Does maintained spinal manipulation therapy for chronic nonspecific low back pain result in better long-term outcome?

Comparison of the effects of dry needling and spinal manipulative therapy versus spinal manipulative therapy alone on functional disability and endurance in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: An experimental study

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a global musculoskeletal ailment. Over the past few years, dry needling (DN) has garnered interest from both physical therapists and patients. Physical therapy commonly employs spinal manipulation to alleviate persistent LBP and other musculoskeletal disorders. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of spinal manipulation alone and in combination with DN on functional disability and endurance in individuals suffering from chronic nonspecific LBP.

METHODS

Patients of both genders who had chronic nonspecific LBP and who had not received physical therapy within the last 3 months were included in this single-blind, randomized controlled trial using purposive sampling. All participants were randomly assigned to either the experimental (SMT + DN) or control (SMT alone) group using computer-generated random numbers. The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23.0. For between-group comparisons, the Mann-Whitney U test was used. A P-value < .05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.

RESULTS

The analysis of the difference between the 2 groups revealed that the mean ± standard deviation (SD) for the SMT alone group was 16.09 ± 3.963 at baseline and 12.66 ± 3.801 at 8 weeks, whereas for the DN + ST group, it was 13.67 ± 3.904 at baseline and 10.92 ± 3.534 at 8 weeks, with a P-value of .003. Thus, the RMDQ score improved gradually in both groups, and the mean endurance score reported for the ST group was 2.5 to 4.5, while that reported for the DN + ST group was 3.1 to 5.1.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study showed that both therapies effectively reduced LBP. When comparing the effects of spinal manipulation alone to those of spinal manipulation combined with DN, the latter showed significantly greater benefits.

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.

Manual Therapy Effect in Placebo-Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Background: Evaluate whether the design of placebo control groups could produce different interpretations of the efficacy of manual therapy techniques.

METHODS

Nine databases were searched (EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, PubMed, SCOPUS, WEB of SCIENCE, COCHRANE, and PEDro). Randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials that used manual therapy as a sham treatment on subjects suffering from pain were included. Data were summarized qualitatively, and meta-analyses were conducted with R.

RESULTS

53 articles were included in the qualitative analysis and 48 were included in the quantitative analyses. Manipulation techniques did not show higher effectiveness when compared with all types of sham groups that were analyzed (SMD 0.28; 95%CI [-0.24; 0.80]) (SMD 0.28; 95%CI [-0.08; 0.64]) (SMD 0.42; 95%CI [0.16; 0.67]) (SMD 0.82; 95%CI [-0.57; 2.21]), raising doubts on their therapeutic effect. Factors such as expectations of treatment were not consistently evaluated, and analysis could help clarify the effect of different sham groups. As for soft tissue techniques, the results are stronger in favor of these techniques when compared to sham control groups (SMD 0.40; 95%CI [0.19, 0.61]). Regarding mobilization techniques and neural gliding techniques, not enough studies were found for conclusions to be made.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature presents a lack of a unified placebo control group design for each technique and an absence of assessment of expectations. These two issues might account for the unclear results obtained in the analysis.

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.

Differing Characteristics of Human-Shaped Visual Stimuli Affect Clinicians' Dosage of a Spinal Manipulative Thrust on a Low-Fidelity Model: A Cross-Sectional Study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether chiropractic clinicians modulate spinal manipulation (SM) thrust characteristics based on visual perception of simulated human silhouette attributes.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional within-participant design with 8 experienced chiropractors. During each trial, participants observed a human-shaped life-sized silhouette of a mock patient and delivered an SM thrust on a low-fidelity thoracic spine model based on their visual perception. Silhouettes varied on the following 3 factors: apparent sex (male or female silhouette), height (short, average, tall), and body mass index (BMI) (underweight, healthy, obese). Each combination was presented 6 times for a total of 108 trials in random order. Outcome measures included peak thrust force, thrust duration, peak preload force, peak acceleration, time to peak acceleration, and rate of force application. A 3-way repeated measures analysis of variance model was used to for each variable, followed by Tukey's honestly significant difference on significant interactions.

RESULTS

Peak thrust force was reduced when apparent sex of the presented silhouette was female (F_1,7 = 5.70, P = .048). Thrust duration was largely invariant, except that a BMI by height interaction revealed a longer duration occurred for healthy tall participants than healthy short participants (F_4,28 = 4.34, P = .007). Compared to an image depicting obese BMI, an image appearing underweight lead to reduced peak acceleration (F_2,5 = 6.756, P = .009). Clinician time to peak acceleration was reduced in short compared to tall silhouettes (t₇ = 2.20, P = .032).

CONCLUSION

Visual perception of simulated human silhouette attributes, including apparent sex, height, and BMI, influenced SM dose characteristics through both kinetic and kinematic measures. The results suggest that visual information from mock patients affects the decision-making of chiropractic clinicians delivering SM thrusts.

Effectiveness of cranial osteopathy therapy on nociception in equine back as evaluated by pressure algometry

A horse needs to move in different gaits and carry a rider during riding. Therefore, the equine back must be in a good functional state. Preventing back disorders is one of the keys to ensuring a horse’s health. This study aimed to assess cranial osteopathy therapy as a treatment and prevention method for preventing and reducing back pain. Thirty-two thoroughbred horses were categorised by their backs’ functional status (16 without back pain and 16 with back pain). The mechanical nociceptive threshold was determined before and after osteopathic treatment by an algometer (pain test FPX 100) with pressure points between T14-T15, T18-L1, and L5-L6. The data were analysed with a significance of P < 0.05. The study found that cranial osteopathic therapy raised the mechanical nociceptive threshold average in 83.3% measured points for horses without back pain and in 50% measured points for those with back pain. This study revealed that both horses without back pain and horses with back pain had a positive response to cranial osteopathic therapy, as evidenced by the increased nociceptive threshold limits, indicating that osteopathic therapy can be used as a primary or additional treatment method for back dysfunction.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

DESIGN

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

SUMMARY

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

Sham treatment effects in manual therapy trials on back pain patients: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects and reliability of sham procedures in manual therapy (MT) trials in the treatment of back pain (BP) in order to provide methodological guidance for clinical trial development.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Different databases were screened up to 20 August 2020. Randomised controlled trials involving adults affected by BP (cervical and lumbar), acute or chronic, were included.Hand contact sham treatment (ST) was compared with different MT (physiotherapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, massage, kinesiology and reflexology) and to no treatment. Primary outcomes were BP improvement, success of blinding and adverse effect (AE). Secondary outcomes were number of drop-outs. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed using risk ratio (RR), continuous using mean difference (MD), 95% CIs. The minimal clinically important difference was 30 mm changes in pain score.

RESULTS

24 trials were included involving 2019 participants. Very low evidence quality suggests clinically insignificant pain improvement in favour of MT compared with ST (MD 3.86, 95% CI 3.29 to 4.43) and no differences between ST and no treatment (MD -5.84, 95% CI -20.46 to 8.78).ST reliability shows a high percentage of correct detection by participants (ranged from 46.7% to 83.5%), spinal manipulation being the most recognised technique.Low quality of evidence suggests that AE and drop-out rates were similar between ST and MT (RR AE=0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.28, RR drop-outs=0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.25). A similar drop-out rate was reported for no treatment (RR=0.82, 95% 0.43 to 1.55).

