 55% male). The most common surgeries were laminectomy (40%), fusion (34%), and discectomy (29%). Lumbar SMT was used in 85% of patients; and of these patients was non-manual-thrust in 59%, manual-thrust in 33%, and unclear in 8%. Clinicians were most often chiropractors (68%). SMT was used > 1-year post-surgery in 66% of cases. While no primary outcomes reached significance, non-reduced motion segments approached significance for predicting use of lumbar-manual-thrust SMT (OR 9.07 [0.97-84.64], P = 0.053). Chiropractors were significantly more likely to use lumbar-manual-thrust SMT (OR 32.26 [3.17-327.98], P = 0.003). A sensitivity analysis omitting high risk-of-bias cases (missing ≥ 25% IPD) revealed similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians using SMT for PSPS-2 most often apply non-manual-thrust SMT to the lumbar spine, while chiropractors are more likely to use lumbar-manual-thrust SMT relative to other providers. As non-manual-thrust SMT may be gentler, the proclivity towards this technique suggests providers are cautious when applying SMT after lumbar surgery. Unmeasured variables such as patient or clinician preferences, or limited sample size may have influenced our findings. Large observational studies and/or international surveys are needed for an improved understanding of SMT use for PSPS-2. Systematic review registration PROSPERO (CRD42021250039).

Researcher's Perspective on Musculoskeletal Conditions in Primary Care Physiotherapy Units through the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF): A Scoping Review

(1) Background: Musculoskeletal disorders are the second cause of disability in the world. The International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF) is a tool for systematically describing functioning. Outcome measures for musculoskeletal disorders and functioning concepts embedded in them have not been described under the ICF paradigm. The objective of this scoping review was to identify ICF categories representing the researcher's perspective and to compare them with the ICF core set for post-acute musculoskeletal conditions. (2) Methods: This review was conducted as follows: (a) literature search using MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus databases; (b) study selection applying inclusion criteria (PICOS): musculoskeletal conditions in primary care, application of physiotherapy as a treatment, outcome measures related to functioning, and experimental or observational studies conducted in Western countries during the last 10 years; (c) extraction of relevant concepts; (d) linkage to the ICF; (e) frequency analysis; and (f) comparison with the ICF core set. (3) Results: From 540 studies identified, a total of 51 were included, and 108 outcome measures were extracted. In the ICF linking process, 147 ICF categories were identified. Analysis of data showed that 84.2% of the categories in the ICF core set for post-acute musculoskeletal conditions can be covered by the outcome measures analyzed. Sixty-eight relevant additional ICF categories were identified. (4) Conclusion: Outcome measures analyzed partially represent the ICF core set taken as a reference. The identification of additional categories calls into question the applicability of this core set in primary care physiotherapy units.

Over Half of Clinical Trials of Mobilization and Manipulation for Patients With Low Back Pain May Have Limited Real-World Applicability: A Systematic Review of 132 Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the existing body of trials assessing manual therapy for low back pain (LBP) to determine where it falls on the efficacyeffectiveness continuum.

DESIGN

Methodology systematic review.

LITERATURE SEARCH

PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) were searched for trials published between January 1, 2000, and April 30, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized clinical trials investigating joint mobilization and manipulation for adults with nonspecific LBP that were available in English.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We used the Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool to score included trials across 4 domains: participant characteristics, trial setting, flexibility of intervention(s), and clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention(s). Proportions of trials with greater emphasis on efficacy or effectiveness were calculated for each domain.

RESULTS

Of the 132 included trials, a greater proportion emphasized efficacy than effectiveness for domains participant characteristics (50% vs 38%), trial setting (71% vs 20%), and flexibility of intervention(s) (61% vs 25%). The domain clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention(s) had lower emphasis on efficacy (41% vs 50%).

