Spinal manipulation epidemiology: systematic review of cost effectiveness studies

Exploring the immediate and short-term effect of lumbar spinal manipulation on pressure pain threshold: a randomized controlled trial of healthy participants

BACKGROUND

Lumbar spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a common intervention used to treat low back pain (LBP); however, the exact neurophysiological mechanisms of SMT reducing pain measured through pain pressure threshold (PPT) have not been fully explored beyond an immediate timeframe (e.g., immediately or five-minutes following) referencing a control group. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the neurophysiological effects of lumbar SMT compared to deactivated ultrasound using PPT immediately following and 30-minutes following SMT.

METHODS

A longitudinal, randomized controlled trial design was conducted between September to October 2023. Fifty-five participants were randomized into a control group of deactivated ultrasound (n = 29) or treatment group of right sidelying lumbar SMT (n = 26). PPT, recorded at the right posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS), was documented for each participant in each group prior to intervention, immediately, and 30-minutes after. A repeated measures ANOVA, with a post-hoc Bonferroni adjustment, was used to assess within-group and between-group differences in PPT. The significance level was set at a < 0.05 a priori.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were found between the deactivated ultrasound and lumbar SMT groups immediately (p = .05) and 30-minutes (p = .02) following intervention. A significant difference in the lumbar SMT group was identified from baseline to immediately following (p < .001) and 30-minutes following (p < .001), but no differences between immediately following and 30-minutes following intervention (p = .10). The deactivated ultrasound group demonstrated a difference between baseline and immediately after intervention with a reduced PPT (p = .003), but no significant difference was found from baseline to 30-minutes (p = .11) or immediately after intervention to 30-minutes (p = 1.0).

CONCLUSION

A right sidelying lumbar manipulation increased PPT at the right PSIS immediately after that lasted to 30-minutes when compared to a deactivated ultrasound control group. Future studies should further explore beyond the immediate and short-term neurophysiological effects of lumbar SMT to validate these findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was retrospectively registered on 4 December 2023 in ClinicalTrials (database registration number NCT06156605).

Management of low back pain and lumbosacral radicular syndrome: the Guideline of the Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF)

BACKGROUND

Significant progress and new insights have been gained since the Dutch Physical Therapy guideline on low back pain (LBP) in 2013 and the Cesar en Mensendieck guideline in 2009, necessitating an update of these guidelines.

AIM

To update and develop an evidence-based guideline for the comprehensive management of LBP and lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS) without serious specific conditions (red flags) for Dutch physical therapists and Cesar and Mensendieck Therapists.

DESIGN

Clinical practice guideline.

SETTING

Inpatient and outpatient.

POPULATION

Adults with LBP and/or LRS.

METHODS

Clinically relevant questions were identified based on perceived barriers in current practice of physical therapy. All clinical questions were answered using published guidelines, systematic reviews, narrative reviews or systematic reviews performed by the project group. Recommendations were formulated based on evidence and additional considerations, as described in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision framework. Patients participated in every phase.

RESULTS

The guideline describes a comprehensive assessment based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Set for LBP and LRS, including the identification of alarm symptoms and red flags. Patients are assigned to three treatment profiles (low, moderate and high risk of persistent symptoms) based on prognostic factors for persistent LBP. The guideline recommends offering simple and less intensive support to people who are likely to recover quickly (low-risk profile) and more complex and intensive support to people with a moderate or high risk of persistent complaints. Criteria for initiating and discontinuing physical therapy, and referral to a general practitioner are specified. Recommendations are formulated for information and advice, measurement instruments, active and passive interventions and behavior-oriented treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

An evidence based physical therapy guideline for the management of patients with LBP and LRS without red flags for physical therapists and Cesar and Mensendieck therapists was developed. Cornerstones of physical therapy assessment and treatment are risk stratification, shared decision-making, information and advice, and exercises.

CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT

This guideline provides guidance for clinicians and patients to optimize treatment outcomes in patients with LBP and LRS and offers transparency for other healthcare providers and stakeholders.

Treatment and Response Factors in Muscle Activation during Spinal Manipulation

The forces applied during a spinal manipulation produce a neuromuscular response in the paraspinal muscles. A systematic evaluation of the factors involved in producing this muscle activity provides a clinical insight. The purpose of this study is to quantify the effect of treatment factors (manipulation sequence and manipulation site) and response factors (muscle layer, muscle location, and muscle side) on the neuromuscular response to spinal manipulation. The surface and indwelling electromyographies of 8 muscle sites were recorded during lumbar side-lying manipulations in 20 asymptomatic participants. The effects of the factors on the number of muscle responses and the muscle activity onset delays were compared using mixed-model linear regressions, effect sizes, and equivalence testing. The treatment factors did not reveal statistical differences between the manipulation sequences (first or second) or manipulation sites (L3 or SI) in the number of muscle responses (p = 0.11, p = 0.28, respectively), or in muscle activity onset delays (p = 0.35 p = 0.35, respectively). There were significantly shorter muscle activity onset delays in the multifidi compared to the superficial muscles (p = 0.02). A small effect size of side (d = 0.44) was observed with significantly greater number of responses (p = 0.02) and shorter muscle activity onset delays (p < 0.001) in the muscles on the left side compared to the right. The location, layer, and side of the neuromuscular responses revealed trends of decreasing muscle response rates and increasing muscle activity onset delays as the distance from the manipulation site increased. These results build on the body of work suggesting that the specificity of manipulation site may not play a role in the neuromuscular response to spinal manipulation-at least within the lumbar spine. In addition, these results demonstrate that multiple manipulations performed in similar areas (L3 and S1) do not change the response significantly, as well as contribute to the clinical understanding that the muscle response rate is higher and with a shorter delay, the closer it is to the manipulation.

Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Does Targeting a Specific Vertebral Level Make a Difference?: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine whether targeting spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), by applying the intervention to a specific vertebral level, produces superior clinical outcomes than a nontargeted approach in patients with nonspecific low back pain. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, PEDro, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were searched up to May 31, 2023. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing targeted SMT (mobilization or manipulation) to a nontargeted approach in patients with nonspecific low back pain, and measuring the effects on pain intensity and patient-reported disability. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data extraction, risk of bias, and evaluation of the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach were performed by 2 authors independently. Meta-analyses were performed using the restricted maximum likelihood method. RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials (n = 931 patients) were included. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference between targeted SMT and a nontargeted approach for pain intensity at postintervention (weighted mean difference = -0.20 [95% CI: -0.51, 0.10]) and at follow-up (weighted mean difference = 0.05 [95% CI: -0.26, 0.36]). For patient-reported disability, there was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference at postintervention (standardized mean difference = -0.04 [95% CI: -0.36, 0.29]) and at follow-up (standardized mean difference = -0.05 [95% CI: -0.24, 0.13]). Adverse events were reported in 4 trials, and were minor and evenly distributed between groups. CONCLUSION: Targeting a specific vertebral level when administering SMT for patients with nonspecific low back pain did not result in improved outcomes on pain intensity and patient-reported disability compared to a nontargeted approach. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(9):1-11. Epub: 28 July 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11962.

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.

Manual therapy versus advice to stay active for nonspecific back and/or neck pain: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Low back and neck pain are the most common musculoskeletal disorders worldwide, and imply suffering and substantial societal costs, hence effective interventions are crucial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of manual therapy compared with advice to stay active for working age persons with nonspecific back and/or neck pain.

METHODS

The two interventions were: a maximum of 6 manual therapy sessions within 6 weeks, including spinal manipulation/mobilization, massage and stretching, performed by a naprapath (index group), respectively information from a physician on the importance to stay active and on how to cope with pain, according to evidence-based advice, at 2 occasions within 3 weeks (control group). A cost-effectiveness analysis with a societal perspective was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial including 409 persons followed for one year, in 2005. The outcomes were health-related Quality of Life (QoL) encoded from the SF-36 and pain intensity. Direct and indirect costs were calculated based on intervention and medication costs and sickness absence data. An incremental cost per health related QoL was calculated, and sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The difference in QoL gains was 0.007 (95% CI - 0.010 to 0.023) and the mean improvement in pain intensity was 0.6 (95% CI 0.068-1.065) in favor of manual therapy after one year. Concerning the QoL outcome, the differences in mean cost per person was estimated at - 437 EUR (95% CI - 1302 to 371) and for the pain outcome the difference was - 635 EUR (95% CI - 1587 to 246) in favor of manual therapy. The results indicate that manual therapy achieves better outcomes at lower costs compared with advice to stay active. The sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main results.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that manual therapy for nonspecific back and/or neck pain is slightly less costly and more beneficial than advice to stay active for this sample of working age persons. Since manual therapy treatment is at least as cost-effective as evidence-based advice from a physician, it may be recommended for neck and low back pain. Further health economic studies that may confirm those findings are warranted. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56954776. Retrospectively registered 12 September 2006, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN56954776 .

Neglected cervical spondyloptosis of the 5TH - 6TH cervical spine following cervical manipulation: A case report

A 16-year-old boy was diagnosed with spondyloptosis of the cervical spine at the C5–6 level with a neurologic deficit following cervical manipulation. He could not move his upper and lower extremities, but the sensory and autonomic function was spared. The pre-operative American Spinal Cord Injury Association (ASIA) Score was B with SF-36 being 25%, and Karnofsky's score was 40%. The patient was disabled and required special care and assistance. We performed anterior decompression, cervical corpectomy at the level of C6 and lower part of C5, deformity correction, cage insertion, bone grafting, and stabilization with an anterior cervical plate. The patient's objective functional score had increased after six months follow up and assessed objectively with the ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS) E or Excellent, SF-36 score 94%, and Karnofsky score was 90%. The patient could carry on regular activity with minor signs or symptoms of the disease. This case report highlights severe complications following cervical manipulation, a summary of the clinical presentation, surgical treatment choices, and a review of the relevant literature. In addition, the sequential improvement of the patient's functional outcome after surgical correction will be discussed.

•

Rare case of neglected cervical spondyloptosis

•

Challenges in management of neglected cervical spondyloptosis

•

Outcome of single-stage-anterior-only surgery in managing neglected cervical spondyloptosis

Physical therapy treatment of a pediatric patient with symptoms consistent with a spinal cord injury without radiographic abnormality: A retrospective case report

BACKGROUND

A spinal cord injury without radiographic abnormality (SCIWORA) is a relatively uncommon event that occurs in children following cervical trauma primarily due to sports-related injuries or physical abuse.

CASE DESCRIPTION

This case report describes an 11-year-old wrestler that developed signs and symptoms consistent with a SCIWORA following neck trauma during competition. Despite all diagnostic tests being inconclusive, the patient demonstrated increased cervical, thoracic, and lumbar paraspinal tone along with pain, loss of sensation, loss of mobility, and weakness of the lower extremities. As a result, the patient was confined to a wheelchair and required maximum assistance to transfer and ambulate with a walker. The patient was referred to physical therapy nine days after the traumatic event, where he received interferential current with moist heat, myofascial release of paraspinal muscles, functional exercise, gait training, and spinal manipulative therapy targeting the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar vertebrae.

OUTCOME

After 13 physical therapy treatments over 5-weeks, the patient was able to ambulate independently and perform all activities of daily living without pain or functional limitation. The following case report outlines this patient's successful journey toward recovery.

CONCLUSION

This case report suggests that spinal manipulative therapy may be a safe and effective intervention when used within a multi-modal treatment strategy for patients with signs and symptoms consistent with SCIWORA. Moreover, spinal manipulative therapy may be considered a beneficial treatment in some pediatric patients. However, this report describes a single patient, and further research is required on the use of spinal manipulation in this patient population.

Investigation of reaction force magnitude and orientation during supine thoracic thrust manipulation applied to intervertebral and costovertebral regions

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulative techniques are commonly used in manual therapies but quantified descriptive and reliability data are lacking considering supine thoracic thrust manipulation.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to explore and compare kinetic parameters during supine thoracic thrust manipulation performed at two different thoracic regions. Intra-rater task repeatability and influence of practitioners were estimated.

DESIGN

Exploratory and agreement study.

METHODS

Kinetic parameters were assessed by examining reaction force magnitude and orientation (on the basis of the zenithal angle) using force platforms. Manipulative procedure (consisting in the application of 3 preloads followed by one thrust adjustment) at both intervertebral and costovertebral region was performed by different practitioners at three sessions. Application of thrust was allowed for experienced practitioners only. Preload force, peak force magnitude and vector force orientation were compared between anatomical sites, sessions and practitioners, and bias with limit of agreement were estimated.

