Manual Therapy Effect in Placebo-Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

CPM-Related Mechanisms Could Play a Key Role in the Effects on Pain Sensitivity Induced by Manual Therapy: Three Crossover Trials Investigating the Effects of Manual Pressure

Objective: The aim of this study is to assess whether pain-inducing manual pressure (PIMP) leads to effects on pressure pain threshold (PPT) mediated by conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and whether these effects are influenced by the intensity and repetition of the stimulus. Additionally, the influence of psychological factors and physical activity on the response to PIMP was explored. Methods: A total of 72 pain-free students were randomly assigned to three crossover trials. Trial 1 compared the effects of PIMP with the cold pressor task and pain-inducing electrostimulation. Trial 2 compared the effects of manual pressure that elicited moderate pain, mild pain, and no pain. Trial 3 compared a single PIMP stimulation with four stimuli applied at the same site or at different sites. Results: PIMP produced a lower increase in PPT than cold pressor task and no difference with electrostimulation. Manual pressure that caused moderate pain led to a greater increase in PPT compared to mild pain and pain-free application. Repetition of PIMP stimulus, whether at the same or different sites, did not significantly increase PPT compared to a single stimulation. No association with psychological factors or physical activity was found. Conclusions: PIMP produces an increase in PPT, suggesting the involvement of CPM-related mechanisms.

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.

Manual Therapy in Primary Dysmenorrhea: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

This research aimed to assess the effectiveness of manual therapy in alleviating pain among women undergoing primary dysmenorrhea (PD).

Methods

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding manual therapy for PD were searched from online databases, spanning from their inception to July 2023. The identified literature underwent a thorough screening process, and the data were meticulously extracted and analyzed using RevMan 5.3. Subsequently, the included studies underwent Cochrane's quality assessment and meta-analysis. The evidence obtained was then assessed using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Results

32 RCTs, involving 2566 women were finally included for analysis. The overall quality of the concluding evidence was generally rated as low or very low. Performance bias and blind bias were found to be the main risk of bias of the included studies. In comparison to no treatment, manual therapy demonstrated a significant increase in pain relief in short-term (n=191, MD=1.30, 95% CI: 0.24~2.37). The differences in the effects of manual therapy and the placebo on pain intensity may not be statistically significant (n=255, MD=0.10, 95% CI: -0.37~0.58). In contrast to NSAIDs, manual therapy exhibited superior pain alleviation (n=507, MD=3.01, 95% CI: 1.08~4.94) and a higher effective rate (n=1029, OR=4.87, 95% CI: 3.29~7.20). Importantly, no severe adverse events were reported across all studies, indicating a relatively safe profile for manual therapy.

Conclusion

Manual therapy presented promise in effectively relieving menstrual pain with minimal adverse events in short term, outperforming both no treatment and NSAIDs. However, this conclusion is tempered by the low quality of the included RCTs, highlighting the necessity for more robust trials to validate it.

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.

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.

Effects of Manual Therapy on Parkinson's Gait: A Systematic Review

Manual therapy (MT) is commonly used in rehabilitation to deal with motor impairments in Parkinson's disease (PD). However, is MT an efficient method to improve gait in PD? To answer the question, a systematic review of clinical controlled trials was conducted. Estimates of effect sizes (reported as standard mean difference (SMD)) with their respective 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were reported for each outcome when sufficient data were available. If data were lacking, p values were reported. The PEDro scale was used for the quality assessment. Three studies were included in the review. MT improved Dynamic Gait Index (SMD = 1.47; 95% CI: 0.62, 2.32; PEDro score: 5/10, moderate level of evidence). MT also improved gait performances in terms of stride length, velocity of arm movements, linear velocities of the shoulder and the hip (p < 0.05; PEDro score: 2/10, limited level of evidence). There was no significant difference between groups after MT for any joint's range of motion during gait (p > 0.05; PEDro score: 6/10, moderate level of evidence). There is no strong level of evidence supporting the beneficial effect of MT to improve gait in PD. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to understand the impact of MT on gait in PD.

Efficacy and safety of the orthopaedic manipulation techniques of the Lin School of Lingnan Region in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: protocol of a participant-and-assessor-blinded randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is the most common developmental spine disorder among children. It is characterized by a lateral deviation of the spine that gives rise to the distinctive "S" or "C" shaped bending of the spine. The Lin School of Lingnan Region (LSLR), one of the prominent schools for bare-handed orthopaedic manipulation in southern China, provides preliminary evidences that the orthopaedic manipulation techniques help to correct deviations of the spine. Previous research found that Orthopaedic Manipulation Techniques of LSLR (OMT-LSLR) could reduce the Cobb's angles in patients with AIS. Therefore, the current study aims to investigate the effectiveness and safety of the OMT-LSLR in treating teenagers with AIS.

