The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews

Serious adverse events associated with conservative physical procedures directed towards the cervical spine: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Previous reviews on serious adverse events (SAEs) following physical interventions involving the neck have focused on vascular SAEs or those related to cervical manipulation.

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence for all serious adverse events associated with any physical cervical procedures and describe SAE characteristics.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science and Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 2023 for studies reporting characteristics of SAE following any neck intervention and patient demographics.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-three studies describing 334 SAE cases were identified. Forty-one were reported in the last 5 years. The results confirmed findings of past reviews with most events being vascular (58%) and mainly arterial dissection or vertebral artery related and the majority involving manipulation (75%). However lesser-known SAES ie neurological (25%), combined vascular/neurological (12%) and others (5%) which included cases such as cerebrospinal fluid leaks, phrenic nerve palsies and retinal detachments were identified. Further, some followed procedures such as vestibular testing, gentle mobilization, exercises, acupuncture or even massage. Initial symptoms included sharp increases in headache/neck pain, nausea, vomiting, dizziness and altered sensation, during treatment or within 48 h, often preceding neurological signs. Most recovered favourably (62%), 16% with disability, 6% died, the rest were unspecified.

CONCLUSION

Most SAEs were vascular and associated with manipulation but awareness of potential neurological and orthopaedic injuries and other procedures should be raised. Monitoring for early signs of SAEs for up to 48 h post-intervention is advisable if a SAE is suspected.

[Atlas block and alar ligament lesion-Underestimated or overrated?]

BACKGROUND

Disorders of the upper cervical spine, most notably lesions of the alar ligament and atlas block, are associated with numerous symptoms, especially as reported in the lay press. Thus, physicians are often confronted with patients who see in them a monocausal origin of complex complaints and hope for a quick remedy.

OBJECTIVE

This review article presents the currently available evidence-based literature on atlas block and alar ligament lesions in order to adequately appreciate their significance.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Summary and critical evaluation of an extensive review of the literature on the diagnostics, clinical presentation, and treatment of disorders of the upper cervical spine.

RESULTS

The current literature shows that alar ligament lesions are caused only by extremely high-speed trauma and that the reliability of their detection on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is moderate at best. As several studies have failed to demonstrate a correlation between symptoms and abnormalities of the alar ligaments on MRI, surgical stabilization of the upper cervical joints is not indicated. The diversity of symptoms associated with atlas block may be explained by the convergence of afferent neurons originating in C1-C3 on several cranial nerve nuclei found in neuroanatomical studies, but this association has yet to be proven. First studies show that highly significant improvements in cervical pain and range of motion can be achieved by means of manual therapy of the upper cervical spine with lasting effects even after 6 months.

CONCLUSION

The importance of alar ligament lesions has often been overrated in the past; however, a more nuanced multifactorial understanding of the disorder should be conveyed to the patient. An atlas block should be considered mainly as a possible cause of pain and restricted range of motion of the cervical spine and in this context manual therapy can be an effective treatment option.

Risk assessment of vascular complications following manual therapy and exercise for the cervical region: diagnostic accuracy of the International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists framework (The Go4Safe project)

QUESTION

What is the diagnostic accuracy of the International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) framework to assess the risk of vascular complications in patients seeking physiotherapy care for neck pain and/or headache?

DESIGN

Cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred and fifty patients seeking physiotherapy for neck pain and/or headache in primary care.

METHODS

Nineteen physiotherapists performed the index test according to the IFOMPT framework. Patients were classified as having a high, intermediate or low risk of vascular complications, following manual therapy and/or exercise, derived from the estimated risk of the presence of vascular pathology. The reference test was a consensus medical decision reached by a vascular neurologist and an interventional neurologist, with input from a neuroradiologist. The neurologists had access to clinical data and magnetic resonance imaging of the cervical spine, including an angiogram of the cervical arteries.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Diagnostic accuracy measures were calculated for 'no contraindication' (ie, the low-risk category) and 'contraindication' (ie, the high-risk and intermediate-risk categories) for manual therapy and/or exercise. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios and the area under the curve were calculated.

RESULTS

Manual therapy and/or exercise were contraindicated in 54.7% of the patients. The sensitivity of the IFOMPT framework was low (0.50, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.61) and its specificity was moderate (0.63, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.75). The positive and negative likelihood ratios were weak at 1.36 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.99) and 0.79 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.05), respectively. The area under the curve was poor (0.57, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.65).

CONCLUSION

The IFOMPT framework has poor diagnostic accuracy when compared with a reference standard consisting of a consensus medical decision.

Demographic and psychometric predictors associated with engagement in risk-associated alternative healthcare behaviours

This paper builds on prior work exploring the use of risk-associated alternative healthcare (RAAH) in Canada. RAAH uptake was surveyed to explore the characteristics of adult RAAH users and the value of established psychometric instruments previously used in alternative healthcare studies in predicting RAAH behaviours: the Control Beliefs Inventory (CBI), the Reward Responsiveness Behavioural Activation System (RBAS) scale, the Positive Attitudes to Science (PAS) scale, the Satisfaction with Orthodox Medicine (SOM) scale, and the brief version of the Susceptibility to Persuasion-II (StP-II-B) scale. Findings suggest RAAH is influenced by gender, age, income, education, employment, chronic illness status, and ethnicity. Engagement in some form of RAAH was common (around 40%) and the most common types of RAAH use reported were physical manipulation and herbal/nutritional supplement use. Other higher-risk AH activities (such as use of toxins and physically invasive procedures) were also reported by about 5% of respondents. The StP-II-B and PAS instruments were predictive of the likelihood of engagement in RAAH behaviours, as illustrated by higher risk tolerance, desire for novelty, positive attitude to advertising and social influence, and positive beliefs about science. The CBI, RBAS, and SOM instruments were not predictive overall. However, the CBI and SOM instruments were predictive of engagement with physical manipulative RAAH activities, while the RBAS was predictive of herbal/nutritional RAAH engagement. These findings can help inform health professionals' understanding of public health-seeking behaviours with respect to risk.

