Osteopathic manual treatment and ultrasound therapy for chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

The effects of osteopathic manipulative treatment on pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT

The evidence for the efficacy of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) in the management of low back pain (LBP) is considered weak by systematic reviews, because it is generally based on low-quality studies. Consequently, there is a need for more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a low risk of bias.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of an OMT intervention for reducing pain and disability in patients with chronic LBP.

METHODS

A single-blinded, crossover, RCT was conducted at a university-based health system. Participants were adults, 21-65 years old, with nonspecific LBP. Eligible participants (n=80) were randomized to two trial arms: an immediate OMT intervention group and a delayed OMT (waiting period) group. The intervention consisted of three to four OMT sessions over 4-6 weeks, after which the participants switched (crossed-over) groups. The primary clinical outcomes were average pain, current pain, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 29 v1.0 pain interference and physical function, and modified Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes included the remaining PROMIS health domains and the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ). These measures were taken at baseline (T0), after one OMT session (T1), at the crossover point (T2), and at the end of the trial (T3). Due to the carryover effects of OMT intervention, only the outcomes obtained prior to T2 were evaluated utilizing mixed-effects models and after adjusting for baseline values.

RESULTS

Totals of 35 and 36 participants with chronic LBP were available for the analysis at T1 in the immediate OMT and waiting period groups, respectively, whereas 31 and 33 participants were available for the analysis at T2 in the immediate OMT and waiting period groups, respectively. After one session of OMT (T1), the analysis showed a significant reduction in the secondary outcomes of sleep disturbance and anxiety compared to the waiting period group. Following the entire intervention period (T2), the immediate OMT group demonstrated a significantly better average pain outcome. The effect size was a 0.8 standard deviation (SD), rendering the reduction in pain clinically significant. Further, the improvement in anxiety remained statistically significant. No study-related serious adverse events (AEs) were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

OMT intervention is safe and effective in reducing pain along with improving sleep and anxiety profiles in patients with chronic LBP.

The short- and long-term effect of osteopathic manipulative treatment on pain, and psychosocial factors in adults with chronic low back pain

CONTEXT

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) has long plagued mankind, but little progress has been made in finding a rational and effective treatment, let alone a common cause. This study is an attempt to fill that void by measuring short- and long-term effects of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), including psychosocial and pain reduction in CLBP patients.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to investigate the effectiveness of neuromusculoskeletal medicine/osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) in treating CLBP, with a focus on biopsychosocial (pain sensitivity questionnaire [PSQ]) and pain control in chronic conditions.

METHODS

The study involved a large, single cohort observational design of 101 patients. The inclusion criteria for selecting patients targeted those with "nonspecific" CLBP. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Minimum Dataset for Chronic Low Back Pain (NMD) was the measurement tool and was administered at consent (baseline), 2, 4, and 8 weeks and at 6 and 12 months. Time trends were analyzed as overall mean. Pairwise differences were compared between time points. Mixed-effects models were utilized to test the association of time with pain and biopsychosocial scores.

RESULTS

Pain and PSQ scores decreased over the study timeline. The most significant change for both pain and biopsychosocial scores occurred at 6 months compared to baseline, with a further reduction at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

OMT has been demonstrated to significantly reduce pain and psychosocial factors related to CLBP in both the short and long term.

Does Osteopathic Heart-Focused Palpation Modify Heart Rate Variability in Stressed Participants with Musculoskeletal Pain? A Randomised Controlled Pilot Study

Heart rate variability (HRV) describes fluctuations in time intervals between heartbeats and reflects autonomic activity. HRV is reduced in stressed patients with musculoskeletal pain and improved after osteopathic manipulative treatment and mind-body interventions. Heart-focused palpation (HFP) combines manual and mind-body approaches to facilitate relaxation. This randomised controlled pilot study investigated the feasibility and sample size for a future randomised controlled trial and the effect of a single treatment with HFP or sham HFP (SHAM) on short-term HRV. A total of Thirty-three adults (47.7 ± 13.5 years old) with stress and musculoskeletal pain completed the trial with acceptable rates of recruitment (8.25 subjects per site/month), retention (100%), adherence (100%), and adverse events (0%). HFP (n = 18), but not SHAM (n = 15), significantly increased the root mean square of successive RR interval differences (p = 0.036), standard deviation of the NN intervals (p = 0.009), and ratio of the low-frequency to high-frequency power band (p = 0.026). HFP and SHAM significantly decreased the heart rate (p < 0.001, p = 0.009) but not the stress index and ratio of the Poincaré plot standard deviation along and perpendicular to the line of identity (p > 0.05). A power analysis calculated 72 participants. Taken together, the study was feasible and HFP improved HRV in stressed subjects with musculoskeletal pain, suggesting a parasympathetic effect.

Efficacy of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy on pain and physical function in patients with non-specific low back pain: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Non-specific low back pain is a common and clinically significant condition with substantial socioeconomic implications. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy has shown benefits in pain reduction and improvement of physical function in patients with pain-associated disorders like osteoarthritis. However, studies had heterogeneous settings. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of PEMF on pain and function on patients with non-specific low back pain.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PEDro was performed (from inception until 15/5/2023). Outcome measures assessed pain and function.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials with 420 participants (n = 420) were included. The studies compared PEMF vs. placebo-PEMF, PEMF and conventional physical therapy vs. conventional physical therapy alone, PEMF and conventional physical therapy vs. placebo-PEMF and conventional physical therapy, PEMF vs. high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) vs. conventional physical therapy, and osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) and PEMF vs. PEMF alone vs. placebo-PEMF vs. OMT alone. Five of the nine included studies showed statistically significant pain reduction and improvement in physical function in comparison to their control groups (p < 0.05). There was substantial heterogeneity among the groups of the study, with a wide range of duration (10-30 min), treatments per week (2-7/week), applied frequencies (3-50 Hz), and intensities (2mT-150mT). No serious adverse event had been reported in any study. The included studies showed solid methodological quality, with an overall score of 7.2 points according to the PEDro scale.

CONCLUSION

PEMF therapy seems to be a safe and beneficial treatment option for non-specific low back pain, particularly if used as an addition to conventional physical therapy modalities. Future research should focus on standardized settings including assessment methods, treatment regimens, frequencies, and intensities.

Defining the landscape of patient harm after osteopathic manipulative treatment: synthesis of an adverse event model

BACKGROUND

In the United States, osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), is a popular complementary physical health approach for the treatment of neuromusculoskeletal disorders. However, post-OMT adverse events (AEs) are poorly defined in terms of frequency, severity, and temporal evolution. To date, no benchmark for patient safety exists. To improve understanding in this field, we set out to model the landscape of patient harm after OMT.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of all available primary clinical research studies reporting on the occurrence of post-OMT AEs in nonpregnant, adult outpatients treated by an osteopathic physician in the United States. The methodology of eligible studies was then reviewed to select those containing the minimum required dataset to model the post-OMT AEs. The minimum required dataset consisted of four model parameters: 'post-OMT interval', 'OMT encounters with post-OMT interval assessment', 'AEs preceded by an OMT encounter', and 'AE severity.' We used the dataset extracted from selected studies to calculate a patient safety benchmark defined as the incidence rate of AEs per 100 post-OMT interval-days.

RESULTS

From 212 manuscripts that we identified, 118 primary clinical research studies were assessed for eligibility. A total of 23 studies met inclusion criteria for methodological review, of which 13 studies passed and were selected for modeling. Mild AEs were the most frequent, accounting for n = 161/165 (98%) of total AEs observed in the literature. The cumulative incidence of mild AEs was also significantly greater (P = 0.01) than both moderate and severe grades. The benchmark incidence rate was 1.0 AEs per 100 post-OMT interval-days.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of post-OMT AEs observed in the primary clinical literature were of mild severity. Modeling of the combined dataset on post-OMT AEs allowed for the derivation of a patient safety benchmark that, to date, has not been established in the field of osteopathic manipulative medicine. Additional research is needed to improve model resolution during the post-OMT period. This work conceptualized a model for identifying and grading post-OMT AEs, which should facilitate future comparisons between institutions in order to continually improve patient safety standards in the field of osteopathic manipulative medicine.

Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and biopsychosocial self-management compared to medical care for low back pain: a randomized trial study protocol

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is widespread, costly, and burdensome to patients and health systems. Little is known about non-pharmacological treatments for the secondary prevention of cLBP. There is some evidence that treatments addressing psychosocial factors in higher risk patients are more effective than usual care. However, most clinical trials on acute and subacute LBP have evaluated interventions irrespective of prognosis.

METHODS

We have designed a phase 3 randomized trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. The study is also a Hybrid type 1 trial with focus on intervention effectiveness while simultaneously considering plausible implementation strategies. Adults (n = 1000) with acute/subacute LBP at moderate to high risk of chronicity based on the STarT Back screening tool will be randomized in to 1 of 4 interventions lasting up to 8 weeks: supported self-management (SSM), spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), both SSM and SMT, or medical care. The primary objective is to assess intervention effectiveness; the secondary objective is to assess barriers and facilitators impacting future implementation. Primary effectiveness outcome measures are: (1) average pain intensity over 12 months post-randomization (pain, numerical rating scale); (2) average low back disability over 12 months post-randomization (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire); (3) prevention of cLBP that is impactful at 10-12 months follow-up (LBP impact from the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0). Secondary outcomes include: recovery, PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0 measures to assess pain interference, physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. Other patient-reported measures include LBP frequency, medication use, healthcare utilization, productivity loss, STarT Back screening tool status, patient satisfaction, prevention of chronicity, adverse events, and dissemination measures. Objective measures include the Quebec Task Force Classification, Timed Up & Go Test, the Sit to Stand Test, and the Sock Test assessed by clinicians blinded to the patients' intervention assignment.

DISCUSSION

By targeting those subjects at higher risk this trial aims to fill an important gap in the scientific literature regarding the effectiveness of promising non-pharmacological treatments compared to medical care for the management of patients with an acute episode of LBP and the prevention of progression to a severe chronic back problem.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03581123.

[Complementary and alternative medicine-An option for chronic pain patients?]

The interest of patients with chronic pain in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is high. The aim of an accompanying complementary therapy is to strengthen the patient's self-efficacy, the ability to make decisions and the autonomy. The best evidence exists for physical activity and a balanced diet. Exercise combinations of strength and endurance as well as targeted strengthening of the muscles in the area of the pain are particularly suitable. When choosing the form of exercise, low-threshold training options are recommended. There is no reliable evidence for kinesio taping, homeopathy, neural therapy and draining procedures. The extensive data on acupuncture must be interpreted taking methodological limitations into account. Heat applications can support multimodal pain therapy. In the case of anti-inflammatory phytotherapeutic agents, there are good rationales from basic research and reliable empirical knowledge regarding the dosage. The evidence on cannabis is low.

Effectiveness of Spinal Manipulation and Biopsychosocial Self-Management compared to Medical Care for Low Back Pain: A Randomized Trial Study Protocol

Background Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is widespread, costly, and burdensome to patients and health systems. Little is known about non-pharmacological treatments for the secondary prevention of cLBP. There is some evidence that treatments addressing psychosocial factors in higher risk patients are more effective than usual care. However, most clinical trials on acute and subacute LBP have evaluated interventions irrespective of prognosis. Methods We have designed a phase 3 randomized trial with a 2x2 factorial design. The study is also a Hybrid type 1 trial with focus on intervention effectiveness while simultaneously considering plausible implementation strategies. Adults (n = 1000) with acute/subacute LBP at moderate to high risk of chronicity based on the STarT Back screening tool will be randomized in to 1 of 4 interventions lasting up to 8 weeks: supported self-management (SSM), spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), both SSM and SMT, or medical care. The primary objective is to assess intervention effectiveness; the secondary objective is to assess barriers and facilitators impacting future implementation. Primary effectiveness outcome measures are: (1) average pain intensity over 12 months post-randomization (pain, numerical rating scale); (2) average low back disability over 12 months post-randomization (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire); (3) prevention of cLBP that is impactful at 10-12 months follow-up (LBP impact from the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0). Secondary outcomes include: recovery, PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0 measures to assess pain interference, physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. Other patient-reported measures include LBP frequency, medication use, healthcare utilization, productivity loss, STarT Back screening tool status, patient satisfaction, prevention of chronicity, adverse events, and dissemination measures. Objective measures include the Quebec Task Force Classification, Timed Up & Go Test, the Sit to Stand Test, and the Sock Test assessed by clinicians blinded to the patients' intervention assignment. Discussion By targeting those subjects at higher risk this trial aims to fill an important gap in the scientific literature regarding the effectiveness of promising non-pharmacological treatments compared to medical care for the management of patients with an acute episode of LBP and the prevention of progression to a severe chronic back problem. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03581123.

Potential therapeutic effects of adjunct osteopathic manipulative treatments in SARS-CoV-2 patients

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) affects various human organ systems, including the lymphatic, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and neurologic systems. The utilization of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) techniques has been clinically effective in the alleviation of various upper respiratory infection symptoms. Consequently, the use of osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) in SARS-CoV-2 patients as adjunct treatment can be beneficial in promoting overall recovery. This paper attempts to address the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection at the cellular level and its downstream effects. Subsequently, osteopathic principles were investigated to evaluate potential therapeutic effects, providing a holistic approach in the SARS-CoV-2 treatment. Although the association between the benefits of OMT on clinical improvement during the 1918 Spanish influenza pandemic can be seen, further investigation is required to establish a direct correlation between OMT and symptom management in SARS-CoV-2.

Osteopathic manipulative treatment for the allopathic resident elective: does it change practice after graduation?

CONTEXT

Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) for the allopathic resident is an elective at the University of Minnesota North Memorial Residency that engages the resident in the basic tenants of osteopathic medicine, with exposure to the vast application of OMT with a curricular focus on low back pain management. Implementing an elective curriculum is a feasible way to improve attitudes in OMT for MDs in a Family Medicine residency, and residents can learn OMT in an elective rotation.

OBJECTIVES

This article aims to determine if MDs who complete an OMT for the allopathic physician elective rotation have higher comfort caring for patients with back pain compared to those who do not complete the elective. Further, this article is designed to evaluate if these MDs continue to incorporate OMT into the care they provide once they graduate from their residency programs.

METHODS

Graduates from the University of Minnesota North Memorial Family Medicine Residency (2013 to 2019) were sent an email invitation in August 2020 to complete a Qualtrics survey regarding their comfort with caring for patients with back pain, referral patterns for these patients, and the ongoing use of OMT in their practices. Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) graduates who responded to the survey were removed from the analysis.

RESULTS

Among emailed graduates, 61.8% (42/68) completed the survey, with representation from each class ranging from 1 to 7 years postresidency. The five DO graduates who responded were removed from the analysis. Among the remaining 37 respondents, 27 had completed the OMT for the allopathic rotation ("elective participants") during their residency training and 10 had not ("control"). Half (50.0%) of the control group provide OMT care compared to 66.7% of the elective participants, with a comfort score of 22.6 (standard deviation [SD] 32.7) in the control group vs. 34.0 (SD 21.0) in elective participants (on a 0-100 scale; 100 being completely comfortable; p=0.091). Among the control group, 40.0% regularly refer to a DO provider compared to 66.7% of those who completed the elective (p=0.257). The mean comfort score for performing a physical examination on patients presenting with back pain was 78.7 (SD 13.1) and 80.9 (SD 19.3) in the control and elective participants groups, respectively (p=0.198).

CONCLUSIONS

Allopathic Family Medicine residents who completed an elective rotation in OMT have a slight increase in frequency of referring to DOs. They also have a meaningful increase in comfort performing OMT. With the limited number of DOs being a common barrier to OMT care, more widely implemented training in OMT for allopathic Family Medicine residents may be a reasonable intervention to improve the care of patients with back pain.

Osteopathic manipulative treatment of patients with chronic low back pain in the United States: a retrospective cohort study

CONTEXT

The practice of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) varies substantially across nations. Much of this variability may be attributed to disparate international educational, licensing, and regulatory environments that govern the practice of osteopathy by nonphysicians. This is in contrast with the United States, where osteopathic physicians are trained to integrate OMT as part of comprehensive patient management.