CONCLUSION

Most trials investigating manual therapy for LBP lack pragmatism across the RITES domains (ie, they emphasize efficacy). To improve real-world implementation, more research emphasizing effectiveness is needed. This could be accomplished by recruiting from more diverse participant pools, involving multiple centers that reflect common clinical practice settings, involving clinicians with a variety of backgrounds/experience, and allowing flexibility in how interventions are delivered. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(8):532-545. Epub: 19 June 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10962.

Formulation of Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) clinical practice guideline for the management of low back pain- the revised 2019 edition

BACKGROUND

The latest clinical guidelines are mandatory for physicians to follow when practicing evidence-based medicine in the treatment of low back pain. Those guidelines should target not only Japanese board-certified orthopaedic surgeons, but also primary physicians, and they should be prepared based entirely on evidence-based medicine. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association Low Back Pain guideline committee decided to update the guideline and launched the formulation committee. The purpose of this study was to describe the formulation we implemented for the revision of the guideline with the latest data of evidence-based medicine.

METHODS

The Japanese Orthopaedic Association Low Back Pain guideline formulation committee revised the previous guideline based on a method for preparing clinical guidelines in Japan proposed by Medical Information Network Distribution Service Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. Two key phrases, "body of evidence" and "benefit and harm balance" were focused on in the revised version. Background and clinical questions were determined, followed by literature search related to each question. Appropriate articles were selected from all the searched literature. Structured abstracts were prepared, and then meta-analyses were performed. The strength of both the body of evidence and the recommendation was decided by the committee members.

RESULTS

Nine background and nine clinical qvuestions were determined. For each clinical question, outcomes from the literature were collected and meta-analysis was performed. Answers and explanations were described for each clinical question, and the strength of the recommendation was decided. For background questions, the recommendations were described based on previous literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2019 clinical practice guideline for the management of low back pain was completed according to the latest evidence-based medicine. We strongly hope that this guideline serves as a benchmark for all physicians, as well as patients, in the management of low back pain.

Clinical Effectiveness and Efficacy of Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation for Spine Pain

Spine pain is a highly prevalent condition affecting over 11% of the world's population. It is the single leading cause of activity limitation and ranks fourth in years lost to disability globally, representing a significant personal, social, and economic burden. For the vast majority of patients with back and neck pain, a specific pathology cannot be identified as the cause for their pain, which is then labeled as non-specific. In a growing proportion of these cases, pain persists beyond 3 months and is referred to as chronic primary back or neck pain. To decrease the global burden of spine pain, current data suggest that a conservative approach may be preferable. One of the conservative management options available is spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), the main intervention used by chiropractors and other manual therapists. The aim of this narrative review is to highlight the most relevant and up-to-date evidence on the effectiveness (as it compares to other interventions in more pragmatic settings) and efficacy (as it compares to inactive controls under highly controlled conditions) of SMT for the management of neck pain and low back pain. Additionally, a perspective on the current recommendations on SMT for spine pain and the needs for future research will be provided. In summary, SMT may be as effective as other recommended therapies for the management of non-specific and chronic primary spine pain, including standard medical care or physical therapy. Currently, SMT is recommended in combination with exercise for neck pain as part of a multimodal approach. It may also be recommended as a frontline intervention for low back pain. Despite some remaining discrepancies, current clinical practice guidelines almost universally recommend the use of SMT for spine pain. Due to the low quality of evidence, the efficacy of SMT compared with a placebo or no treatment remains uncertain. Therefore, future research is needed to clarify the specific effects of SMT to further validate this intervention. In addition, factors that predict these effects remain to be determined to target patients who are more likely to obtain positive outcomes from SMT.

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.

Comparison between high-velocity low-amplitude manipulation and muscle energy technique on pain and trunk neuromuscular postural control in male workers with chronic low back pain: A randomised crossover trial

BACKGROUND

A therapeutic recommendation for restoring function in individuals with chronic low back pain (CLBP) is manual therapy through manipulative spinal or muscle energy techniques.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of two osteopathic manipulative techniques on clinical low back symptoms and trunk neuromuscular postural control in male workers with CLBP.

