Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for nonacute low back pain: study protocol for a pilot multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled trial (pCRN study)

Definition and classification for adverse events following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization: A scoping review

Introduction

Spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization are interventions used by many healthcare providers to manage musculoskeletal conditions. Although there are many reports of adverse events (or undesirable outcomes) following such interventions, there is no common definition for an adverse event or clarity on any severity classification. This impedes advances of patient safety initiatives and practice. This scoping review mapped the evidence of adverse event definitions and classification systems following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization for musculoskeletal conditions in adults.

Methods

An electronic search of the following databases was performed from inception to February 2021: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ICL, PEDro, Cochrane Library, Open Grey and Open Theses and Dissertations. Studies including adults (18 to 65 years old) with a musculoskeletal condition receiving spinal or peripheral joint manipulation or mobilization and providing an adverse event definition and/or classification were included. All study designs of peer-reviewed publications were considered. Data from included studies were charted using a standardized data extraction form and synthesised using narrative analysis.

Results

From 8248 identified studies, 98 were included in the final synthesis. A direct definition for an adverse event and/or classification system was provided in 69 studies, while 29 provided an indirect definition and/or classification system. The most common descriptors to define an adverse event were causality, symptom severity, onset and duration. Twenty-three studies that provided a classification system described only the end anchors (e.g., mild/minor and/or serious) of the classification while 26 described multiple categories (e.g., moderate, severe).

Conclusion

A vast array of terms, definition and classification systems were identified. There is no one common definition or classification for adverse events following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization. Findings support the urgent need for consensus on the terms, definition and classification system for adverse events related to these interventions.

Perceptions of the Osteopathic Profession in New York City's Korean Communities

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess knowledge of and barriers to osteopathic medicine in Korean communities in New York City. Design: A cross-sectional study was designed in which a culturally appropriate survey in Korean and English versions was administered anonymously to measure community perceptions and knowledge of osteopathic medicine. Setting: Data collection occurred in the municipal delineations for the Bayside neighborhood within the New York, New York borough of Queens. Participants: Community members were selected using convenience sampling from high-density areas to participate. The survey included demographics, education level, health care habits and knowledge of the osteopathic profession. Results: 105 surveys were conducted with 47 males and 58 females, with an average age = 66. Only 14% (n=15) indicated knowledge about osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) and 9% (n=9) indicated knowledge of osteopathic physicians (DOs), with the primary language spoken at home (Korean) as the sole statistically significant factor in recognition of OMM and DOs among the study variables. Conclusion: Compared to research on the general U.S. population, a general lack of knowledge of osteopathic medicine exists within New York City's Korean community. Although this difference may be ascribed to linguistics and ethnosociological factors, greater outreach and education is needed in urban minority communities to make immigrants aware of all health care resources available during the current shortage of primary care physicians in the U.S.

Persian manual therapy method for chronic low-back pain with lumbar radiculopathy; a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Manual therapy is a non-surgical approach for management of musculoskeletal symptoms. This study investigated safety and efficacy of a Persian manual therapy method (Fateh technique) for management of chronic low-back pain (LBP) and radiculopathy.

METHODS

In this controlled trial, 52 eligible patients with chronic LBP and lumbar radiculopathy were randomly assigned into two intervention groups; one received a 16-min soft tissue manipulation for four weekly sessions and did two daily home active exercises. The other group only did the two daily exercises for four weeks. Roland-Morris disability score, Visual Analogue Scale scores of LBP, radiculopathy and paresthesia, and finger-to-floor test result were assessed at the baseline, and in fourth and eighth weeks of trial.

RESULTS

Data of 48 participants was analyzed. Distributions of age, sex, and duration of symptoms in two groups were the same. Fateh technique respectively decreased pain, radiculopathy, paresthesia, and disability, by 4.28 [95% confidence interval: 3.36-5.19], 3.85 [2.67-5.03], 1.32 [0.37-2.27], and 4.58 [3.23-5.93] units, and increased body flexibility by 35.42 [6.91-63.92] millimeters. Compared with home exercise, Fateh technique was associated with greater changes in all outcomes. No adverse event has occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Fateh technique is safe and effective for management of LBP and radiculopathy in patients without severe progressive symptoms.

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.

Comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for non-acute low back pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is common, with a lifetime prevalence of 80%, and as such it places substantial social and economic burden on individuals and society. Chuna manual therapy (CMT) combines aspects of physiology, biodynamics of spine and joint motion, and basic theory of movement dynamics. This study aimed to test the comparative effectiveness and safety of CMT for non-acute LBP.