CONCLUSIONS

MT does not seem to have clinically relevant effect compared with ST. Similar effects were found with no treatment. The heterogeneousness of sham MT studies and the very low quality of evidence render uncertain these review findings.Future trials should develop reliable kinds of ST, similar to active treatment, to ensure participant blinding and to guarantee a proper sample size for the reliable detection of clinically meaningful treatment effects.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020198301.

Effect of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment vs Sham Treatment on Activity Limitations in Patients With Nonspecific Subacute and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is frequently offered to people with nonspecific low back pain (LBP) but never compared with sham OMT for reducing LBP-specific activity limitations.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of standard OMT vs sham OMT for reducing LBP-specific activity limitations at 3 months in persons with nonspecific subacute or chronic LBP.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This prospective, parallel-group, single-blind, single-center, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial recruited participants with nonspecific subacute or chronic LBP from a tertiary care center in France starting February 17, 2014, with follow-up completed on October 23, 2017. Participants were randomly allocated to interventions in a 1:1 ratio. Data were analyzed from March 22, 2018, to December 5, 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

Six sessions (1 every 2 weeks) of standard OMT or sham OMT delivered by nonphysician, nonphysiotherapist osteopathic practitioners.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations at 3 months as measured by the self-administered Quebec Back Pain Disability Index (score range, 0-100). Secondary outcomes were mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations; mean changes in pain and health-related quality of life; number and duration of sick leaves, as well as number of LBP episodes at 12 months; and consumption of analgesics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs at 3 and 12 months. Adverse events were self-reported at 3, 6, and 12 months.

RESULTS

Overall, 200 participants were randomly allocated to standard OMT and 200 to sham OMT, with 197 analyzed in each group; the median (range) age at inclusion was 49.8 (40.7-55.8) years, 235 of 394 (59.6%) participants were women, and 359 of 393 (91.3%) were currently working. The mean (SD) duration of the current LBP episode was 7.5 (14.2) months. Overall, 164 (83.2%) patients in the standard OMT group and 159 (80.7%) patients in the sham OMT group had the primary outcome data available at 3 months. The mean (SD) Quebec Back Pain Disability Index scores for the standard OMT group were 31.5 (14.1) at baseline and 25.3 (15.3) at 3 months, and in the sham OMT group were 27.2 (14.8) at baseline and 26.1 (15.1) at 3 months. The mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations at 3 months was -4.7 (95% CI, -6.6 to -2.8) and -1.3 (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.6) for the standard OMT and sham OMT groups, respectively (mean difference, -3.4; 95% CI, -6.0 to -0.7; P = .01). At 12 months, the mean difference in mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations was -4.3 (95% CI, -7.6 to -1.0; P = .01), and at 3 and 12 months, the mean difference in mean reduction in pain was -1.0 (95% CI, -5.5 to 3.5; P = .66) and -2.0 (95% CI, -7.2 to 3.3; P = .47), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in other secondary outcomes. Four and 8 serious adverse events were self-reported in the standard OMT and sham OMT groups, respectively, though none was considered related to OMT.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial of patients with nonspecific subacute or chronic LBP, standard OMT had a small effect on LBP-specific activity limitations vs sham OMT. However, the clinical relevance of this effect is questionable.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02034864.

How Does the Measurement of Disability in Low Back Pain Map Unto the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health?: A Scoping Review of the Manual Medicine Literature

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to catalog items from instruments used to measure functioning, disability, and contextual factors in patients with low back pain treated with manual medicine (manipulation and mobilization) according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. This catalog will be used to inform the development of an International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-based assessment schedule for low back pain patients treated with manual medicine. In this scoping review, we systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We identified instruments (questionnaires, clinical tests, single questions) used to measure functioning, disability, and contextual factors, extracted the relevant items, and then linked these items to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. We included 95 articles and identified 1510 meaningful concepts. All but 70 items were linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Of the concepts linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, body functions accounted for 34.7%, body structures accounted for 0%, activities and participation accounted for 41%, environmental factors accounted for 3.6%, and personal factors accounted for 16%. Most items used to measure functioning and disability in low back pain patient treated with manual medicine focus on body functions, as well as activities and participation. The lack of measures that address environmental factors warrants further investigation.

Active Long-term Care Strategies in a Group Setting for Chronic Spine Pain in 3 United States Military Veterans: A Case Series

Objective

The purpose of this article is to describe the management of chronic spine pain in 3 United States military veterans who participated in extended courses of chiropractic care that focused on active care strategies in a group setting.

Clinical Features

A 68-year old male veteran (case 1) with a 90% service-connected disability rating presented with chronic neck and lower back pain. An 82-year old male veteran (case 2) with a 20% service-connected disability rating presented with chronic neck and upper back pain. A 66-year old male veteran (case 3) presented with a 10% service-connected disability with chronic episodic back and neck pain. Each veteran described a desire to maintain ongoing chiropractic treatments after completion of a course of chiropractic care in which maximal therapeutic gain had been determined. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Patient Interference Short Form 6b (PPI), PROMIS Physical Function Short Form 10b (PPF), and Pain, Enjoyment, and General Activity (PEG) outcome measurement tools were used to track response to care.

Interventions and Outcome

Each veteran participated in an extended course of chiropractic visits consisting of group pain education, group cognitive behavioral strategies, group exercise, group mind-body self-regulation therapy, and optional individual manual therapy. Case 1 completed 8 extended chiropractic visits in 12 months and reported no change in PPI scores, improvement in PPF scores, and worsening PEG scores. Cases 2 and 3 completed 6 extended chiropractic visits each over a 12-month period and reported improvements in PPI, PPF, and PEG scores.

Conclusion

This article describes the responses of 3 veterans with chronic spine pain participating in long-term care using chiropractic visits in a group setting that focused on active care strategies. Our group-based, active care approach differs from those described in literature, which commonly focus on visits with a strong emphasis on manual therapy in 1-on-1 patient encounters.

Full-Coverage Chiropractic in Medicare: A Proposal to Eliminate Inequities, Improve Outcomes, and Reduce Health Disparities Without Increasing Overall Program Costs

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article is to discuss evidence that supports the resolution of inequities for Medicare beneficiaries who receive chiropractic care.