METHODS

In this participant-and-assessor-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial, 50 participants identified AIS without surgical indications will be recruited and randomized into two groups to receive physiotherapy scoliosis-specific exercises training with either orthopaedic manipulation or sham manipulation treatment for 16 weeks, followed by post-treatment visits at week 24. Primary outcome measure is the change of Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire score. Secondary outcome measures include Traditional Chinese version of Spinal Appearance Questionnaire (TC-SAQ) score, Italian Spine Youth Quality of Life (ISYQOL) score, the change of Cobb's angle measured by Xray, and the change of Cobb's angle, spinal rotation and muscle volume measured by three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound. The trial will be conducted at the Chinese University of Hong Kong Chinese Medicine Specialty Clinic cum Clinical Teaching and Research Centre in Hong Kong (CUHK-CMSCTRC).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study will establish comprehensive clinical evidence about the efficacy and safety of the Orthopaedic Manipulation Techniques of the Lin School of Lingnan Region in the Treatment of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. One of the characteristics of this trial is that it is a participant-and-assessor-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial with sham manipulation. The study would also apply three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound technology to investigate the relationship between the change of the muscle volume and the spinal curve.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT05639023 ) on December 6, 2022.

"Do Not Mix Apples with Oranges" to Avoid Misinterpretation of Placebo Effects in Manual Therapy: The Risk Is Resulting in a Fruit Basket. Comment on Molina-Àlvarez et al. Manual Therapy Effect in Placebo-Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 14021

We read with interest the systematic review with the meta-analysis by Miguel Molina-Álvarez et al. [...].

Reply to Rossettini et al. "Do Not Mix Apples with Oranges" to Avoid Misinterpretation of Placebo Effects in Manual Therapy: The Risk Is Resulting in a Fruit Basket. Comment on "Molina-Álvarez et al. Manual Therapy Effect in Placebo-Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 14021"

We have thoroughly reviewed and carefully analyzed the points raised in the comment titled: "Do not mix apples with oranges" to avoid misinterpretation of placebo effects in manual therapy: the risk is resulting in a fruit basket [...].

Editorial to the Special Issue "The Effect of Exercise Intensity and Psychological Intervention on Musculoskeletal Disorders"

Musculoskeletal disorders are responsible for the most prevalent form of pain, and necessitate a comprehensive approach to rehabilitation [...].

Effectiveness and safety of manual therapy for knee osteoarthritis: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Background

Manual therapy has been used as an alternative approach to treat knee osteoarthritis (KOA) for many years. Numerous systematic reviews (SRs) or meta-analyses (MAs) were published to evaluate its effectiveness and safety. Nevertheless, the conclusions of SRs/MAs are inconsistent, and the uneven quality needs to be critically appraised.

Objectives

To conduct a comprehensive overview of the effectiveness and safety of manual therapy for KOA and the quality of relevant SRs/MAs, thus providing critical evidence and valuable direction for future researchers to promote the generation of advanced evidence.

Methods

The pre-defined search strategies were applied to eight electronic databases from inception to September 2022. Suitable SRs/MAs were included in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and evidence quality were assessed by two independent reviewers who used respectively the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 Version (PRISMA 2020), and Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) based on the method of narrative synthesis. We excluded the overlapping randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and performed a re-meta-analysis of the total effective rate.

Results

A total of eleven relevant SRs/MAs were included: nine SRs/MAs were rated critically low quality, and two were rated low quality by AMSTAR-2. According to ROBIS, all SRs/MAs were rated low risk in Phase 1 (assessing relevance) and Domain 1 (study eligibility criteria) of Phase 2. Three SRs/MAs (27.27%) were rated low risk in Domain 2 (identification and selection of studies). Ten SRs/MAs (90.91%) were rated low risk in Domain 3 (data collection and study appraisal). Five SRs/MAs (45.45%) were rated low risk in Domain 4 (synthesis and findings). And five SRs/MAs (45.45%) were rated low risk in Phase 3 (risk of bias in the review). By PRISMA 2020, there were some reporting deficiencies in the aspects of abstract (2/11, 18.18%), search strategy (0/11, 0%), preprocessing of merging data (0/11, 0%), heterogeneity exploration (6/11, 54.55%), sensitivity analysis (4/11, 36.36%), publication bias (5/11, 45.45%), evidence quality (3/11, 27.27%), the list of excluded references (3/11, 27.27%), protocol and registration (1/11, 9.09%), funding (1/11, 9.09%), conflict of interest (3/11, 27.27%), and approach to relevant information (0/11, 0%). In GRADE, the evidence quality was defined as moderate quality (8 items, 21.05%), low quality (16 items, 42.11%), and critically low quality (14 items, 36.84%). Among the downgraded factors, risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias were the main factors. A re-meta-analysis revealed that manual therapy can increase the total effective rate in KOA patients (risk ratio = 1.15, 95% confidence interval [1.12, 1.18], p < 0.00001; I² = 0, p = 0.84). There are four reviews that narratively report adverse effects, and no severe adverse reactions occurred in the manual therapy group.

Conclusions

Manual therapy may be clinically effective and safe for patients with KOA. However, this conclusion must be interpreted with caution because of the generally unsatisfactory study quality and inconsistent conclusions of the included SRs/MAs. Further rigorous and normative SRs/MAs are expected to be carried out to provide robust evidence for definitive conclusions.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#myprospero, identifier: CRD42022364672.