A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain most likely to benefit from spinal manipulation: a validation study

A bibliometric study on trends in chiropractic research from 1920 to 2023

OBJECTIVE

An increasing body of evidence suggests a positive role of chiropractic in the treatment of neuro-musculoskeletal disorders. This study aims to explore current research hotspots and trends, providing insights into the broad prospects of this field.

METHODS

A bibliometric review was conducted on all chiropractic articles included in the Web of Science Core Collection before December 31, 2023.

RESULTS

Over the past century, the volume of research in the field of chiropractic has been fluctuating annually, with four peaks observed in total. The United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom are leading countries. Chu, Eric Chun-Pu is the author with the most publications, while Bronfort, Gert has the highest total citation count. The University of Southern Denmark has produced the most publications, while Queens University - Canada is the most central institution. The Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics is the journal with the most publications and citations, while the Journal of the American Medical Association is the most central journal. The two most-cited articles were both authored by Eisenberg DM. Emerging keywords include "chronic pain" and "skills". The theoretical mechanisms and scientific basis of chiropractic, its clinical practice and safety, education and training, integration with other disciplines, and patient experiences and satisfaction are the frontiers and hotspots of research.

CONCLUSION

This study integrates bibliometric analysis to summarize the current state of research and global network centers in the field of chiropractic, further highlighting the hotspots and trends in this field. However, Individual and national rankings should be interpreted with caution due to our focus on Web of Science rather than PubMed.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

IMPACT

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

DESIGN

Clinical practice guideline.

SETTING

Inpatient and outpatient.

POPULATION

Adults with LBP and/or LRS.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT

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

The effectiveness of cupping therapy on low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of cupping therapy on low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Scopus and WANFANG databases were searched for relevant cupping RCTs on low back pain articles up to 2023. A complementary search was manually made on 27 September for update screening. Full-text English and Chinese articles on all ethnic adults with LBP of cupping management were included in this study. Studies looking at acute low back pain only were excluded. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data, with any disagreement resolved through consensus by a third reviewer. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated independently by two reviewers using an adapted tool. Change-from-baseline outcomes were treated as continuous variables and calculated according to the Cochrane Handbook. Data were extracted and pooled into the meta-analysis by Review Manager software (version 5.4, Nordic Cochrane Centre).

RESULTS

Eleven trials involving 921 participants were included. Five studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias, and six studies were of acceptable quality. High-quality evidence demonstrated cupping significantly improves pain at 2-8 weeks endpoint intervention (d=1.09, 95% CI: [0.35-1.83], p = 0.004). There was no continuous pain improvement observed at one month (d=0.11, 95% CI: [-1.02-1.23], p = 0.85) and 3-6 months (d=0.39, 95% CI: [-0.09-0.87], p = 0.11). Dry cupping did not improve pain (d=1.06, 95% CI: [-0.34, 2.45], p = 0.14) compared with wet cupping (d=1.5, 95% CI: [0.39-2.6], p = 0.008) at the endpoint intervention. There was no evidence indicating the association between pain reduction and different types of cupping (p = 0.2). Moderate- to low-quality evidence showed that cupping did not reduce chronic low back pain (d=0.74, 95% CI: [-0.67-2.15], p = 0.30) and non-specific chronic low back pain (d=0.27, 95% CI: [-1.69-2.24], p = 0.78) at the endpoint intervention. Cupping on acupoints showed a significant improvement in pain (d=1.29, 95% CI: [0.63-1.94], p < 0.01) compared with the lower back area (d=0.35, 95% CI: [-0.29-0.99], p = 0.29). A potential association between pain reduction and different cupping locations (p = 0.05) was found. Meta-analysis showed a significant effect on pain improvement compared to medication therapy (n = 8; d=1.8 [95% CI: 1.22 - 2.39], p < 0.001) and usual care (n = 5; d=1.07 [95% CI: 0.21- 1.93], p = 0.01). Two studies demonstrated that cupping significantly mediated sensory and emotional pain immediately, after 24 h, and 2 weeks post-intervention (d= 5.49, 95% CI [4.13-6.84], p < 0.001). Moderate evidence suggested that cupping improved disability at the 1-6 months follow-up (d=0.67, 95% CI: [0.06-1.28], p = 0.03). There was no immediate effect observed at the 2-8 weeks endpoint (d=0.40, 95% CI: [-0.51-1.30], p = 0.39). A high degree of heterogeneity was noted in the subgroup analysis (I2 >50%).

CONCLUSION

High- to moderate-quality evidence indicates that cupping significantly improves pain and disability. The effectiveness of cupping for LBP varies based on treatment durations, cupping types, treatment locations, and LBP classifications. Cupping demonstrated a superior and sustained effect on pain reduction compared with medication and usual care. The notable heterogeneity among studies raises concerns about the certainty of these findings. Further research should be designed with a standardized cupping manipulation that specifies treatment sessions, frequency, cupping types, and treatment locations. The actual therapeutic effects of cupping could be confirmed by using objective pain assessments. Studies with at least six- to twelve-month follow-ups are needed to investigate the long-term efficacy of cupping in managing LBP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review was initially registered on PROSPERO with registration code: CRD42021271245 on 08 September 2021.

Effectiveness of spinal manipulation in influencing the autonomic nervous system - a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulation (SM) has been hypothesized to influence the autonomic nervous system (ANS). Further, it has been proposed that the effects may vary depending on the segment manipulated. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the current level of evidence for SM in influencing the ANS in healthy and/or symptomatic population.

METHODS

Various databases (n = 8) were searched (inception till May 2023) and 14 trials (n = 618 participants) were included in the review. Two authors independently screened, extracted and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. The data were synthesized using standard mean differences and meta-analysis for the primary outcome measures. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used for assessing the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome of interest.

RESULTS

Overall, there was low quality evidence that SM did not influence any measure of ANS including heart rate variability (HRV), oxy-hemoglobin, blood pressure, epinephrine and nor-epinephrine. However, there was low quality evidence that cervical spine manipulation may influence high frequency parameter of HRV, indicating its influence on the parasympathetic nervous system.

CONCLUSION

When compared with control or sham interventions, SM did not alter the ANS. Due to invalid methodologies and the low quality of included studies, findings must be interpreted with great caution. Future studies are needed which employ rigorous data collection processes to verify the true physiological implications of SM on ANS.