RESULTS

Repeatability analysis showed that practitioners achieved similar preload and peak force independent of the session, with comparable force orientation. Differences between practitioners were observed for preload and peak force but not regarding the zenithal angle during the thrust phase.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study is the first that explores kinetic parameters for supine thoracic thrust manipulation applied on two different regions of the thorax. Results confirm consistency of performance among practitioners for supine manipulative techniques at intervertebral and costovertebral region. While task repeatability was confirmed, several differences were observed between practitioners. Further investigations would examine velocity, acceleration and potential neurophysiological effect of such manipulative technique.

Reaction Force Magnitude and Orientation During Supine Thoracic Spine Thrust Manipulation: An Exploratory Analysis and Reliability of Preload and Impulse Phase

OBJECTIVE

The main purpose of this study was to explore specific kinetic parameters during supine thoracic thrust manipulation and to analyze task reliability and differences between various practitioners METHODS: Kinetic parameters were assessed by examining ground reaction force magnitude and orientation (on the basis of the zenithal angle) using force platforms. The manipulative procedure (consisting of the application of 3 preloads followed by 1 single thrust adjustment) was performed by different practitioners at 3 sessions. Application of thrust was allowed for trained practitioners only. Preload force, peak force, and vector force orientation were compared between sessions and practitioners.

RESULTS

Reliability analysis showed that practitioners achieved similar preload and peak force independent of the session, with comparable force orientation data. Differences between practitioners were observed for preload and peak force but not regarding the zenithal angle during the thrust phase.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first that explores kinetic parameters for supine thoracic thrust manipulation. Task repeatability was confirmed and several differences were observed between practitioners. Certainly, there is a need for further investigation examining both dynamic parameters (ie, velocity and accelerations) and the potential neurologic effect of such manipulative technique.

Osteopathy in the French-speaking part of Switzerland: Practitioners' profile and scope of back pain management

Background

Osteopathy is commonly used for spinal pain, but knowledge about back pain management by osteopaths is scarce.

Objective

The aim of this study was to survey osteopaths across the French-speaking part of Switzerland about the scope of their practice and their management of patients with back pain.

Design

This cross-sectional observational study was based on an online survey conducted from March to June 2017. Setting and participants: All registered osteopaths of the French-speaking part of Switzerland were asked to complete the survey. Outcome measures: In addition to descriptive statistics (practice characteristics, patients’ profiles, scope of treatment modalities, health promotion, research, and osteopathic practice), we explored variables associated with osteopaths’ practice, such as age and gender.

Results

A total of 241 osteopaths completed the questionnaire (response rate: 28.8%). Almost two thirds of osteopaths were female. Ages ranged from 25 to 72 years with an overall mean of 42.0 (SD 10.7) years. Male osteopaths reported more weekly working hours than female osteopaths did (38.2 [SD 11.0] vs 31.6 [SD 8.9], respectively, p<0.001). Almost a third (27.8%,) of osteopaths could arrange an appointment for acute conditions on the same day and 62.0% within a week. Acute or subacute spinal conditions, mainly low back and neck pain, were the most frequent conditions seen by our respondents. For 94.4% of osteopaths, one to three consultations were required for the management of such conditions.

Conclusion

Osteopaths play a role in the management of spinal conditions, especially for acute problems. These findings, combined with short waiting times for consultations for acute conditions, as well as prompt management capabilities for acute low back and acute neck pain, support the view that the osteopathic profession constitutes an added value to primary care.

A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs

INTRODUCTION

Innovative drugs have been approved in ophthalmology. Thus, the number and importance of economic evaluation studies of ophthalmic drugs have been growing. This study aims to assess the methodological quality of pharmacoeconomic studies of ophthalmic drugs.

AREAS COVERED

A systematic search was conducted in Pubmed/Embase until November 2018 to identify full pharmacoeconomic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs. The quality of studies was evaluated using the British Medical Journal (BMJ) checklist. Quality indicators were evaluated by Fisher's exact test. Ninety-five studies were included, 50 (52.6%) cost-utility analysis, 28 (29.5%) cost-effectiveness and 17 (17.9%) cost-effectiveness/cost-utility. All studies presented, at least, three methodological limitations. Cost-utility studies, studies conducted from a health system perspective, with time horizons longer than one-year and that rely on observational or observational and experimental data simultaneously are associated with higher quality. Only eight (8.4%) studies considered two eyes in the economic analysis and only 13 (13.7%) considered the natural history of the disease when extrapolating results for long-term analysis.

EXPERT OPINION

The majority of the pharmacoeconomic studies were assessed as having good methodological quality, however, the methodological quality scores were sensitive to several indicators. Therefore, improving the quality of studies would enhance their usefulness in the decision-making processes.

Change in young people's spine pain following chiropractic care at a publicly funded healthcare facility in Canada

BACKGROUND

The presence of spinal pain in young people has been established as a risk factor for spinal pain later in life. Recent clinical practice guidelines recommend spinal manipulation (SM), soft tissue therapy, acupuncture, and other modalities that are common treatments provided by chiropractors, as interventions for spine pain. Less is known specifically on the response to chiropractic management in young people with spinal pain. The purpose of this manuscript was to describe the impact, through pain measures, of a pragmatic course of chiropractic management in young people's spinal pain at a publicly funded healthcare facility for a low-income population.

METHODS

The study utilized a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected quality assurance data attained from the Mount Carmel Clinic (MCC) chiropractic program database. Formal permission to conduct the analysis of the database was acquired from the officer of records at the MCC. The University of Manitoba's Health Research Ethics Board approved all procedures.

RESULTS

Young people (defined as 10-24 years of age) demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement on the numeric rating scale (NRS) in all four spinal regions following chiropractic management.

CONCLUSION

The findings of the present study provide evidence that a pragmatic course of chiropractic care, including SM, mobilization, soft tissue therapy, acupuncture, and other modalities within the chiropractic scope of practice are a viable conservative pain management treatment option for young people.

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.

Treatment Efficacy, Clinical Utility, and Cost-Effectiveness of Multidisciplinary Biopsychosocial Rehabilitation Treatments for Persistent Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To review the current literature on the treatment efficacy, clinical utility, and cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) for patients suffering from persistent (nonspecific) lower back pain (LBP) in relation to pain intensity, disability, health-related quality of life, and work ability/sick leave.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic search of Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed Central, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for English- and German-language literature published between January 2010 and July 2017. Study selection consisted of exclusion and inclusion phases. After screening for duplication, studies were excluded on the basis of criteria covering study design, number of participants, language of publication, and provision of information about the intervention. All the remaining articles dealing with the efficacy, utility, or cost-effectiveness of intensive (more than 25 hours per week) MBR encompassing at least 3 health domains and cognitive behavioral therapy-based psychological education were included.

