McKenzie treatment versus mulligan sustained natural apophyseal glides for chronic mechanical low back pain

Waste not, want not: call to action for spinal manipulative therapy researchers

BACKGROUND

Research waste is defined as research outcomes with no or minimal societal benefits. It is a widespread problem in the healthcare field. Four primary sources of research waste have been defined: (1) irrelevant or low priority research questions, (2) poor design or methodology, (3) lack of publication, and (4) biased or inadequate reporting. This commentary, which was developed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) research expertise, discusses waste in SMT research and provides suggestions to improve future research.

MAIN TEXT

This commentary examines common sources of waste in SMT research, focusing on design and methodological issues, by drawing on prior research and examples from clinical and mechanistic SMT studies. Clinical research is dominated by small studies and studies with a high risk of bias. This problem is compounded by systematic reviews that pool heterogenous data from varying populations, settings, and application of SMT. Research focusing on the mechanisms of SMT often fails to address the clinical relevance of mechanisms, relies on very short follow-up periods, and has inadequate control for contextual factors.

CONCLUSIONS

This call to action is directed to researchers in the field of SMT. It is critical that the SMT research community act to improve the way research is designed, conducted, and disseminated. We present specific key action points and resources, which should enhance the quality and usefulness of future SMT research.

The effects of Core Stability Exercises and Mulligan's mobilization with movement techniques on sacroiliac joint dysfunction

Purpose

Sacroiliac joint dysfunction (SIJD), while being the primary contributor to low back pain, is still disregarded and treated as low back pain. Mulligan's Mobilization with Movement (MWM) Techniques and Core Stability Exercises (CSE) are often used to treat low back pain. There is not much evidence that it is effective in SIJD. To evaluate the effectiveness of CSE coupled with MWM (CSE + MWM) in the treatment of SIJD.

Methods

39 patients with SIJD were recruited and randomly divided into distinct groups as follows: control group (n = 13), CSE group (n = 13) and CSE + MWM group (n = 13). The Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), the Range of Motion (ROM), the Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) and the pelvic tilt angle asymmetry ratio in the sagittal plane (PTAR) were used to gauge the intervention's success both before (M0) and after (M1) it. All experimental data were statistically analyzed.

Results

The SIJ-related pain metric significantly decreased in both the CSE + MWM group and the CSE group between M0 and M1, as determined by the NPRS and RMDQ. Between M0 and M1, The CSE group's left axial rotation ROM and lumbar flexion ROM were significantly decreased. The CSE + MWM group's extension ROM and left lateral flexion ROM both significantly increased between M0 and M1. In the difference variable (M1-M0), the CSE + MWM group substantially outperformed control group in the left lateral flexion ROM and outperformed the CSE group in the left axial rotation ROM.

Conclusion

In individuals with SIJD, CSE + MWM is beneficial in lowering pain, disability, and function. Treatment with CSE and MWM approaches for SIJ appears to boost this efficacy.

Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain has been the leading cause of disability globally for at least the past three decades and results in enormous direct healthcare and lost productivity costs.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess the impact of exercise treatment on pain and functional limitations in adults with chronic non-specific low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo and other conservative treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which includes the Cochrane Back and Neck trials register), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), and conducted citation searching of relevant systematic reviews to identify additional studies. The review includes data for trials identified in searches up to 27 April 2018. All eligible trials have been identified through searches to 7 December 2020, but have not yet been extracted; these trials will be integrated in the next update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that assessed exercise treatment compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo or other conservative treatment on the outcomes of pain or functional limitations for a population of adult participants with chronic non-specific low back pain of more than 12 weeks' duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors screened and assessed studies independently, with consensus. We extracted outcome data using electronic databases; pain and functional limitations outcomes were re-scaled to 0 to 100 points for meta-analyses where 0 is no pain or functional limitations. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool and used GRADE to evaluate the overall certainty of the evidence. When required, we contacted study authors to obtain missing data. To interpret meta-analysis results, we considered a 15-point difference in pain and a 10-point difference in functional limitations outcomes to be clinically important for the primary comparison of exercise versus no treatment, usual care or placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 249 trials of exercise treatment, including studies conducted in Europe (122 studies), Asia (38 studies), North America (33 studies), and the Middle East (24 studies). Sixty-one per cent of studies (151 trials) examined the effectiveness of two or more different types of exercise treatment, and 57% (142 trials) compared exercise treatment to a non-exercise comparison treatment. Study participants had a mean age of 43.7 years and, on average, 59% of study populations were female. Most of the trials were judged to be at risk of bias, including 79% at risk of performance bias due to difficulty blinding exercise treatments. We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise treatment is more effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons for pain outcomes at earliest follow-up (MD -15.2, 95% CI -18.3 to -12.2), a clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to heterogeneity. For the same comparison, there was moderate-certainty evidence for functional limitations outcomes (MD -6.8 (95% CI -8.3 to -5.3); this finding did not meet our prespecified threshold for minimal clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to some evidence of publication bias.  Compared to all other investigated conservative treatments, exercise treatment was found to have improved pain (MD -9.1, 95% CI -12.6 to -5.6) and functional limitations outcomes (MD -4.1, 95% CI -6.0 to -2.2). These effects did not meet our prespecified threshold for clinically important difference. Subgroup analysis of pain outcomes suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than education alone (MD -12.2, 95% CI -19.4 to -5.0) or non-exercise physical therapy (MD -10.4, 95% CI -15.2 to -5.6), but with no differences observed for manual therapy (MD 1.0, 95% CI -3.1 to 5.1). In studies that reported adverse effects (86 studies), one or more adverse effects were reported in 37 of 112 exercise groups (33%) and 12 of 42 comparison groups (29%). Twelve included studies reported measuring adverse effects in a systematic way, with a median of 0.14 (IQR 0.01 to 0.57) per participant in the exercise groups (mostly minor harms, e.g. muscle soreness), and 0.12 (IQR 0.02 to 0.32) in comparison groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise is probably effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo for pain. The observed treatment effect for the exercise compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons is small for functional limitations, not meeting our threshold for minimal clinically important difference. We also found exercise to have improved pain (low-certainty evidence) and functional limitations outcomes (moderate-certainty evidence) compared to other conservative treatments; however, these effects were small and not clinically important when considering all comparisons together. Subgroup analysis suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than advice or education alone, or electrotherapy, but with no differences observed for manual therapy treatments.

Myofascial release versus Mulligan sustained natural apophyseal glides' immediate and short-term effects on pain, function, and mobility in non-specific low back pain

Background

Myofascial release (MFR) and Mulligan Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glides (SNAGs) are manual therapy techniques routinely practiced in the management of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). As a solo intervention or along with other therapies, both methods have reported positive results for individuals with NSLBP. However, which technique improves NSLBP-related pain, restricted range of motion (ROM) and disability, warrants further research.

Objective

To study the comparative effects of MFR and SNAGs on pain, disability, functional ability, and lumbar ROM in NSLBP.

Method

A parallel-group study was conducted at tertiary care hospitals. Sixty-five Sub-acute or chronic NSLBP patients were allocated to receive strengthening exercises along with either MFR (n = 33) or SNAGs (n = 32) for six treatment sessions over one week. An independent assessor evaluated outcome measures such as the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Patient-Specific Function Scale (PSFS), and ROM at baseline, immediate (after 1st treatment), and short-term (post-sixth day of the intervention). The Modified Oswestry disability index (MODI) was assessed at baseline and short-term.

Results

Within-group analysis found clinically and statistically significant (p < 0.05) changes for VAS and PSFS at immediate and short-term for both the groups. The lumbar extension also showed improvement immediately and in the short-term. Improvement in Lumbar flexion was seen only in the SNAGs group over the short-term. A statistically significant improvement was seen for MODI in both the groups but was not clinically significant in the MFR group. The analysis observed no statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between the groups at both the immediate and short-term.

Conclusions

Pain and restricted function associated with NSLBP can be improved using SNAGs or MFR, along with strengthening exercises. For limited lumbar flexion ROM, Mulligan SNAGs have a better outcome than MFR over the short-term. Hence, both manual therapy techniques can be incorporated along with exercises for immediate and short-term management of sub-acute to chronic NSLBP.

Clinical Trial Registration. CTRI/2018/12/016787 (http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/).

Effectiveness of mechanical diagnosis and therapy in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain: a literature review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of mechanical diagnosis and therapy (MDT) in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) compared to other traditional physical therapy interventions.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of MDT compared to other traditional physical therapy interventions in individuals with CLBP were considered eligible. For the purpose of this review, MDT was compared to active and passive physical therapy interventions. Independent reviewers assessed the eligibility of studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcomes investigated were pain and disability.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the review. Of these, 11 provided data to be included in the meta-analyses. Our findings showed that MDT was no more effective in decreasing pain (standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.44, 0.46) and disability (SMD=0.08, 95% CI: -0.53, 0.68) than other active treatments. Similar results were found when comparing MDT to other passive treatments for pain (SMD=-0.39, 95% CI: -0.90, 0.11) and disability (SMD=-0.13, 95% CI: -0.29, 0.03).

