Over Half of Clinical Trials of Mobilization and Manipulation for Patients With Low Back Pain May Have Limited Real-World Applicability: A Systematic Review of 132 Clinical Trials

A critical review of the role of manual therapy in the treatment of individuals with low back pain

The number of low back pain (LBP) cases is projected to increase to more than 800 million by 2050. To address the substantial burden of disease associated with this rise in prevalence, effective treatments are needed. While clinical practice guidelines (CPG) consistently recommend non-pharmacological therapies as first-line treatments, recommendations regarding manual therapy (MT) in treating low back pain vary. The goal of this narrative review was to critically summarize the available evidence for MT behind these recommendations, to scrutinize its mechanisms of action, and propose some actionable steps for clinicians on how this knowledge can be integrated into a person-centered approach. Despite disparate recommendations from CPG, MT is as effective as other available treatments and may be offered to patients with LBP, especially as part of a treatment package with exercise and education. Most of the effects of MT are not specific to the technique. MT and other interventions share several mechanisms of action that mediate treatment success. These mechanisms can encompass patients' expectations, prior experiences, beliefs and convictions, epistemic trust, and nonspecific contextual effects. Although MT is safer than opioids for patients with LBP, this alone is insufficient. Our goal is to encourage clinicians to shift away from outdated and refuted ideas in MT and embrace a person-centered approach rooted in a comprehensive biopsychosocial framework while incorporating patients' beliefs, addressing illness behaviors, and seeking to understand each patient's journey.

The majority of clinical trials assessing mobilization and manipulation for neck pain lack a pragmatic approach: a systematic review of 174 trials

BACKGROUND

Disorders of the cervical spine are some of the costliest musculoskeletal conditions to manage globally. Joint mobilization and manipulation have been shown to be an effective treatment for neck pain. However, the generalizability and clinical translation depends on the nature of the trial designs that inform its use. The extent to which randomized control trials (RCTs) assessing manual therapy treatments for cervical spine disorders fall on the efficacy (explanatory) -effectiveness (pragmatic) spectrum often informs how the findings are translated into clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to determine where RCTs of manual therapy for neck disorders fall on the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum.

METHODS

A search of three electronic databases including PubMed, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were completed for trials published from inception to May 2023. RCTs in which joint mobilization or manipulation were used to treat cervical spine disorders were assessed on the effectiveness-efficacy spectrum using the Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool and risk of bias using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

RESULTS

A total of 174 trials met eligibility. RITES domain two trial setting (71.3% vs 16.1%), domain three flexibility of intervention(s) (62.1% vs 23%), and domain four clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention(s) (51.7% vs 29.3%) all favored efficacy over effectiveness. Domain one participant characteristic(s) had a slightly greater emphasis on effectiveness compared to efficacy (36.8% vs 44.8%). Most studies (96%) had at least some risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Over half of the RCTs assessing the treatment effect of joint mobilization and manipulation for neck pain favor efficacy (explanatory) over effectiveness (pragmatic) designs. Future RCTs on this topic should consider a greater emphasis on pragmatic trial design components in order to better reflect real-world translation to clinical practice.

Assessing the transparency in reporting of clinical trials investigating manual therapy interventions for low back pain: A methodological review

RATIONALE

Low back pain (LBP) is a common condition with a significant societal burden. Manual therapy is an effective treatment for LBP and recommended in clinical practice guidelines. While the quantity of literature supporting the use of manual therapy is large, the methodological quality and transparency of this collective work are unclear.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Explore the transparency in reporting of clinical trials assessing manual therapy interventions in patients with LBP by comparing planned components in the trial registration with what was reported in the published manuscript.

METHODS

Three databases were searched to identify trials assessing the treatment effect of manual therapy for LBP from January 2005 to May 2023. Studies were included if the manual therapy consisted of thrust manipulations, mobilizations or muscle energy techniques.

RESULTS

From 4462 studies initially identified, 167 studies remained in the final review after title, abstract and full-text review. Only 87 (52.1%) of the 167 studies were registered (n = 57 prospectively and n = 30 retrospectively). Primary outcomes in the publications were identical to the registration in 54 (62.1%) of the registered trials. Secondary outcomes in the publication were identical to the registration in 27 (31.0%) of the registered trials. The CONSORT reporting guideline was referenced in only 19 (21.8%) trials. Multiple discrepancies between registration and publication were noted for primary and secondary outcomes. All trials had eligibility criteria in the registration that matched their corresponding manuscript, while only four (4.6%) trial registrations addressed any type of statistical analysis plan.