OBJECTIVES

This study will analyze the factors associated with OMT use and its outcomes when integrated within the overall medical care for chronic low back pain (CLBP) provided by osteopathic physicians in the United States.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted within the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation (PRECISION) from April 2016 through April 2022 to study the effectiveness of OMT integrated within medical care provided by osteopathic physicians. The outcome measures, which included pain intensity, pain impact, physical function, and health-related quality of life, were assessed with the National Institutes of Health Minimum Dataset, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 1,358 adults with CLBP entered the cohort (mean age, 53.2 years; 74.4% female), 913 completed the final quarterly encounter, 348 were in various stages of follow-up, and 97 had withdrawn. Blacks (odds ratio [OR], 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.63; p<0.001), cigarette smokers (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.93; p=0.02), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug users (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43-0.81; p=0.001) were less likely to have utilized OMT in the multivariable analysis. Mean between-group differences among 753 participants with no OMT crossover and complete follow-up favored OMT: 1.02 (95% CI, 0.63-1.42; p<0.001) for pain intensity; 5.12 (95% CI, 3.09-7.16; p<0.001) for pain impact; 3.59 (95% CI, 2.23-4.95; p<0.001) for physical function, and 2.73 (95% CI, 1.19-4.27; p<0.001) for health-related quality of life. Analyses involving propensity-score adjustment and inclusion of participants with missing data yielded similar conclusions. None of 12 prespecified participant characteristics demonstrated an OMT interaction effect.

CONCLUSIONS

OMT integrated within medical care provided by osteopathic physicians for CLBP was associated with improved pain and related outcomes. Its use may be facilitated by the growing osteopathic physician workforce in the United States and adherence to relevant clinical practice guidelines.

Benefits and harms of treatments for chronic non-specific low back pain without radiculopathy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Currently, there are no published studies that compare non-pharmacological, pharmacological and invasive treatments for chronic low back pain in adults and provide summary statistics for benefits and harms.

PURPOSE

The aim of this review was to compare the benefits and harms of treatments for the management of chronic low back pain without radiculopathy and to report the findings in a format that facilitates direct comparison (Benefit-Harm Scale: level 1 to 7).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, including trial registries, from electronic databases up to 23^rd May 2022.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Adults with non-specific chronic low back pain, excluding radicular pain in any clinical setting.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Comparison of pain at immediate-term (≤2 weeks) and short-term (>2 weeks to ≤12 weeks) and serious adverse events using the Benefit-Harm Scale (level 1 to 7).

METHODS

This was a registered systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Interventions included non-pharmacological (acupuncture, spinal manipulation), pharmacological and invasive treatments compared to placebo. Best evidence criteria was used. Two independent reviewers conducted eligibility assessment, data extraction and quality appraisal.

RESULTS

The search retrieved 17,362 records. Three studies provided data on the benefits of interventions, and 30 provided data on harms. Studies included interventions of acupuncture (n=8); manipulation (n=2); pharmacological therapies (n=9), including NSAIDs and opioid analgesics; surgery (n=8); and epidural corticosteroid injections (n=3). Acupuncture (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.51, 95%CI -0.88 to -0.14, n=1 trial, moderate quality of evidence, benefit rating of 3) and manipulation (SMD -0.39, 95%CI -0.56 to -0.21, n=2 trials, moderate quality of evidence, benefit rating of 5) were effective in reducing pain intensity compared to sham. The benefit of the other interventions was scored as uncertain due to not being effective, statistical heterogeneity preventing pooling of effect sizes, or the absence of relevant trials. The harms level warnings were at the lowest (eg, indicating rarer risk of events) for acupuncture, spinal manipulation, NSAIDs, combination ingredient opioids, and steroid injections, while they were higher for single ingredient opioid analgesics (level 4) and surgery (level 6).

CONCLUSIONS

There is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of all the interventions reviewed due to the lack of trials conducted in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain without radiculopathy. From the limited trials conducted, non-pharmacological interventions of acupuncture and spinal manipulation provide safer benefits than pharmacological or invasive interventions. However, more research is needed. There were high harms ratings for opioids and surgery.

Pain and functional recovery from chronic low back pain over 12 months: implications for osteopathic medicine

CONTEXT

Although low back pain is a common medical condition that often progresses to become a chronic problem, little is known about the likelihood of recovery from chronic low back pain (CLBP).

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to measure the risk of recovery from CLBP based on low back pain intensity and back-related functioning measures reported by participants within a pain research registry over 12 months of observation and to consider the implications for osteopathic medicine.

METHODS

A total of 740 participants with CLBP in the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation in the United States were studied between April 2016 and October 2021. Inception cohorts for pain recovery and functional recovery were assembled from the participants who did not meet the recovery criteria at registry enrollment. The pain recovery criterion was having a score of ≤1/10 on a numerical rating scale for low back pain intensity, and the functional recovery criterion was having a score of ≤4/24 on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. A total of 737 and 692 participants were included in the inception cohorts for pain recovery and functional recovery, respectively. Participants provided follow-up data at quarterly encounters over 12 months to determine if they achieved and maintained a pain or functional recovery from CLBP over the entire period of observation. Logistic regression was utilized to identify factors associated with recovery.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants at baseline was 52.9 years (SD, 13.1 years) and 551 (74.5%) were female. No participant reported a pain recovery that was maintained over all four quarterly encounters, whereas 16 participants (2.3%; 95% CI, 1.2-3.4%) maintained a functional recovery. Having high levels of pain self-efficacy (OR, 17.50; 95% CI, 2.30-133.23; p=0.006) and being Hispanic (OR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.11-11.37; p=0.03) were associated with functional recovery, and high levels of pain catastrophizing (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.65; p=0.01) and having chronic widespread pain (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.66; p=0.007) were inversely associated with functional recovery. The findings for pain self-efficacy and Hispanic ethnicity remained significant in the multivariate analysis that adjusted for potential confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

The absence of pain recovery and the low likelihood of functional recovery observed in our study suggests that osteopathic physicians should embrace a biopsychosocial approach to CLBP management and work with patients to set realistic expectations based on more pragmatic outcome measures, such as those that address health-related quality of life. The findings also suggest the potential importance of patient education and counseling to enhance pain self-efficacy.

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

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the existing body of trials assessing manual therapy for low back pain (LBP) to determine where it falls on the efficacyeffectiveness continuum.

DESIGN

Methodology systematic review.

LITERATURE SEARCH

PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) were searched for trials published between January 1, 2000, and April 30, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized clinical trials investigating joint mobilization and manipulation for adults with nonspecific LBP that were available in English.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We used the Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool to score included trials across 4 domains: participant characteristics, trial setting, flexibility of intervention(s), and clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention(s). Proportions of trials with greater emphasis on efficacy or effectiveness were calculated for each domain.

RESULTS

Of the 132 included trials, a greater proportion emphasized efficacy than effectiveness for domains participant characteristics (50% vs 38%), trial setting (71% vs 20%), and flexibility of intervention(s) (61% vs 25%). The domain clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention(s) had lower emphasis on efficacy (41% vs 50%).

CONCLUSION

Most trials investigating manual therapy for LBP lack pragmatism across the RITES domains (ie, they emphasize efficacy). To improve real-world implementation, more research emphasizing effectiveness is needed. This could be accomplished by recruiting from more diverse participant pools, involving multiple centers that reflect common clinical practice settings, involving clinicians with a variety of backgrounds/experience, and allowing flexibility in how interventions are delivered. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(8):532-545. Epub: 19 June 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10962.

Comparative assessment of osteopathy technique with manual therapy associated with biofeedback in patients with the lumbar spine pain

Introduction: The aim of the study is to assess the impact of physiotherapy containing elements of osteopathy on the change of pain level of the lumbar spine of patients in comparison to traditional management using orthopedic manual therapy combined with biofeedback. Material and methods: The study included 60 people qualified for outpatient rehabilitation. Patients were divided into two groups (research and control) consisting of 30 people. The mean age of patients was 52.75 ± 11.58 years. Patients were examined before and after the implementation of the rehabilitation process, pain scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index were used for the study. Rehabilitation lasted every day for four weeks. The control group used orthopedic manual therapy combined with biofeedback, while the research group used a series of treatments based on osteopathy techniques. In addition, both groups of patients underwent a standard physical therapy program. Results: The study showed the effectiveness of manual therapy combined with biofeedback and osteopathic therapy in patients with lumbar spine pain syndrome. A decrease in pain was noted in patients of both groups, however a greater decrease was noted in the research group. In the assessment using the Oswestry Disability Index, a comparable level of quality of life was noted in both treatment groups. Conclusions: The introduced therapeutic programs show an improvement both in terms of reducing pain and improving functioning in everyday life, however, the rehabilitation process based on osteopathic techniques is more effective in reducing pain.