Dosing of lumbar spinal manipulative therapy and its association with escalated spine care: A cohort study of insurance claims

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between three distinct spinal manipulative therapy dose groups and escalated spine care by analyzing insurance claims from a cohort of patients with low back pain.

METHODS

We compared three distinct spinal manipulative therapy dose groups (low = 1 SMT visits, moderate = 2-12 SMT visits, high = 13+ SMT visits), to a control group (no spinal manipulative therapy) regarding the outcome of escalated spine care. Escalated spine care procedures include imaging studies, injection procedures, emergency department visits, surgery, and opioid medication use. Propensity score matching was performed to address treatment selection bias. Modified Poisson regression modeling was used to estimate the relative risk of spine care escalation among three spinal manipulative therapy doses, adjusting for age, sex, retrospective risk score and claim count.

RESULTS

83,025 claims were categorized into 11,114 unique low back pain episodes; 8,137 claims had 0 spinal manipulative therapy visits, with the remaining episodes classified as low dose (n = 404), moderate dose (n = 1,763) or high dose (n = 810). After propensity score matching, 5,348 episodes remained; 2,454 had 0 spinal manipulative therapy visits with the remaining episodes classified as low dose (n = 404), moderate dose (n = 1,761), or high dose (n = 729). The estimated relative risk (vs no spinal manipulative therapy) for any escalated spine care was 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.38, 0.55, p <0.001), 0.58 (95% confidence interval 0.53, 0.63, p <0.001), and 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.95, 1.13, p = 0.461) for low, moderate, and high dose spinal manipulative therapy groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For claims associated with initial episodes of low back pain, low and moderate dose spinal manipulative therapy groups were associated with a 55% and 42% reduction, respectively, in the relative risk of any escalated spine care.

Trends of Low Back Pain Research in Older and Working-Age Adults from 1993 to 2023: A Bibliometric Analysis

Although the number of publications focusing on low back pain in older adults (LBP-O) and working-age adults (LBP-W) has been growing for decades, comparative research trends in these two populations, which may help to guide future investigation, have not been rigorously explored. This analysis aimed to describe publication patterns and trends of research targeting LBP-O and LBP-W over the last three decades. Peer-reviewed LBP-O and LBP-W articles published between 1993 and 2023 were retrieved from the Web of Science, which provided the details of annual publication volume, and prominent journals/countries/institutions. The relationship between the annual publication volumes and years was analyzed by Spearman correlation analysis. The hot topics and emerging trends were analyzed by VOSviewer and CiteSpace, respectively. A total of 4217 LBP-O-related and 50,559 LBP-W-related documents were included. The annual publication volumes of LBP-O and LBP-W articles increased over the years (r=0.995 to 0.998, p<0.001). The United States had the highest number of prominent institutions publishing relevant articles. The most prolific journal for LBP-O (5.4%) and LBP-W-related (6.1%) papers is the journal "Spine". Cognitive behavioral therapy, intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration, physiotherapy, physical activity, and walking were the recent hot topics and physical activity was an emerging trend in LBP-O, while surgery and IVD degeneration (also a hot topic) were emerging trends in LBP-W. This study highlights the paucity of LBP-O-related research in the past. The United States and the journal Spine stand out in LBP research. The research trend of physical activity in LBP-O is consistent with the recognized importance of physical activity for older adults in general, and for managing LBP-O in particular. Conversely, the emerging trends of surgery and intervertebral disc degeneration in LBP-W research highlight a focus on the biomedical model of LBP despite LBP being a biopsychosocial condition.

Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends on Manual Therapy for Low Back Pain Over Past 2 Decades

Purpose

Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent musculoskeletal disorder, and manual therapy (MT) is frequently employed as a non-pharmacological treatment for LBP. This study aims to explore the research hotspots and trends in MT for LBP. MT has gained widespread acceptance in clinical practice due to its proven safety and effectiveness. The study aims to analyze the developments in the field of MT for LBP over the past 23 years, including leading countries, institutions, authoritative authors, journals, keywords, and references. It endeavors to provide a comprehensive summary of the existing research foundation and to analyze the current cutting-edge research trends.

Methods

Relevant articles between 2000 and 2023 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) database. We used the software VOSviewer and CiteSpace to perform the analysis and summarize current research hotspots and emerging trends.

Results

Through screening, we included 1643 papers from 2000 to 2023. In general, the number of articles published each year showed an upward trend. The United States had the highest number of publications and citations. Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College was the most published research institution. The University of Pittsburgh in the United States had the most collaboration with other research institutions. Long, Cynthia R. was the active author. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics was the most prolific journal with 234 publications.

Conclusion

This study provides an overview of the current status and trends of clinical studies on MT for LBP in the past 23 years using the visualization software, which may help researchers identify potential collaborators and collaborating institutions, hot topics, and new perspectives in research frontiers, while providing new clinical practice ideas for the treatment of LBP.

Comparison of stratification techniques for optimal management of patients with chronic low back pain in spine clinics

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Identifying optimal stratification techniques for subgrouping patients with low back pain (LBP) into treatment groups for the purpose of identifying optimal management and improving clinical outcomes is an important area for further research.

PURPOSE

Our study aimed to compare performance of the STarT Back Tool (SBT) and 3 stratification techniques involving PROMIS domain scores for use in patients presenting to a spine clinic for chronic LBP.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Adult patients with chronic LBP seen in a spine center between November 14, 2018 and May 14, 2019 who completed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as part of routine care, and were followed up with completed PROs 1 year later.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Four stratification techniques, including SBT, and 3 PROMIS-based techniques: the NIH Task Force recommended Impact Stratification Score (ISS), symptom clusters based on latent class analysis (LCA), and SPADE symptom clusters.

METHODS

The 4 stratification techniques were compared according to criterion validity, construct validity, and prognostic utility. For criterion validity, overlap in characterization of mild, moderate, and severe subgroups were compared to SBT, which was considered the gold standard, using quadratic weighted kappa statistic. Construct validity compared techniques' ability to differentiate across disability groups defined by modified Oswestry LBP Disability Questionnaire (MDQ), median days in the past month unable to complete activities of daily living (ADLs), and worker's compensation using standardized mean differences (SMD). Prognostic utility was compared based on the techniques' ability to predict long-term improvement in outcomes, defined as improvement in global health and MDQ at 1-year.