CONCLUSION

There is low to moderate quality evidence that MDT is not superior than other traditional physical therapy interventions in improving pain and disability in people with CLBP.

Meta-Analysis of Integrated Therapeutic Methods in Noninvasive Lower Back Pain Therapy (LBP): The Role of Interdisciplinary Functional Diagnostics

Introduction. Lower back pain (LBP) is almost a problem of civilizations. Quite often, it is a consequence of many years of disturbed distribution of tension within the human body caused by local conditions (injuries, hernias, stenoses, spondylolisthesis, cancer, etc.), global factors (postural defects, structural integration disorders, lifestyle, type of activity, etc.), or systemic diseases (connective tissue, inflammation, tumours, abdominal aneurysm, and kidney diseases, including urolithiasis, endometriosis, and prostatitis). Therefore, LBP rehabilitation requires the use of integrated therapeutic methods, combining the competences of interdisciplinary teams, both in the process of diagnosis and treatment. Aim of the Study. Given the above, the authors of the article conducted meta-analysis of the literature in terms of integrated therapeutic methods, indicating the techniques focused on a holistic approach to the patient. The aim of the article is to provide the reader with comprehensive knowledge about treating LBP using noninterventional methods. Material and Methods. An extensive search for the materials was conducted online using PubMed, the Cochrane database, and Embase. The most common noninterventional methods have been described, as well as the most relevantly updated and previously referenced treatment of LBP. The authors also proposed noninvasive (measurable) diagnostic procedures for the functional assessment of the musculoskeletal system, including initial, systematic, and cross-sectional control. All figures and images have been prepared by the authors and are their property.

Results

This review article goes beyond combining a detailed description of each procedure with full references, as well as a comprehensive discussion of this very complex and troublesome problem.

Conclusions

Lower back pain is a serious health problem, and this review article will help educate physicians and physiotherapists dealing with LBP in the options of evidence-based treatment. Ultimately, the article introduces and postulates the need to systematize therapeutic procedures in LBP therapy, with a long-term perspective.

Benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy for the treatment of chronic low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for the treatment of chronic low back pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Index to Chiropractic Literature, and trial registries up to 4 May 2018, including reference lists of eligible trials and related reviews.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials examining the effect of spinal manipulation or mobilisation in adults (≥18 years) with chronic low back pain with or without referred pain. Studies that exclusively examined sciatica were excluded, as was grey literature. No restrictions were applied to language or setting.

REVIEW METHODS

Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The effect of SMT was compared with recommended therapies, non-recommended therapies, sham (placebo) SMT, and SMT as an adjuvant therapy. Main outcomes were pain and back specific functional status, examined as mean differences and standardised mean differences (SMD), respectively. Outcomes were examined at 1, 6, and 12 months. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. A random effects model was used and statistical heterogeneity explored.

RESULTS

47 randomised controlled trials including a total of 9211 participants were identified, who were on average middle aged (35-60 years). Most trials compared SMT with recommended therapies. Moderate quality evidence suggested that SMT has similar effects to other recommended therapies for short term pain relief (mean difference -3.17, 95% confidence interval -7.85 to 1.51) and a small, clinically better improvement in function (SMD -0.25, 95% confidence interval -0.41 to -0.09). High quality evidence suggested that compared with non-recommended therapies SMT results in small, not clinically better effects for short term pain relief (mean difference -7.48, -11.50 to -3.47) and small to moderate clinically better improvement in function (SMD -0.41, -0.67 to -0.15). In general, these results were similar for the intermediate and long term outcomes as were the effects of SMT as an adjuvant therapy. Evidence for sham SMT was low to very low quality; therefore these effects should be considered uncertain. Statistical heterogeneity could not be explained. About half of the studies examined adverse and serious adverse events, but in most of these it was unclear how and whether these events were registered systematically. Most of the observed adverse events were musculoskeletal related, transient in nature, and of mild to moderate severity. One study with a low risk of selection bias and powered to examine risk (n=183) found no increased risk of an adverse event (relative risk 1.24, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.81) or duration of the event (1.13, 0.59 to 2.18) compared with sham SMT. In one study, the Data Safety Monitoring Board judged one serious adverse event to be possibly related to SMT.

CONCLUSION

SMT produces similar effects to recommended therapies for chronic low back pain, whereas SMT seems to be better than non-recommended interventions for improvement in function in the short term. Clinicians should inform their patients of the potential risks of adverse events associated with SMT.