Review of medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder

CONTEXT

The American opioid epidemic has necessitated the search for safe and effective means of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) encompasses select medications that are proven effective treatments for OUD. Understanding the mechanisms of action, indications, and implementation of MAT is paramount to increasing its availability to all individuals struggling with opioid addiction.

OBJECTIVES

This review is based on an educational series that aims to educate healthcare providers and ancillary healthcare members on the use of MAT for the treatment of OUD.

METHODS

The database PubMed was utilized to retrieve articles discussing the implementation of MAT. Boolean operators and Medical Subject Headings (MeSHs) were applied including: MAT and primary care, MAT and telehealth, methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone, MAT and osteopathic, MAT and group therapy, and MAT and COVID-19.

RESULTS

Three medications have been approved for the treatment of OUD: methadone, naltrexone, and buprenorphine. Identifying ways to better treat and manage OUD and to combat stigmatization are paramount to dismantling barriers that have made treatment less accessible. Studies suggest that primary care providers are well positioned to provide MAT to their patients, particularly in rural settings. However, no study has compared outcomes of different MAT models of care, and more research is required to guide future efforts in expanding the role of MAT in primary care settings.

CONCLUSIONS

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to changes in the way MAT care is managed. Patients require a novel point-of-care approach to obtain care. This review will define the components of MAT, consider the impact of MAT in the primary care setting, and identify barriers to effective MAT. Increasing the availability of MAT treatment will allow for greater access to comprehensive treatment and will set the standard for accessibility of novel OUD treatment in the future.

Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment as an Intervention to Reduce Stress, Anxiety, and Depression in First Responders: A Pilot Study

In this pilot study, we examined the efficacy of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment (OMT) for improving symptoms of stress, anxiety, and depression (SAD) to determine a correlation between overall improvement in health and quality of life for first responders. Participants received weekly OMT or sham OMT targeting autonomic imbalance. Indicators of SAD were examined pre- and post-study. Overall, this pilot study suggests improvement in both the social-psychological (mental) self-assessments, and alterations in SAD-associated biomarkers from OMT.

Patient-centered care or osteopathic manipulative treatment as mediators of clinical outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain

CONTEXT

Patient-centered care is often considered a characteristic of osteopathic medicine, in addition to the use of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) in such musculoskeletal conditions as low back pain.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine if patient-centered care or OMT are mediators of the clinical outcomes of osteopathic medicine in patients with chronic low back pain.

METHODS

A comparative effectiveness study was conducted within the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation (PRECISION Pain Research Registry). Eligible patients met the diagnostic criteria recommended by the National Institutes of Health Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain and completed four consecutive quarterly encounters between April 2016 and November 2020. The Consultation and Relational Empathy instrument for patient-centered care was used at the baseline encounter and OMT use was measured at the final encounter. The clinical outcome measures included low back pain intensity on a numerical rating scale (NRS) from 0 to 10, back-related functioning on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and pain impact on the National Institutes of Health Minimum Dataset for Chronic Low Back Pain (NIH-MDS). A parallel multiple mediator model was used to compute the direct and indirect effects of osteopathic medicine in achieving each of the three clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

The 404 study patients had a mean age of 52.2 years (standard deviation, 13.1 years) and 288 (71.3%) were female. The 88 (21.8%) patients treated by osteopathic physicians reported more favorable scores for patient-centered care (mean, 41.3; 95% CI 39.0-43.5) than patients treated by allopathic physicians (mean, 38.0; 95% CI 36.8-39.3) (p=0.02). Fifty-six (63.6%) patients treated by osteopathic physicians used OMT. The age- and sex-adjusted outcomes for patients of osteopathic vs. allopathic physicians across all four encounters were: mean, 5.4; 95% CI 5.0-5.7 vs. mean, 5.9; 95% CI 5.7-6.1 on the NRS for pain intensity (p=0.01); mean, 11.3; 95% CI 10.1-12.6 vs. mean, 14.0; 95% CI 13.3-14.7 on the RMDQ for back-related disability (p<0.001); and mean, 26.8; 95% CI 24.9-28.7 vs. mean, 30.1; 95% CI 29.1-31.1 on the NIH-MDS for pain impact (p=0.002). Patient-centered care did not mediate any outcome of osteopathic medicine, whereas OMT mediated better outcomes in low back pain intensity.

CONCLUSIONS

This appears to be the first study to simultaneously address both patient-centered care and OMT as potential mediators of the effect of osteopathic medicine in treating chronic pain. Patient-centered care did not mediate the effects of osteopathic medicine and OMT only mediated outcomes relating to low back pain intensity. More research is needed to identify other aspects of osteopathic medicine that mediate its beneficial effects in patients with chronic low back pain.

Effectiveness of Ultrasound Therapy on the Management of Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review

Non-specific chronic low back pain is the most common self-reported kind of musculoskeletal ache associated with substantial health and socioeconomic problem and responsible for most years lived with a disability as compared with any other medical condition. So treating chronic non-specific low back pain is one of the main problems faced among physical therapists in the rehabilitation area. The effects of ultrasound for patients with non-specific chronic low back pain remain unknown, however it is commonly used to treat clients with low back pain in rehabilitation setting. Therefore, the main aim of this review was to evaluate the up-to-date confirmation in the efficacy of ultrasound therapy on the treatment of non-specific chronic low back pain. A comprehensive search of four computerized electronic databases was performed to identify the effectiveness of ultrasound therapy on the management of chronic non-specific low back pain. Searching was done through the Google Scholar, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Physiotherapy Evidence Databases (PEDro) and reported using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. The qualities of articles were appraised by the PEDro scale. The primary outcome measure visual analog scale was used. Six randomized clinical trials with a total sample size of 699 patients from the electronic database published in English were identified. In this review, the effect of UST in five articles was statically significant in reducing the visual analog scale (p<0.05) score. So this systematic review found ultrasound therapy could be an alternative treatment to reduce the intensity of pain in subjects with non-specific chronic LBP.

Sham treatment effects in manual therapy trials on back pain patients: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects and reliability of sham procedures in manual therapy (MT) trials in the treatment of back pain (BP) in order to provide methodological guidance for clinical trial development.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Different databases were screened up to 20 August 2020. Randomised controlled trials involving adults affected by BP (cervical and lumbar), acute or chronic, were included.Hand contact sham treatment (ST) was compared with different MT (physiotherapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, massage, kinesiology and reflexology) and to no treatment. Primary outcomes were BP improvement, success of blinding and adverse effect (AE). Secondary outcomes were number of drop-outs. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed using risk ratio (RR), continuous using mean difference (MD), 95% CIs. The minimal clinically important difference was 30 mm changes in pain score.

RESULTS

24 trials were included involving 2019 participants. Very low evidence quality suggests clinically insignificant pain improvement in favour of MT compared with ST (MD 3.86, 95% CI 3.29 to 4.43) and no differences between ST and no treatment (MD -5.84, 95% CI -20.46 to 8.78).ST reliability shows a high percentage of correct detection by participants (ranged from 46.7% to 83.5%), spinal manipulation being the most recognised technique.Low quality of evidence suggests that AE and drop-out rates were similar between ST and MT (RR AE=0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.28, RR drop-outs=0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.25). A similar drop-out rate was reported for no treatment (RR=0.82, 95% 0.43 to 1.55).

CONCLUSIONS

MT does not seem to have clinically relevant effect compared with ST. Similar effects were found with no treatment. The heterogeneousness of sham MT studies and the very low quality of evidence render uncertain these review findings.Future trials should develop reliable kinds of ST, similar to active treatment, to ensure participant blinding and to guarantee a proper sample size for the reliable detection of clinically meaningful treatment effects.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020198301.