RESULTS

There were 2,246 adult patients with chronic LBP included in our study (mean age 61.0 [SD 14.0], 55.0% female, 83.4% white). All stratification techniques resulted in roughly a third of patients grouped into mild, moderate, and severe categories, with ISS and LCA demonstrating substantial agreement with SBT, while SPADE had moderate agreement. Construct validity was met for all techniques, with large effects demonstrated between mild and severe categories for differentiating MDQ, ADLs, and worker's compensation disability groups (SMD range 0.57-2.48). All stratification techniques demonstrated ability to detect improvement by 1-year, with severe groups experiencing the greatest improvement in multivariable logistic regression models.

CONCLUSIONS

All 4 stratification techniques demonstrated validity and prognostic utility for subgrouping patients with chronic LBP based on risk of long-term disability. ISS and LCA symptom clusters may be the optimal methods given the improved feasibility of including only a few relevant PROMIS domains. Future research should investigate multidisciplinary treatment approaches to target mild, moderate, and severe patients based on these techniques.

Single-group studies in leading physical therapy journals commonly make inappropriate conclusions regarding treatment effect modifiers. A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Characteristics that identify patients who respond differently to certain interventions are called treatment effect modifiers. Some studies inappropriately report the presence of treatment effect modifiers without adequate study designs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate what proportion of single-group studies published in leading physical therapy journals inappropriately report treatment effect modifiers, and to assess whether the proportion varies over time or between journals.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of studies published in eight leading physical therapy journals since 2000. Eligible studies were single-group studies (e.g., cohort study or secondary analysis of treatment arm of randomised controlled trial) that investigated any condition, treatment or outcome. Studies that suggested participants with certain baseline characteristics responded better/or worse to the treatment, were considered to have reported inappropriately. Studies reporting that participants with certain baseline characteristics had improved outcomes but did not state it was due to the treatment were considered to have reported appropriately. The proportion of inappropriate reporting was compared over time and between journals.

RESULTS

Of the 145 included studies, 73 (50.3%) were categorised as inappropriately reporting treatment effect modifiers. The proportion of inappropriate reporting was highest in the most recent period, 2018 - 2022 (59.6%) and 2006 - 2011 (55.6%). The proportion of inappropriate reporting varied substantially between journals from 0% (Journal of Physiotherapy) to 91.7% (Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy).

CONCLUSIONS

A large proportion (50.3%) of single-arm studies in leading physical therapy journals inappropriately report treatment effect modifiers. This inappropriate reporting risks misleading clinicians when selecting interventions for individual patients.

Exercise for rotator cuff tendinopathy: Proposed mechanisms of recovery

Rotator cuff (RC) tendinopathy is a common recurrent cause of shoulder pain, and resistance exercise is the first-line recommended intervention. Proposed causal mechanisms of resistance exercise for patients with RC tendinopathy consist of four domains: tendon structure, neuromuscular factors, pain and sensorimotor processing, and psychosocial factors. Tendon structure plays a role in RC tendinopathy, with decreased stiffness, increased thickness, and collagen disorganization. Neuromuscular performance deficits of altered kinematics, muscle activation, and force are present in RC tendinopathy, but advanced methods of assessing muscle performance are needed to fully assess these factors. Psychological factors of depression, anxiety, pain catastrophizing, treatment expectations, and self-efficacy are present and predict patient-reported outcomes. Central nervous system dysfunctions also exist, specifically altered pain and sensorimotor processing. Resisted exercise may normalize these factors, but limited evidence exists to explain the relationship of the four proposed domains to trajectory of recovery and defining persistent deficits limiting outcomes. Clinicians and researchers can use this model to understand how exercise mediates change in patient outcomes, develop subgroups to deliver patient-specific approach for treatment and define metrics to track recovery over time. Supporting evidence is limited, indicating the need for future studies characterizing mechanisms of recovery with exercise for RC tendinopathy.

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.

Six Externally Validated Prognostic Models Have Potential Clinical Value to Predict Patient Health Outcomes in the Rehabilitation of Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to identify and appraise externally validated prognostic models to predict a patient's health outcomes relevant to physical rehabilitation of musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed 8 databases and reported our findings according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis 2020. An information specialist designed a search strategy to identify externally validated prognostic models for MSK conditions. Paired reviewers independently screened the title, abstract, and full text and conducted data extraction. We extracted characteristics of included studies (eg, country and study design), prognostic models (eg, performance measures and type of model) and predicted clinical outcomes (eg, pain and disability). We assessed the risk of bias and concerns of applicability using the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool. We proposed and used a 5-step method to determine which prognostic models were clinically valuable.

RESULTS

We found 4896 citations, read 300 full-text articles, and included 46 papers (37 distinct models). Prognostic models were externally validated for the spine, upper limb, lower limb conditions, and MSK trauma, injuries, and pain. All studies presented a high risk of bias. Half of the models showed low concerns for applicability. Reporting of calibration and discrimination performance measures was often lacking. We found 6 externally validated models with adequate measures, which could be deemed clinically valuable [ie, (1) STart Back Screening Tool, (2) Wallis Occupational Rehabilitation RisK model, (3) Da Silva model, (4) PICKUP model, (5) Schellingerhout rule, and (6) Keene model]. Despite having a high risk of bias, which is mostly explained by the very conservative properties of the PROBAST tool, the 6 models remain clinically relevant.

CONCLUSION

We found 6 externally validated prognostic models developed to predict patients' health outcomes that were clinically relevant to the physical rehabilitation of MSK conditions.

IMPACT

Our results provide clinicians with externally validated prognostic models to help them better predict patients' clinical outcomes and facilitate personalized treatment plans. Incorporating clinically valuable prognostic models could inherently improve the value of care provided by physical therapists.

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.