Benefits and Harms of Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Treating Recent and Persistent Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate the benefits and harms of cervical spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for treating neck pain. DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, Chiropractic Literature Index bibliographic databases, and grey literature sources, up to June 6, 2022. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs evaluating SMT compared to guideline-recommended and nonrecommended interventions, sham SMT, and no intervention for adults with neck pain were eligible for our systematic review. Prespecified outcomes included pain, range of motion, disability, health-related quality of life. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analysis for clinically homogenous RCTs at short-term and long-term outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach to judge the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 28 RCTs. There was very low to low certainty evidence that SMT was more effective than recommended interventions for improving pain at short term (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35, 0.97) and long term (SMD, 0.73; 95% CI: 0.31, 1.16), and for reducing disability at short-term (SMD, 0.95; 95% CI: 0.48, 1.42) and long term (SMD, 0.65; 95% CI: 0.23, 1.06). Transient side effects only were found (eg, muscle soreness). CONCLUSION: There was very low certainty evidence supporting cervical SMT as an intervention to reduce pain and improve disability in people with neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(9):510-528. Epub: 10 August 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11708.

Spinal manipulation and adverse event reporting in the pregnant patient limits estimation of relative risk: a narrative review

OBJECTIVE

To describe variability in spinal manipulation technique details and adverse event (AE) documentation of spinal manipulation during pregnancy.

METHODS

Five databases were searched for peer-reviewed investigations of spinal manipulation during pregnancy. Criteria for inclusion was as follows: high velocity, low amplitude thrust manipulation performed, subjects pregnant during manipulation, and English language. Studies were excluded when participants were not currently pregnant, and when the manipulation performed was not high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust. Data extraction included study design, number of participants, gestational age, spinal region, number of manipulations, manipulation technique details, profession of manipulator, AE reporting (Yes vs. No), type, and number of AE.

RESULTS

Out of 18 studies included in the review, only three provide details of the spinal manipulation technique. The reported variables include patient position, practitioner position, and direction of thrust. Fourteen studies documented AE; however, only seven provide AE details.

DISCUSSION

Reporting of spinal manipulation techniques and AE during pregnancy were inconsistent. Replication of methods in future investigations is limited without more detailed documentation of manipulation techniques performed. Furthermore, determining the relative risk and safety of spinal manipulation during pregnancy is not possible without more detailed reporting of AE. Due to these inconsistencies, a checklist is proposed for standardized reporting of spinal manipulation techniques and AE. With more consistent reporting of these parameters, results of future investigations may allow for more definitive and generalizable safety recommendations on spinal manipulation during pregnancy.

Ten years of online incident reporting and learning using CPiRLS: implications for improved patient safety

BACKGROUND

Safety incident (SI) reporting and learning via incident reporting systems (IRSs) is used to identify areas for patient safety improvement. The chiropractic patient incident reporting and learning system (CPiRLS) is an online IRS that was launched in the UK in 2009 and, from time to time, has been licensed for use by the national members of the European Chiropractors' Union (ECU), members of Chiropractic Australia and a Canada-based research group. The primary aim of this project was to analyse the SIs submitted to CPiRLS over a 10-year period to identify key areas for patient safety improvement.

METHOD

All SIs reported to CPiRLS between April 2009 and March 2019 were extracted and analysed. Descriptive statistics were used to describe: (1) the frequency of SI reporting and learning by the chiropractic profession, and (2) the character of reported SIs. Key areas for patient safety improvement were developed following a mixed methods approach.

RESULTS

A total of 268 SIs were recorded on the database over the 10-year period, 85% of which originated from the UK. Evidence of learning was documented in 143 (53.4%) SIs. The largest subcategory of SIs related to post-treatment distress or pain (n = 71, 26.5%). Seven key areas for patient improvement were developed including: (1) patient trip/fall, (2) post treatment distress/pain, (3) negative effects during treatment, (4) significant post-treatment effects, (5) syncope, (6) failure to recognize serious pathology, and (7) continuity of care.

CONCLUSION

The low number of SIs reported over a 10-year period suggests significant under-reporting, however, an upward trend was identified over the 10-year period. Several key areas for patient safety improvement have been identified for dissemination to the chiropractic profession. Improved reporting practice needs to be facilitated to improve the value and validity of reporting data. CPiRLS is important in identifying key areas for patient safety improvement.

International Framework for Examination of the Cervical Region for Potential of Vascular Pathologies of the Neck Prior to Musculoskeletal Intervention: International IFOMPT Cervical Framework

SYNOPSIS: This position statement, stemming from the International IFOMPT (International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists) Cervical Framework, was developed based upon the best contemporary evidence and expert opinion to assist clinicians during their clinical reasoning process when considering presentations involving the head and neck. Developed through rigorous consensus methods, the International IFOMPT Cervical Framework guides assessment of the cervical spine region for potential vascular pathologies of the neck in advance of planned interventions. Within the cervical spine, events and presentations of vascular pathologies of the neck are rare but are an important consideration as part of patient examination. Vascular pathologies may be recognizable if the appropriate questions are asked during the patient history-taking process, if interpretation of elicited data enables recognition of this potential, and if the physical examination can be adapted to explore any potential vasculogenic hypothesis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(1):7-22. Epub: 14 September 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.11147.

Knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of spinal manipulation: a cross-sectional survey of Italian physiotherapists

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

High-velocity low-amplitude thrust spinal manipulation (SM) is a recommended and commonly used manual therapy intervention in physiotherapy. Beliefs surrounding the safety and effectiveness of SM have challenged its use, and even advocated for its abandonment. Our study aimed to investigate the knowledge and beliefs surrounding SM by Italian physiotherapists compared with similar practitioners in other countries.