Effect of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment vs Sham Treatment on Activity Limitations in Patients With Nonspecific Subacute and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is frequently offered to people with nonspecific low back pain (LBP) but never compared with sham OMT for reducing LBP-specific activity limitations.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of standard OMT vs sham OMT for reducing LBP-specific activity limitations at 3 months in persons with nonspecific subacute or chronic LBP.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This prospective, parallel-group, single-blind, single-center, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial recruited participants with nonspecific subacute or chronic LBP from a tertiary care center in France starting February 17, 2014, with follow-up completed on October 23, 2017. Participants were randomly allocated to interventions in a 1:1 ratio. Data were analyzed from March 22, 2018, to December 5, 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

Six sessions (1 every 2 weeks) of standard OMT or sham OMT delivered by nonphysician, nonphysiotherapist osteopathic practitioners.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations at 3 months as measured by the self-administered Quebec Back Pain Disability Index (score range, 0-100). Secondary outcomes were mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations; mean changes in pain and health-related quality of life; number and duration of sick leaves, as well as number of LBP episodes at 12 months; and consumption of analgesics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs at 3 and 12 months. Adverse events were self-reported at 3, 6, and 12 months.

RESULTS

Overall, 200 participants were randomly allocated to standard OMT and 200 to sham OMT, with 197 analyzed in each group; the median (range) age at inclusion was 49.8 (40.7-55.8) years, 235 of 394 (59.6%) participants were women, and 359 of 393 (91.3%) were currently working. The mean (SD) duration of the current LBP episode was 7.5 (14.2) months. Overall, 164 (83.2%) patients in the standard OMT group and 159 (80.7%) patients in the sham OMT group had the primary outcome data available at 3 months. The mean (SD) Quebec Back Pain Disability Index scores for the standard OMT group were 31.5 (14.1) at baseline and 25.3 (15.3) at 3 months, and in the sham OMT group were 27.2 (14.8) at baseline and 26.1 (15.1) at 3 months. The mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations at 3 months was -4.7 (95% CI, -6.6 to -2.8) and -1.3 (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.6) for the standard OMT and sham OMT groups, respectively (mean difference, -3.4; 95% CI, -6.0 to -0.7; P = .01). At 12 months, the mean difference in mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations was -4.3 (95% CI, -7.6 to -1.0; P = .01), and at 3 and 12 months, the mean difference in mean reduction in pain was -1.0 (95% CI, -5.5 to 3.5; P = .66) and -2.0 (95% CI, -7.2 to 3.3; P = .47), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in other secondary outcomes. Four and 8 serious adverse events were self-reported in the standard OMT and sham OMT groups, respectively, though none was considered related to OMT.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial of patients with nonspecific subacute or chronic LBP, standard OMT had a small effect on LBP-specific activity limitations vs sham OMT. However, the clinical relevance of this effect is questionable.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02034864.

Dropout associated with osteopathic manual treatment for chronic noncancerous pain in randomized controlled trials

CONTEXT

Reviews exploring harm outcomes such as adverse effects (AE), all cause dropouts (ACD), dropouts due to inefficacy, and dropouts due to AE associated with osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) or osteopathic manual therapy (OMTh) are scant.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the overall AE, ACD, dropouts due to inefficacy, and AE in chronic noncancerous pain (CNCP) patients receiving OMTh through a systematic review of previous literature.

METHODS

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, the authors searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), EMCare, and Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and Ostmed.Dr, as well as the bibliographical references of previous systematic reviews evaluating OMTh for pain severity, disability, quality of life, and return to work outcomes. Randomized controlled trials with CNCP patients 18 years or older with OMTh as an active or combination intervention and the presence of a control or combination group were eligible for inclusion. In this sub-study of a previous, larger systematic review, 11 studies (n=1,015) reported data that allowed the authors to perform meta-analyses on ACD and dropouts due to AE. The risk of bias (ROB) was assessed with the Cochrane ROB tool and the quality of evidence was determined with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

The pooled analysis showed that ACD was not significantly different for visceral OMTh (vOMTh) vs. OMTh control (odds ratio [OR]=2.66 [95% confidence interval [[CI]], 0.28, 24.93]) or for OMTh vs. standard care (OR=1.26 [95% CI, 0.84, 1.89]; I²=0%). Single study analysis showed that OMTh results were nonsignificant in comparison with chemonucleolysis, gabapentin, and exercise. OMTh in combination with gabapentin (vs. gabapentin alone) and OMTh in combination with exercise (vs. exercise alone) showed nonsignificant ACD. Dropouts due to AE were not significantly different, but the results could not be pooled due to an insufficient number of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Most articles did not explicitly report AEs, ACD rates, or dropouts due to AEs and inefficacy. The limited data available on dropouts showed that OMTh was well tolerated compared with control interventions, and that the ACD and dropouts due to AEs were not significantly different than comparators. Future trials should focus on explicit reporting of dropouts along with beneficial outcomes to provide a better understanding of OMTh efficacy.

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.

Support for osteopathic manipulative treatment inclusion in chronic pain management guidelines: a narrative review

Context

Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is used to treat chronic pain conditions. However, few guidelines focusing on chronic pain management include recommendations for OMT.

Objectives

To evaluate previous literature on the use of OMT for improving chronic pain.

Methods

A literature search was conducted on MEDLINE/PubMed and ScienceDirect on August 26-27, 2019, using the terms "osteopathic," "chronic," and "pain," yielding a total of 312 MEDLINE/PubMed articles and 515 ScienceDirect articles. Eligibility criteria required that studies investigate pain, functional status, or medication usage through an experimental design, focusing on human subjects with chronic pain who had various forms of OMT administered by osteopathically trained individuals in which the comparator group received no intervention, a sham or placebo, or conventional care. Three authors independently performed literature searches and methodically settled disagreements over article selection.

Results

In the 22 articles included in our study that examined OMT use in chronic pain conditions, we evaluated primary outcomes of pain (22; 100%) and functional status (20; 90.9%), and the secondary outcome of medication usage (3; 13.6%). The majority of articles showed that OMT resulted in a significant decrease in pain levels as compared to baseline pain levels or the control group (20; 90.9%) and that OMT resulted in an improvement in functional status (17; 77.3%). In articles that did not find a significant difference in pain (2; 9.1%) or functional status (3; 13.6%), there were overall outcomes improvements noted. All articles that investigated medication usage (3; 13.6%) showed that OMT was effective in decreasing patients' medication usage. Our study was limited by its small sample size and multimodal comparator group exclusion.

Conclusions

OMT provides an evidence-based management option to reduce pain levels, improve functional status, and decrease medication usage in chronic pain conditions, especially low back pain (LBP). Pain management guidelines should include OMT as a resource to alleviate chronic pain.

Osteopathy modulates brain-heart interaction in chronic pain patients: an ASL study

In this study we used a combination of measures including regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) and heart rate variability (HRV) to investigate brain-heart correlates of longitudinal baseline changes of chronic low back pain (cLBP) after osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT). Thirty-two right-handed patients were randomised and divided into 4 weekly session of OMT (N = 16) or Sham (N = 16). Participants aged 42.3 ± 7.3 (M/F: 20/12) with cLBP (duration: 14.6 ± 8.0 m). At the end of the study, patients receiving OMT showed decreased baseline rCBF within several regions belonging to the pain matrix (left posterior insula, left anterior cingulate cortex, left thalamus), sensory regions (left superior parietal lobe), middle frontal lobe and left cuneus. Conversely, rCBF was increased in right anterior insula, bilateral striatum, left posterior cingulate cortex, right prefrontal cortex, left cerebellum and right ventroposterior lateral thalamus in the OMT group as compared with Sham. OMT showed a statistically significant negative correlation between baseline High Frequency HRV changes and rCBF changes at T2 in the left posterior insula and bilateral lentiform nucleus. The same brain regions showed a positive correlation between rCBF changes and Low Frequency HRV baseline changes at T2. These findings suggest that OMT can play a significant role in regulating brain-heart interaction mechanisms.

Use of osteopathic manipulative treatment for low back pain patients with and without pain medication history

Context

Low back pain is one of the most frequent diagnoses in primary care, and prescription pain medication is commonly used for management. Osteopathic physicians may use osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) as an additional tool to help alleviate pain.

Objective

To determine if nonpharmacological options can improve back pain with the use of OMT.

Methods

Two groups were studied: patients receiving OMT but not using prescribed pain medications (OMT-only group) and patients who received prescribed pain medication and began receiving OMT after three months of pharmacologic therapy (OMT + medication group). All patients were enrolled in the study for one year. The amount of time between treatments was determined by the physician performing the OMT and the patient's pain improvement. The Keele STarT survey and Oswestry Disability Index tool were used at each appointment to assess the patient's functionality and pain.