DISCUSSION

Medicare covers necessary examinations, imaging, exercise instruction, and treatments for beneficiaries with back pain when provided by medical doctors, osteopaths, and their associated support staff such as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical nurse specialists, and physical therapists. However, if the same patient with back pain presents to a chiropractor, then the only service that is covered by Medicare is manipulation of the spine. Current evidence does not support this inequity in Medicare beneficiary service coverage. There is no evidence to show an increase in serious risks associated with chiropractic treatment of neck or back pain in Medicare beneficiaries. Chiropractors support national public health goals and endorse safe, evidence-based practices. Chiropractic care for Medicare beneficiaries has been associated with enhanced clinical outcomes such as faster recovery, fewer back surgeries a year later, reduced opioid-associated disability, fewer traumatic injuries and falls, and slower declines in activities of daily living and disability over time. Further evidence points to lower costs, fewer medical physician visits for low back pain, less opioid-related expense, and less back-surgery expense with chiropractic utilization. Use is lower among vulnerable populations: seniors, lower income women, and black and Hispanic beneficiaries who may be most affected by current inequities associated with the limited coverage. In this era of evidence-based and patient-centered care, beneficiaries who receive chiropractic care are very satisfied with the care they receive.

CONCLUSION

The current evidence suggests a need for change in US policy toward chiropractic in Medicare and support for HR 3654. Ending inequities by providing patients full coverage for chiropractic services has the potential to enhance care outcomes and reduce health disparities without increasing program costs.

Directed vertebral manipulation is not better than generic vertebral manipulation in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomised trial

QUESTION

In people with chronic low back pain, what is the average effect of directing manipulation at the most painful lumbar level compared with generic manipulation of the spine?

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, a blinded assessor and intention-to-treat analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

148 people with non-specific chronic low back pain with a minimum level of pain intensity of 3 points (measured from 0 to 10 on the Pain Numerical Rating Scale).

INTERVENTIONS

All participants received 10 spinal manipulation sessions over a 4-week period. The experimental group received treatment to the most painful segment of the lower back. The control group received treatment to the thoracic spine.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was pain intensity, measured at the end of the intervention (Week 4). Secondary outcomes were: pain intensity at Weeks 12 and 26; pressure pain threshold at Week 4; and global perceived change since onset and disability, both measured at Weeks 4, 12 and 26.

RESULTS

Each group was randomly allocated 74 participants. Data were collected at all time points for 71 participants (96%) in the experimental group and 72 (97%) in the control group. There were no clinically important between-group differences for pain intensity, disability or global perceived effect at any time point. The estimate of the effect of directing manipulation at the most painful lumbar level, as compared with generic manipulation, on pain intensity was too small to be considered clinically important: MD 0 (95% CI -0.9 to 0.9) at Week 4 and -0.1 (95% CI -1.0 to 0.8) at Week 26.

CONCLUSION

No clinically important differences were observed between directed manipulation and generic manipulation in people with chronic low back pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02883634.

Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence Based Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain features evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for nonspecific low back pain as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of February 2016.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the guideline is to provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine specialists when making clinical decisions for adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. This article provides a brief summary of the evidence-based guideline recommendations for diagnosing and treating patients with this condition.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a guideline summary review.

METHODS

This guideline is the product of the Low Back Pain Work Group of NASS' Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The methods used to develop this guideline are detailed in the complete guideline and technical report available on the NASS website. In brief, a multidisciplinary work group of spine care specialists convened to identify clinical questions to address in the guideline. The literature search strategy was developed in consultation with medical librarians. Upon completion of the systematic literature search, evidence relevant to the clinical questions posed in the guideline was reviewed. Work group members utilized NASS evidentiary table templates to summarize study conclusions, identify study strengths and weaknesses, and assign levels of evidence. Work group members participated in webcasts and in-person recommendation meetings to update and formulate evidence-based recommendations and incorporate expert opinion when necessary. The draft guideline was submitted to an internal and external peer review process and ultimately approved by the NASS Board of Directors.

RESULTS

Eighty-two clinical questions were addressed, and the answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded according to the levels of evidence of the supporting literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence-based clinical guideline has been created using techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid practitioners in the diagnosis and treatment of adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, literature search parameters, literature attrition flowchart, suggestions for future research, and all of the references, is available electronically on the NASS website at https://www.spine.org/ResearchClinicalCare/QualityImprovement/ClinicalGuidelines.aspx.

Comparison of Physiotherapy Approaches in Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of rehabilitation approaches in individuals with low back pain (LBP) on pain, spinal mobility, disability, and muscular strength.

METHODS

Ninety volunteers were included and divided into four groups depending on the rehabilitation approach: group 1, soft tissue mobilization techniques and stabilization exercises (n=24; 11 females [F], 13 males [M]); group 2, Kinesio Taping and stabilization exercises (n=24; 12F, 12M); group 3, stabilization exercises (n=22; 11F, 11M); and group 4, reflex therapy and stabilization exercises (n=20; 10F, 10M). Visual Analog Scale for pain intensity, an isokinetic evaluation for strength at 60°/s and a side-plank position test for trunk stabilization were measured before and assessed at the beginning, after a 4-week treatment and during 4 weeks of follow-up. The functional status was evaluated with the Oswestry Disability Index.

RESULTS

Individuals in all groups showed similar decrease in pain after the treatment and at 1-month follow-up, but there were no significant differences in pain levels between the groups (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

All therapeutic approaches were found to be effective in diminishing pain and thus helpful in increasing strength and stabilization in patients with LBP.

Short- or Long-Term Treatment of Spinal Disability in Older Adults With Manipulation and Exercise

OBJECTIVE

Back and neck pain are associated with disability and loss of independence in older adults. Whether long-term management using commonly recommended treatments is superior to shorter-term treatment is unknown. This randomized clinical trial compared short-term treatment (12 weeks) versus long-term management (36 weeks) of back- and neck-related disability in older adults using spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) combined with supervised rehabilitative exercises (SRE).

METHODS

Eligible participants were ages ≥65 years with back and neck disability for ≥12 weeks. Coprimary outcomes were changes in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores after 36 weeks. An intent-to-treat approach used linear mixed-model analysis to detect between-group differences. Secondary analyses included other self-reported outcomes, adverse events, and objective functional measures.

RESULTS

A total of 182 participants were randomized. The short-term and long-term groups demonstrated significant improvements in back disability (ODI score -3.9 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -5.8, -2.0] versus ODI score -6.3 [95% CI -8.2, -4.4]) and neck disability (NDI score -7.3 [95% CI -9.1, -5.5] versus NDI score -9.0 [95% CI -10.8, -7.2]) after 36 weeks, with no difference between groups (back ODI score 2.4 [95% CI -0.3, 5.1]; neck NDI score 1.7 [95% CI 0.8, 4.2]). The long-term management group experienced greater improvement in neck pain at week 36, in self-efficacy at weeks 36 and 52, and in functional ability, and balance.

CONCLUSION

For older adults with chronic back and neck disability, extending management with SMT and SRE from 12 to 36 weeks did not result in any additional important reduction in disability.