METHODS

An online survey with 41 questions was adapted from previous surveys and was distributed via a mailing list of the Italian Physiotherapists Association (March 22-26, 2020). The questionnaire was divided into 4 sections to capture information on participant demographics, utilization, potential barriers, and knowledge about SM. Questions were differentiated between spinal regions. Attitudes towards different spinal regions, attributes associated with beliefs, and the influence of previous educational background were each evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 7398 registered physiotherapists, 575 (7.8%) completed the survey and were included for analysis. The majority of respondents perceived SM as safe and effective when applied to the thoracic (74.1%) and lumbar (72.2%) spines; whereas, a smaller proportion viewed SM to the upper cervical spine (56.8%) as safe and effective. Respondents reported they were less likely to provide and feel comfortable with upper cervical SM (respectively, 27.5% and 48.5%) compared to the thoracic (respectively, 52.2% and 74.8%) and lumbar spines (respectively, 46.3% and 74.3%). Most physiotherapists (70.4%) agreed they would perform additional screening prior to upper cervical SM compared to other spinal regions. Respondents who were aware of clinical prediction rules were more likely to report being comfortable with SM (OR 2.38-3.69) and to perceive it as safe (OR 1.75-3.12). Finally, physiotherapists without musculoskeletal specialization, especially those with a traditional manual therapy background, were more likely to perform additional screening prior to SM, use SM less frequently, report being less comfortable performing SM, and report upper cervical SM as less safe (p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

The beliefs and attitudes of physiotherapists surrounding the use of SM are significantly different when comparing the upper cervical spine to other spinal regions. An educational background in traditional manual therapy significantly influences beliefs and attitudes. We propose an updated framework on evidence-based SM.

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.

A taxonomy of risk-associated alternative health practices: A Delphi study

Defining alternative health care and the recording of associated adverse events and harm remains problematic. This Canadian study aimed to establish and classify risk-associated alternative health practices in a Delphi study undertaken with an interdisciplinary panel of 17 health experts in 2020. It provides a new functional definition of alternative health care and an initial taxonomy of risk-associated alternative health care practices. A number of risk-associated practices were identified and categorized into general practices that conflict with biomedical care or largely untested therapies, alternative beliefs systems, physical manipulative alternative therapies, and herbal and nutritional supplements. Some risk significant harms including major physical injuries or even death. The lack of systematic methods for recording adverse events in alternative health care makes establishing the frequency of such events challenging. However, it is important that people engaging with alternative health care understand they are not necessarily risk-free endeavours, and what those risks are.

Safety of Chuna Manipulation Therapy in 289,953 Patients with Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Retrospective Study

Studies have reported that mild adverse events (AEs) are common after manual therapy and that there is a risk of serious injury. We aimed to assess the safety of Chuna manipulation therapy (CMT), a traditional manual Korean therapy, by analysing AEs in patients who underwent this treatment. Patients who received at least one session of CMT between December 2009 and March 2019 at 14 Korean medicine hospitals were included. Electronic patient charts and internal audit data obtained from situation report logs were retrospectively analysed. All data were reviewed by two researchers. The inter-rater agreement was assessed using the Cohen’s kappa coefficient, and reliability analysis among hospitals was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient. In total, 2,682,258 CMT procedures were performed in 289,953 patients during the study period. There were 50 AEs, including worsened pain (n = 29), rib fracture (n = 11), falls during treatment (n = 6), chest pain (n = 2), dizziness (n = 1), and unpleasant feeling (n = 1). The incidence of mild to moderate AEs was 1.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36–2.39) per 100,000 treatment sessions, and that of severe AEs was 0.04 (95% CI 0.00–0.16) per 100,000 treatment sessions. Thus, AEs of any level of severity were very rare after CMT. Moreover, there were no instances of carotid artery dissection or spinal cord injury, which are the most severe AEs associated with manual therapy in other countries.

What are the effects of diagnostic imaging on clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care: a matched observational study

Background

Evidence suggests that diagnostic imaging for low back pain does not improve care in the absence of suspicion of serious pathology. However, the effect of imaging use on clinical outcomes has not been investigated in patients presenting to chiropractors. The aim of this study was to determine if diagnostic imaging affects clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care.

Methods

A matched observational study using prospective longitudinal observational data with one year follow up was performed in primary care chiropractic clinics in Denmark. Data was collected from November 2016 to December 2019. Participants included low back pain patients presenting for chiropractic care, who were either referred or not referred for diagnostic imaging during their initial visit. Patients were excluded if they were less than 18 years old, had a diagnosis of underlying pathology, or had previous imaging relevant to their current clinical presentation. Coarsened exact matching was used to match participants referred for diagnostic imaging with participants not referred for diagnostic imaging on baseline variables including participant demographics, pain characteristics, and clinical history. Mixed linear and logistic regression models were used to assess the effect of imaging on back pain intensity and disability at two-weeks, three-months, and one-year, and on global perceived effect and satisfaction with care at two-weeks.

Results

2162 patients were included, with 24.1% referred for imaging. Near perfect balance between matched groups was achieved for baseline variables except age and leg pain. Participants referred for imaging had slightly higher back pain intensity at two-weeks (0.4, 95%CI: 0.1, 0.8) and one-year (0.4, 95%CI: 0.0, 0.7), and disability at two-weeks (5.7, 95%CI: 1.4, 10.0), but the changes are unlikely to be clinically meaningful. No difference between groups was found for the other outcome measures. Similar results were found when sensitivity analysis, adjusted for age and leg pain intensity, was performed.

Conclusions

Diagnostic imaging did not result in better clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care. These results support that current guideline recommendations against routine imaging apply equally to chiropractic practice.

Fascial treatment versus manual therapy (HVLA) in patients with chronic neck pain: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic neck pain (CNP) is a common health problem in western industrialized nations. In recent years, the fascial tissue has attracted the attention of therapists, and a treatment of the fasciae promises to be a meaningful approach in the therapy of patients with CNP.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of a fascial treatment (FT) compared to manual therapy (MT) and to no intervention (control group, CG) in patients with CNP.