Results

Thirty-six patients enrolled in the study: 26 in the OMT-only group and 10 in the OMT + medication group. Each group reported improvement in low back pain (LBP) according to both scales used. The OMT-only group reported improvement according to the Keele STarT survey (30% relative decrease in the mean score) and the Oswestry Disability Index tool (18% relative decrease in disability index), while patients in the OMT + medication group also reported improvement according to the Keele STarT survey (29.5% relative decrease in the mean score) and the Oswestry Disability Index tool (18% relative decrease in disability index). A decrease in Cyclobenzaprine usage was also observed in the OMT + medication group.

Conclusion

Both groups showed significant decreases in overall pain, and this similar effect in each group may indicate a lack of need for medications when OMT is used. Additional research on efficacy of OMT in this patient population is needed with larger, multicenter, randomized trials.

Osteopathic Manual Treatment for Pain Severity, Functional Improvement, and Return to Work in Patients With Chronic Pain

Context

Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is associated with disability, poor quality of life (QOL), and failure to return to work (RTW). Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) or osteopathic manual therapy (OMTh) are increasingly offered to patients with CNCP; however, the existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the literature that explore the effectiveness of OMTh have major limitations.

Objective

To systematically evaluate the quality of evidence documenting the effectiveness of OMTh for patients with CNCP using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, and to evaluate the efficacy of OMTh in patients with CNCP through a meta-analysis of pooled data from previous studies.

Methods

We searched online the databases Ovid, MEDLINE, Embase, OSTMED.DR, EMCare, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), as well as the bibliographic references of previous systematic review articles evaluating OMTh for pain severity, disability, QOL, or RTW outcomes. Eligibility included randomized controlled trials methodology, CNCP patients 18 years or older, use of previously validated assessment tools, use of OMTh as an active or combination intervention, and presence of a control or comparison group. We pooled studies based on the homogeneity between OMT comparator treatment and outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the quality of evidence was determined with GRADE.

Results

Sixteen randomized controlled trials (n=1158 patients) were eligible for data extraction. Moderate quality evidence showed that OMTh vs. standard care was significantly associated with a reduction in pain [standardized mean difference (95% CI)=[-.37 (-.58, -.17)] and disability [-.28 (-.46, -.10)], as well as improved QOL [.67 (.29, 1.05)]. Moderate quality evidence showed that OMTh plus exercise vs. exercise only was significantly associated with reduction in pain severity [-1.25 (-1.67, -.83)] and disability [-1.15 (-1.57, -.74)]. Moderate quality evidence showed that using visceral OMTh vs. general OMTh was significantly associated with reduction in pain severity [-.74 (-1.09, -.39)] and disability [-.52 (-.91, -.13)]. In comparison to physiotherapy, gabapentin, and OMTh plus gabapentin, OMTh did not show any significant effect for any of the outcomes. OMTh vs. standard care did not show significant improvement in RTW at 12 weeks, although the effect was significant at 8 weeks after OMTh.

Conclusion

Moderate quality evidence suggests that OMTh is effective for CNCP patients. There was a significant association between visceral OMTh and reduced pain severity and disability. More robust, high-quality randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are required to further explore the effectiveness of the OMTh in the management of CNCP.

Effectiveness of osteopathic interventions in chronic non-specific low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a frequent cause of disability and it represents a medical, social and economic burden globally. Therefore, we assessed effectiveness of osteopathic interventions in the management of NS-CLBP for pain and functional status.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Findings were reported following the PRISMA statement. Six databases were searched for RCTs. Studies were independently assessed using a standardized form. Each article was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool. Effect size (ES) were calculated at post-treatment and at 12 weeks' follow up. We used GRADE to assess quality of evidence.

RESULTS

10 articles were included. Studies investigated osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT, n = 6), myofascial release (MFR, n = 2), craniosacral treatment (CST, n = 1) and osteopathic visceral manipulation (OVM, n = 1). None of the study was completely judged at low RoB. Osteopathy revealed to be more effective than control interventions in pain reduction (ES: -0.59; 95% CI: -0.81, -0.36; P < 0.00,001) and in improving functional status (ES: -0.42; 95% 95% CI: -0.68, -0.15; P = 0.002). Moderate-quality evidence suggested that MFR is more effective than control treatments in pain reduction (ES: -0.69; 95% CI: -1.05, -0.33; P = 0.0002), even at follow-up (ES: -0.73; 95% CI: -1.09, -0.37; P < 0.0001). Low-quality evidence suggested superiority of OMT in pain reduction (ES: -0.57; 95% CI: -0.90, -0.25; P = 0.001) and in changing functional status (ES: -0.34; 95% CI: -0.65, -0.03; P = 0.001). Very low-quality evidence suggested that MFR is more effective than control interventions in functional improvements (ES: -0.73; 95% CI: -1.25, -0.21; P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Results strengthen evidence that osteopathy is effective in pain levels and functional status improvements in NS-CLBP patients. MFR reported better level of evidence for pain reduction if compared to other interventions. Further high-quality RCTs, comparing different osteopathic modalities, are recommended to produce better-quality evidence.

Comparison between high-velocity low-amplitude manipulation and muscle energy technique on pain and trunk neuromuscular postural control in male workers with chronic low back pain: A randomised crossover trial

BACKGROUND

A therapeutic recommendation for restoring function in individuals with chronic low back pain (CLBP) is manual therapy through manipulative spinal or muscle energy techniques.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of two osteopathic manipulative techniques on clinical low back symptoms and trunk neuromuscular postural control in male workers with CLBP.

METHOD

Ten male workers with CLBP were randomly allocated to two groups: high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation or muscle energy techniques (MET). Each group received one therapy per week for both techniques during 7 weeks of treatment. Pain and function were measured by using the Numeric Pain-Rating Scale, the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. The lumbar flexibility was assessed by Modified Schober Test. Electromyography (EMG) and force platform measurements were used for evaluation of trunk muscular activation and postural balance, respectively at three different times: baseline, post intervention, and 15 days later.

RESULTS

Both techniques were effective (p < 0.01) in reducing pain with large clinical differences (-1.8 to -2.8) across immediate and after 15 days. However, no significant effect between groups and times was found for other variables, namely neuromuscular activation and postural balance measures.

CONCLUSION

Both techniques (HVLA thrust manipulation and MET) were effective in reducing back pain immediately and 15 days later. Neither technique changed the trunk neuromuscular activation patterns nor postural balance in male workers with LBP.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

These results may facilitate clinical decision-making for CLBP management in physiotherapy programs.

Australian osteopaths as non-medical prescribers: comparison of healthcare practitioner characteristics from a nationally representative survey

The study aimed to compare the characteristics of Australian osteopaths who definitely agree that prescribing scheduled medicines is part of their future scope of practice with those who do not. A secondary analysis of a cross-sectional survey of osteopaths from an Australian practice-based research network was undertaken. Demographic, practice and treatment characteristics were identified using inferential statistics and backward linear regression modelling. Over one-quarter (n=257, 25.9%) of the total participants (n=992) indicated that they 'definitely' agree that osteopaths should seek prescription rights. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) suggested these osteopaths were more likely to engage in medication discussions with patients (OR 1.88), frequently manage migraines (OR 1.68) and seek increased practice rights for referrals to medical specialists (OR 2.61) and diagnostic imaging (OR 2.79). Prescribing as part of the future scope of practice for Australian osteopaths is associated with patient management (medication discussions) and practice characteristics (increased referral rights for specialists and diagnostic imaging) that warrant additional investigation. Understanding of the practice, clinical and patient management characteristics of Australian osteopaths who see prescribing as part of the future scope of practice informs the case for regulatory and health policy changes for prescribing scheduled medicines.