The McKenzie method for (sub)acute non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND

There is widespread agreement amongst clinicians that people with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) comprise a heterogeneous group and that their management should be individually tailored. One treatment known by its tailored design is the McKenzie method (e.g. an individualized program of exercises based on clinical clues observed during assessment).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of the McKenzie method in people with (sub)acute non-specific low back pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two trials registers up to 15 August 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of the McKenzie method in adults with (sub)acute (less than 12 weeks) NSLBP.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included five RCTs with a total of 563 participants recruited from primary or tertiary care. Three trials were conducted in the USA, one in Australia, and one in Scotland. Three trials received financial support from non-commercial funders and two did not provide information on funding sources. All trials were at high risk of performance and detection bias. None of the included trials measured adverse events. McKenzie method versus minimal intervention (educational booklet; McKenzie method as a supplement to other intervention - main comparison) There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may result in a slight reduction in pain in the short term (MD -7.3, 95% CI -12.0 to -2.56; 2 trials, 377 participants) but not in the intermediate term (MD -5.0, 95% CI -14.3 to 4.3; 1 trial, 180 participants). There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD -2.5, 95% CI -7.5 to 2.0; 2 trials, 328 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD -0.9, 95% CI -7.3 to 5.6; 1 trial, 180 participants). McKenzie method versus manual therapy There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce pain in the short term (MD -8.7, 95% CI -27.4 to 10.0; 3 trials, 298 participants) and may result in a slight increase in pain in the intermediate term (MD 7.0, 95% CI 0.7 to 13.3; 1 trial, 235 participants). There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD -5.0, 95% CI -15.0 to 5.0; 3 trials, 298 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD 4.3, 95% CI -0.7 to 9.3; 1 trial, 235 participants). McKenzie method versus other interventions (massage and advice) There is very low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD 4.0, 95% CI -15.4 to 23.4; 1 trial, 30 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD 10.0, 95% CI -8.9 to 28.9; 1 trial, 30 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low- to very low-certainty evidence, the treatment effects for pain and disability found in our review were not clinically important. Thus, we can conclude that the McKenzie method is not an effective treatment for (sub)acute NSLBP.

Stratification of Spine Patients based on Self-Reported Clinical Symptom Classes: Evaluation of Long-Term Outcomes and Subsequent Interventions

Background

Prior work by our group developed a stratification tool based on four PROMIS domains for patients with low back pain (LBP). Our study aimed to evaluate the ability of our previously developed symptom classes to predict long-term outcomes, and determine whether there were differential treatment effects by intervention.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with LBP seen in spine clinics in a large health system between November 14, 2018 and May 14, 2019 who completed patient-reported outcomes as part of routine care at baseline and again at 12-months follow-up. Latent class analysis identified symptom classes based on PROMIS domain scores (physical function, pain interference, social role satisfaction, and fatigue) that were ≥1 standard deviation worse (meaningfully worse) than the general population. The ability of the profiles to predict long-term outcomes at 12-months was evaluated through multivariable models. Differences in outcomes by subsequent treatments (physical therapy, specialist visits, injections, and surgery) were investigated.

Results

There were 3,236 adult patients (average age 61.1 ± 14.2, 55.4% female) included in the study with three distinct classes identified: mild symptoms (n = 986, 30.5%), mixed (n = 798, 24.7%) with poor scores on physical function and pain interference but better scores on other domains, and significant symptoms (n = 1,452, 44.9%). The classes were significantly associated with long-term outcomes, with patients with significant symptoms improving the most across all domains. Utilization differed across classes, with the mixed symptom class receiving more PT and injections and significant symptom class receiving more surgeries and specialist visits.

Conclusions

Patients with LBP have distinct clinical symptom classes which could be utilized to stratify patients into groups based on risk of future disability. These symptom classes can also be used to provide estimates of the effectiveness of different interventions, further increasing the clinical utility of these classes in standard care.

Development of a Clinical Prediction Rule for Treatment Success with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Knee Osteoarthritis Pain: A Secondary Analysis of a Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

The study’s objective was to develop a clinical prediction rule that predicts a clinically significant analgesic effect on chronic knee osteoarthritis pain after transcranial direct current stimulation treatment. This is a secondary analysis from a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Data from 51 individuals with chronic knee osteoarthritis pain and an impaired descending pain inhibitory system were used. The intervention comprised a 15-session protocol of anodal primary motor cortex transcranial direct current stimulation. Treatment success was defined by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities’ Osteoarthritis Index pain subscale. Accuracy statistics were calculated for each potential predictor and for the final model. The final logistic regression model was statistically significant (p < 0.01) and comprised five physical and psychosocial predictor variables that together yielded a positive likelihood ratio of 14.40 (95% CI: 3.66−56.69) and an 85% (95%CI: 60−96%) post-test probability of success. This is the first clinical prediction rule proposed for transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with chronic pain. The model underscores the importance of both physical and psychosocial factors as predictors of the analgesic response to transcranial direct current stimulation treatment. Validation of the proposed clinical prediction rule should be performed in other datasets.

Predictors of pain reduction following a program of manual therapies for patients with temporomandibular disorders: A prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines recommend conservative treatment for the management of temporomandibular disorders (TMD), and manual therapy (MT) is commonly applied to reduce pain and improve function.

OBJECTIVES

To identify predictors of pain reduction and functional improvement following a program of manual therapies (MTP) in patients with TMD and develop a first screening tool that could be used in clinical practice to facilitate decision-making.

DESIGN

A cohort of 102 adults with a diagnosis of TMD were treated with four weekly sessions within a MTP applied to craniomandibular structures. Candidate predictors were demographic variables, general health variables, psychosocial features, TMD characteristics and related clinical tests. A reduction of pain intensity by at least 30% after the MTP was considered a good outcome. Logistic regression was adopted to develop the predictive model and its performance was assessed considering the explained variance, calibration, and discrimination. Internal validation of the prediction models was further evaluated in 500 bootstrapped samples.

RESULTS

Patients experiencing pain intensity greater than 2/10 during mouth opening, positive expectations of outcome following a MTP, pain localized in the craniocervical region, and a low Central Sensitization Inventory score obtained a good outcome following the MTP. Predictive performance of the identified physical and psychological variables was characterized by high explained variance (R2 = 58%) and discrimination (AUC = 89%) after internal validation. A preliminary screening clinical tool was developed and presented as a nomogram.

CONCLUSIONS

The high discrimination of the prediction model revealed promising findings, although these need to be externally validated in future research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03990662.

Knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of spinal manipulation: a cross-sectional survey of Italian physiotherapists

Background and Objective

High-velocity low-amplitude thrust spinal manipulation (SM) is a recommended and commonly used manual therapy intervention in physiotherapy. Beliefs surrounding the safety and effectiveness of SM have challenged its use, and even advocated for its abandonment. Our study aimed to investigate the knowledge and beliefs surrounding SM by Italian physiotherapists compared with similar practitioners in other countries.