METHODS

Sixty participants with CNP were randomized into three groups. Primary outcome parameters were pain intensity as measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS), and severity of illness as measured by the Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPAD). Secondary outcome parameter was the range of motion (ROM) of the cervical spine.

RESULTS

Repeated measures t-tests demonstrated significant decreases with medium to large effect sizes for the FT (VAS: dR⁢M= 1.14; NPAD: dR⁢M= 0.51) and for the MT (VAS: dR⁢M= 1.15; NPAD: dR⁢M= 0.72).

CONCLUSION

Our results confirmed the effectiveness of MT on pain and severity of illness in the treatment of patients suffering from CNP. Furthermore, the results demonstrated the effectiveness and clinical relevance of FT for this population.

The methodological quality was low and conclusions discordant for meta-analyses comparing proximal humerus fracture treatments: a meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between methodological quality and reported conclusions of meta-analyses comparing operative with non-operative treatments for proximal humerus fractures.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study. We searched EMBASE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for systematic reviews with meta-analyses comparing non-operative with operative treatments for proximal humerus fractures. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR2 and the reported conclusions were scored for three outcome domains (functional outcome, quality of life, and harm) on a scale from 1 to 6. The Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to investigate the association between methodological quality and reported conclusions.

RESULTS

We included 21 systematic reviews: 19 pairwise meta-analyses and 2 network meta-analyses, although there are only 8 published randomized controlled trials. Most (n = 18) of the meta-analyses were rated as critically low quality, while the remaining 1 was rated as high quality. The conclusions were discordant for all three outcome domains, even for meta-analyses reporting similar inclusion criteria. We could not perform most of the statistical tests due to the predominantly critically low quality.

CONCLUSION

The methodological quality was so predominantly critically low that it was not possible to evaluate the association between methodological quality and reported conclusions.

Measuring the Appropriateness of Spinal Manipulation for Chronic Low Back and Chronic Neck Pain in Chiropractic Patients

STUDY DESIGN

RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) applied to chiropractic manipulation for patients with chronic low-back pain (CLBP) and chronic neck pain (CNP).

OBJECTIVE

Determine the rate of appropriate care provided by US chiropractors.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Spinal manipulation has been shown effective for CLBP and CNP but may not be appropriate for all patients with these conditions.

METHODS

Ratings of the appropriateness of spinal and cervical manipulation previously developed by two RUAM expert panels were applied to data abstracted from random samples of patient charts from chiropractors in six US regions to determine the appropriateness of manipulation for each patient.

RESULTS

Of 125 chiropractors sampled, 89 provided charts that could be abstracted. Of the 2128 charts received, 1054 were abstracted. Charts received but not abstracted included 460 that were unusable (e.g., illegible), and 555 did not have CLBP or CNP. Across the abstracted charts 72% had CLBP, 57% had CNP, and 29% had both; 84% of patients with CLBP and 86% with CNP received manipulation. Patients with CLBP who had minor neurologic findings, sciatic nerve irritation, or no joint dysfunction were significantly less likely to receive manipulation. Patients with CNP who had substantial trauma etiology, no joint dysfunction, or no radiographs were significantly less likely to receive manipulation. Most manipulation for CLBP (64%) was appropriate and most manipulation for CNP (93%) was for patients where appropriateness was uncertain or equivocal. The proportions of patients receiving inappropriate manipulation for either condition were low (1%-3%) as were the numbers of patients presenting to these chiropractors for which manipulation was inappropriate.

CONCLUSION

Chiropractors in this US sample tend to provide manipulation to very few patients with CLBP or CNP for which it is inappropriate. However, more research is needed to determine which patients with CNP benefit from manipulation.Level of Evidence: 4.

Spinal epidural hematoma after spinal manipulation therapy: Report of three cases and a literature review

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) has been widely used worldwide to treat musculoskeletal diseases, but it can cause serious adverse events. Spinal epidural hematoma (SEH) caused by SMT is a rare emergency that can cause neurological dysfunction. We herein report three cases of SEH after SMT.

CASE SUMMARY

The first case was a 30-year-old woman who experienced neck pain and numbness in both upper limbs immediately after SMT. Her symptoms persisted after 3 d of conservative treatment, and she was admitted to our hospital. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated an SEH, extending from C6 to C7. The second case was a 55-year-old man with sudden back pain 1 d after SMT, numbness in both lower limbs, an inability to stand or walk, and difficulty urinating. MRI revealed an SEH, extending from T1 to T3. The third case was a 28-year-old man who suddenly developed symptoms of numbness in both lower limbs 4 h after SMT. He was unable to stand or walk and experienced mild back pain. MRI revealed an SEH, extending from T1 to T2. All three patients underwent surgery after failed conservative treatment. The three cases recovered to ASIA grade E on day 5, 1 wk, and day 10 after surgery, respectively. All patients returned to normal after 3 mo of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

SEH caused by SMT is very rare, and the condition of each patient should be evaluated in full detail before operation. SEH should be diagnosed immediately and actively treated by surgery.

Mechanical Parameters and Trajectory of Two Chinese Cervical Manipulations Compared by a Motion Capture System

Objective: To compare the mechanical parameters and trajectory while operating the oblique pulling manipulation and the cervical rotation–traction manipulation.

Methods: An experimental research measuring kinematics parameter and recording motion trajectories of two cervical manipulations were carried out. A total of 48 healthy volunteers participated in this study, who were randomly divided into two groups of 24 representing each of the two manipulations. A clinician performed two manipulations in two groups separately. A motion capture system was used to monitor and analyze kinematics parameters during the operation.

Results: The two cervical manipulations have similar thrust time, displacement, mean velocity, max velocity, and max acceleration. There were no significant differences in active and passive amplitudes between the two cervical rotation manipulations. The thrust amplitudes of the oblique pulling manipulation and the cervical rotation–traction manipulation were 5.735 ± 3.041° and 2.142 ± 1.742°, respectively. The thrust amplitudes of the oblique pulling manipulation was significantly greater than that of the cervical rotation–traction manipulation (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Compared with the oblique pulling manipulation, the cervical rotation–traction manipulation has a less thrust amplitudes.