Comparative Effectiveness of Chuna Manipulative Therapy for Non-Acute Lower Back Pain: A Multi-Center, Pragmatic, Randomized Controlled Trial

Current evidence on the effectiveness and safety of Chuna manipulative therapy (CMT) for managing non-acute lower back pain (LBP) is insufficient. We investigated the comparative effectiveness and safety of CMT, a Korean style of manipulation, plus usual care (UC) compared to UC alone for non-acute LBP. We conducted a parallel, two-armed, multi-centered, assessor blinded, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial at four major Korean medical hospitals. Overall, 194 patients were randomly allocated to either CMT plus UC (n = 97) or UC alone (n = 97), for six weeks of treatment and six months follow-up. The primary outcome was measured using the numerical rating scale (NRS) of LBP intensity at 7 weeks. Secondary outcomes included NRS of leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for functional disability, patient global impression of change (PGIC) scale, and safety. A total of 194 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, and 174 patients provided complete data for the primary outcome. At 7 weeks, clinically significant differences between groups were observed in the NRS of LBP (CMT + UC: -3.02 ± 1.72, UC: -1.36 ± 1.75, p < 0.001), ODI scores (CMT + UC: -5.65 ± 4.29, UC: -3.72 ± 4.63, p = 0.003), NRS of leg pain (CMT + UC: -2.00 ± 2.33, UC: -0.44 ± 1.86, p < 0.0001), and PGIC (CMT + UC: -0.28 ± 0.85, UC: 0.01 ± 0.66, p = 0.0119). Mild to moderate safety concerns were reported in 21 subjects. CMT plus UC showed higher effectiveness compared to UC alone in patients with non-acute LBP in reducing LBP and leg pain and in improving function with good safety results using a powered sample size and including mid-term follow-up.

Chiropractic maintenance care - what's new? A systematic review of the literature

Background

Maintenance Care is a traditional chiropractic approach, whereby patients continue treatment after optimum benefit is reached. A review conducted in 1996 concluded that evidence behind this therapeutic strategy was lacking, and a second review from 2008 reached the same conclusion. Since then, a systematic research program in the Nordic countries was undertaken to uncover the definition, indications, prevalence of use and beliefs regarding Maintenance Care to make it possible to investigate its clinical usefulness and cost-effectiveness. As a result, an evidence-based clinical study could be performed. It was therefore timely to review the evidence.

Method

Using the search terms "chiropractic OR manual therapy" AND "Maintenance Care OR prevention", PubMed and Web of Science were searched, and the titles and abstracts reviewed for eligibility, starting from 2007. In addition, a search for "The Nordic Maintenance Care Program" was conducted. Because of the diversity of topics and study designs, a systematic review with narrative reporting was undertaken.

Results

Fourteen original research articles were included in the review. Maintenance Care was defined as a secondary/tertiary preventive approach, recommended to patients with previous pain episodes, who respond well to chiropractic care. Maintenance Care is applied to approximately 30% of Scandinavian chiropractic patients. Both chiropractors and patients believe in the efficacy of Maintenance Care. Four studies investigating the effect of chiropractic Maintenance Care were identified, with disparate results on pain and disability of neck and back pain. However, only one of these studies utilized all the existing evidence when selecting study subjects and found that Maintenance Care patients experienced fewer days with low back pain compared to patients invited to contact their chiropractor 'when needed'. No studies were found on the cost-effectiveness of Maintenance Care.

Conclusion

Knowledge of chiropractic Maintenance Care has advanced. There is reasonable consensus among chiropractors on what Maintenance Care is, how it should be used, and its indications. Presently, Maintenance Care can be considered an evidence-based method to perform secondary or tertiary prevention in patients with previous episodes of low back pain, who report a good outcome from the initial treatments. However, these results should not be interpreted as an indication for Maintenance Care on all patients, who receive chiropractic treatment.

Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and myofascial release compared with spinal manipulation alone on health-related outcomes in individuals with non-specific low back pain: randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of spinal manipulation combined with myofascial release compared with spinal manipulation alone, in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP).

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial with three months follow-up.

SETTING

Rehabilitation clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventy-two individuals (between 18 and 50 years of age; CNLBP ≥12 consecutive weeks) were enrolled and randomly allocated to one of two groups: (1) Spinal manipulation and myofascial release - SMMRG; n=36) or (2) Spinal manipulation alone (SMG; n=36).

INTERVENTIONS

Combined spinal manipulation (characterized by high velocity/low amplitude thrusts) of the sacroiliac and lumbar spine and myofascial release of lumbar and sacroiliac muscles vs manipulation of the sacroiliac and lumbar spine alone, twice a week, for three weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Assessments were performed at baseline, three weeks post intervention and three months follow-up. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, pressure pain-threshold and dynamic balance.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between SMMRG vs SMG in pain intensity and disability post intervention and at follow-up. We found an overall significant difference between-groups for CNLBP disability (SMG-SMMRG: mean difference of 5.0; 95% confidence interval of difference 9.9; -0.1), though this effect was not clinically important and was not sustained at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that spinal manipulation combined with myofascial release was not more effective compared to spinal manipulation alone for patients with CNLBP.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03113292.

The Nordic Maintenance Care Program: Does psychological profile modify the treatment effect of a preventive manual therapy intervention? A secondary analysis of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chiropractic maintenance care is effective as secondary/tertiary prevention of non-specific low back pain (LBP), but the potential effect moderation by psychological characteristics is unknown. The objective was to investigate whether patients in specific psychological sub-groups had different responses to MC with regard to the total number of days with bothersome pain and the number of treatments.

METHOD

Data from a two-arm randomized pragmatic multicenter trial with a 12-month follow up, designed to investigate the effectiveness of maintenance care, was used. Consecutive patients, 18-65 years of age, with recurrent and persistent LBP seeking chiropractic care with a good effect of the initial treatment were included. Eligible subjects were randomized to either maintenance care (prescheduled care) or to the control intervention, symptom-guided care. The primary outcome of the trial was the total number of days with bothersome LBP collected weekly for 12 months using an automated SMS system. Data used to classify patients according to psychological subgroups defined by the West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (adaptive copers, interpersonally distressed and dysfunctional) were collected at the screening visit.

RESULTS

A total of 252 subjects were analyzed using a generalized estimating equations linear regression framework. Patients in the dysfunctional subgroup who received maintenance care reported fewer days with pain (-30.0; 95% CI: -36.6, -23.4) and equal number of treatments compared to the control intervention. In the adaptive coper subgroup, patients who received maintenance care reported more days with pain (10.7; 95% CI: 4.0, 17.5) and more treatments (3.9; 95% CI: 3.5, 4.2). Patients in the interpersonally distressed subgroup reported equal number of days with pain (-0.3; 95% CI: -8.7, 8.1) and more treatments (1.5; 95% CI: 0.9, 2.1) on maintenance care.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychological and behavioral characteristics modify the effect of MC and should be considered when recommending long-term preventive management of patients with recurrent and persistent LBP.

Abstracts of low back pain trials are poorly reported, contain spin of information and are inconsistent with the full text: An overview study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate trials abstracts evaluating treatments for low back pain with regards to completeness of reporting, spin (i.e., interpretation of study results that overemphasizes the beneficial effects of the intervention), and inconsistencies in data with the full text.

DATA SOURCES

The search was performed on Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) in February 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

This is an overview study of a random sample of 200 low back pain trials published between 2010 and 2015. The languages of publication were restricted to English, Spanish and Portuguese.