Methods

An online survey with 41 questions was adapted from previous surveys and was distributed via a mailing list of the Italian Physiotherapists Association (March 22–26, 2020). The questionnaire was divided into 4 sections to capture information on participant demographics, utilization, potential barriers, and knowledge about SM. Questions were differentiated between spinal regions. Attitudes towards different spinal regions, attributes associated with beliefs, and the influence of previous educational background were each evaluated.

Results

Of the 7398 registered physiotherapists, 575 (7.8%) completed the survey and were included for analysis. The majority of respondents perceived SM as safe and effective when applied to the thoracic (74.1%) and lumbar (72.2%) spines; whereas, a smaller proportion viewed SM to the upper cervical spine (56.8%) as safe and effective. Respondents reported they were less likely to provide and feel comfortable with upper cervical SM (respectively, 27.5% and 48.5%) compared to the thoracic (respectively, 52.2% and 74.8%) and lumbar spines (respectively, 46.3% and 74.3%). Most physiotherapists (70.4%) agreed they would perform additional screening prior to upper cervical SM compared to other spinal regions. Respondents who were aware of clinical prediction rules were more likely to report being comfortable with SM (OR 2.38–3.69) and to perceive it as safe (OR 1.75–3.12). Finally, physiotherapists without musculoskeletal specialization, especially those with a traditional manual therapy background, were more likely to perform additional screening prior to SM, use SM less frequently, report being less comfortable performing SM, and report upper cervical SM as less safe (p < 0.001).

Discussion

The beliefs and attitudes of physiotherapists surrounding the use of SM are significantly different when comparing the upper cervical spine to other spinal regions. An educational background in traditional manual therapy significantly influences beliefs and attitudes. We propose an updated framework on evidence-based SM.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12998-022-00449-x.

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.

Treatment-based classification for low back pain: systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the effects of treatment-based classification (TBC) in patients with specific and nonspecific acute, subacute and chronic low back pain.

METHODS

The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Global Health, CENTRAL, Web of Science, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro and WHO from inception up to December 2021. We used the PEDro scale, the TIDieR checklist and the GRADE approach to evaluate the risk of bias, quality on reporting and the certainty of the evidence, respectively.

RESULTS

Twenty-three trials (pooled n = 2,649) met the inclusion criteria. We have identified a total of 22 comparisons and 134 estimates of treatment effects. There was a very large heterogeneity with regards to the comparison groups. Most of individual trials had low risk of bias with a mean score of 6.8 (SD = 1.3) on a 0-10 scale. The certainty of evidence for most comparisons was low, which indicates that more high quality and robust trials are needed. We were able to pool the data using a meta-analysis approach for only two comparisons (TBC versus mobility exercises in patients with acute low back pain and traction for patients with sciatica). In general, the TBC approach seems to be useful for patients with acute low back pain, sciatica and with spinal stenosis. We strongly suggest readers to carefully read our summary of findings table for further details on each comparison.

CONCLUSION

The TBC approach seems to be useful for patients with acute low back pain, sciatica and with spinal stenosis.

Stratification of spine patients based on self-reported clinical symptom classes

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Improving prognostic stratification for patients with low back pain (LBP) outside of a primary care setting has been identified as an important area for further research.

PURPOSE

Our study aimed to identify clinical symptom classes of patients presenting to a spine clinic based on 4 Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains and evaluate demographic and clinical differences across classes.

STUDY DESIGN

An observational cross-sectional study of patients seen in spine centers at a large health system.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Adult patients with LBP seen in a spine center between November 14, 2018 and May 14, 2019 who completed patient-reported outcomes as part of routine care.

OUTCOME MEASURES

PROMIS physical function, pain interference, satisfaction with social roles and activities, and fatigue.

METHODS

Latent class analysis identified symptom classes based on PROMIS domain scores ≥1 standard deviation worse (meaningfully worse) than the general population. A multivariable multinomial logistic regression model was constructed to evaluate differences in symptom classes based on demographics and socioeconomic characteristics. Lastly, the ability of the profiles to discriminate across levels of disability, based on the modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODI), was evaluated.

RESULTS

There were 7,144 adult patients included in the study who visited spine clinics for a primary complaint of LBP and completed all 4 PROMIS domains (age 58.7±15.9, 54% female). Three distinct classes were identified. Class 1 ("Significant Symptoms," n=3238) had PROMIS scores that were meaningfully worse than the population average for all domains. Class 2 ("Mixed Symptoms," n=1366) had meaningfully worse scores on physical function and pain interference but average scores on other domains. Class 3 ("Mild Symptoms," n=2540) had average scores across all domains. Compared to patients in Class 3, those in Class 2 were more likely older, and those in Classes 1 and 2 were more likely to be divorced, have lower household income, and no employment. Level of disability was significantly different across each class (average (SD) ODI for Classes 1-3: 53.4 (14.3), 39.9 (12.5), 22.9 (12.1), p<.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients presenting to specialty clinics for LBP demonstrate distinct clinical symptom classes which could be utilized to inform specific symptom-based treatment. Future research should evaluate the ability of these classes to predict long-term disability.

The clinical impact of pain neuroscience continuing education on physical therapy outcomes for patients with low back and neck pain

Objectives

Research suggests that attendance by physical therapists at continuing education (CE) targeting the management of low back pain (LBP) and neck pain does not result in positive impacts on clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine if therapists attending a self-paced 3-hour online Pain Neuroscience Education (PNE) program was associated with any observed changes to patient outcomes and also clinical practice.

Methods

Participants were 25 different physical therapists who treated 3,705 patients with low back pain (LBP) or neck pain before and after they had completed an online PNE CE course. Change in outcomes measures of pain and disability at discharge were compared for the patients treated before and after the therapist training. Clinical practice patterns of the therapists, including total treatment visits, duration of care, total units billed, average units billed per visit, percentage of ‘active’ billing units and percentage of ‘active and manual’ billing units, were also compared for the patient care episodes before and after the therapist training.