METHOD

Ten male workers with CLBP were randomly allocated to two groups: high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation or muscle energy techniques (MET). Each group received one therapy per week for both techniques during 7 weeks of treatment. Pain and function were measured by using the Numeric Pain-Rating Scale, the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. The lumbar flexibility was assessed by Modified Schober Test. Electromyography (EMG) and force platform measurements were used for evaluation of trunk muscular activation and postural balance, respectively at three different times: baseline, post intervention, and 15 days later.

RESULTS

Both techniques were effective (p < 0.01) in reducing pain with large clinical differences (-1.8 to -2.8) across immediate and after 15 days. However, no significant effect between groups and times was found for other variables, namely neuromuscular activation and postural balance measures.

CONCLUSION

Both techniques (HVLA thrust manipulation and MET) were effective in reducing back pain immediately and 15 days later. Neither technique changed the trunk neuromuscular activation patterns nor postural balance in male workers with LBP.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

These results may facilitate clinical decision-making for CLBP management in physiotherapy programs.

Effect of Spinal Manipulative and Mobilization Therapies in Young Adults With Mild to Moderate Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common reasons for seeking medical care. Manual therapy is a common treatment of LBP, yet few studies have directly compared the effectiveness of thrust (spinal manipulation) vs nonthrust (spinal mobilization) techniques.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization at reducing pain and disability compared with a placebo control group (sham cold laser) in a cohort of young adults with chronic LBP.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This single-blinded (investigator-blinded), placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial with 3 treatment groups was conducted at the Ohio Musculoskeletal and Neurological Institute at Ohio University from June 1, 2013, to August 31, 2017. Of 4903 adult patients assessed for eligibility, 4741 did not meet inclusion criteria, and 162 patients with chronic LBP qualified for randomization to 1 of 3 treatment groups. Recruitment began on June 1, 2013, and the primary completion date was August 31, 2017. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2017, to January 20, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants received 6 treatment sessions of (1) spinal manipulation, (2) spinal mobilization, or (3) sham cold laser therapy (placebo) during a 3-week period.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Coprimary outcome measures were the change from baseline in Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) score over the last 7 days and the change in disability assessed with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater disability) 48 to 72 hours after completion of the 6 treatments.

RESULTS

A total of 162 participants (mean [SD] age, 25.0 [6.2] years; 92 women [57%]) with chronic LBP (mean [SD] NPRS score, 4.3 [2.6] on a 1-10 scale, with higher scores indicating greater pain) were randomized. Fifty-four participants were randomized to the spinal manipulation group, 54 to the spinal mobilization group, and 54 to the placebo group. There were no significant group differences for sex, age, body mass index, duration of LBP symptoms, depression, fear avoidance, current pain, average pain over the last 7 days, and self-reported disability. At the primary end point, there was no significant difference in change in pain scores between spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization (0.24 [95% CI, -0.38 to 0.86]; P = .45), spinal manipulation and placebo (-0.03 [95% CI, -0.65 to 0.59]; P = .92), or spinal mobilization and placebo (-0.26 [95% CI, -0.38 to 0.85]; P = .39). There was no significant difference in change in self-reported disability scores between spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization (-1.00 [95% CI, -2.27 to 0.36]; P = .14), spinal manipulation and placebo (-0.07 [95% CI, -1.43 to 1.29]; P = .92) or spinal mobilization and placebo (0.93 [95% CI, -0.41 to 2.29]; P = .17).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial, neither spinal manipulation nor spinal mobilization appeared to be effective treatments for mild to moderate chronic LBP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01854892.

Physiological Responses Induced by Manual Therapy in Animal Models: A Scoping Review

Background: Physiological responses related to manual therapy (MT) treatment have been investigated over decades using various animal models. However, these studies have not been compiled and their collective findings appraised. The purpose of this scoping review was to assess current scientific knowledge on the physiological responses related to MT and/or simulated MT procedures in animal models so as to act as a resource to better inform future mechanistic and clinical research incorporating these therapeutic interventions.