DATA EXTRACTION

Completeness of reporting was assessed using the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist (CONSORT-A). Spin was assessed using a SPIN-checklist. Consistency between abstract and full text were assessed by applying the assessment tools to both the abstract and full text of each trial and calculating inconsistencies in the summary score (paired t test) and agreement in the classification of each item (Kappa statistics). Methodological quality was analyzed using the total PEDro score.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The mean number of fully reported items for abstracts using the CONSORT-A was 5.1 (SD 2.4) out of 15 points and the mean number of items with spin was 4.9 (SD 2.6) out of 7 points. Abstract and full text scores were statistically inconsistent (P=0.01). There was slight to moderate agreement between items of the CONSORT-A in the abstracts and full text (mean Kappa 0.20 SD 0.13) and fair to moderate agreement for items of the SPIN-checklist (mean Kappa 0.47 SD 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

The abstracts were incomplete, with spin and inconsistent with the full text. We advise health care professionals to avoid making clinical decisions based solely upon abstracts. Journal editors, reviewers and authors are jointly responsible for improving abstracts, which could be guided by amended editorial policies.

Physiotherapy Based on a Biobehavioral Approach with or Without Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapy in the Treatment of Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of a biobehavioral approach with and without orthopedic manual physical therapy on the intensity and frequency of pain in patients diagnosed with nonspecific chronic low back pain.

Methods

A single-blind randomized controlled trial. Fifty patients were randomly allocated into two groups: one group received biobehavioral therapy with orthopedic manual physical therapy, and the other group received only biobehavioral therapy. Both groups completed a total of eight sessions, with a frequency of two sessions per week. The somatosensory, physical, and psychological variables were recorded at baseline and during the first and third month after initiation of treatment.

Results

In both groups, the treatment was effective, presenting significant differences for all the variables in the time factor. There were no significant differences between groups in intensity or frequency of pain, with a large effect size (&gt;0.80), but there were intragroup differences for both intervention groups at one- and three-month follow-up. There were also no significant differences between groups in the secondary variables during the same follow-up period.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that orthopedic manual physical therapy does not increase the effects of a treatment based on biobehavioral therapy in the short or medium term, but these results should be interpreted with caution.

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.

Effect of spinal manipulative therapy on mechanical pain sensitivity in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a pilot randomized, controlled trial

Objectives: The long-term goal of our study is to improve the understanding of the biological mechanisms associated with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in low back pain.Methods: This project involved a pilot randomized, blinded clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT03078114) of 3-week SMT in chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP) patients. We recruited 29 participants and randomly assigned them into either a SMT (n = 14) or sham SMT (n = 15) group. Pre- and postintervention, we quantified the effect of SMT on clinical outcomes (Numeric Pain Rating Scale and Oswestry Disability Index) and pressure pain threshold (PPT) at local (lumbar spine), regional (lower extremity), and remote (upper extremity) anatomical sites.Results: We observed a significant main effect for time signifying reduced hypersensitivity (increased PPT) at local (p = .015) and regional (p = .014) locations at 3 weeks. Furthermore, we found significant main effects of time indicating improvements in pain (p < .001) and disability (p = .02) from baseline among all participants regardless of intervention. However, no between-group differences were observed in PPT, clinical pain, or disability between the SMT and sham SMT groups over 3 weeks.Conclusions: After 3 weeks of SMT or sham SMT in CNSLBP patients, we found hypoalgesia at local and remote sites along with improved pain and low back-related disability.Level of Evidence: 1b.

The Nordic Maintenance Care program: Effectiveness of chiropractic maintenance care versus symptom-guided treatment for recurrent and persistent low back pain-A pragmatic randomized controlled trial

Background

For individuals with recurrent or persistent non-specific low back pain (LBP), exercise and exercise combined with education have been shown to be effective in preventing new episodes or in reducing the impact of the condition. Chiropractors have traditionally used Maintenance Care (MC), as secondary and tertiary prevention strategies. The aim of this trial was to investigate the effectiveness of MC on pain trajectories for patients with recurrent or persistent LBP.

Method

This pragmatic, investigator-blinded, two arm randomized controlled trial included consecutive patients (18–65 years old) with non-specific LBP, who had an early favorable response to chiropractic care. After an initial course of treatment, eligible subjects were randomized to either MC or control (symptom-guided treatment). The primary outcome was total number of days with bothersome LBP during 52 weeks collected weekly with text-messages (SMS) and estimated by a GEE model.

Results

Three hundred and twenty-eight subjects were randomly allocated to one of the two treatment groups. MC resulted in a reduction in the total number of days per week with bothersome LBP compared with symptom-guided treatment. During the 12 month study period, the MC group (n = 163, 3 dropouts) reported 12.8 (95% CI = 10.1, 15.5; p = <0.001) fewer days in total with bothersome LBP compared to the control group (n = 158, 4 dropouts) and received 1.7 (95% CI = 1.8, 2.1; p = <0.001) more treatments. Numbers presented are means. No serious adverse events were recorded.

Conclusion

MC was more effective than symptom-guided treatment in reducing the total number of days over 52 weeks with bothersome non-specific LBP but it resulted in a higher number of treatments. For selected patients with recurrent or persistent non-specific LBP who respond well to an initial course of chiropractic care, MC should be considered an option for tertiary prevention.

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.

Effectiveness of classic physical therapy proposals for chronic non-specific low back pain: a literature review

INTRODUCTION

Chronic low back pain is a pathological process that compromises the functionality and quality of life worldwide. The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of classical physiotherapy in the management of non-specific chronic low back pain.

METHODS

A literature search in English electronic databases was performed from November to December of 2015. Only those studies addressing chronic non-specific low back pain by manual therapy and different types of exercises methods were included, and those, which combined acute or subacute pain with systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines, were excluded. Studies involving cognitive-behavioral approaches were also excluded.

RESULTS

487 studies were identified, 16 were analyzed and 10 were excluded. Of the 6 studies reviewed, 5 of them achieved a moderate quality and 1 of them was of a low quality. Back School exercises and McKenzie's method were all ineffective. Osteopathic spinal manipulation proved effective when performed on the lower back and the thoracic area but only immediately after it was received, and not in the medium or long term. Massages proved effective in the short term too, as well as the global postural reeducation although ultimately this study can be considered of a low methodological quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the data obtained, classical physiotherapy proposals show ineffectiveness in the treatment of chronic non-specific low back pain. More multidimensional studies are needed in order to achieve a better treatment of this condition, including the biopsychosocial paradigm.

Essential literature for the chiropractic profession: Results and implementation challenges from a survey of international chiropractic faculty

OBJECTIVE

Scientific literature applicable to chiropractic practice proliferates in quantity, quality, and source. Chiropractic is a worldwide profession and varies in scope between states or provinces and from country to country. It is logical to consider that the focus and emphasis of chiropractic education varies between programs as well. This original research study endeavored to determine "essential literature" recommended by chiropractic faculty. The purpose of this article is (1) to share our results and (2) to promote discussion and explore means for future collaboration of chiropractic faculty through a worldwide platform.