RESULTS

The search retrieved 1199 publications of which 1116 were duplicates or met the exclusion criteria. Seventy of the remaining 83 articles did not meet the inclusion criteria; thus 13 studies were reviewed. All studies reporting changes in pain intensity or disability over 12 months after MBR reported moderate effect sizes and/or p-values for both outcomes. The effects on health-related quality of life were mixed, but MBR substantially reduced costs. Overall MBR produced an enduring improvement in work ability despite controversy and variable results.

CONCLUSIONS

MBR is an effective treatment for nonspecific LBP, but there is room for improvement in cost-effectiveness and impact on sick leave, where the evidence was less compelling.

Cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation, exercise, and self-management for spinal pain using an individual participant data meta-analysis approach: a study protocol

Background

Spinal pain is a common and disabling condition with considerable socioeconomic burden. Spine pain management in the United States has gathered increased scrutiny amidst concerns of overutilization of costly and potentially harmful interventions and diagnostic tests. Conservative interventions such as spinal manipulation, exercise and self-management may provide value for the care of spinal pain, but little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions in the U.S. Our primary objective for this project is to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, and self-management for spinal pain using an individual patient data meta-analysis approach.

Methods/design

We will estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, and self-management using cost and clinical outcome data collected in eight randomized clinical trials performed in the U.S. Cost-effectiveness will be assessed from both societal and healthcare perspectives using QALYs, pain intensity, and disability as effectiveness measures. The eight randomized clinical trials used similar methods and included different combinations of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, or self-management for spinal pain. They also collected similar clinical outcome, healthcare utilization, and work productivity data. A two-stage approach to individual patient data meta-analysis will be conducted.

Discussion

This project capitalizes on a unique opportunity to combine clinical and economic data collected in a several clinical trials that used similar methods. The findings will provide important information on the value of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, and self-management for spinal pain management in the U.S.

Health economic evidence gaps and methodological constraints in low back pain and neck pain: Results of the Research Agenda for Health Economic Evaluation (RAHEE) project

Despite the increased interest in economic evaluations, there are difficulties in applying the results of such studies in practice. Therefore, the "Research Agenda for Health Economic Evaluation" (RAHEE) project was initiated, which aimed to improve the use of health economic evidence in practice for the 10 highest burden conditions in the European Union (including low back pain [LBP] and neck pain [NP]). This was done by undertaking literature mapping and convening an Expert Panel meeting, during which the literature mapping results were discussed and evidence gaps and methodological constraints were identified. The current paper is a part of the RAHEE project and aimed to identify economic evidence gaps and methodological constraints in the LBP and NP literature, in particular. The literature mapping revealed that economic evidence was unavailable for various commonly used LBP and NP treatments (e.g., injections, traction, and discography). Even if economic evidence was available, many treatments were only evaluated in a single study or studies for the same intervention were highly heterogeneous in terms of their patient population, control condition, follow-up duration, setting, and/or economic perspective. Up until now, this has prevented economic evaluation results from being statistically pooled in the LBP and NP literature, and strong conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of LBP and NP treatments can therefore not be made. The Expert Panel identified the need for further high-quality economic evaluations, especially on surgery versus conservative care and competing treatment options for chronic LBP. Handling of uncertainty and reporting quality were considered the most important methodological challenges.

A commentary review of the cost effectiveness of manual therapies for neck and low back pain

BACKGROUND & PURPOSE

Neck and low back pain (NLBP) are global health problems, which diminish quality of life and consume vast economic resources. Cost effectiveness in healthcare is the minimal amount spent to obtain acceptable outcomes. Studies on manual therapies often fail to identify which manual therapy intervention or combinations with other interventions is the most cost effective. The purpose of this commentary is to sample the dialogue within the literature on the cost effectiveness of evidence-based manual therapies with a particular focus on the neck and low back regions.

METHODS

This commentary identifies and presents the available literature on the cost effectiveness of manual therapies for NLBP. Key words searched were neck and low back pain, cost effectiveness, and manual therapy to select evidence-based articles. Eight articles were identified and presented for discussion.

RESULTS

The lack of homogeneity, in the available literature, makes difficult any valid comparison among the various cost effectiveness studies.

DISCUSSION

Potential outcome bias in each study is dependent upon the lens through which it is evaluated. If evaluated from a societal perspective, the conclusion slants toward "adequate" interventions in an effort to decrease costs rather than toward the most efficacious interventions with the best outcomes. When cost data are assessed according to a healthcare (or individual) perspective, greater value is placed on quality of life, the patient's beliefs, and the "willingness to pay."

Adverse effects as a consequence of being the subject of orthopaedic manual therapy training, a worldwide retrospective survey

BACKGROUND

Physical therapists (PTs) use a range of manual therapy techniques developed to an advanced level through postgraduate orthopaedic manipulative physical therapy (OMPT) programmes. The aim of this study was to describe the adverse effects experienced by students after having techniques performed on them as part of their OMPT training.

DESIGN

A descriptive online survey of current students and recent graduates (≤5 years)m of OMPT programmes across the 22 Member Organisations of the International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by 1640 respondents across 22 countries (1263 graduates, 377 students. Some 60% of respondents reported never having experienced adverse effects during their manual therapy training. Of the 40% who did, 66.4% reported neck pain, 50.9% headache and 32% low back pain. Most reports of neck pain started after a manipulation and/or mobilisation, of which 53.4% lasted ≤24 h, 38.1% > 24 h but <3 months and 13.7% still experienced neck pain to date. A small percentage of respondents (3.3%) reported knowing of a fellow student experiencing a major adverse effect.

CONCLUSION

Mild to moderate adverse effects after practising manual therapy techniques are commonly reported, but usually resolve within 24 h. However, this survey has identified the reported occurrence of major adverse effects that warrant further investigation.