Clinical Scenarios for Which Cervical Mobilization and Manipulation Are Considered by an Expert Panel to Be Appropriate (and Inappropriate) for Patients With Chronic Neck Pain

OBJECTIVES

Cervical mobilization and manipulation are 2 therapies commonly used for chronic neck pain (CNP). However, safety, especially of cervical manipulation, is controversial. This study identifies the clinical scenarios for which an expert panel rated cervical mobilization and manipulation as appropriate and inappropriate.

METHODS

An expert panel, following a well-validated modified-Delphi approach, used an evidence synthesis and clinical acumen to develop and then rate the appropriateness of cervical mobilization and manipulation for each of an exhaustive list of clinical scenarios for CNP. Key patient characteristics were identified using decision tree analysis (DTA).

RESULTS

Three hundred seventy-two clinical scenarios were defined and rated by an 11-member expert panel as to the appropriateness of cervical mobilization and manipulation. Across clinical scenarios more were rated inappropriate than appropriate for both therapies, and more scenarios were rated inappropriate for manipulation than mobilization. However, the number of patients presenting with each scenario is not yet known. Nevertheless, DTA indicates that all clinical scenarios that included red flags (eg, fever, cancer, inflammatory arthritides, or vasculitides), and some others involving major neurological findings, especially if previous manual therapy was unfavorable, were rated as inappropriate for both cervical mobilization and manipulation. DTA also identified the absence of cervical disk herniation, stenosis, or foraminal osteophytosis on additional testing as the most important patient characteristic in predicting ratings of appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical guidelines for CNP should include information on the clinical scenarios for which cervical mobilization and manipulation were found inappropriate, including those with red flags, and others involving major neurological findings if previous manual therapy was unfavorable.

Interexaminer Agreement and Reliability of an Internationally Endorsed Screening Framework for Cervical Vascular Risks Following Manual Therapy and Exercise: The Go4Safe Project

OBJECTIVE

Clinicians are recommended to use the clinical reasoning framework developed by the International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) to provide guidance regarding assessment of the cervical spine and potential for cervical artery dysfunction prior to manual therapy and exercise. However, the interexaminer agreement and reliability of this framework is unknown. This study aimed to estimate the interexaminer agreement and reliability of the IFOMPT framework among physical therapists in primary care.

METHODS

Ninety-six patients who consulted a physical therapist for neck pain or headache were included in the study. Each patient was tested independently by 2 physical therapists, from a group of 17 physical therapists (10 pairs) across The Netherlands. Patients and examiners were blinded to the test results. The overall interexaminer agreement, specific agreement per risk category (high-, intermediate-, and low-risk), and interexaminer reliability (weighted κ) were calculated.

RESULTS

Overall agreement was 71% (specific agreement in high-risk category = 63%; specific agreement in intermediate-risk category = 38%; specific agreement in low-risk category = 84%). Overall reliability was moderate (weighted κ = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.21-0.57) and varied considerably between pairs of physical therapists (κ = 0.14-1.00).

CONCLUSION

The IFOMPT framework showed an insufficient interexaminer agreement and fair interexaminer reliability among physical therapists when screening the increased risks for vascular complications following manual therapy and exercise prior to treatment.

IMPACT

The IFOMPT framework contributes to the safety of manual therapy and exercise. It is widely adopted in clinical practice and educational programs, but the measurement properties are unknown. This project describes the agreement and reliability of the IFOMPT framework.

Effects of Osteopathic T9-T10 Vertebral Manipulation in Tonsillitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

This study aimed to determine whether osteopathic manipulation of the T9-T10 vertebrae improves the evolution of tonsillitis. A randomized, stratified, controlled clinical trial with blinded patients, evaluator and data analyst was performed. The patients in the control group (CG) underwent a "sham" manipulation. A high-speed, low-amplitude technique was applied to the T9-T10 vertebrae in the osteopathic manipulative group (OMG) patients. The number of days needed to resolve the tonsillitis was significantly lower (p = 0.025) in the OMG (2.03 ± 0.95 days) than the CG (2.39 ± 0.82 days). Additionally, the number of episodes of tonsillitis after the treatment decreased significantly more in the OMG (0.8 ± 1.88 episodes/year in total) than the CG (2 ± 2.12) (p = 0.005). In the OMG, 60.8% had no recurrences of tonsillitis, compared to 22.5% of the CG, in the following year (χ2 (1) = 15.57, p < 0.001). No patients reported adverse effects. It has been concluded that during an episode of tonsillitis, the number of days to resolution was significantly lower after the application of an osteopathic manipulation of the T9-T10 vertebrae, compared to a sham manipulation. The number of subsequent year tonsillitis episodes was greatly reduced in both groups, significantly more in the OMG than in the CG patients.

Evaluation of the effect of chiropractic manipulative treatment on oxidative stress in sacroiliac joint dysfunction

Objectives

This study aims to investigate the effect of chiropractic manipulative treatment on sacroiliac joint dysfunction (SIJD) and its relationship to oxidative stress (OXS) parameters.

Patients and methods

Thirty-three patients diagnosed with SIJD (20 males, 13 females; mean age 36.3±9.7 years; range, 18 to 60 years) and 30 healthy volunteers (20 males, 10 females; mean age 36.4±12.2 years; range, 20 to 57 years) were included in this cross-sectional, case-control study conducted between February 2017 and September 2017. Manipulation was applied to the patients once a week for a duration of four weeks. The patients were evaluated at pre-treatment and one month after treatment with visual analog scale, SIJD test, and total thiol, native thiol, disulphide, and ischemia-modified albumin (IMA) as OXS indicators.

Results

Prior to treatment, we demonstrated that serum native thiol (μmol/L) and total thiol (μmol/L) levels in the patient group were lower compared to control subjects (p=0.03 and p=0.02, respectively). Serum IMA levels were higher in the patient group (p=0.01). There was no change in OXS parameters after manipulative treatment in the patient group.