METHODS

A 2-phase recruitment occurred initially at the institutional level and subsequently at the faculty level. A Web-based survey used qualitative data collection methods to gather bibliographic citations. Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographics, and citation responses were ranked per number of recommendations, grouped into categories, and tabulated per journal source and publication date.

RESULTS

Forty-one chiropractic programs were contacted, resulting in 30 participating chiropractic programs (16 US and 14 international). Forty-five faculty members completed the entire survey, submitting 126 peer-reviewed publications and 25 additional citations. Readings emphasized clinical management of spine pain, the science of spinal manipulation, effectiveness of manual therapies, teaching of chiropractic techniques, outcomes assessments, and professional issues.

CONCLUSION

A systematic approach to surveying educators in international chiropractic institutions was accomplished. The results of the survey provide a list of essential literature for the chiropractic profession. We recommend establishing a chiropractic faculty registry for improved communication and collaboration.

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.

The quality of placebos used in randomized, controlled trials of lumbar and pelvic joint thrust manipulation-a systematic review

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) has been attributed with substantial non-specific effects. Accurate assessment of the non-specific effects of SMT relies on high-quality studies with low risk of bias that compare with appropriate placebos.

PURPOSE

This review aims to characterize the types and qualities of placebo control procedures used in controlled trials of manually applied, lumbar and pelvic (LP)-SMT, and to evaluate the assessment of subject blinding and expectations.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a systematic review of randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and relevant bibliographies. We included randomized, placebo or sham-controlled trials where the index treatment was manually applied LP-SMT. There were no restrictions on the type of condition being investigated. Two independent reviewers selected the studies, assessed study quality, and extracted the data. Relevant data were the type and quality of placebo control(s) used, the assessment of blinding and expectations, and the results of those assessments.

RESULTS

Twenty-five randomized, placebo-controlled trials were included in this review. There were 18 trials that used a sham manual SMT procedure for their placebo control intervention; the most common approach was with an SMT setup but without the application of any thrust. One small pilot study used an unequivocally indistinguishable placebo, two trials used placebos that had been validated as inert a priori, and eight trials reported on the success of subject blinding. Risk of bias was high or unclear, for all included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Imperfect placebos are ubiquitous in clinical trials of LP-SMT, and few trials have assessed for successful subject blinding or balanced expectations of treatment success between active and control group subjects. There is thus a strong potential for unmasking of control subjects, unequal non-specific effects between active and control groups, and non-inert placebos in existing trials. Future trials should consider assessing the success of subject blinding and ensuring inertness of their placebo a priori, as a minimum standard for quality.

A Narrative Review of Lumbar Fusion Surgery With Relevance to Chiropractic Practice

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this narrative review was to describe the most common spinal fusion surgical procedures, address the clinical indications for lumbar fusion in degeneration cases, identify potential complications, and discuss their relevance to chiropractic management of patients after surgical fusion.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched from the beginning of the record through March 31, 2015, for English language articles related to lumbar fusion or arthrodesis or both and their incidence, procedures, complications, and postoperative chiropractic cases. Articles were retrieved and evaluated for relevance. The bibliographies of selected articles were also reviewed.

RESULTS

The most typical lumbar fusion procedures are posterior lumbar interbody fusion, anterior lumbar interbody fusion, transforaminal interbody fusion, and lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Fair level evidence supports lumbar fusion procedures for degenerative spondylolisthesis with instability and for intractable low back pain that has failed conservative care. Complications and development of chronic pain after surgery is common, and these patients frequently present to chiropractic physicians. Several reports describe the potential benefit of chiropractic management with spinal manipulation, flexion-distraction manipulation, and manipulation under anesthesia for postfusion low back pain. There are no published experimental studies related specifically to chiropractic care of postfusion low back pain.

CONCLUSIONS

This article describes the indications for fusion, common surgical practice, potential complications, and relevant published chiropractic literature. This review includes 10 cases that showed positive benefits from chiropractic manipulation, flexion-distraction, and/or manipulation under anesthesia for postfusion lumbar pain. Chiropractic care may have a role in helping patients in pain who have undergone lumbar fusion surgery.

Spinal Manipulation Vs Sham Manipulation for Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to identify and critically evaluate randomized controlled trials of spinal manipulation (SM) vs sham manipulation in the treatment of nonspecific low back pain.

METHODS

Four electronic databases were searched from their inception to March 2015 to identify all relevant trials. Reference lists of retrieved articles were hand-searched. All data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers, and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Back Review Group Risk of Bias tool.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic review, and 4 were found to be eligible for inclusion in a meta-analysis. Participants in the SM group had improved symptoms compared with participants receiving sham treatment (standardized mean difference = - 0.36; 95% confidence interval, - 0.59 to - 0.12). The majority of studies were of low risk of bias; however, several of the studies were small, the practitioner could not be blinded, and some studies did not conduct intention-to-treat analysis and had a high level of dropouts.

CONCLUSION

There is some evidence that SM has specific treatment effects and is more effective at reducing nonspecific low back pain when compared with an effective sham intervention. However, given the small number of studies included in this analysis, we should be cautious of making strong inferences based on these results.

Short-term effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy versus functional technique in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition associated with pain, disability, decreased quality of life, and fear of movement. To date, no studies have compared the effectiveness of spinal manipulation and functional technique for the management of this population.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of spinal manipulation and functional technique on pain, disability, kinesiophobia, and quality of life in patients with chronic LBP.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A single-blind pragmatic randomized controlled trial conducted in a university research clinic was carried out.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Sixty-two patients (62% female, age: 45±7) with chronic LBP comprised the patient sample.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Data on disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMQ], Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index [ODI]), pain intensity (Numerical Pain Rate Scale [NPRS]), fear of movement (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia [TSK]), quality of life (Short Form-36 [SF-36] quality of life questionnaire), isometric resistance of abdominal muscles (McQuade test), and spinal mobility in flexion (finger-to-floor distance) were collected at baseline immediately after the intervention phase and at 1 month postintervention by an assessor blinded to group allocation of the patients.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to the spinal manipulative therapy group or the functional technique group and received three once-weekly sessions.

RESULTS

In comparison to patients receiving functional technique, those receiving spinal manipulation experienced statistically, although not clinically, significant greater reductions in terms of RMQ (standardized mean difference in score changes between groups at post-treatment: 0.1; at 1 month: 0.1) and ODI (post-treatment: 2.9; at 1 month: 1.4). Linear longitudinal analysis showed a significant improvement in both groups over time for RMQ (manipulative: F=68.51, p<.001; functional: F=28.58, p<.001) and ODI (manipulative: F=104.66, p<.001; functional: F=32.15, p=.001). However, significant treatment-by-time interactions were not detected for pain intensity (p=.488), TSK (p=.552), any domains of the SF-36 quality of life questionnaire (p≤.164), McQuade test (p=.512), and finger-to-floor distance (p=.194). Differences between and within groups were not clinically meaningful in any of the reported measures.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to functional technique, spinal manipulative therapy showed greater reduction in disability in patients with chronic LBP, but not in terms of pain, fear of movement, quality of life, isometric resistance of trunk flexors, or spinal mobility. However, differences in disability were not clinically meaningful; therefore, spinal manipulative therapy did not result in any clinically important short-term benefits over functional technique therapy. In addition, as neither group met the threshold for minimum clinically important difference following treatment, neither treatment resulted in a clinically meaningful benefit.