Effect on healthcare utilization and costs of spinal manual therapy for acute low back pain in routine care: A propensity score matched cohort study

Spinal manual therapy (SMT) is a popular treatment option for low back pain (LBP). The aim of our analysis was to evaluate the effects of manual therapy delivered by general practitioners and ambulatory orthopedic surgeons in routine care on follow up consultations, sick leave, health service utilization and costs for acute LBP compared to matched patients not receiving manual therapy. This is a propensity score matched cohort study based on health claims data. We identified a total of 113.652 adult patients with acute LBP and no coded red flags of whom 21.021 (18%) received SMT by physicians. In the final analysis 17.965 patients in each group could be matched. Balance on patients’ coded characteristics, comorbidity and prior health service utilization was achieved. The provision of SMT for acute LBP had no relevant impact on follow up visits and days of sick leave for LBP in the index billing period and the following year. SMT was associated with a higher proportion of imaging studies for LBP (30.6% vs. 23%, SMD: 0.164 [95% CI 0.143–0.185]). SMT did not lead to meaningful savings by replacing other health services for LBP. SMT for acute non-specific LBP in routine care was not clinically meaningful effective to reduce sick leave and reconsultation rates compared to no SMT and did not lead to meaningful savings by replacing other health services from the perspective of health insurance. This does not imply that SMT is ineffective but might reflect a problem with selection of suitable patients and the quality and quantity of SMT in routine care. National Manual Medicine societies should state clearly that imaging is not routinely needed prior to SMT in patients with low suspicion of presence of red flags and monitor the quality of provided services.

Manual therapy compared with physical therapy in patients with non-specific neck pain: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Manual therapy according to the School of Manual Therapy Utrecht (MTU) is a specific type of passive manual joint mobilization. MTU has not yet been systematically compared to other manual therapies and physical therapy. In this study the effectiveness of MTU is compared to physical therapy, particularly active exercise therapy (PT) in patients with non-specific neck pain.

Methods

Patients neck pain, aged between 18–70 years, were included in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial with a one-year follow-up. Primary outcome measures were global perceived effect and functioning (Neck Disability Index), the secondary outcome was pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale for Pain). Outcomes were measured at 3, 7, 13, 26 and 52 weeks. Multilevel analyses (intention-to-treat) were the primary analyses for overall between-group differences. Additional to the primary and secondary outcomes the number of treatment sessions of the MTU group and PT group was analyzed. Data were collected from September 2008 to February 2011.

Results

A total of 181 patients were included. Multilevel analyses showed no statistically significant overall differences at one year between the MTU and PT groups on any of the primary and secondary outcomes. The MTU group showed significantly lower treatment sessions compared to the PT group (respectively 3.1 vs. 5.9 after 7 weeks; 6.1 vs. 10.0 after 52 weeks).

Conclusions

Patients with neck pain improved in both groups without statistical significantly or clinically relevant differences between the MTU and PT groups during one-year follow-up.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00713843.

Osteopathic manipulative treatment: A systematic review and critical appraisal of comparative effectiveness and health economics research

In recent years, evidence has emerged regarding the effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative treatments (OMT). Despite growing evidence in this field, there is need for appropriate research designs that effectively reflect the person-centred system of care promoted in osteopathy and provide data which can inform policy decisions within the healthcare system. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify, appraise and synthesise the evidence from comparative effectiveness and economic evaluation research involving OMT. A database search was conducted using CINAHL, PubMed, PEDro, AMED, SCOPUS and OSTMED.DR, from their inception to May 2015. Two separate searches were undertaken to identify original research articles encompassing the economic evaluation and comparative effectiveness of OMT. Identified comparative effectives studies were evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and appraised using the Good Reporting of Comparative Effectiveness (GRACE) principles. Identified economic studies were assessed with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) guidelines. Sixteen studies reporting the findings of comparative effectiveness (n = 9) and economic evaluation (n = 7) research were included. The comparative effectiveness studies reported outcomes for varied health conditions and the majority (n = 6) demonstrated a high risk of bias. The economic evaluations included a range of analyses and considerable differences in the quality of reporting were evident. Despite some positive findings, published comparative effectiveness and health economic studies in OMT are of insufficient quality and quantity to inform policy and practice. High quality, well-designed, research that aligns with international best practice is greatly needed to build a pragmatic evidence base for OMT.

'PICO-D Management'; a decision-aid for evidence-based chiropractic education and clinical practice

Background

Various models and decision-making aids exist for chiropractic clinical practice.

Results

“PICO-D Man” (Patient-Intervention-Comparator-Outcome-Duration Management) is a decision-aid developed in an educational setting which field practitioners may also find useful for applying defensible evidence-based practice. Clinical decision-making involves understanding and evaluating both the proposed clinicalintervention(s) and the relevant and available management options with respect to describing the patient and their problem, clinical and cost effectiveness, safety, feasibility and time-frame.

Conclusions

For people consulting chiropractors this decision-aid usually requires the practitioner to consider a comparison of usual chiropractic care, (clinical management including a combination of active care and passive manual interventions), to usual medical care usually including medications, or other allied healthmanagement options while being mindful of the natural history of the persons’ condition.

Neuromechanical response to spinal manipulation therapy: effects of a constant rate of force application

BACKGROUND

Neuromechanical responses to spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) have been shown to be modulated through the variation of SMT biomechanical parameters: peak force, time to peak force, and preload force. Although rate of force application was modulated by the variation of these parameters, the assumption that neuromuscular responses are modulated by the rate of force application remains to be confirmed. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effect of a constant rate of force application in neuromechanical responses to SMT in healthy adults.

METHODS

Four SMT force-time profiles presenting different time to peak force and peak force, but with a constant rate of force application were applied on 25 healthy participants' T7 transverse processes. Muscular responses were recorded through surface electromyography electrodes (T6 and T8 levels), while vertebral displacements were assessed through pasted kinematic markers on T6 to T8 spinous processes. Effects of SMT force-time profiles on neuromechanical responses were assessed using repeated-measures ANOVAs.

RESULTS

There was no main effect of SMT force-time profile modulation on muscular responses (ps > .05) except for the left T8 (F (3, 72) = 3.23, p = .03) and left T6 (F (3, 72) = 2.94, p = .04). Muscular responses were significantly lower for the lowest peak force condition than the highest (for T8) or second highest (for T6). Analysis showed that increasing the SMT peak force (and concomitantly time to peak force) led to a significant vertebral displacement increase for the contacted vertebra (F T7 (1, 17) = 354.80, p < .001) and both adjacent vertebras (F T6 (1, 12) = 104.71, p < .001 and F T8 (1, 19) = 468.68, p < .001).

