Is Spinal Manipulation Effective for Pain? An Overview of Systematic Reviews

A new taxonomy was developed for overlap across 'overviews of systematic reviews': A meta-research study of research waste

Multiple 'overviews of reviews' conducted on the same topic ("overlapping overviews") represent a waste of research resources and can confuse clinicians making decisions amongst competing treatments. We aimed to assess the frequency and characteristics of overlapping overviews. MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for overviews that: synthesized reviews of health interventions and conducted systematic searches. Overlap was defined as: duplication of PICO eligibility criteria, and not reported as an update nor a replication. We categorized overview topics according to 22 WHO ICD-10 medical classifications, overviews as broad or narrow in scope, and overlap as identical, nearly identical, partial, or subsumed. Subsummation was defined as when broad overviews subsumed the populations, interventions and at least one outcome of another overview. Of 541 overviews included, 169 (31%) overlapped across similar PICO, fell within 13 WHO ICD-10 medical classifications, and 62 topics. 148/169 (88%) overlapping overviews were broad in scope. Fifteen overviews were classified as having nearly identical overlap (9%); 123 partial overlap (73%), and 31 subsumed (18%) others. One third of overviews overlapped in content and a majority covered broad topic areas. A multiplicity of overviews on the same topic adds to the ongoing waste of research resources, time, and effort across medical disciplines. Authors of overviews can use this study and the sample of overviews to identify gaps in the evidence for future analysis, and topics that are already studied, which do not need to be duplicated.

The Acute Effects of Manual and Instrument-Assisted Cervical Spine Manipulation on Pressure Pain Threshold, Pressure Pain Perception, and Muscle-Related Variables in Asymptomatic Subjects: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the immediate effects in asymptomatic participants of manual and instrument-assisted cervical manipulation on pressure pain thresholds, pressure pain perception, and muscle mechanical properties (tone, stiffness, and elasticity) over muscles anatomically related and unrelated to the manipulated level.

METHODS

Fifty-nine asymptomatic participants (34 women and 25 men; age [mean ± standard deviation] = 21.1 ± 1.6 years) were randomly assigned to 4 groups in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Two groups received cervical (C3/C4) manipulation, 1 manual and the other instrument-assisted; the third group received a sham manipulation; and the fourth group served as the control. Bilateral pressure pain threshold, pressure pain perception, muscle tone, stiffness, and elasticity in the upper trapezius and biceps brachii were evaluated before and immediately after the interventions.

RESULTS

At baseline, there were no differences among the groups on any variable. After the interventions, a significant increase in pressure pain threshold was observed with both manual and instrument-assisted manipulation at local and distal sites (P < .05), whereas no changes were observed in either the control or the placebo group. The perception of pain pressure did not change significantly in any group. The interventions did not promote any statistically significant differences in muscle tone, elasticity, or stiffness at any site (local or distal).

CONCLUSION

Cervical (C3/C4) manual and instrument-assisted manipulations produced an increase in pressure pain threshold bilaterally and over muscles related and unrelated to the vertebral segment, but had no effect on muscle tone, elasticity, or stiffness.

No immediate changes on neural and muscular mechanosensitivity after first rib manipulation in subjects with cervical whiplash: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Upper rib manipulative therapy appears to be effective on primary complaint of shoulder pain, but its efficacy has not been evaluated in subjects with whiplash-associated disorders.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the immediate changes on neural and muscular mechanosensitivity after first-rib manipulation in patients with neck or cervicobrachial pain secondary to cervical whiplash (CW).

METHODS

A single-blind (evaluators were blinded to subject allocation) randomized trial was conducted. Fifty-three (N = 53) subjects, 34.7 (SD 10.8 years; 56.6% females), with cervical or cervicobrachial pain following CW, were distributed into two groups. The experimental group (n = 27) underwent a single first-rib high-velocity low-amplitude manipulation technique, while the control group (n = 26) received a sham placebo intervention. Outcome measures were taken at baseline and immediately after intervention, of the pressure pain threshold over the trigeminal, median and ulnar nerves, and over the area described for the location of tense bands in the upper trapezius, masseter, biceps brachii and triceps brachii muscles.

RESULTS

No significant differences in mechanosensitivity values were observed after intervention in the between-groups comparison (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The use of a sole first-rib thrust technique has no immediate effect on neural or muscular mechanosensitivity, when compared to placebo, in subjects with cervical or cervicobrachial pain after CW.

Myofascial low back pain treatment

Myofascial pain is a common musculoskeletal problem, with the low back being one of the commonest affected regions. Several treatments have been used for myofascial low back pain through physical therapies, pharmacologic agents, injections, and other such therapies. This review will provide an update based on recently published literature in the field of myofascial low back pain along with a brief description of a sequenced, multidisciplinary treatment protocol called Skilled Hands-on Approach for the Release of myofascia, Articular, Neural and Soft tissue mobilization (SHARANS) protocol. A comprehensive multidisciplinary approach is recommended for the successful management of individuals with myofascial low back pain.

Role of rehabilitation medicine and physical agents in the treatment of cancer-associated pain

PURPOSE

To provide an overview of rehabilitation medicine- and physical modality-based approaches to cancer pain management, and to highlight the fact that these approaches are generally used in conjunction and that a majority are focused on minimizing pain during periods of mobility and the performance of activities of daily living.

METHODS

We performed a nonsystematic literature review and provide a description of the current standard of care.