Targeting Patient Subgroups With Chronic Low Back Pain for Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment: Responder Analyses From a Randomized Controlled Trial

Context: Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is often used to treat patients with low back pain (LBP).

Objective: To identify subgroups of patients with chronic LBP who achieve medium to large treatment effects with OMT based on responder analyses involving pain and functioning outcomes from the OSTEOPAThic Health outcomes In Chronic low back pain (OSTEOPATHIC) Trial.

Methods: This randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial involving 455 patients in Dallas-Fort Worth was conducted from 2006 to 2011. A 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) for LBP intensity and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) for back-specific functioning were used to assess primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Substantial improvement was defined as 50% or greater reduction at week 12 compared with baseline. Cumulative distribution functions for the RR and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) were used to assess response.

Results: Medium treatment effects for LBP intensity were observed overall (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.13-1.76; P=.002; NNT, 6.9; 95% CI, 4.3-18.6). However, large treatment effects were observed in patients with baseline VAS scores of 35 mm or greater. Although OMT was not associated with overall substantial improvement in back-specific functioning, patients with baseline RMDQ scores of 7 or greater experienced medium effects, and patients with baseline scores 16 or greater experienced large effects that were significant. The OMT effects for LBP intensity and back-specific functioning were independent of baseline patient demographic characteristics, comorbid medical conditions, and medication use for LBP during the trial.

Conclusions: Subgrouping according to baseline levels of chronic LBP intensity and back-specific functioning appears to be a simple strategy for identifying sizeable numbers of patients who achieve substantial improvement with OMT and may thereby be less likely to use more costly and invasive interventions. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00315120)

Clinical Outcomes in a Large Cohort of Musculoskeletal Patients Undergoing Chiropractic Care in the United Kingdom: A Comparison of Self- and National Health Service-Referred Routes

OBJECTIVE

An innovative commissioning pathway has recently been introduced in the United Kingdom allowing chiropractic organizations to provide state-funded chiropractic care to patients through referral from National Health Service (NHS) primary care physicians. The purpose of this study was to examine the outcomes of NHS and private patient groups presenting with musculoskeletal conditions to chiropractors under the Any Qualified Provider scheme and compare the clinical outcomes of these patients with those presenting privately.

METHODS

A prospective cohort design monitoring patient outcomes comparing self-referring and NHS-referred patients undergoing chiropractic care was used. The primary outcome was the change in Bournemouth Questionnaire scores. Within- and between-group analyses were performed to explore differences between outcomes with additional analysis of subgroups as categorized by the STarT back tool.

RESULTS

A total of 8222 patients filled in baseline questionnaires. Of these, NHS patients (41%) had more adverse health measures at baseline and went on to receive more treatment. Using percent change in Bournemouth Questionnaire scores categorized at minimal clinical change cutoffs and adjusting for baseline differences, patients with low back and neck pain presenting privately are more likely to report improvement within 2 weeks and to have slightly better outcomes at 90 days. However, these patients were more likely to be attending consultations beyond 30 days.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the contention that chiropractic services as provided in United Kingdom are appropriate for both private and NHS-referred patient groups and should be considered when general medical physicians make decisions concerning referral routes and pain pathways for patients with musculoskeletal conditions.

The effect of journal impact factor, reporting conflicts, and reporting funding sources, on standardized effect sizes in back pain trials: a systematic review and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is a common and costly health complaint for which there are several moderately effective treatments. In some fields there is evidence that funder and financial conflicts are associated with trial outcomes. It is not clear whether effect sizes in back pain trials relate to journal impact factor, reporting conflicts of interest, or reporting funding.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of English-language papers reporting randomised controlled trials of treatments for non-specific low back pain, published between 2006-2012. We modelled the relationship using 5-year journal impact factor, and categories of reported of conflicts of interest, and categories of reported funding (reported none and reported some, compared to not reporting these) using meta-regression, adjusting for sample size, and publication year. We also considered whether impact factor could be predicted by the direction of outcome, or trial sample size.

RESULTS

We could abstract data to calculate effect size in 99 of 146 trials that met our inclusion criteria. Effect size is not associated with impact factor, reporting of funding source, or reporting of conflicts of interest. However, explicitly reporting 'no trial funding' is strongly associated with larger absolute values of effect size (adjusted β=1.02 (95 % CI 0.44 to 1.59), P=0.001). Impact factor increases by 0.008 (0.004 to 0.012) per unit increase in trial sample size (P<0.001), but does not differ by reported direction of the LBP trial outcome (P=0.270).

CONCLUSIONS

The absence of associations between effect size and impact factor, reporting sources of funding, and conflicts of interest reflects positively on research and publisher conduct in the field. Strong evidence of a large association between absolute magnitude of effect size and explicit reporting of 'no funding' suggests authors of unfunded trials are likely to report larger effect sizes, notwithstanding direction. This could relate in part to quality, resources, and/or how pragmatic a trial is.

Validation of Placebo in a Manual Therapy Randomized Controlled Trial

At present, no consensus exists among clinical and academic experts regarding an appropriate placebo for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). Therefore, we investigated whether it was possible to conduct a chiropractic manual-therapy RCT with placebo. Seventy migraineurs were randomized to a single-blinded placebo-controlled clinical trial that consisted of 12 treatment sessions over 3 months. The participants were randomized to chiropractic SMT or placebo (sham manipulation). After each session, the participants were surveyed on whether they thought they had undergone active treatment (“yes” or “no”) and how strongly they believed that active treatment was received (numeric rating scale 0–10). The outcome measures included the rate of successful blinding and the certitude of the participants’ beliefs in both treatment groups. At each treatment session, more than 80% of the participants believed that they had undergone active treatment, regardless of group allocation. The odds ratio for believing that active treatment was received was >10 for all treatment sessions in both groups (all p < 0.001). The blinding was maintained throughout the RCT. Our results strongly demonstrate that it is possible to conduct a single-blinded manual-therapy RCT with placebo and to maintain the blinding throughout 12 treatment sessions given over 3 months.

Short term treatment versus long term management of neck and back disability in older adults utilizing spinal manipulative therapy and supervised exercise: a parallel-group randomized clinical trial evaluating relative effectiveness and harms

Background

Back and neck disability are frequent in older adults resulting in loss of function and independence. Exercise therapy and manual therapy, like spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), have evidence of short and intermediate term effectiveness for spinal disability in the general population and growing evidence in older adults. For older populations experiencing chronic spinal conditions, long term management may be more appropriate to maintain improvement and minimize the impact of future exacerbations. Research is limited comparing short courses of treatment to long term management of spinal disability.

The primary aim is to compare the relative effectiveness of 12 weeks versus 36 weeks of SMT and supervised rehabilitative exercise (SRE) in older adults with back and neck disability.