CONCLUSION

This study showed that peak force modulation using constant rate of force application leads to similar neuromuscular responses. Coupled with previous investigations of SMT peak force and duration effects, the results suggest that neuromuscular responses to SMT are mostly influenced by the rate of force application, while peak force modulation yields changes in the vertebral displacement. Rate of force application should therefore be defined in future studies. Clinical implications of various SMT dosages in patients with spine related pain should also be investigated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02550132 . Registered 8 September 2015.

Cost-Effectiveness of Physical Therapy Only and of Usual Care for Various Health Conditions: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Given continually rising health care costs, interventions of health care providers should be cost-effective.

PURPOSE

This review aimed to summarize current cost-effectiveness of physical therapy. Specific aims were: (1) to analyze cost-effectiveness of physical therapy only compared with usual care only, (2) to analyze cost-effectiveness of physical therapy added to usual care compared with usual care only, and (3) to specify in which health conditions physical therapy only or physical therapy added to usual care was cost-effective.

DATA SOURCES

Topic-related systematic reviews were searched in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PEDro, and Cochrane Library and manually.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies published between 1998 and 2014 that investigated the cost-effectiveness of interventions carried out by physical therapists were reviewed. The methodological quality was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias assessment for intervention studies and with the Quality of Health Economic Analyses Scale.

DATA EXTRACTION

Effectiveness and cost data for calculating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and the original authors' conclusions were extracted.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The 18 included studies presented low risk of bias and contained 8 comparisons of physical therapy only with usual care only and 11 comparisons of physical therapy added to usual care with usual care only. Based on ICERs, physical therapy only or added to usual care was cost-effective in 9 out of the 19 comparisons and in 10 comparisons according to the original authors' conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Physical therapy only or added to usual care implies improved health in almost all studies. The cost-effectiveness of such interventions was demonstrated in half of the studies. This result might have been influenced by the fact that different definitions of the notion of "cost-effectiveness" exist.

Spinal pain: current understanding, trends, and the future of care

This commissioned review paper offers a summary of our current understanding of nonmalignant spinal pain, particularly persistent pain. Spinal pain can be a complex problem, requiring management that addresses both the physical and psychosocial components of the pain experience. We propose a model of care that includes the necessary components of care services that would address the multidimensional nature of spinal pain. Emerging care services that tailor care to the individual person with pain seems to achieve better outcomes and greater consumer satisfaction with care, while most likely containing costs. However, we recommend that any model of care and care framework should be developed on the basis of a multidisciplinary approach to care, with the scaffold being the principles of evidence-based practice. Importantly, we propose that any care services recommended in new models or frameworks be matched with available resources and services - this matching we promote as the fourth principle of evidence-based practice. Ongoing research will be necessary to offer insight into clinical outcomes of complex interventions, while practice-based research would uncover consumer needs and workforce capacity. This kind of research data is essential to inform health care policy and practice.

A systematic review comparing the costs of chiropractic care to other interventions for spine pain in the United States

Background

Although chiropractors in the United States (US) have long suggested that their approach to managing spine pain is less costly than other health care providers (HCPs), it is unclear if available evidence supports this premise.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted using a comprehensive search strategy to uncover studies that compared health care costs for patients with any type of spine pain who received chiropractic care or care from other HCPs. Only studies conducted in the US and published in English between 1993 and 2015 were included. Health care costs were summarized for studies examining: 1. private health plans, 2. workers’ compensation (WC) plans, and 3. clinical outcomes. The quality of studies in the latter group was evaluated using a Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list.

Results

The search uncovered 1276 citations and 25 eligible studies, including 12 from private health plans, 6 from WC plans, and 7 that examined clinical outcomes. Chiropractic care was most commonly compared to care from a medical physician, with few details about the care received. Heterogeneity was noted among studies in patient selection, definition of spine pain, scope of costs compared, study duration, and methods to estimate costs. Overall, cost comparison studies from private health plans and WC plans reported that health care costs were lower with chiropractic care. In studies that also examined clinical outcomes, there were few differences in efficacy between groups, and health care costs were higher for those receiving chiropractic care. The effects of adjusting for differences in sociodemographic, clinical, or other factors between study groups were unclear.

Conclusions

Although cost comparison studies suggest that health care costs were generally lower among patients whose spine pain was managed with chiropractic care, the studies reviewed had many methodological limitations. Better research is needed to determine if these differences in health care costs were attributable to the type of HCP managing their care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1140-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Analysis of provider specialties in the treatment of patients with clinically diagnosed back and joint problems

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Although several studies have compared patient outcomes by provider specialty in the treatment of back and joint pain, little is known about the cost-effectiveness of improving patient outcomes across specialties. This study uses a large-scale, nationally representative database to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of being treated by specific provider specialists for back and joint pain in the United States.

METHOD

The 2002-2012 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys were used to examine patients diagnosed with back and/or joint problems seeking treatment from doctors (internal medicine, family/general, osteopathic medicine, orthopaedics, rheumatology, neurology) or other providers (chiropractor, physical therapist, acupuncturist, massage therapist). A total of 16,546 respondents aged 18 to 85 and clinically diagnosed with back/joint pain were examined. Self-reported measures of physical and mental health and general quality of life (measured by the EuroQol-5D) were compared with average total costs of treatment across medical providers.

RESULTS

Total annual treatment costs per person ranged from $397 for family/general doctors to $1205 for rheumatologists. Cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that osteopathic, family/general, internal medicine doctors and chiropractors and massage therapists were more cost-effective than other specialties in improving physical function to back pain patients. For mental health measures, family/general and orthopaedic doctors and physical therapists were more cost-effective compared with other specialties. Similar to results on physical function, family/general, osteopathic and internal medicine doctors dominated other specialties. However, only massage therapy was cost-effective among non-doctor providers in improving quality of life measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients seeking care for back and joint-related health problems face a wide range of treatments, costs and outcomes depending on which specialist provider they see. This study provides important insight on the relationship between health care costs and patients' perceived physical and mental health status from receiving treatment for diagnosed back/joint problems.

What effect can manual therapy have on a patient's pain experience?

