Part II. Evidence-based medicine: a passing fancy or the future of primary care?

Effects of osteopathic manipulative treatment and bio-electromagnetic energy regulation therapy on lower back pain

CONTEXT

Lower back pain (LBP) is prevalent and is a leading contributor to disease burden worldwide. Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) can alleviate alterations in the body that leads to musculoskeletal disorders such as LBP. Bio-electromagnetic Energy Regulation (BEMER; BEMER International AG), which has also been shown to relieve musculoskeletal pain, is a therapeutic modality that deploys a biorhythmically defined stimulus through a pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF). Therefore, it is possible that combined OMT and BEMER therapy could reduce low back pain in adults more than the effect of either treatment modality alone.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the individual and combined effects of OMT and BEMER therapy on LBP in adults.

METHODS

Employees and students at a medical college were recruited to this study by email. Participants were included if they self-reported chronic LBP of 3 months' duration or longer; participants were excluded if they were experiencing acute LBP of 2 weeks' duration or less, were currently being treated for LBP, were pregnant, or had a known medical history of several conditions. Ultimately, 40 participants were randomly assigned to four treatment groups: an OMT only, BEMER only, OMT+BEMER, or control (light touch and sham). Treatments were given regularly over a 3 week period. Data on LBP and quality of life were gathered through the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Short Form 12 item (SF-12) health survey, and Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire/Oswestry Disability Index prior to treatment and immediately after the 3 week intervention protocol. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed retrospectively and absolute changes for each participant were calculated. Normal distribution and equal variances were confirmed by Shapiro-Wilk test (p>0.05) and Brown-Forsythe, respectively. Significance was set at p<0.05.

RESULTS

Despite a lack of statistical significance between groups, subjective reports of pain reported on the VAS showed a substantial mean percentage decrease (50.8%) from baseline in the OMT+BEMER group, compared with a 10.2% decrease in the OMT-only and 9.8% in BEMER-only groups when comparing the difference in VAS ratings from preintervention to postintervention. Participants also reported in quality of life assessed on the Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire/Oswestry Disability Index, with the OMT+BEMER group showing a decrease of 30.3% in score, the most among all groups. The OMT+BEMER group also reported the greatest improvement in score in the physical component of the SF-12, with an increase of 21.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

The initial data from this study shows a potential additive effect of combination therapy (OMT and BEMER) for management of LBP, though the results did not achieve statistical significance.

Systematic reviews, systematic error and the acquisition of clinical knowledge

BACKGROUND

Since its inception, evidence-based medicine and its application through systematic reviews, has been widely accepted. However, it has also been strongly criticised and resisted by some academic groups and clinicians. One of the main criticisms of evidence-based medicine is that it appears to claim to have unique access to absolute scientific truth and thus devalues and replaces other types of knowledge sources.

DISCUSSION

The various types of clinical knowledge sources are categorised on the basis of Kant's categories of knowledge acquisition, as being either 'analytic' or 'synthetic'. It is shown that these categories do not act in opposition but rather, depend upon each other. The unity of analysis and synthesis in knowledge acquisition is demonstrated during the process of systematic reviewing of clinical trials. Systematic reviews constitute comprehensive synthesis of clinical knowledge but depend upon plausible, analytical hypothesis development for the trials reviewed. The dangers of systematic error regarding the internal validity of acquired knowledge are highlighted on the basis of empirical evidence. It has been shown that the systematic review process reduces systematic error, thus ensuring high internal validity. It is argued that this process does not exclude other types of knowledge sources. Instead, amongst these other types it functions as an integrated element during the acquisition of clinical knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

The acquisition of clinical knowledge is based on interaction between analysis and synthesis. Systematic reviews provide the highest form of synthetic knowledge acquisition in terms of achieving internal validity of results. In that capacity it informs the analytic knowledge of the clinician but does not replace it.

Osteopathic manipulative treatment for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a distinctive modality commonly used by osteopathic physicians to complement their conventional treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. Previous reviews and meta-analyses of spinal manipulation for low back pain have not specifically addressed OMT and generally have focused on spinal manipulation as an alternative to conventional treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.

Methods

Computerized bibliographic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, OSTMED, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were supplemented with additional database and manual searches of the literature.

Six trials, involving eight OMT vs control treatment comparisons, were included because they were randomized controlled trials of OMT that involved blinded assessment of low back pain in ambulatory settings. Data on trial methodology, OMT and control treatments, and low back pain outcomes were abstracted by two independent reviewers. Effect sizes were computed using Cohen's d statistic and meta-analysis results were weighted by the inverse variance of individual comparisons. In addition to the overall meta-analysis, stratified meta-analyses were performed according to control treatment, country where the trial was conducted, and duration of follow-up. Sensitivity analyses were performed for both the overall and stratified meta-analyses.

Results

Overall, OMT significantly reduced low back pain (effect size, -0.30; 95% confidence interval, -0.47 – -0.13; P = .001). Stratified analyses demonstrated significant pain reductions in trials of OMT vs active treatment or placebo control and OMT vs no treatment control. There were significant pain reductions with OMT regardless of whether trials were performed in the United Kingdom or the United States. Significant pain reductions were also observed during short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-up.

Conclusion

OMT significantly reduces low back pain. The level of pain reduction is greater than expected from placebo effects alone and persists for at least three months. Additional research is warranted to elucidate mechanistically how OMT exerts its effects, to determine if OMT benefits are long lasting, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.

The impact of evidence on physicians' inpatient treatment decisions

OBJECTIVE

Previous studies have shown that most medical inpatients receive treatment supported by strong evidence (evidence-based treatment), but they have not assessed whether and how physicians actually use evidence when making their treatment decisions. We investigated whether physicians would change inpatient treatment if presented with the results of a literature search.

DESIGN

Before-after study.

SETTING

Large public teaching hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Random sample of 146 inpatients cared for by 33 internal medicine attending physicians.

INTERVENTIONS

After physicians committed to a specific diagnosis and treatment plan, investigators performed standardized literature searches and provided the search results to the attending physicians.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary study outcome was the number of patients whose attending physicians would change treatment due to the literature searches. These changes were evaluated by blinded peer review. A secondary outcome was the proportion of patients who received evidence-based treatment before and after the literature searches. Attending physicians changed treatment for 23 (18%) of 130 eligible patients (95% confidence interval, 12% to 24%) as a result of the literature searches. Overall, 86% of patients (112 of 130) received evidence-based treatments before the searches and 87% (113 of 130) after the searches. Changes were not related to whether patients were receiving evidence-based treatment before the search (P =.6). Panels of peer reviewers judged the quality of patient care as improved or maintained for 18 (78%) of the 23 patients with treatment changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Searching the literature could improve the treatment of many medical inpatients, including those already receiving evidence-based treatment.