CONCLUSION

Approximately half of the trials were not registered. Of those registered, only half were registered prospectively. Substantial discrepancies existed between registered and published outcomes that were never addressed by the authors, raising questions about potential bias. Transparency can be improved through more stringent requirements during manuscript submission to journals, and better reporting of the rationale for discrepancies between registration and publication.

Best practices for the dissemination and implementation of neuromuscular training injury prevention warm-ups in youth team sport: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate best practices for neuromuscular training (NMT) injury prevention warm-up programme dissemination and implementation (D&I) in youth team sports, including characteristics, contextual predictors and D&I strategy effectiveness.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Seven databases were searched.

ELIGIBILITY

The literature search followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

participation in a team sport, ≥70% youth participants (<19 years), D&I outcomes with/without NMT-related D&I strategies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Downs & Black checklist.

RESULTS

Of 8334 identified papers, 68 were included. Sport participants included boys, girls and coaches. Top sports were soccer, basketball and rugby. Study designs included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (29.4%), cross-sectional (23.5%) and quasi-experimental studies (13.2%). The median Downs & Black score was 14/33. Injury prevention effectiveness (vs efficacy) was rarely (8.3%) prioritised across the RCTs evaluating NMT programmes. Two RCTs (2.9%) used Type 2/3 hybrid approaches to investigate D&I strategies. 19 studies (31.6%) used D&I frameworks/models. Top barriers were time restrictions, lack of buy-in/support and limited benefit awareness. Top facilitators were comprehensive workshops and resource accessibility. Common D&I strategies included Workshops with supplementary Resources (WR; n=24) and Workshops with Resources plus in-season Personnel support (WRP; n=14). WR (70%) and WRP (64%) were similar in potential D&I effect. WR and WRP had similar injury reduction (36-72%) with higher adherence showing greater effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Workshops including supplementary resources supported the success of NMT programme implementation, however, few studies examined effectiveness. High-quality D&I studies are needed to optimise the translation of NMT programmes into routine practice in youth sport.

Evaluating and Characterizing the Scope of Care for Interventions Labeled as Manual Therapy in Low Back Pain Trials: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this scoping review was to evaluate and characterize the scope of care for low back pain that falls under the specific label of manual therapy.

METHODS

PubMed database, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and SPORTDiscus were searched from journal inception through May 2022 for randomized controlled trials that investigated the treatment of low back pain using manual therapy. Terminology used to define manual therapy was extracted and categorized by using only the words included in the description of the intervention. An expert consultation phase was undertaken to gather feedback.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-six trials met final inclusion criteria, and 169 unique terms labeled as manual therapy for the treatment of low back pain were found. The most frequent terms were mobilization (29.0%), manipulation (16.0%), and thrust (6.4%). Eight percent of trials did not define or specify what type of manual therapy was used in the study. After removing duplicates, 169 unique terms emerged within 18 categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Manual therapy intervention labels used in low back pain trials are highly variable. With such variation, the heterogeneity of the intervention in trials is likely large, and the likelihood that different trials are comparing the same interventions is low. Researchers should consider being more judicious with the use of the term manual therapy and provide greater detail in titles, methods, and supplementary appendices in order to improve clarity, clinical applicability, and usefulness of future research.

IMPACT

The ability to interpret and apply findings from manual therapy-related research for low back pain is challenging due to the heterogeneity of interventions under this umbrella term. A clear use of terminology and description of interventions by researchers will allow for improved understanding for the role of manual therapy in managing back pain.

Spinal manipulation does not improve short-term pain and function in persons with painful shoulder: a systematic review with meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the benefit of spinal high-velocity low-amplitude thrust (HVLAT) in improving pain and disability in persons with painful shoulder as primary outcomes. Function, quality of life, persons (and clinicians) satisfaction, adverse events rate, and time for recovery were secondary outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted and MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, and PEDro until 20 September 2023 were investigated. Two thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine records were retrieved and nine studies were included. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed through the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The certainty of evidence of the pooled results was graded with GRADE approach.

RESULTS

The analysis included nine studies (441 persons). The pooled results showed non-significant differences between HVLAT versus sham in pain at pre-post follow-up (MD -0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.60; 0.35; p = 0.61, I2 = 0%), and at <4 days follow-up (SMD 0.16, 95%CI -0.16; 0.48; p = 0.34, I2 = 23%); in function at <4 days follow-up (SMD -0.29, 95%CI -0.69; 0.11; p = 0.16, I2 = 50%). The certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low.

CONCLUSIONS

HVLAT was not more effective than sham in improving pain and function at pre-post and at <4 days follow-up. When used as an "add-on technique", HVLAT did not improve pain nor disability.