Osteopathic Manipulation in the Management of Chronic Pain: Current Perspectives

Chronic pain is a common condition that often interferes with work or other activities. Guidelines support the use of non-pharmacological treatments, such as spinal manipulation, in patients with chronic pain. Osteopathic physicians in the United States are uniquely positioned to manage chronic pain because their professional philosophy embraces the biopsychosocial model and they are trained in the use of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) to complement conventional medical care. This narrative review provides current perspectives on the osteopathic approach to chronic pain management, including evidence for the efficacy of OMT based on systematic searches of the biomedical literature and the ClinicalTrials.gov database. Men, persons with low levels of education, and non-White and Hispanic patients are significantly less likely to have received OMT during their lifetime. Patients with low back and neck pain are most likely to be treated with OMT, and osteopathic manipulative medicine specialty physicians and family medicine physicians most often use OMT. However, many osteopathic physicians report using OMT infrequently. Although OMT is considered safe, based on millions of patient encounters over more than a century, there is limited evidence on its efficacy in treating chronic pain. The lone exception involves chronic low back pain, wherein there is evidence from systematic reviews, a large clinical trial, and observational studies. There is lesser evidence to support cost effectiveness and patient satisfaction associated with OMT for chronic pain. The only clinical practice guideline established by the American Osteopathic Association recommends that OMT should be used to treat chronic low back pain in patients with somatic dysfunction. Given the philosophy of osteopathic medicine, universal training of osteopathic physicians to use OMT, and national guidelines supporting non-pharmacological treatments for chronic pain, it is unclear why OMT use is reported to be remarkably low in physician surveys.

Therapeutic ultrasound for chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014. Chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP) has become one of the main causes of disability in the adult population around the world. Although therapeutic ultrasound is not recommended in recent clinical guidelines, it is frequently used by physiotherapists in the treatment of chronic LBP.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to determine the effectiveness of therapeutic ultrasound in the management of chronic non-specific LBP. A secondary objective was to determine the most effective dosage and intensity of therapeutic ultrasound for chronic LBP.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed electronic searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and two trials registers to 7 January 2020. We checked the reference lists of eligible studies and relevant systematic reviews and performed forward citation searching.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on therapeutic ultrasound for chronic non-specific LBP. We compared ultrasound (either alone or in combination with another treatment) with placebo or other interventions for chronic LBP.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of each trial and extracted the data. We performed a meta-analysis when sufficient clinical and statistical homogeneity existed. We determined the certainty of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs involving a total of 1025 participants with chronic LBP. The included studies were carried out in secondary care settings in Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Croatia, the UK, and the USA, and most applied therapeutic ultrasound in addition to another treatment, for six to 18 treatment sessions. The risk of bias was unclear in most studies. Eight studies (80%) had unclear or high risk of selection bias; no studies blinded care providers to the intervention; and only five studies (50%) blinded participants. There was a risk of selective reporting in eight studies (80%), and no studies adequately assessed compliance with the intervention. There was very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision, inconsistency, and limitations in design) of little to no difference between therapeutic ultrasound and placebo for short-term pain improvement (mean difference (MD) -7.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.99 to 3.75; n = 121, 3 RCTs; 0-to-100-point visual analogue scale (VAS)). There was also moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) of little to no difference in the number of participants achieving a 30% reduction in pain in the short term (risk ratio 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.44; n = 225, 1 RCT). There was low-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision and limitations in design) that therapeutic ultrasound has a small effect on back-specific function compared with placebo in the short term (standardised mean difference -0.29, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.07 (MD -1.07, 95% CI -1.89 to -0.26; Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire); n = 325; 4 RCTs), but this effect does not appear to be clinically important. There was moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) of little to no difference between therapeutic ultrasound and placebo on well-being (MD -2.71, 95% CI -9.85 to 4.44; n = 267, 2 RCTs; general health subscale of the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36)). Two studies (n = 486) reported on overall improvement and satisfaction between groups, and both reported little to no difference between groups (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious imprecision). One study (n = 225) reported on adverse events and did not identify any adverse events related to the intervention (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious imprecision). No study reported on disability for this comparison. We do not know whether therapeutic ultrasound in addition to exercise results in better outcomes than exercise alone because the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low (downgraded for imprecision and serious limitations in design). The estimate effect for pain was in favour of the ultrasound plus exercise group (MD -21.1, 95% CI -27.6 to -14.5; n = 70, 2 RCTs; 0-to-100-point VAS) at short term. Regarding back-specific function (MD - 0.41, 95% CI -3.14 to 2.32; n = 79, 2 RCTs; Oswestry Disability Questionnaire) and well-being (MD -2.50, 95% CI -9.53 to 4.53; n = 79, 2 RCTs; general health subscale of the SF-36), there was little to no difference between groups at short term. No studies reported on the number of participants achieving a 30% reduction in pain, patient satisfaction, disability, or adverse events for this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from this systematic review is uncertain regarding the effect of therapeutic ultrasound on pain in individuals with chronic non-specific LBP. Whilst there is some evidence that therapeutic ultrasound may have a small effect on improving low back function in the short term compared to placebo, the certainty of evidence is very low. The true effect is likely to be substantially different. There are few high-quality randomised trials, and the available trials were very small. The current evidence does not support the use of therapeutic ultrasound in the management of chronic LBP.

Effects of osteopathic treatment versus static touch on heart rate and oxygen saturation in premature babies: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) has been successfully tested in the context of preterm infants. No studies, however, have been conducted to investigate the OMT immediate effects on physiological measurements, such as partial oxygen saturation (SpO2) and heart rate (HR). The purpose of the present study was to assess the effect of osteopathic treatment on SpO2 and HR values and to compare it with 10 min of static touch.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety-six preterm infants (41 male), aged 33.5 weeks (±4.3) with mean weight at birth of 2067gr (±929) were recruited from the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) of the Buzzi Hospital in Milan, and randomly allocated to two groups: OMT and Static Touch. Each protocol session consisted of: a) 5-min Pre-touch baseline recording, b) 10-min touch procedure, c) 5-min post-touch recording. Primary and secondary outcomes were, respectively, the baseline changes of HR and SpO2.

RESULTS

The 2 × 2 repeated measure ANOVA for HR showed a statistically significant effect (F (1,94) = 5.34; p < 0.02), revealing that the OMT group decreases the HR value at T2 (p = 0.006). In contrast, SpO2 analysis showed an increase of SpO2 value where the OMT group demonstrated higher values at T2 (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Results from the present study suggest that a single osteopathic intervention may induce beneficial effects on preterm physiological parameters.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03833635 - Date: February 7, 2019.

Osteopathic Medical Care With and Without Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pain Registry-Based Study

Context

The OSTEOPATHIC Trial demonstrated substantial improvement in pain intensity, decreased need for rescue medication for pain, and greater likelihood of recovery in patients with chronic low back pain who received 6 osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) sessions over 3 months.

Objective

To assess osteopathic medical care and the effectiveness of OMT for chronic low back pain in a real-world setting without the constraints of a rigid research protocol.

Methods

An observational study of 445 adults with chronic low back pain who had an established osteopathic physician (ie, DO) or allopathic physician (ie, MD) was conducted within the PRECISION Pain Research Registry from April 2016 through February 2019. Primary outcome measures included a numerical rating scale for low back pain intensity, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for back-related functioning, and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or opioids for low back pain.

Results

A total of 79, 48, and 318 patients, respectively, were treated by DOs who used OMT, DOs who did not use OMT, or MDs. Patients treated by DOs who used OMT reported significantly lesser low back pain intensity (mean numerical rating score, 5.6; 95% CI, 5.1-6.1 vs 6.1; 95% CI, 5.9-6.3; P=.04) and back-related disability (mean Roland-Morris Disability score, 12.4; 95% CI, 11.1-13.8 vs 14.4; 95% CI, 13.7-15.0; P=.009) than patients treated by MDs. Patients treated by DOs who used OMT also reported less frequent use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (multivariate odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.24-0.70; P=.001) or opioids (multivariate odds ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28-0.98; P=.04). There were no significant differences in primary outcomes between DOs who did not use OMT and MDs.

Conclusion

This study of community-based patients in a pain research registry supports the effectiveness of OMT as an integral component of osteopathic medical care for chronic low back pain. Patients treated by DOs who did not use OMT did not experience better results than patients treated by MDs in any primary outcome measure. Further research is needed to more specifically compare the effects of OMT with other treatment effects that may be attributed to patient-DO interactions during medical encounters.