Methods: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane, Embase, and Index of Chiropractic Literature (ICL) were searched from database inception to August 2019. Eligible studies were: (a) published in English; (b) non-cadaveric animal-based; (c) original data studies; (d) included a form of MT or simulated MT as treatment; (e) included quantification of at least one delivery parameter of MT treatment; (f) quantification of at least one physiological measure that could potentially contribute to therapeutic mechanisms of action of the MT. MT studies were categorized according to three main intervention types: (1) mobilization; (2) manipulation; and (3) massage. Two-phase screening procedures were conducted by a pair of independent reviewers, data were extracted from eligible studies and qualitatively reported.

Results: The literature search resulted in 231 articles of which 78 met inclusion criteria and were sorted by intervention type. Joint mobilization induced changes in nociceptive response and inflammatory profile, gene expression, receptor activation, neurotransmitter release and enzymatic activity. Spinal manipulation produced changes in muscle spindle response, nocifensive reflex response and neuronal activity, electromyography, and immunologic response. Physiological changes associated with massage therapy included autonomic, circulatory, lymphatic and immunologic functions, visceral response, gene expression, neuroanatomy, function and pathology, and cellular response to in vitro simulated massage.

Conclusion: Pre-clinical research supports an association between MT physiological response and multiple potential short-term MT therapeutic mechanisms. Optimization of MT delivery and/or treatment efficacy will require additional preclinical investigation in which MT delivery parameters are controlled and reported using pathological and/or chronic pain models that mimic neuromusculoskeletal conditions for which MT has demonstrated clinical benefit.

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

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to develop a clinical decision aid for chiropractic management of common conditions causing low back pain (LBP) in veterans receiving treatment in US Veterans Affairs (VA) health care facilities.

METHODS

A consensus study using an online, modified Delphi technique and Research Electronic Data Capture web application was conducted among VA doctors of chiropractic. Investigators reviewed the scientific literature pertaining to diagnosis and treatment of nonsurgical, neuromusculoskeletal LBP. Thirty seed statements summarizing evidence for chiropractic management, a graphical stepped management tool outlining diagnosis-informed treatment approaches, and support materials were then reviewed by an expert advisory committee. Email notifications invited 113 VA chiropractic clinicians to participate as Delphi panelists. Panelists rated the appropriateness of the seed statements and the stepped process on a 1-to-9 scale using the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles methodology. Statements were accepted when both the median rating and 80% of all ratings occurred within the highly appropriate range.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine panelists (74% male) with a mean (standard deviation) age of 46 (11) years and clinical experience of 17 (11) years participated in the study. Accepted statements addressed included (1) essential components of chiropractic care, (2) treatments for conditions causing or contributing to LBP, (3) spinal manipulation mechanisms, (4) descriptions and mechanisms of commonly used chiropractic interventions, and (5) a graphical stepped clinical management tool.

CONCLUSION

This study group produced a chiropractic clinical decision aid for LBP management, which can be used to support evidence-based care decisions for veterans with LBP.

The efficacy and fidelity of clinical interventions used to reduce posterior shoulder tightness: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Posterior shoulder tightness (PST) has been implicated in the etiology of numerous shoulder disorders and is a source of stiffness in both postoperative and nonsurgical cohorts. Identifying efficacious interventions to address PST has the potential to impact patient outcomes in both operative and nonoperative cohorts. Our purpose was to analyze the efficacy of nonoperative clinician-assisted interventions used to mitigate PST.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Relevant studies were assessed for inclusion, and selected studies were identified from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases by a biomedical librarian. Data extracted from the selected studies underwent quality appraisal using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation analysis; fidelity assessment; and meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The search identified 374 studies, with 13 ultimately retained. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation analysis revealed areas of concern regarding consistency and imprecision of reporting within the included studies overall. Treatment fidelity assessment showed that only 3 of the 13 studies received a rating of good to excellent, indicating a high risk of bias. When clinician-assisted interventions were compared with no treatment, meta-analysis showed a moderate effect size in favor of clinician-assisted interventions for improving range of motion. When a multimodal treatment approach for PST was compared with active comparator interventions, a small effect size was present for improving range of motion in favor of the multimodal approach.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of clinician-assisted interventions for reducing PST was identified when using both a single treatment and multimodal treatments. Current evidence focuses mostly on populations with PST who were not seeking care and the immediate- to short-term effects of clinician-assisted interventions, which may limit generalization of findings.