RESULTS

Rehabilitative and physical modalities used to manage pain can be grouped into four categories: those that modulate nociception, stabilize or unload painful structures, influence physiological processes that indirectly influence nociception, or alleviate pain arising from the overloading of muscles and connective tissues that often occurs after surgery or with sarcopenia in late-stage cancer. Most modalities have been pragmatically refined over the years, and many have an evidence base, although few have been explicitly validated in the oncologic setting. With few exceptions, they are patient controlled and free of adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Physical modalities and rehabilitation medicine offer a range of pain management approaches that may serve as beneficial adjuncts to the conventional systemic and interventional analgesic strategies used to control cancer-related pain. These approaches may be particularly beneficial to patients with movement-associated pain and those who are ambivalent regarding pharmacoanalgesia.

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.

Changes in pain perception after pelvis manipulation in women with primary dysmenorrhea: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the immediate effect of a global pelvic manipulation (GPM) technique, bilaterally applied, on low back pelvic pain in women with primary dysmenorrhea (PD).

DESIGN

A prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.

SETTING

Faculty of Nursing, Physiotherapy and Podiatry. University of Sevilla, Spain.

METHODS

The sample group included 40 women (30 ± 6.10 years) that were divided into an experimental group (EG) (N = 20) who underwent a bilateral GPM technique and a control group (CG) (N = 20) who underwent a sham (placebo) intervention. Evaluations were made of self-reported low back pelvic pain (visual analog scale), pressure pain threshold (PPT) in sacroiliac joints (SIJs), and the endogenous response of the organism to pain following catecholamines and serotonin release in blood levels.

RESULTS

The intragroup comparison showed a significant improvement in the EG in the self-perceived low back pelvic pain (P = 0.003) and in the mechanosensitivity in both SIJs (P = 0.001). In the between-group comparison, there was a decrease in pain perception (P = 0.004; F(1,38) = 9.62; R(2) = 0.20) and an increase in the PPT of both SIJs, in the right side (P = 0.001; F(1,38) = 21.29; R(2) = 0.35) and in the left side (P = 0.001; F(1,38) = 20.63; R(2) = 0.35). There were no intergroup differences for catecholamines plasma levels (adrenaline P = 0.123; noradrenaline P = 0.281; dopamine P = 0.173), but there were for serotonin levels (P = 0.045; F(1,38) = 4.296; R(2) = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

The bilateral GPM technique improves in a short term the self-perceived low back pelvic pain, the PPT in both SIJs, and the serotonin levels in women with PD. It shows no significant differences with a sham intervention in catecholamines plasma levels.

The within-session change in low back pain intensity following spinal manipulative therapy is related to differences in diffusion of water in the intervertebral discs of the upper lumbar spine and L5-S1

STUDY DESIGN

Single-group, prospective, repeated-measures design with responder analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To determine differences in the changes in diffusion of water within the lumbar intervertebral discs between participants with low back pain who reported a within-session reduction in pain intensity following a single treatment of spinal manipulative therapy and those who did not.

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of research that describes the physiologic events associated with analgesia following intervention for low back pain. Postintervention increases in the diffusion of water within various soft tissues of the spine may be one of many potential mechanisms linked to pain reduction.

METHODS

Nineteen adults between 20 and 45 years of age participated in this study. All participants reported low back pain of at least 2 on an 11-point (0-10) verbally administered numeric pain rating scale at the time of enrollment. Participants underwent T2- and diffusion-weighted lumbar magnetic resonance imaging scans immediately before and after receiving a single treatment of spinal manipulative therapy. Individuals who reported a decrease in current pain intensity of more than 2 following treatment were classified as "within-session responders," and the remainder were classified as "not-within-session responders." The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), representing the diffusion of water in the nucleus pulposus, was calculated from ADC maps derived from the midsagittal diffusion-weighted images.

RESULTS

Two-way, repeated-measures analyses of variance indicated significant group-by-time interactions. Participants in the within-session-responder group (n = 12) had a postintervention increase in ADC at L1-2 (P = .001), L2-3 (P = .002), and L5-S1 (P = .01) compared to those in the not-within-session-responder group (n = 7). Large effect sizes in ADC between responder groups were observed at L1-2 (d = 1.74), L2-3 (d = 1.83), and L5-S1 (d = 1.49). No significant group-by-time interactions were observed at the L3-4 and L4-5 levels.

CONCLUSION

Changes in the diffusion of water within the lumbar intervertebral discs at the L1-2, L2-3, and L5-S1 levels appear to be related to differences in within-session pain reports following a single treatment of spinal manipulative therapy.

Belief reinforcement: one reason why costs for low back pain have not decreased

Recent figures show that there has been no change in the upward trend of direct and indirect costs for the largely benign symptom of low back pain in Western societies. This is despite greater understanding and the recommendation of a much more conservative and independent approach to its management. Moreover, in recent years, several large-scale education programs that aim to bring knowledge of the public (including general practitioners) more in line with evidence-based best practice were carried out in different countries. The hope was that the information imparted would change beliefs, ie, dysfunctional patient behavior and biomedical practice on the part of clinicians. However, these programs had no influence on behavior or costs in three out of the four countries in which they were implemented. It is argued that one reason for the overall lack of success is that it is extremely difficult to alter the potentially disabling belief among the lay public that low back pain has a structural mechanical cause. An important reason for this is that this belief continues to be regularly reinforced by the conditions of care of a range of "hands-on" providers, for whom idiosyncratic variations of that view are fundamental to their professional existence.