Results

There was no significant difference for change in pain scores at discharge for patients treated after therapist CE training compared to those treated before regardless of the condition (LBP or neck pain). However, patients with LBP who were treated after therapist CE training did report greater improvement in their disability scores. Also after CE training, for each episode of care, therapists tended to use less total visits, billed fewer units per visit, and billed a greater percentage of more ‘active’ and ‘active and manual’ billing units.

Discussion

Attending an online 3-hour CE course on PNE resulted in improved disability scores for patients with LBP, but not for those with neck pain. Changes in clinical behavior by the therapists included using less visits, billing fewer total units, and shifting to more active and manual therapy interventions. Further prospective studies with control groups should investigate the effect of therapist CE on patient outcomes and clinical practice.

Classification Approaches for Treating Low Back Pain Have Small Effects That Are Not Clinically Meaningful: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether classification systems improve patient-reported outcomes for people with low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

LITERATURE SEARCH

The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to June 21, 2021. Reference lists of prior systematic reviews and included trials were screened.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials comparing a classification system (eg, the McKenzie method or the STarT Back Tool) to any comparator. Studies evaluating participants with specific spinal conditions (eg, fractures or tumors) were excluded.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Outcomes were patient-reported LBP intensity, leg pain intensity, and disability. We used the revised Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool to assess risk of bias, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to judge the certainty of evidence. We used random-effects meta-analysis, with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik- Jonkman adjustment, to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD; Hedges' g) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses explored classification system, comparator type, pain type, and pain duration.

RESULTS

Twenty-four trials assessing classification systems and 34 assessing subclasses were included. There was low certainty of a small effect at the end of intervention for LBP intensity (SMD, -0.31; 95% CI: -0.54, -0.07; P = .014, n = 4416, n = 21 trials) and disability (SMD, -0.27; 95% CI: -0.46, -0.07; P = .011, n = 4809, n = 24 trials), favoring classified treatments compared to generalized interventions, but not for leg pain intensity. At the end of intervention, no specific type of classification system was superior to generalized interventions for improving pain intensity and disability. None of the estimates exceeded the effect size that one would consider clinically meaningful.

CONCLUSION

For patient-reported pain intensity and disability, there is insufficient evidence supporting the use of classification systems over generalized interventions when managing LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(2):67-84. Epub 15 Nov 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10761.

The Effect of Active Release Technique® on Clinician and Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Active Release Technique® (ART®) is a manual therapy used for soft tissue-related issues, commonly used to lengthen structures in a shortened position and to restore motion of soft tissues.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to collect, appraise, and summarize the available literature, evaluating the effects of ART® on pain, range of motion (ROM), and disability.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Electronic databases (PubMed, EBSCOhost, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL) were searched from 2000 to November 2020. The search was completed using a combination of key words related to ART®, rehabilitation, and outcomes. Search limits were full-text publications written in English. Inclusion criteria required that studies evaluated outcomes using ART® for rehabilitation, were peer reviewed, and included human participants without catastrophic conditions or injuries. The modified Downs and Black checklist for nonrandomized studies was used to assess methodological quality of identified studies by 2 independent reviewers, average scores were calculated. The level of evidence was assessed using the strength of recommendation taxonomy.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Nine studies were inculded in this review. The average methodological quality of the studies was 12/15 and ranged from 10 to 14, with the most common methodological quality item missed being the blinding of researchers collecting outcomes. Six studies that assessed pain found significant improvements in participants' pain levels. Six studies that assessed ROM found significant improvement in participants' ROM. Two studies that assessed disability found significant improvement in disability.

CONCLUSION

Evidence suggests that ART® may be beneficial in improving pain, ROM, and disability. This review found that ART® positively impacted patient outcomes and may be a viable treatment option for clinicians treating musculoskeletal conditions. However, further research is necessary to determine optimal dosage and long-term effects of ART® on these patient outcomes.

The Manual Therapy and Strengthening for the Hip (MASH) Trial: Protocol for a Multisite Randomized Trial of a Subgroup of Older Adults With Chronic Back and Hip Pain

OBJECTIVE

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a disabling and costly condition for older adults that is difficult to properly classify and treat. In a cohort study, a subgroup of older adults with CLBP who had elevated hip pain and hip muscle weakness was identified; this subgroup differentiated itself by being at higher risk for future mobility decline. The primary purpose of this clinical trial is to evaluate whether a hip-focused low back pain (LBP) treatment provides better disability and physical performance outcomes for this at-risk group compared with a spine-focused LBP treatment.

METHODS

This study is a multisite, single-blinded, randomized controlled, parallel arm, Phase II trial conducted across 3 clinical research sites. A total of 180 people aged between 60 and 85 years with CLBP and hip pain are being recruited. Participants undergo a comprehensive baseline assessment and are randomized into 1 of 2 intervention arms: hip-focused or spine-focused. They are treated twice weekly by a licensed physical therapist for 8 weeks and undergo follow-up assessments at 8 weeks and 6 months after randomization. Primary outcome measures include the Quebec Low Back Disability Scale and the 10-Meter Walk Test, which are measures of self-report and performance-based physical function, respectively.

IMPACT

This multicenter, randomized clinical trial will determine whether a hip-focused or spine-focused physical therapist intervention results in improved disability and physical performance for a subgroup of older adults with CLBP and hip pain who are at increased risk of mobility decline. This trial will help further the development of effective interventions for this subgroup of older adults with CLBP.

Effectiveness of manual therapy in patients with distal radius fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of manual therapy (MT) for functional outcomes in patients with distal radius fracture (DRF).

METHODS

An electronic search was performed in the Medline, Central, Embase, PEDro, Lilacs, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases. The eligibility criteria for selecting studies included randomized clinical trials that included MT techniques with or without other therapeutic interventions in functional outcomes, such as wrist or upper limb function, pain, grip strength, and wrist range of motion in patients older than 18 years with DRF.

RESULTS

Eight clinical trials met the eligibility criteria; for the quantitative synthesis, six studies were included. For supervised physiotherapy plus joint mobilization versus home exercise program at 6 weeks follow-up, the mean difference (MD) for wrist flexion was 7.1 degrees (p = 0.20), and extension was 11.99 degrees (p = 0.16). For exercise program plus mobilization with movement versus exercise program at 12 weeks follow-up, the PRWE was -10.2 points (p = 0.02), the DASH was -9.86 points (p = 0.0001), and grip strength was 3.9 percent (p = 0.25). For conventional treatment plus manual lymph drainage versus conventional treatment, for edema the MD at 3-7 days was -14.58 ml (p = 0.03), at 17-21 days -17.96 ml (p = 0.009), at 33-42 days -15.34 ml (p = 0.003), and at 63-68 days -13.97 ml (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

There was very low to high evidence according to the GRADE rating. Adding mobilization with movement and manual lymphatic drainage showed statistically significant differences in wrist, upper limb function, and hand edema in patients with DRF.