A randomized clinical trial comparing non-thrust manipulation with segmental and distal dry needling on pain, disability, and rate of recovery for patients with non-specific low back pain

Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the within and between-group effects of segmental and distal dry needling (DN) without needle manipulation to a semi-standardized non-thrust manipulation (NTM) targeting the symptomatic spinal level for patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). Methods: Sixty-five patients with NSLBP were randomized to receive either DN (n = 30) or NTM (n = 35) for six sessions over 3 weeks. Outcomes collected included the oswestry disability index (ODI), patient specific functional scale (PSFS), numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), and pain pressure thresholds (PPT). At discharge, patients perceived recovery was assessed. Results: A two-way mixed model ANOVA demonstrated that there was no group*time interaction for PSFS (p = 0.26), ODI (p = 0.57), NPRS (p = 0.69), and PPT (p = 0.51). There was significant within group effects for PSFS (3.1 [2.4, 3.8], p = 0.018), ODI (14.5% [10.0%, 19.0%], p = 0.015), NPRS (2.2 [1.5, 2.8], p = 0.009), but not for PPT (3.3 [0.5, 6.0], p = 0.20). Discussion: The between-group effects were neither clinically nor statistically significant. The within group effects were both significant and exceeded the reported minimum clinically important differences for the outcomes tools except the PPT. DN and NTM produced comparable outcomes in this sample of patients with NSLBP. Level of evidence: 1b.

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.

A randomized control trial to determine the effectiveness and physiological effects of spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization compared to each other and a sham condition in patients with chronic low back pain: Study protocol for The RELIEF Study

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common reasons for seeking medical care. Manipulative therapies are a common treatment for LBP. Few studies have compared the effectiveness of different types of manipulative therapies. Moreover, the physiologic mechanisms underlying these treatments are not fully understood. Herein, we present the study protocol for The Researching the Effectiveness of Lumbar Interventions for Enhancing Function Study (The RELIEF Study).

METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN

The RELIEF Study is a Phase II RCT with a nested mechanistic design. It is a single-blinded, sham-controlled study to test the mechanisms and effectiveness of two manual therapy techniques applied to individuals (n = 162; 18-45 years of age) with chronic LBP. The clinical outcome data from the mechanistic component will be pooled across experiments to permit an exploratory Phase II RCT investigating the effectiveness. Participants will be randomized into one of three separate experiments that constitute the mechanistic component to determine the muscular, spinal, and cortical effects of manual therapies. Within each of these experimental groups study participants will be randomly assigned to one of the three treatment arms: 1) spinal manipulation, 2) spinal mobilization, or 3) sham laser therapy. Treatments will be delivered twice per week for 3-weeks.

DISCUSSION

This data from this will shed light on the mechanisms underlying popular treatments for LBP. Additionally, the coupling of this basic science work in the context of a clinical trial will also permit examination of the clinical efficacy of two different types of manipulative therapies.

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.

Ultrasonographic Evaluation of the Effect of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment on Sacral Base Asymmetry

Context

Patients with low back pain (LBP) may receive osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) to resolve or manage their pain. The indication for OMT for patients with LBP is the presence of somatic dysfunction, diagnosed using palpatory examination. Because palpatory findings commonly have poor interexaminer reliability, the current study used ultrasonography (US) to establish pre-OMT and post-OMT musculoskeletal measurements of relative asymmetry between pelvic and sacral bony landmarks.