Trials Investigating Exercise for Low Back Pain Lack Pragmatic Application: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the orientation of trials analyzing exercise for low back pain (LBP) on the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Ovid MEDLINE were searched for trials published between January 1, 2010, and August 13, 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials investigating exercise for adults with LBP.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently used the Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool to determine the efficacy-effectiveness orientation. The same 2 reviewers assessed the risk of bias for all studies using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias 2.0 tool.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The search identified 2975 records. Full-text review was conducted on 674 studies, and 159 studies were included. The proportion of trials with a strong or rather strong efficacy orientation (RITES rating=1 or 2), balanced emphasis (RITES rating=3), or strong or rather strong effectiveness (RITES rating=4 or 5) orientation on the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum within each RITES domain were reported. A greater proportion of trials had an efficacy orientation when compared with effectiveness or a balanced emphasis within 4 domains: participant characteristics: efficacy 43.9%, 41.9% effectiveness, balanced 14.5%; trial setting: 69.0% efficacy, effectiveness 15.8% balanced 15.2%; flexibility of interventions: 74.2% efficacy, effectiveness 8.8%, balanced 17.0%; clinical relevance of experimental and comparison interventions: 50.3% efficacy, 33.3% effectiveness 33.3%, balanced 16.4%. A high risk of bias was found in 42.1% (n=67) of trials.

CONCLUSION

Trials investigating the effect of exercise for LBP have a greater orientation toward efficacy across multiple trial design domains. Researchers should consider pragmatic designs in future trials to improve generalizability. Clinicians should consider the efficacy-effectiveness orientation when translating evidence into clinical practice.

Pragmatism in manual therapy trials for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review

Introduction

Manual therapy is an often-utilized intervention for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA). The interpretation of results presented by these trials can be affected by how well the study designs align applicability to real-world clinical settings.

Aim

To examine the existing body of clinical trials investigating manual therapy for knee OA to determine where they fall on the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum.

Methods

This systematic review has been guided and informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Randomized controlled trials that investigated manual therapy treatments for adults with knee OA were retrieved via searches of multiple databases to identify trials published prior to April 2023. The Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool was used to objectively rate the efficacy-effectiveness nature of each trial design. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 assessment tool (RoB-2) was used to assess the risk of bias across five domains.

Results

Of the 36 trials, a higher percentage of trials had a greater emphasis on efficacy within all four domains: participant characteristics (75.0%), trial setting (77.8%), flexibility of intervention (58.3%), and clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention (47.2%). In addition, 13.9% of the trials had low risk of bias, 41.7% had high risk of bias, and 44.4% had some concerns regarding bias.

Conclusions

While many trials support manual therapy as effective for the management of knee OA, a greater focus on study designs with an emphasis on effectiveness would improve the applicability and generalizability of future trials.

The effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy procedures for spine pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a guideline-recommended treatment option for spinal pain. The recommendation is based on multiple systematic reviews. However, these reviews fail to consider that clinical effects may depend on SMT "application procedures" (i.e., how and where SMT is applied). Using network meta-analyses, we aim to investigate which SMT "application procedures" have the greatest magnitude of clinical effectiveness for reducing pain and disability, for any spinal complaint, at short-term and long-term follow-up. We will compare application procedural parameters by classifying the thrust application technique and the application site (patient positioning, assisted, vertebral target, region target, Technique name, forces, and vectors, application site selection approach and rationale) against: 1. Waiting list/no treatment; 2. Sham interventions not resembling SMT (e.g., detuned ultrasound); 3. Sham interventions resembling SMT; 4. Other therapies not recommended in clinical practice guidelines; and 5. Other therapies recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Secondly, we will examine how contextual elements, including procedural fidelity (whether the SMT was delivered as planned) and clinical applicability (whether the SMT is similar to clinical practice) of the SMT.

METHODS

We will include randomized controlled trials (RCT) found through three search strategies, (i) exploratory, (ii) systematic, and (iii) other known sources. We define SMT as a high-velocity low-amplitude thrust or grade V mobilization. Eligibility is any RCT assessing SMT against any other type of SMT, any other active or sham intervention, or no treatment control on adult patients with pain in any spinal region. The RCTs must report on continuous pain intensity and/or disability outcomes. Two authors will independently review title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. Spinal manipulative therapy techniques will be classified according to the technique application and choice of application sites. We will conduct a network-meta analysis using a frequentist approach and multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

DISCUSSION

This will be the most extensive review of thrust SMT to date, and will allow us to estimate the importance of different SMT application procedures used in clinical practice and taught across educational settings. Thus, the results are applicable to clinical practice, educational settings, and research studies. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022375836.

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.