Pain catastrophizing mediates rapid benefits of accessing in-person chiropractic care during the COVID-19 lockdown

Background

In March 2020, the COVID‐19 pandemic forced the Spanish government to declare a state of emergency. A stringent lockdown was enforced, restricting access to healthcare services, including chiropractic. Reduced access to care provision in combination with psychological stress, social isolation and physical inactivity during the lockdown were shown to negatively influence pain conditions. However, data on strategies to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on these conditions are lacking.

Methods

Upon easing of restrictions in May 2020, 51 chiropractic clinics throughout Spain pseudo‐randomly invited patients, recruiting a total of 385 participants. During a 14‐day period, participants were exposed to in‐person chiropractic care in either one (n = 177) or multiple encounters (n = 109) or to no care (n = 99). The effects of access to chiropractic care on patients’ pain‐related and psychological outcomes were assessed online through validated self‐reported questionnaires before and after the period of care. Coprimary outcomes included pain intensity, pain interference and pain cognitions.

Results

When comparing to participants without access to care, pain intensity and interference were significantly decreased at follow‐up, irrespective of the number of encounters. Kinesiophobia was also significantly reduced at follow‐up, though only after multiple encounters. The relationship between fear of movement, changes in pain intensity and interference was mediated by catastrophizing.

Conclusion

Access to in‐person chiropractic care may provide pain relief, associated with reductions in interference and pain cognitions. Prioritizing in‐person care for patients with maladaptive pain cognitions may help dampen the detrimental consequences of the pandemic on physical and psychological well‐being.

Changes in Pain Catastrophizing and Fear-Avoidance Beliefs as Mediators of Early Physical Therapy on Disability and Pain in Acute Low-Back Pain: A Secondary Analysis of a Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

The Fear-Avoidance Model of chronic pain (FAM) posits that pain catastrophizing and fear-avoidance beliefs are prognostic for disability and chronicity. In acute low-back pain, early physical therapy (PT) is effective in reducing disability in some patients. How early PT impacts short- and long-term changes in disability for patients with acute pain is unknown. Based on the FAM, we hypothesized that early reductions in pain catastrophizing and fear-avoidance beliefs would mediate early PT's effect on changes in disability (primary outcome) and pain intensity (secondary outcome) over 3 months and 1 year.

SUBJECTS

Participants were 204 patients with low-back pain of < 16 days duration, who enrolled in a clinical trial (NCT01726803) comparing early PT sessions or usual care provided over 4 weeks.

METHODS

Patients completed the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ work and physical activity scales) and outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index and Numeric Pain Rating Scale) at baseline, 4 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year. We applied longitudinal mediation analysis with single and multiple mediators.

RESULTS

Early PT led to improvements in disability and pain over 3 months, but not 1 year. In the single mediator model, four-week reductions in pain catastrophizing mediated early PT's effects on 3-month disability and pain intensity improvements, explaining 16% and 22% of the association, respectively, but the effects were small. Pain catastrophizing and fear-avoidance beliefs did not jointly mediate these associations.

CONCLUSIONS

In acute low-back pain, early PT may improve disability and pain outcomes at least partly through reducing patients' catastrophizing.

Six Weeks Effects of Dynamic Neuromuscular Stabilization (DNS) Training in Obese Postpartum Women With Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The worldwide prevalence of obesity and low back pain (LBP) has recently dramatically increased and is mainly indicated among postpartum women, leading to a range of adverse health consequences.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the effects of 6 weeks of Dynamic Neuromuscular Stabilization training (DNS) in obese postpartum women with LBP.

METHOD

This was a pretest-posttest study design. The study was conducted with 40 obese postpartum women with LBP randomized to receive DNS (n = 20) or General Exercise (GE, n = 20) 6 times a week for 6 weeks. The data were gathered before and after the 6-week intervention.

RESULTS

Forty participants completed the study (mean ± SD, age 29.30 ± 3.77 years; weight 88.10 ± 6.09 kg; height 165.40 ± 6.31 cm; and BMI, 32.19 ± 1.07 kg/m²). The overall group-by-time interaction was significant for Numeric Pain-Rating Scale, Modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, Inspiration and Expiration Breath Hold Time, and Respiratory Rate outcomes. The global rating of change was significantly different between groups (p < .05). The rate of improvement was higher in the DNS group compared to the GE group in all 6 tests.

CONCLUSION

The present study confirms that DNS is applicable in obese postpartum women with LBP and effectively improved NPRS, MODQ, FABQ, BHT, and RR. It is clinically suggested that DNS is imperative based on ideal ontogenetic patterns to attain optimal results for obese postpartum women with LBP.

Research Relating to Low Back Pain and Physical Activity Reported Over the Period of 2000-2020

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is a highly prevalent musculoskeletal disorder that contributes to the greatest degree of disability worldwide. It has become a very serious public health problem that has attracted considerable research interest. The number of publications associated with LBP and physical activity (PA) is gradually increasing. Nevertheless, few studies have utilised visualisation in analysing the general aspects of this field. Therefore, we aimed to provide a systematic overview of global scientific research related to low back pain and physical activity from 2000 to 2020. It has significant benefits in terms of providing researchers with the status and trends of research on low back pain and physical activity.

Methods

Publications on Science Citation Index-Expanded of Web of Science from 2000 to 2020 were searched, and publications relevant to LBP and PA were analysed using Citespace and SPSS. Analyses mainly included cooperation amongst authors, countries and institutions; co-occurrence analysis of keywords; and co-citation analysis of references, revealing productive researchers and contributing institutions tracking the status and trend of research fields.