Methods

A three-arm, multicenter, pragmatic, randomized controlled pilot trial was conducted from 28 March 2016 to 19 September 2016, at four medical institutions. A total of 60 patients were randomly allocated to the CMT group (n = 20), usual care (UC) group (n = 20), or combined treatment (CMT + UC) group (n = 20), and received the relevant treatments for 6 weeks. The primary outcome was a numeric rating scale (NRS) representation of LBP intensity, while secondary outcomes included NRS of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), the EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D), lumbar range of motion, and safety.

Results

A total of 60 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis and 55 patients (CMT, 18; UC, 18; CMT + UC, 19) were included in the per-protocol analysis (drop-out rate 5.3%). Over the treatment period there were significant differences in the NRS score for LBP (CMT mean − 3.28 (95% CI − 4.08, − 2.47); UC − 1.95 (− 2.82, − 1.08); CMT + UC − 1.75 (− 2.70, − 0.80), P < 0.01) and the ODI scores in each group (CMT − 12.29 (− 16.86, − 7.72); UC − 10.34 (− 14.63, − 6.06); CMT + UC − 9.27 (− 14.28, − 4.26), P < 0.01). The changes in other secondary outcomes did not significantly differ among the three groups. Sixteen minor-to-moderate safety concerns were reported.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that CMT has comparative efficacy for non-acute LBP and is generally safe. As this was a preliminary study, a well-powered (over 192 participants) two-arm (CMT versus UC) verification trial will be performed to assess the generalizability of these results.

Trial registration

Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS), KCT0001850. Registered on 12 March 2016.

Nonsurgical integrative inpatient treatments for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: a multi-arm randomized controlled pilot trial

Background

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a chronic condition that causes low back pain and neurogenic claudication, often resulting in significant limitation of daily activities. In this open-label randomized controlled pilot study, we assessed the safety and feasibility of 4-week novel integrative inpatient treatments for LSS.

Methods

Thirty-six symptomatic LSS patients were randomly and equally allocated to one of the three groups: Mokhuri Chuna treatment 1 (MT1) group, Mokhuri Chuna treatment 2 (MT2) group, or conventional management treatment (CMT) group. MT1 patients were treated with herbal medication, Mokhuri Chuna, and acupuncture, and received daily physician consultation; MT2 patients were treated with Mokhuri Chuna and acupuncture without any herbal medication, and received daily physician consultation; and CMT patients received conventional pain management therapy that included epidural steroid injection, oral NSAID, and muscle relaxant medication, along with daily physiotherapy. The primary outcome of this pilot study was safety as measured by the type and incidence of adverse events (AEs). The secondary outcome measures included VAS score for low back pain and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, Oxford Claudication Score (OCS), walking capacity on a 50 m flat track and treadmill, and EuroQol-5D score. Magnetic resonance imaging was also performed up to 6 months after treatment cessation.

Results

Thirty-four treated patients were included in the analysis, based on the modified intention-to-treat principle. No serious AEs were observed or reported. Compared to the CMT group, the MT1 and MT2 groups did show significant improvement at 3 and 6 months in various domains, including pain (VAS score for leg and back pain) and function (OCS and treadmill walking).

Conclusion

These novel multimodal integrative treatments for LSS are both clinically safe and logistically feasible. Larger, adequately powered randomized controlled trials will be necessary to assess comparative efficacy and thoroughly analyze the cost-effectiveness of each treatment approach.

Clinical trial registration number (CRIS)

KCT0001218.

Can a Traditional Korean Manual Therapy Be a Complementary and Alternative Strategy for Cervicogenic Dizziness? A Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Cervicogenic dizziness is dizziness triggered by movement or positioning of the cervical spine and is often accompanied by neck pain or stiffness. This is a prospective, pragmatic, assessor-blind, randomized controlled trial aimed at testing the efficacy and safety of adjuvant Chuna Manual Therapy (CMT) in patients with cervicogenic dizziness under usual care treatments. Fifty patients with cervicogenic dizziness will be randomly allocated to CMT or usual care (UC) groups in a 1 : 1 ratio. Extensive screening procedures, including examinations for central nervous system problems and nystagmus, will be applied to exclude other dizziness-inducing disorders. The eligible participants will receive 12 sessions of CMT plus UC or only UC over 6 weeks. CMT includes mandatory and discretionary techniques, whereas UC includes electrotherapy, thermotherapy, and patient education. The efficacy will be evaluated primarily as Dizziness Handicap Inventory score. The severity and frequency of dizziness, the level of neck pain or stiffness, and the cervical range of motion will also be evaluated. Safety will be assessed by adverse events. The data will be statistically analyzed at p < 0.05. Trial Registration. This trial was registered with Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS) in Korea, KCT0002565, on 29 November 2017, https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/search_result_st01_kren.jsp?seq=9610<ype=&rtype=.