Conclusion

Manipulation is useful in SIJD. Thiol/disulphide homeostasis and serum IMA levels may be used to measure the OXS in patients with SIJD.

The Biomechanical Analysis of Magnitude and Direction of Force by Different Techniques of Thoracic Spinal Manipulation

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulation (SM) has been widely recognized and used with success in health care fields for spinal joint dysfunction and pain. SM is a procedure that involves small amplitude manipulative thrusts performed with speed. These forces are complex three-dimensional (3-D) forces delivered to create forces and moments at the joint of interest to cause joint movements. The aim of this study was to conduct a 3-dimensional analysis of the magnitude and direction of the forces transmitted in 2 techniques of thoracic spinal manipulation (TSM). Materials/Methods. Thirty-two healthy participants were recruited from the university community. The physical therapist performed TSM using anterior (A) to posterior (P) and P to A techniques once at each of T3, T7, and T12 spinal levels. The magnitude and direction of the forces transmitted during TSM were sensed by the force plates, and the camera system monitored vertebral motion by tracking motion markers.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences on the x-axis while there were significant differences on the y-axis between the measured spinal levels in the P to A technique. There were significant differences found at preload force maximum, preload force minimum, and peak force between T3 and T12 and between T7 and T12 and at peak base force between T7 and T12 on the z-axis. In the A to P technique, there were significant differences in the change of force in measured spinal levels at different axes.

CONCLUSION

These study findings can help therapists better understand the mechanism of TSM and enhance the clinical usefulness of TSM.

Clinical Reasoning Behind Non-Pharmacological Interventions for the Management of Headaches: A Narrative Literature Review

Headache is the clinical syndrome most commonly observed by neurologists in daily practice. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments are commonly used for the management of headaches; however, the clinical reasoning behind these interventions is not properly applied. We conducted a narrative literature review using as data sources for academic PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, EBSCO, PEDro, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Collaboration Trials Register, and SCOPUS. This narrative literature review mainly considered systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomised clinical trials, and expert opinions published after the year 2000 discussing clinical reasoning for application of non-pharmacological interventions in individuals with tension-type, migraine, and cervicogenic headaches. After the data extraction, we organized the literature thematically as follows: (1) mapping of theoretical aspects of non-pharmacological interventions; (2) summarizing most updated literature about effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions grouped by targeted tissue and headache; (3) identifying research gaps in the existing literature and proposing hypotheses for better understanding of current clinical reasoning. We found that there are many non-pharmacological treatment strategies used for headaches, including beyond the tissue-based impairment treatments (bottom-up) and strategies targeting the central nervous system (top down). Bottom-up strategies include joint-biased, soft-tissue biased, or needling interventions, whereas top-down strategies include exercise and cognitive interventions. Evidence shows that the effectiveness of these interventions depends on the application of proper clinical reasoning, since not all strategies are effective for all headaches. For instance, evidence of non-pharmacological interventions is more controversial for migraines than for tension-type or cervicogenic headaches, since migraine pathogenesis involves activation of sub-cortical structures and the trigemino- vascular system, whereas pathogenesis of tension-type or cervicogenic headaches is most associated to musculoskeletal impairments of the cervical spine. We conclude that current literature suggests that not all non-pharmacological interventions are effective for all headaches, and that multimodal, not isolated, approaches seem to be more effective for patients with headaches. Most published studies have reported small clinical effects in the short term. This narrative literature review provides some hypotheses for discrepancies in the available literature and future research. Clinical reasoning should be applied to better understand the effects of non-pharmacological interventions.

The impact of patient preferences and costs on the appropriateness of spinal manipulation and mobilization for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain

BACKGROUND

Although the delivery of appropriate healthcare is an important goal, the definition of what constitutes appropriate care is not always agreed upon. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method is one of the most well-known and used approaches to define care appropriateness from the clinical perspective-i.e., that the expected effectiveness of a treatment exceeds its expected risks. However, patient preferences (the patient perspective) and costs (the healthcare system perspective) are also important determinants of appropriateness and should be considered.

METHODS

We examined the impact of including information on patient preferences and cost on expert panel ratings of clinical appropriateness for spinal mobilization and manipulation for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain.

RESULTS

The majority of panelists thought patient preferences were important to consider in determining appropriateness and that their inclusion could change ratings, and half thought the same about cost. However, few actually changed their appropriateness ratings based on the information presented on patient preferences regarding the use of these therapies and their costs. This could be because the panel received information on average patient preferences for spinal mobilization and manipulation whereas some panelists commented that appropriateness should be determined based on the preferences of individual patients. Also, because these therapies are not expensive, their ratings may not be cost sensitive. The panelists also generally agreed that preferences and costs would only impact their ratings if the therapies were considered clinically appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that the information presented on patient preferences and costs for spinal mobilization and manipulation had little impact on the rated appropriateness of these therapies for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. Although it was generally agreed that patient preferences and costs were important to the appropriateness of M/M for CLBP and CNP, it seems that what would be most important were the preferences of the individual patient, not patients in general, and large cost differentials.

Effects of Head and Neck Positions on Blood Flow in the Vertebral, Internal Carotid, and Intracranial Arteries: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Manual therapy interventions targeting the neck include various positions and movements of the craniocervical region. The hemodynamic changes in various spinal positions potentially have clinical relevance.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of craniocervical positions and movements on hemodynamic parameters (blood flow velocity and/or volume) of cervical and craniocervical arteries.

METHODS

A search of 4 databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature) and, subsequently, a hand search of reference lists were conducted. Full-text experimental and quasi-experimental studies on the influence of cervical positions on blood flow of the vertebral, internal carotid, and basilar arteries were eligible for this review. Two independent reviewers selected and extracted the data using the double-screening method.