Methods/Design

Randomized, mixed-methods, comparative effectiveness trial conducted at a university-affiliated research clinic in the Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota metropolitan area.

Participants

Independently ambulatory community dwelling adults ≥ 65 years of age with back and neck disability of minimum 12 weeks duration (n = 200).

Interventions

12 weeks SMT + SRE or 36 weeks SMT + SRE.

Randomization

Blocked 1:1 allocation; computer generated scheme, concealed in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes.

Blinding

Functional outcome examiners are blinded to treatment allocation; physical nature of the treatments prevents blinding of participants and providers to treatment assignment.

Primary endpoint

36 weeks post-randomization.

Data collection

Self-report questionnaires administered at 2 baseline visits and 4, 12, 24, 36, 52, and 78 weeks post-randomization. Primary outcomes include back and neck disability, measured by the Oswestry Disability Index and Neck Disability Index. Secondary outcomes include pain, general health status, improvement, self-efficacy, kinesiophobia, satisfaction, and medication use. Functional outcome assessment occurs at baseline and week 37 for hand grip strength, short physical performance battery, and accelerometry. Individual qualitative interviews are conducted when treatment ends. Data on expectations, falls, side effects, and adverse events are systematically collected.

Primary analysis

Linear mixed-model method for repeated measures to test for between-group differences with baseline values as covariates.

Discussion

Treatments that address the management of spinal disability in older adults may have far reaching implications for patient outcomes, clinical guidelines, and healthcare policy.

Trial registry

www.ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: NCT01057706.

Short-term effect of spinal manipulation on pain perception, spinal mobility, and full height recovery in male subjects with degenerative disk disease: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the short-term effect on spinal mobility, pain perception, neural mechanosensitivity, and full height recovery after high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) spinal manipulation (SM) in the lumbosacral joint (L5-S1).

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial with evaluations at baseline and after intervention.

SETTING

University-based physical therapy research clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

Men (N=40; mean age ± SD, 38 ± 9.14 y) with diagnosed degenerative lumbar disease at L5-S1 were randomly divided into 2 groups: a treatment group (TG) (n=20; mean age ± SD, 39 ± 9.12 y) and a control group (CG) (n=20; mean age ± SD, 37 ± 9.31 y). All participants completed the intervention and follow-up evaluations.

INTERVENTIONS

A single L5-S1 SM technique (pull-move) was performed in the TG, whereas the CG received a single placebo intervention.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Measures included assessing the subject's height using a stadiometer. The secondary outcome measures included perceived low back pain, evaluated using a visual analog scale; neural mechanosensitivity, as assessed using the passive straight-leg raise (SLR) test; and amount of spinal mobility in flexion, as measured using the finger-to-floor distance (FFD) test.

RESULTS

The intragroup comparison indicated a significant improvement in all variables in the TG (P<.001). There were no changes in the CG, except for the FFD test (P=.008). In the between-group comparison of the mean differences from pre- to postintervention, there was statistical significance for all cases (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

An HVLA SM in the lumbosacral joint performed on men with degenerative disk disease immediately improves self-perceived pain, spinal mobility in flexion, hip flexion during the passive SLR test, and subjects' full height. Future studies should include women and should evaluate the long-term results.

The efficacy of manual therapy and exercise for different stages of non-specific low back pain: an update of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

to review and update the evidence for different forms of manual therapy (MT) for patients with different stages of non-specific low back pain (LBP).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Cochrane-Register-of-Controlled-Trials, PEDro, EMBASE.

METHOD

A systematic review of MT with a literature search covering the period of January 2000 to April 2013 was conducted by two independent reviewers according to Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. A total of 360 studies were evaluated using qualitative criteria. Two stages of LBP were categorized; combined acute-subacute and chronic. Further sub-classification was made according to MT intervention: MT1 (manipulation); MT2 (mobilization and soft-tissue-techniques); and MT3 (MT1 combined with MT2). In each sub-category, MT could be combined or not with exercise or usual medical care (UMC). Consequently, quantitative evaluation criteria were applied to 56 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and hence 23 low-risk of bias RCTs were identified for review. Only studies providing new updated information (11/23 RCTs) are presented here.

RESULTS

Acute-subacute LBP: STRONG-evidence in favour of MT1 when compared to sham for pain, function and health improvements in the short-term (1-3 months). MODERATE-evidence to support MT1 and MT3 combined with UMC in comparison to UMC alone for pain, function and health improvements in the short-term. Chronic LBP: MODERATE to STRONG-evidence in favour of MT1 in comparison to sham for pain, function and overall-health in the short-term. MODERATE-evidence in favour of MT3 combined with exercise or UMC in comparison to exercise and back-school was established for pain, function and quality-of-life in the short and long-term. LIMITED-evidence in favour of MT2 combined with exercise and UMC in comparison to UMC alone for pain and function from short to long-term. LIMITED-evidence of no effect for MT1 with extension-exercise compared to extension-exercise alone for pain in the short to long-term.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review updates the evidence for MT with exercise or UMC for different stages of LBP and provides recommendations for future studies.

Prevention of low back pain: effect, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility of maintenance care - study protocol for a randomized clinical trial

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition and a socioeconomic problem in many countries. Due to its recurrent nature, the prevention of further episodes (secondary prevention), seems logical. Furthermore, when the condition is persistent, the minimization of symptoms and prevention of deterioration (tertiary prevention), is equally important. Research has largely focused on treatment methods for symptomatic episodes, and little is known about preventive treatment strategies.

Methods/Design

This study protocol describes a randomized controlled clinical trial in a multicenter setting investigating the effect and cost-effectiveness of preventive manual care (chiropractic maintenance care) in a population of patients with recurrent or persistent LBP.

Four hundred consecutive study subjects with recurrent or persistent LBP will be recruited from chiropractic clinics in Sweden. The primary outcome is the number of days with bothersome pain over 12 months. Secondary measures are self-rated health (EQ-5D), function (the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire), psychological profile (the Multidimensional Pain Inventory), pain intensity (the Numeric Rating Scale), and work absence.

The primary utility measure of the study is quality-adjusted life years and will be calculated using the EQ-5D questionnaire. Direct medical costs as well as indirect costs will be considered.

Subjects are randomly allocated into two treatment arms: 1) Symptom-guided treatment (patient controlled), receiving care when patients feel a need. 2) Preventive treatment (clinician controlled), receiving care on a regular basis. Eligibility screening takes place in two phases: first, when assessing the primary inclusion/exclusion criteria, and then to only include fast responders, i.e., subjects who respond well to initial treatment. Data are collected at baseline and at follow-up as well as weekly, using SMS text messages.

Discussion

This study investigates a manual strategy (chiropractic maintenance care) for recurrent and persistent LBP and aims to answer questions regarding the effect and cost-effectiveness of this preventive approach. Strict inclusion criteria should ensure a suitable target group and the use of frequent data collection should provide an accurate outcome measurement. The study utilizes normal clinical procedures, which should aid the transferability of the results.

Trial registration

Clinical trials.gov; NCT01539863, February 22, 2012. The first patient was randomized into the study on April 13th 2012.