Manual therapy (MT) is a passive, skilled movement applied by clinicians that directly or indirectly targets a variety of anatomical structures or systems, which is utilized with the intent to create beneficial changes in some aspect of the patient pain experience. Collectively, the process of MT is grounded on clinical reasoning to enhance patient management for musculoskeletal pain by influencing factors from a multidimensional perspective that have potential to positively impact clinical outcomes. The influence of biomechanical, neurophysiological, psychological and nonspecific patient factors as treatment mediators and/or moderators provides additional information related to the process and potential mechanisms by which MT may be effective. As healthcare delivery advances toward personalized approaches there is a crucial need to advance our understanding of the underlying mechanisms associated with MT effectiveness.

Systematic overview of economic evaluations of health-related rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Health related rehabilitation is instrumental in improving functioning and promoting participation by people with disabilities. To make clinical and policy decisions about health-related rehabilitation, resource allocation and cost issues need to be considered.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) on economic evaluations of health-related rehabilitation.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases to identify relevant SRs of economic evaluations of health-related rehabilitation. Review quality was assessed by AMSTAR checklist.

RESULTS

We included 64 SRs, most of which included economic evaluations alongside randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The review quality was low to moderate (AMSTAR score 5-8) in 35, and high (score 9-11) in 29 of the included SRs. The included SRs addressed various health conditions, including spinal or other pain conditions (n = 14), age-related problems (11), stroke (7), musculoskeletal disorders (6), heart diseases (4), pulmonary (3), mental health problems (3), and injury (3). Physiotherapy was the most commonly evaluated rehabilitation intervention in the included SRs (n = 24). Other commonly evaluated interventions included multidisciplinary programmes (14); behavioral, educational or psychological interventions (11); home-based interventions (11); complementary therapy (6); self-management (6); and occupational therapy (4).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the available evidence is often described as limited, inconsistent or inconclusive, some rehabilitation interventions were cost-effective or showed cost-saving in a variety of disability conditions. Available evidence comes predominantly from high income countries, therefore economic evaluations of health-related rehabilitation are urgently required in less resourced settings.

Safety of thrust joint manipulation in the thoracic spine: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There appears to be very little in the research literature on the safety of thrust joint manipulation (TJM) when applied to the thoracic spine.

PURPOSE

To retrospectively analyze all available documented case reports in the literature describing patients who had experienced severe adverse events (AE) after receiving TJM to their thoracic spine.

DATA SOURCES

Case reports published in peer reviewed journals were searched in Medline (using Ovid Technologies, Inc.), Science Direct, Web of Science, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), Index of Chiropractic literature, AMED (Allied and Alternative Medicine Database), PubMed and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINHAL) from January 1950 to February 2015.

STUDY SELECTION

Case reports were included if they: (1) were peer-reviewed; (2) were published between 1950 and 2015; (3) provided case reports or case series; and (4) had TJM as an intervention. Articles were excluded if: (1) the AE occurred without TJM (e.g. spontaneous); (2) the article was a systematic or literature review; or (3) it was written in a language other than English or Spanish.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extracted from each case report included: gender; age; who performed the TJM and why; presence of contraindications; the number of manipulation interventions performed; initial symptoms experienced after the TJM; as well as type of severe AE that resulted.

RESULTS

Ten cases, reported in 7 case reports, were reviewed. Cases involved females (8) more than males (2), with mean age being 43.5 years (SD=18.73, Range = 17 -71). The most frequent AE reported was injury (mechanical or vascular) to the spinal cord (7/10), with pneumothorax and hematothorax (2/10) and CSF leak secondary to dural sleeve injury (1/10).

LIMITATIONS

There were only a small number of case reports published in the literature and there may have been discrepancies between what was reported and what actually occurred, since physicians dealing with the effects of the AE, rather than the clinician performing the TJM, published the cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Serious AE do occur in the thoracic spine, most commonly, trauma to the spinal cord, followed by pneumothorax. This suggests that excessive peak forces may have been applied to thoracic spine, and it should serve as a cautionary note for clinicians to decrease these peak forces.

Indicating spinal joint mobilisations or manipulations in patients with neck or low-back pain: protocol of an inter-examiner reliability study among manual therapists

BACKGROUND

Manual spinal joint mobilisations and manipulations are widely used treatments in patients with neck and low-back pain. Inter-examiner reliability of passive intervertebral motion assessment of the cervical and lumbar spine, perceived as important for indicating these interventions, is poor within a univariable approach. The diagnostic process as a whole in daily practice in manual therapy has a multivariable character, however, in which the use and interpretation of passive intervertebral motion assessment depend on earlier results from the diagnostic process. To date, the inter-examiner reliability among manual therapists of a multivariable diagnostic decision-making process in patients with neck or low-back pain is unknown.

METHODS

This study will be conducted as a repeated-measures design in which 14 pairs of manual therapists independently examine a consecutive series of a planned total of 165 patients with neck or low-back pain presenting in primary care physiotherapy. Primary outcome measure is therapists' decision about whether or not manual spinal joint mobilisations or manipulations, or both, are indicated in each patient, alone or as part of a multimodal treatment. Therapists will largely be free to conduct the full diagnostic process based on their formulated examination objectives. For each pair of therapists, 2×2 tables will be constructed and reliability for the dichotomous decision will be expressed using Cohen's kappa. In addition, observed agreement, prevalence of positive decisions, prevalence index, bias index, and specific agreement in positive and negative decisions will be calculated. Univariable logistic regression analysis of concordant decisions will be performed to explore which demographic, professional, or clinical factors contributed to reliability.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide an estimate of the inter-examiner reliability among manual therapists of indicating spinal joint mobilisations or manipulations in patients with neck or low-back pain based on a multivariable diagnostic reasoning and decision-making process, as opposed to reliability of individual tests. As such, it is proposed as an initial step toward the development of an alternative approach to current classification systems and prediction rules for identifying those patients with spinal disorders that may show a better response to manual therapy which can be incorporated in randomised clinical trials. Potential methodological limitations of this study are discussed.

Serious Adverse Events and Spinal Manipulative Therapy of the Low Back Region: A Systematic Review of Cases

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to systematically search the literature for studies reporting serious adverse events following lumbopelvic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and to describe the case details.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library up to January 12, 2012, by an experienced reference librarian. Study selection was performed by 2 independent reviewers using predefined criteria. We included cases involving individuals 18 years or older who experienced a serious adverse event following SMT applied to the lumbar spine or pelvis by any type of provider (eg, chiropractic, medical, physical therapy, osteopathic, layperson). A serious adverse event was defined as an untoward occurrence that results in death or is life threatening, requires hospital admission, or results in significant or permanent disability. We included studies published in English, German, Dutch, and Swedish.