Introducing national osteopathy practice-based research networks in Australia and New Zealand: an overview to inform future osteopathic research

Both the Osteopathic Research Innovation Network (ORION) and the Osteopathy Research Connect-New Zealand (ORC-NZ) are practice-based research networks (PBRNs) recently established in Australia and New Zealand. This paper highlights the profile of the osteopaths participating in each PBRN in order to encourage and facilitate further related research in osteopathy. All registered osteopaths in Australia and New Zealand were invited to participate in the ORION and ORC-NZ PBRNs, respectively. This paper presents practice and sociodemographic characteristics of the osteopaths that elected to join the PBRN in their country. A total of 253 registered osteopaths in New Zealand (48.7%) agreed to join ORC-NZ while 992 registered osteopaths in Australia (44.5%) joined ORION. Membership of both PBRNs reflect national geographical spread, and diverse personal and practice characteristics. Combined membership of both PBRNs represents 45.3% of all registered osteopaths in Australasia and 7.7% of the global osteopathic profession. The PBRNs, independently and in combination, hold much potential to advance the evidence-base and capacity of osteopathy research. Both ORION and ORC-NZ PBRNs are powerful, innovative resources available to other interested parties to help conduct further osteopathy research in Australia and New Zealand.

Review of Opioid Prescribing in the Osteopathic and Ambulatory Setting

The opioid epidemic in the United States is one of the largest modern health crises in the nation's history. The crisis has been cultivated in academic journals, driven by the medical-pharmaceutical complex, and fueled by campaigns representing the most prestigious health care organizations and advocacy groups. Comprehensive guidelines for proper prescribing have been released in addition to state-sponsored prescription drug-monitoring programs (PDMPs) in response to overprescribing habits. When considering opioid treatment for a patient, physicians should document a thorough history of pain, give an appropriate physical examination, and complete a risk assessment using the proper diagnostic tools. Considering the osteopathic philosophy and approach to chronic pain, physicians should account for an integrative treatment approach for improved patient outcomes when considering applying the osteopathic philosophy to chronic pain management. A successful treatment plan can integrate cognitive behavioral therapy and promote self-healing by treating somatic dysfunctions with osteopathic manipulative treatment. This literature review discusses how to treat patients with chronic pain and how to properly use and prescribe opioids. The researchers analyzed the history and current status of the opioid epidemic, examined opioid management in the outpatient setting, reviewed the current domestic and international opioid prescribing guidelines, and discussed the incorporation of the osteopathic philosophy to manage chronic pain.

Abstracts of low back pain trials are poorly reported, contain spin of information and are inconsistent with the full text: An overview study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate trials abstracts evaluating treatments for low back pain with regards to completeness of reporting, spin (i.e., interpretation of study results that overemphasizes the beneficial effects of the intervention), and inconsistencies in data with the full text.

DATA SOURCES

The search was performed on Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) in February 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

This is an overview study of a random sample of 200 low back pain trials published between 2010 and 2015. The languages of publication were restricted to English, Spanish and Portuguese.

DATA EXTRACTION

Completeness of reporting was assessed using the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist (CONSORT-A). Spin was assessed using a SPIN-checklist. Consistency between abstract and full text were assessed by applying the assessment tools to both the abstract and full text of each trial and calculating inconsistencies in the summary score (paired t test) and agreement in the classification of each item (Kappa statistics). Methodological quality was analyzed using the total PEDro score.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The mean number of fully reported items for abstracts using the CONSORT-A was 5.1 (SD 2.4) out of 15 points and the mean number of items with spin was 4.9 (SD 2.6) out of 7 points. Abstract and full text scores were statistically inconsistent (P=0.01). There was slight to moderate agreement between items of the CONSORT-A in the abstracts and full text (mean Kappa 0.20 SD 0.13) and fair to moderate agreement for items of the SPIN-checklist (mean Kappa 0.47 SD 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

The abstracts were incomplete, with spin and inconsistent with the full text. We advise health care professionals to avoid making clinical decisions based solely upon abstracts. Journal editors, reviewers and authors are jointly responsible for improving abstracts, which could be guided by amended editorial policies.

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.

Osteopathic care for spinal complaints: A systematic literature review

The aim of the current study was to evaluate the literature examining the impact of osteopathic care for spinal complaints. The bibliographic databases Medline (Pubmed), Web of Science, Embase, and PEDro were searched. In addition, a number of grey literature sources were searched. Only randomized controlled trials conducted in high-income Western countries were considered. Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts. Primary outcomes included ‘pain’ and ‘functional status’, while secondary outcomes included ‘medication use’ and ‘health status’. It was examined if differences existed related to the treatment protocol and geography (European vs. US studies). Study quality was assessed using the risk of bias tool of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Nineteen studies were included and qualitatively synthesized. Nine studies were from the US, followed by Germany with seven studies. The majority of studies (n = 13) focused on low back pain. In general, mixed findings related to the impact of osteopathic care on primary and secondary outcomes were observed. For the primary outcomes, a clear distinction between US and European studies was found, in favor of the latter ones. Studies were characterized by substantial methodological differences in sample sizes, number of treatments, control groups, and follow-up. In conclusion, there is some evidence suggesting that osteopathic care may be effective for people suffering from spinal complaints. Further studies with larger study samples and assessment of long-term impact are required to further increase the evidence-based knowledge of the potential of osteopathic care for individuals suffering from spinal complaints.

Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment Including Specific Diaphragm Techniques Improves Pain and Disability in Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of an osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), which includes a diaphragm intervention compared to the same OMT with a sham diaphragm intervention in chronic nonspecific low back pain (NS-CLBP).

DESIGN

Parallel group randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Private and institutional health centers.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants (N=66) (18-60y) with a diagnosis of NS-CLBP lasting at least 3 months.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to receive either an OMT protocol including specific diaphragm techniques (n=33) or the same OMT protocol with a sham diaphragm intervention (n=33), conducted in 5 sessions provided during 4 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were pain (evaluated with the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire [SF-MPQ] and the visual analog scale [VAS]) and disability (assessed with the Roland-Morris Questionnaire [RMQ] and the Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]). Secondary outcomes were fear-avoidance beliefs, level of anxiety and depression, and pain catastrophization. All outcome measures were evaluated at baseline, at week 4, and at week 12.

RESULTS

A statistically significant reduction was observed in the experimental group compared to the sham group in all variables assessed at week 4 and at week 12 (SF-MPQ [mean difference -6.2; 95% confidence interval, -8.6 to -3.8]; VAS [mean difference -2.7; 95% confidence interval, -3.6 to -1.8]; RMQ [mean difference -3.8; 95% confidence interval, -5.4 to -2.2]; ODI [mean difference -10.6; 95% confidence interval, -14.9 to 6.3]). Moreover, improvements in pain and disability were clinically relevant.

CONCLUSIONS

An OMT protocol that includes diaphragm techniques produces significant and clinically relevant improvements in pain and disability in patients with NS-CLBP compared to the same OMT protocol using sham diaphragm techniques.

Manipulation and mobilization for treating chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used to benefit patients with chronic low back pain. However, questions remain about their efficacy, dosing, safety, and how these approaches compare with other therapies.

PURPOSE

The present study aims to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The present study measures self-reported pain, function, health-related quality of life, and adverse events.

METHODS

We identified studies by searching multiple electronic databases from January 2000 to March 2017, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation or mobilization therapies with sham, no treatment, other active therapies, and multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Where possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project is funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under Award Number U19AT007912.

RESULTS

Fifty-one trials were included in the systematic review. Nine trials (1,176 patients) provided sufficient data and were judged similar enough to be pooled for meta-analysis. The standardized mean difference for a reduction of pain was SMD=-0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.09, p=.004; I2=57% after treatment; within seven trials (923 patients), the reduction in disability was SMD=-0.33, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.03, p=.03; I2=78% for manipulation or mobilization compared with other active therapies. Subgroup analyses showed that manipulation significantly reduced pain and disability, compared with other active comparators including exercise and physical therapy (SMD=-0.43, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.00; p=.05, I2=79%; SMD=-0.86, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.45; p<.0001, I2=46%). Mobilization interventions, compared with other active comparators including exercise regimens, significantly reduced pain (SMD=-0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.04; p=.01; I2=0%) but not disability (SMD=-0.10, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.07; p=.25; I2=21%). Studies comparing manipulation or mobilization with sham or no treatment were too few or too heterogeneous to allow for pooling as were studies examining relationships between dose and outcomes. Few studies assessed health-related quality of life. Twenty-six of 51 trials were multimodal studies and narratively described.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate-quality evidence that manipulation and mobilization are likely to reduce pain and improve function for patients with chronic low back pain; manipulation appears to produce a larger effect than mobilization. Both therapies appear safe. Multimodal programs may be a promising option.