Objective

To document objective musculoskeletal changes that occur in response to OMT using US and to compare palpatory assessment of landmark asymmetry with US assessment.

Methods

Sixty men and women aged 20 to 55 years with at least 1 episode of LBP in the past 2 weeks were assigned to a seated control, walking control, or OMT group (20 participants per group). Participants received an initial, bilateral US measurement of the skin to posterior superior iliac spine (SPSIS), skin to sacral base position (SBP), and sacral sulcus depth (SSD). Participants in seated control and OMT groups received a palpatory assessment of SBP and SSD prior to initial US assessment. After assessment, the seated control group sat in a waiting room for 30 minutes, the walking control group walked for 5 minutes, and the OMT group received OMT to address sacral base asymmetry using predominantly direct techniques for a maximum of 20 minutes. Participants then received a second US assessment of the same structures.

Results

Body mass index (BMI) was correlated with SPSIS (r=0.5, P=.001) and SBP (r=0.6, P<.001). More participants in seated control (75%) and OMT (65%) groups had an increase in asymmetry from first to second US assessment for SPSIS compared with participants in the walking control group (35%, P=.05). No significant differences were found between groups for absolute asymmetry or total change in asymmetry (all P>.10). The κ was −0.1 (95% CI, −0.2 to 0.03) for SBP and −0.01 (95% CI, −0.1 to 0.1) for SSD.

Conclusion

Musculoskeletal changes in SPSIS and SBP measurements related to OMT could not be readily identified using US. The SPSIS and SBP measurements were dependent on BMI, which may have affected the accuracy of US to detect small changes in asymmetry. Qualitative palpatory assessments did not correlate with US measurements. Further study is needed to identify US measurements that demonstrate change with OMT. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02820701)

Spinal manipulative therapy reduces peripheral neuropathic pain in the rat

Spinal manipulative therapy, including low-velocity variable-amplitude spinal manipulation (LVVA-SM), relieves chronic low back pain, especially in patients with neuropathic radiating leg pain following peripheral nervous system insult. Understanding the underlying analgesic mechanisms requires animal models. The aim of the current study was to develop an animal model for the analgesic actions of LVVA-SM in the setting of peripheral neuropathic pain. Adult male Sprague-Dawley rat sciatic nerve tibial and common peroneal branches were transected, sparing the sural branch (spared nerve injury, SNI). After 15-18 days, rats were assigned randomly to one of three groups (n=9 each group): LVVA-SM at 0.15-or 0.16-Hz or Control. LVVA-SM (20° flexion at the L5 vertebra with an innovative motorized treatment table) was administered in anesthetized rats for 10 min. Control rats were administered anesthesia and positioned on the treatment table. After 10, 25, and 40 min, the plantar skin of the hindpaw ipsilateral to SNI was tested for mechanical sensitivity (paw withdrawal threshold to a logarithmic series of Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments) and cold sensitivity (duration of paw lifting, shaking, and/or licking to topical acetone application). SNI produced behavioral signs of mechanical and cold allodynia. LVVA-SM reduced mechanical, but not cold, hypersensitivity compared with Control (0.15-Hz: P=0.04 at 10 min; 0.16-Hz: P<0.001 at 10 min, P=0.04 at 25 min). The analgesic effect of LVVA-SM in chronic low back pain patients with neuropathic leg pain can be reverse-translated to a rat model Video abstract: http://links.lww.com/WNR/A453.