RESULTS

Of the 1453 identified studies, 31 were included and comprised 2254 participants. Most studies mentioned no significant hemodynamic changes during maximal rotation (n = 16). A significant decrease in hemodynamics was identified for the vertebral artery, with a hemodynamic decrease in the position of maximum rotation (n = 8) and combined movement of maximum extension and maximum rotation (n = 4). A similar pattern of decreased hemodynamics was also identified for the internal carotid and intracranial arteries. Three studies focused on high-velocity thrust positioning and movement. None of the studies reported hemodynamic changes. The synthesized data suggest that in the majority of people, most positions and movements of the craniocervical region do not affect blood flow.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this systematic review suggest that craniocervical positioning may not alter blood flow as much as previously expected.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapy, level 2a. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(10):688-697. Epub 5 Jul 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8578.

The Effect of Electronical Film on the Anxiety of Patients Candidate for Lumbar Disc Surgery

Background:

This study aimed at investigating the effect of showing surgery educational documentary film on the anxiety of patients candidate for lumbar disc surgery.

Materials and Methods:

This study, as a randomized clinical trial, was conducted in 2018 on 60 patients undergoing lumbar disc surgery, Iran. The patients were divided into two groups of intervention and control (N = 30). An educational film was shown to the patients of the intervention group for 20 min and the control group was provided with the ward's routine trainings. All patients completed demographic characteristics questionnaire and the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (SSTAI) on the admission day, 1 day before the surgery, and 2 h before the surgery. SSTAI was recompleted by the patients. Data analysis was performed using independent t-test, Chi-square, Mann–Whitney test, and paired t-test.

Results:

Before the intervention, the mean score of the state (obvious) and trait (hidden) anxieties was not significantly different between the two groups, but after the intervention, the mean [standard deviation (SD)] score of the state anxiety in the intervention group was significantly lower than that of the control group [mean (SD) = 40.78 (10.34) vs. 47.45 (10.33), F_10,33 = 58, p = 0.01]. In addition, after the intervention, the mean (SD) anxiety score of the patients in the intervention group was significantly lower than that of the control group [mean (SD) = 38.65 (11.01) vs. 44.71 (10.34), F_10,34 = 58, p = 0.03).

Conclusions:

The results showed that educational film reduces the patients' level of anxiety before the surgery. As such, it is recommended that these trainings be included in preoperative nursing practices.

Safety Events and Privilege Utilization Rates in Advanced Practice Physical Therapy Compared to Traditional Primary Care: An Observational Study

Introduction

The general practitioner shortage in the United States coupled with a growing number of Americans living with disability has fueled speculation of non-physician providers assuming a greater role in musculoskeletal healthcare. Previous physician shortages have been similarly addressed, and expanding physical therapy (PT) scope of practice may best serve to fill this need. Resistance to expanding PT practice focuses on patient safety as PTs assume the roles traditionally performed by primary care providers. While studies have shown advanced practice PT to be safe, none have compared safety events in advanced practice PT compared to primary care to determine if there are increased patient risks. Therefore, the purpose of our study is to examine the rate of safety events and utilization of services in an advanced practice PT clinic compared to a primary care clinic. A secondary aim of our study was to report safety events associated with spinal manipulation and dry needling procedures.

Materials and Methods

Productivity and safety data were retrospectively collected from Malcolm Grow Medical Center from 2015 to 2017 for the Family Health Clinic (FHC) and an advanced practice Physical Therapy Clinic (PTC). Chi-square tests for independence, risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%) were used to compare the relationship between the frequency of (1) patient encounters and clinical procedures and (2) clinical procedures and safety events.

Results

Seventy-five percent (12/16) of safety events reported in the PTC were defined as near misses compared to 50% (28/56) within the FHC (RR 1.5; 95% CIs: 1.0 to 2.2). Safety events were more likely to reach patients in the FHC compared to the PTC (RR 1.9; 95% CIs: 0.8 to 4.7). Safety events associated with minor harm to patients was n = 4 and n = 3 in the FHC and PTC respectively. No sentinel events, intentional harm events, nor actual events with more than minor harm were reported in either clinic. Significant relationships indicated that prescriptions, laboratory studies, imaging studies and referrals, were all more likely to be ordered in the FHC than the PTC (p < 0.01). The PTC ordered one diagnostic imaging study for every 37 encounters compared to one in every 5 encounters in the FHC. The PTC similarly referred one patient to another healthcare provider for every 52 encounters, fewer than the one per every 3 encounters in the FHC. There was a significant relationship between encounters and diagnoses, indicating a higher number of diagnoses per encounter in the FHC, though the difference of 0.31 diagnoses per encounter may not be clinically meaningful (p < 0.01). A total of 1,818 thrust manipulations and 2,910 dry needling procedures were completed without any reported safety events.

Conclusion

These results suggest advanced practice PT has a similar safety profile to primary care. The authority to order musculoskeletal imaging and refer to other clinicians were among the most commonly utilized privileges and may be of primary importance when establishing an advanced practice PT clinic. These results support research showing advanced practice PT may lead to reductions in specialty referrals, diagnostic imaging, and pharmaceutical interventions.

Evidence-Based Nonpharmacologic Strategies for Comprehensive Pain Care: The Consortium Pain Task Force White Paper

Medical pain management is in crisis; from the pervasiveness of pain to inadequate pain treatment, from the escalation of prescription opioids to an epidemic in addiction, diversion and overdose deaths. The rising costs of pain care and managing adverse effects of that care have prompted action from state and federal agencies including the DOD, VHA, NIH, FDA and CDC. There is pressure for pain medicine to shift away from reliance on opioids, ineffective procedures and surgeries toward comprehensive pain management that includes evidence-based nonpharmacologic options. This White Paper details the historical context and magnitude of the current pain problem including individual, social and economic impacts as well as the challenges of pain management for patients and a healthcare workforce engaging prevalent strategies not entirely based in current evidence. Detailed here is the evidence-base for nonpharmacologic therapies effective in postsurgical pain with opioid sparing, acute non-surgical pain, cancer pain and chronic pain. Therapies reviewed include acupuncture therapy, massage therapy, osteopathic and chiropractic manipulation, meditative movement therapies Tai chi and yoga, mind body behavioral interventions, dietary components and self-care/self-efficacy strategies. Transforming the system of pain care to a responsive comprehensive model necessitates that options for treatment and collaborative care must be evidence-based and include effective nonpharmacologic strategies that have the advantage of reduced risks of adverse events and addiction liability. The evidence demands a call to action to increase awareness of effective nonpharmacologic treatments for pain, to train healthcare practitioners and administrators in the evidence base of effective nonpharmacologic practice, to advocate for policy initiatives that remedy system and reimbursement barriers to evidence-informed comprehensive pain care, and to promote ongoing research and dissemination of the role of effective nonpharmacologic treatments in pain, focused on the short- and long-term therapeutic and economic impact of comprehensive care practices.