RESULTS

A total of 2046 studies were screened, and 41 studies reporting on 77 cases were included. Important case details were frequently unreported, such as descriptions of SMT technique, the pre-SMT presentation of the patient, the specific details of the adverse event, time from SMT to the adverse event, factors contributing to the adverse event, and clinical outcome. Adverse events consisted of cauda equina syndrome (29 cases, 38% of total); lumbar disk herniation (23 cases, 30%); fracture (7 cases, 9%); hematoma or hemorrhagic cyst (6 cases, 8%); or other serious adverse events (12 cases, 16%) such as neurologic or vascular compromise, soft tissue trauma, muscle abscess formation, disrupted fracture healing, and esophageal rupture.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review describes case details from published articles that describe serious adverse events that have been reported to occur following SMT of the lumbopelvic region. The anecdotal nature of these cases does not allow for causal inferences between SMT and the events identified in this review. Recommendations regarding future case reporting and research aimed at furthering the understanding of the safety profile of SMT are discussed.

Immediate effects of region-specific and non-region-specific spinal manipulative therapy in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Manual therapists typically advocate the need for a detailed clinical examination to decide which vertebral level should be manipulated in patients with low back pain. However, it is unclear whether spinal manipulation needs to be specific to a vertebral level.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to analyze the immediate effects of a single, region-specific spinal manipulation defined during the clinical examination versus a single non-region-specific spinal manipulation (applied on an upper thoracic vertebra) in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain for the outcome measures of pain intensity and pressure pain threshold at the time of the assessment.

DESIGN

This was a 2-arm, prospectively registered, randomized controlled trial with a blinded assessor.

SETTING

The study was conducted in an outpatient physical therapy clinic in Brazil.

PATIENTS

The study participants were 148 patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (with pain duration of at least 12 weeks).

RANDOMIZATION

The randomization schedule was generated by an independent statistician and was concealed by using consecutively numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes.

INTERVENTIONS

A single high-velocity manipulation was administered to the upper thoracic region of the participants allocated to the non-region-specific manipulation group and to the painful lumbar levels of the participants allocated to the region-specific manipulation group.

MEASUREMENTS

Pain intensity was measured by a 0 to 10 numeric pain rating scale. Pressure pain threshold was measured using a pressure algometer.

LIMITATIONS

It was not possible to blind the therapist and participants.

RESULTS

A total of 148 patients participated in the study (74 in each group). There was no loss to follow-up. Both groups improved in terms of immediate decrease of pain intensity; however, no between-group differences were observed. The between-group difference for pain intensity and pressure pain threshold were 0.50 points (95% confidence interval=-0.10 to 1.10) and -1.78 points (95% confidence interval=-6.40 to 2.82), respectively. No adverse reactions were observed.

CONCLUSION

The immediate changes in pain intensity and pressure pain threshold after a single high-velocity manipulation do not differ by region-specific versus non-region-specific manipulation techniques in patients with chronic low back pain.

Tuina-focused integrative chinese medical therapies for inpatients with low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective. To evaluate the effectiveness of Tuina-focused integrative Chinese medical therapies (TICMT) on inpatients with low back pain (LBP). Methods. 6 English and Chinese databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TICMT for in-patients with LBP. The methodological quality of the included RCTs was assessed based on PEDro scale. And the meta-analyses of TICMT for LBP on pain and functional status were conducted. Results. 20 RCTs were included. The methodological quality of the included RCTs was poor. The meta-analyses' results showed that TICMT had statistically significant effects on pain and functional status, especially Tuina plus Chinese herbal medicine (standardised mean difference, SMD: 1.17; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.60 on pain; SMD: 1.31; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.14 on functional status) and Tuina plus acupuncture (SMD: 0.94; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.50 on pain; SMD: 0.53; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.85 on functional status). But Tuina plus moxibustion or hot pack did not show significant improvements on pain. And the long-term evidence of TICMT was far from sufficient. Conclusions. The preliminary evidence from current studies suggests that TICMT might be effective complementary and alternative treatments for in-patients with LBP. However, the poor methodological quality of the included RCTs means that high-quality RCTs with long follow-up are warranted.

A health care system in transformation: making the case for chiropractic

There are a number of factors that have conspired to create a crisis in healthcare. In part, the successes of medical science and technologies have been to blame, for they have led to survival where lives would previously have been cut short. An informed public, aware of these technological advances, is demanding access to the best that healthcare has to offer. At the same time the burden of chronic disease in an increasing elderly population has created a marked growth in the need for long term care. Current estimates for expenditure predict a rapid escalation of healthcare costs as a proportion of the GDP of developed nations, yet at the same time a global economic crisis has necessitated dramatic cuts in health budgets. This unsustainable position has led to calls for an urgent transformation in healthcare systems.This commentary explores the present day healthcare crisis and looks at the opportunities for chiropractors as pressure intensifies on politicians and leaders in healthcare to seek innovative solutions to a failing model. Amidst these opportunities, it questions whether the chiropractic profession is ready to accept the challenges that integration into mainstream healthcare will bring and identifies both pathways and potential obstacles to acceptance.

Well-being outcomes of chiropractic intervention for lower back pain: a systematic review

The usefulness of chiropractic for treatment of low back pain is a contentious issue. Chiropractors advocate holism and general well-being as a key principle on which they base their clinical practice, yet the quality of life, lifestyle, health and economic impacts of chiropractic intervention for back pain in adults have rarely been investigated. This article provides an overview of chiropractic principles and practices, together with the results of a systematic review of peer-reviewed publications between 2000 and 2010 retrieved from MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, AMED and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. This review sought to determine the benefits of chiropractic treatment and care to well-being, and to what extent chiropractic treatment and care improve quality of life. Of 1,165 articles, 12 articles were retained, representing six studies (four randomised controlled trial, two observational) of varying quality. There was a high degree of inconsistency and lack of standardisation in measurement instruments and outcome measures. Three studies reported reduced use of other/extra treatments as a positive outcome; two studies reported a positive effect of chiropractic intervention on pain, and two studies reported a positive effect on disability. The six studies reviewed concentrated on the impact of chiropractic care on physical health and disability, rather than the wider holistic view which was the focus of this study. It is difficult, therefore, to defend any conclusion about the impact of chiropractic intervention on the quality of life, lifestyle, health and economic impact on chiropractic patients presenting with back pain.