Unraveling the Mechanisms of Manual Therapy: Modeling an Approach

Synopsis Manual therapy interventions are popular among individual health care providers and their patients; however, systematic reviews do not strongly support their effectiveness. Small treatment effect sizes of manual therapy interventions may result from a "one-size-fits-all" approach to treatment. Mechanistic-based treatment approaches to manual therapy offer an intriguing alternative for identifying patients likely to respond to manual therapy. However, the current lack of knowledge of the mechanisms through which manual therapy interventions inhibit pain limits such an approach. The nature of manual therapy interventions further confounds such an approach, as the related mechanisms are likely a complex interaction of factors related to the patient, the provider, and the environment in which the intervention occurs. Therefore, a model to guide both study design and the interpretation of findings is necessary. We have previously proposed a model suggesting that the mechanical force from a manual therapy intervention results in systemic neurophysiological responses leading to pain inhibition. In this clinical commentary, we provide a narrative appraisal of the model and recommendations to advance the study of manual therapy mechanisms. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(1):8-18. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7476.

Spinal manipulation and therapeutic exercises in treating post-surgical resurgent lumbar radiculopathy

Lumbar radiculopathy due to disc herniation is one of the most common conditions seen in orthopedic practices worldwide. Surgical intervention is often necessary, and most patients improve without reoccurrences. The purpose of this case is to describe the successful outcome of post-surgical resurgent lumbar radiculopathy treated with spinal manipulation and therapeutic exercises. Here, we discuss the case of a 42-year-old male who received twelve treatments of spinal manipulation, in addition to therapeutic McKenzie methods exercises. By the end of the treatment plan, the patient was asymptomatic and his outcome assessment score (Oswestry questionnaire) showed an 89% improvement. In a three-month follow-up, he remained stable, and therefore, this case reports a successful outcome and the worthiness of considering spinal manipulation and therapeutic exercises in patients suffering from resurgent lumbar radiculopathy, even when post-surgical changes are present, if there are no absolute contraindications.

Association of lumbar spine stiffness and flexion-relaxation phenomenon with patient-reported outcomes in adults with chronic low back pain - a single-arm clinical trial investigating the effects of thrust spinal manipulation

Background

Spinal manipulation (SM) is used commonly for treating low back pain (LBP). Spinal stiffness is routinely assessed by clinicians performing SM. Flexion-relaxation ratio (FRR) was shown to distinguish between LBP and healthy populations. The primary objective of this study was to examine the association of these two physiological variables with patient-reported pain intensity and disability in adults with chronic LBP (>12 weeks) receiving SM.

Methods

A single-arm trial provided 12 sessions of side-lying thrust SM in the lumbosacral region over 6 weeks. Inclusion criteria included 21–65 years old, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score ≥ 6 and numerical pain rating score ≥ 2. Spinal stiffness and FRR were assessed pre-treatment at baseline, after 2 weeks and after 6 weeks of treatment. Lumbar spine global stiffness (GS) were calculated from the force-displacement curves obtained using i) hand palpation, ii) a hand-held device, and iii) an automated indenter device. Lumbar FRR was assessed during trunk flexion-extension using surface electromyography. The primary outcomes were RMDQ and pain intensity measured by visual analog scale (VAS). Mixed-effects regression models were used to analyze the data.

Results

The mean age of the 82 participants was 45 years; 48% were female; and 84% reported LBP >1 year. The mean (standard deviation) baseline pain intensity and RMDQ were 46.1 (18.1) and 9.5 (4.3), respectively. The mean reduction (95% confidence interval) after 6 weeks in pain intensity and RMDQ were 20.1 mm (14.1 to 26.1) and 4.8 (3.7 to 5.8). There was a small change over time in the palpatory GS but not in the hand-held or automated GS, nor in FRR. The addition of each physiologic variable did not affect the model-estimated changes in VAS or RMDQ over time. There was no association seen between physiological variables and LBP intensity. Higher levels of hand-held GS at L3 and automated GS were significantly associated with higher levels of RMDQ (p = 0.02 and 0.03, respectively) and lower levels of flexion and extension FRR were significantly associated with higher levels of RMDQ (p = 0.02 and 0.008, respectively) across the 3 assessment time points.

Conclusions

Improvement in pain and disability observed in study participants with chronic LBP was not associated with the measured GS or FRR.

Trial registration

NCT01670292 on clinicaltrials.gov, August 2, 2012