Characterizing Adverse Events Reported Immediately After Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment

Context

Although adverse events in various types of manual therapy have been previously investigated, little is known about the incidence and types of adverse events that occur after osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT).

Objective

To estimate the incidence and characterize the types of adverse events that patients report after OMT and prior to leaving the office to increase the likelihood of identifying adverse events caused by OMT.

Methods

As part of a prospective study evaluating the use and effectiveness of OMT, patients assessed how they felt immediately after OMT compared with before OMT using a 5-point ordinal rating scale (much better, better, about the same, worse, much worse). For patients who indicated they felt their condition had changed, a follow-up, open-ended question asked them to describe how it had changed. Patients who felt worse or much worse were considered to have experienced an adverse event. Two reviewers independently coded the types of adverse events based on the descriptions provided by the patients. Generalized logistic regression models were used to calculate incidence rates and 95% CIs for the types of adverse events. These models were also used to calculate the ORs and 95% CIs for associations of adverse events with demographic characteristics and with individual OMT techniques after accounting for demographic characteristics.

Results

Immediately after OMT, 884 patients provided data at 1847 office visits (663 [76%] women; 794 [92%] identified as white; mean [SD] age, 51.8 [15.8] years). Patients reported they felt worse or much worse immediately after OMT at 45 office visits; the incidence rate for adverse events was 2.5% (95% CI, 1.3%-4.7%). Pain/discomfort was the most commonly identified type of adverse event (16 [0.9%]; 95% CI, 0.5%-1.6%). Insufficient information was provided to determine the type of adverse event at 20 office visits. Women reported adverse events more frequently than men (OR, 13.9; 95% CI, 1.7-115.6; P=.01).

Conclusion

The incidence of adverse events immediately after OMT, most commonly pain/discomfort, was lower than previous reports from other manual medicine disciplines. Larger studies are needed to determine the incidence of serious adverse events and to assess adverse events that occur in the days following OMT.

What are the risks of manual treatment of the spine? A scoping review for clinicians

Background

Communicating to patients the risks of manual treatment to the spine is an important, but challenging element of informed consent. This scoping review aimed to characterise and summarise the available literature on risks and to describe implications for clinical practice and research.

Method

A methodological framework for scoping reviews was followed. Systematic searches were conducted during June 2017. The quantity, nature and sources of literature were described. Findings of included studies were narratively summarised, highlighting key clinical points.

Results

Two hundred and fifty articles were included. Cases of serious adverse events were reported. Observational studies, randomised studies and systematic reviews were also identified, reporting both benign and serious adverse events.Benign adverse events were reported to occur commonly in adults and children. Predictive factors for risk are unclear, but for neck pain patients might include higher levels of neck disability or cervical manipulation. In neck pain patients benign adverse events may result in poorer short term, but not long term outcomes.Serious adverse event incidence estimates ranged from 1 per 2 million manipulations to 13 per 10,000 patients. Cases are reported in adults and children, including spinal or neurological problems as well as cervical arterial strokes. Case-control studies indicate some association, in the under 45 years age group, between manual interventions and cervical arterial stroke, however it is unclear whether this is causal. Elderly patients have no greater risk of traumatic injury compared with visiting a medical practitioner for neuro-musculoskeletal problems, however some underlying conditions may increase risk.

Conclusion

Existing literature indicates that benign adverse events following manual treatments to the spine are common, while serious adverse events are rare. The incidence and causal relationships with serious adverse events are challenging to establish, with gaps in the literature and inherent methodological limitations of studies. Clinicians should ensure that patients are informed of risks during the consent process. Since serious adverse events could result from pre-existing pathologies, assessment for signs or symptoms of these is important. Clinicians may also contribute to furthering understanding by utilising patient safety incident reporting and learning systems where adverse events have occurred.

Adverse events following cervical manipulative therapy: consensus on classification among Dutch medical specialists, manual therapists, and patients

Objectives

To obtain consensus-based agreement on a classification system of adverse events (AE) following cervical spinal manipulation. The classification system should be comprised of clear definitions, include patients' and clinicians' perspectives, and have an acceptable number of categories.

Methods

Design: A three-round Delphi study. Participants: Thirty Dutch participants (medical specialists, manual therapists, and patients) participated in an online survey. Procedure: Participants inventoried AE and were asked about their preferences for either a three- or a four-category classification system. The identified AE were classified by two analysts following the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), and the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10). Participants were asked to classify the severity for all AE in relation to the time duration.

Results

Consensus occurred in a three-category classification system. There was strong consensus for 16 AE in all severities (no, minor, and major AE) and all three time durations [hours, days, weeks]. The 16 AE included anxiety, flushing, skin rash, fainting, dizziness, coma, altered sensation, muscle tenderness, pain, increased pain during movement, radiating pain, dislocation, fracture, transient ischemic attack, stroke, and death. Mild to strong consensus was reached for 13 AE.

Discussion

A consensus-based classification system of AE is established which includes patients' and clinicians' perspectives and has three categories. The classification comprises a precise description of potential AE in accordance with internationally accepted classifications. After international validation, clinicians and researchers may use this AE classification system to report AE in clinical practice and research.