Results

Results of linear regression analysis showed that the number of publications on LBP and PA studies increased significantly (p<0.001). The subject categories predominantly focused on orthopaedics (2579, 26.54%), rehabilitation (2544, 26.18%) and sport sciences (2015, 25.44%). The United States had the highest number of published papers (2700, 27.789%) and citations (86, 958). In terms of the number of publications, amongst the top 20 journals, Spine contributed the most, whilst the British Journal of Sports Medicine had the highest impact factor (IF₂₀₁₉, 12.022). The University of Sydney had the highest number of publications (330 publications). Maher published the most papers (123 papers) and had the highest H-index (41). Several citation articles and keywords (such as aerobic, obesity and fear-avoidance beliefs) can be used to provide frontier clues for research on LBP and PA.

Conclusion

The results of our study may provide information, such as research trends and frontiers of research and collaborating partners, institutions and countries, on LBP and PA.

Optimization of Spinal Manipulative Therapy Protocols: A Factorial Randomized Trial Within a Multiphase Optimization Framework

Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a common nonpharmacological treatment for low back pain (LBP). Although generally supported by systematic reviews and practice guidelines, clinical trials evaluating SMT have been characterized by small effect sizes. This study adopts a Multiphase Optimization Strategy framework to examine individual components of an SMT delivery protocol using a single-blind trial with the goal of identifying and optimizing a multicomponent SMT protocol. We enrolled 241 participants with LBP. All participants received 2 SMT treatment sessions in the first week then were randomly assigned additional treatment based on a fully factorial design. The 3 randomized treatment components provided in twice weekly sessions over 3 weeks were multifidus activating exercise, spinal mobilizing exercise, and additional SMT dose. Primary outcomes included clinical (Oswestry Disability Index, numeric pain intensity rating) and mechanistic (spinal stiffness, multifidus muscle activation) measures assessed at baseline, 1, 4, and 12 weeks. Significant differences were found for the Oswestry index after 12 weeks for participants receiving multifidus activating exercise (mean difference = -3.62, 97.5% CI: -6.89, -0.35; P= .01). There were no additional significant main or interaction effects for other treatment components or different outcome measures. The optimized SMT protocol identified in this study included SMT sessions followed by multifidus activating exercises. PERSPECTIVE: Optimizing the effects of nonpharmacological treatments such as SMT for LBP is challenging due to uncertainty regarding mechanisms and the complexity of multicomponent protocols. This factorial randomized trial examined SMT protocols provided with differing co-interventions with mechanistic and patient-centered outcomes. Patient-centered outcomes were optimized by inclusion of lumbar multifidus strengthening exercises.

How Does the Measurement of Disability in Low Back Pain Map Unto the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health?: A Scoping Review of the Manual Medicine Literature

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to catalog items from instruments used to measure functioning, disability, and contextual factors in patients with low back pain treated with manual medicine (manipulation and mobilization) according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. This catalog will be used to inform the development of an International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-based assessment schedule for low back pain patients treated with manual medicine. In this scoping review, we systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We identified instruments (questionnaires, clinical tests, single questions) used to measure functioning, disability, and contextual factors, extracted the relevant items, and then linked these items to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. We included 95 articles and identified 1510 meaningful concepts. All but 70 items were linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Of the concepts linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, body functions accounted for 34.7%, body structures accounted for 0%, activities and participation accounted for 41%, environmental factors accounted for 3.6%, and personal factors accounted for 16%. Most items used to measure functioning and disability in low back pain patient treated with manual medicine focus on body functions, as well as activities and participation. The lack of measures that address environmental factors warrants further investigation.

Existing validated clinical prediction rules for predicting response to physiotherapy interventions for musculoskeletal conditions have limited clinical value: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review clinical prediction rules (CPRs) that have undergone validation testing for predicting response to physiotherapy-related interventions for musculoskeletal conditions.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were systematically searched to September 2020. Search terms included musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions, physiotherapy interventions and clinical prediction rules. Controlled studies that validated a prescriptive CPR for physiotherapy treatment response in musculoskeletal conditions were included. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility. Original derivation studies of each CPR were identified. Risk of bias was assessed with the PROBAST tool (derivation studies) and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group criteria (validation studies).

RESULTS

Nine studies aimed to validate seven prescriptive CPRs for treatment response for MSK conditions including back pain, neck pain, shoulder pain and carpal tunnel syndrome. Treatments included manipulation, traction and exercise. Seven studies failed to demonstrate an association between CPR prediction and outcome. Methodological quality of derivation studies was poor and for validation studies was good overall.

CONCLUSION

Results do not support the use of any CPRs identified to aid physiotherapy treatment selection for common musculoskeletal conditions, due to methodological shortcomings in the derivation studies and lack of association between CPR and outcome in validation studies.

Patients' Experiences About Exercise Prescription and Education in the Physiotherapy Management of Nonspecific Low-Back Pain

Low-back pain (LBP) is highly prevalent in the society, and its socioeconomic consequences are quite evident. Physiotherapists play a prominent role in the management of individuals with this condition, and it is, therefore, of utmost importance that physiotherapists engage in the most efficient and effective management practices available. For perceptions of good performance and quality health care, patient experience is an important indicator of effective care and management. A mixed-methods research design—a cross-sectional survey (quantitative research) and a focus group discussion (FGD; qualitative research)—was employed in this study, investigating patients’ experience in physiotherapy management of nonspecific LBP. An adapted questionnaire was used for data collection from purposively selected participants recruited from 3 hospitals in Kubwa, Abuja, from April to August 2018. The FGD involved 6 patients recruited by simple random sampling using the fishbowl technique. Descriptive and thematic analyses were done on data collected. A total of 126 patients (male = 41, female = 85) were included, with a mean age of 51.0 ± 14.6 years, while the modal age-group was 60 to 69 years. Of these, 41 (32.5%) had nonspecific LBP for less than a year, and the 2 most applied interventions were exercise and heat therapy, followed by education/advice. In all, 110 (87.3%) reported positive experience about education, while 119 (94.4%) reported positive experience about exercise prescription. The result from the qualitative research is in conformity with that of the quantitative analysis. Patients with nonspecific LBP received adequate education regarding their condition and had good experience in the course of their physiotherapy management.

Occupational Related Upper and Low Back Pain Among the Working Population of Ethiopia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Back pain, such as upper and low back pain are among the most common musculoskeletal conditions that can cause major public health and socioeconomic problems. Back pain is one of the leading causes of disability that reduces worker performance and well-being and increases absence from work, which can cause an enormous economic burden. In developing countries, particularly in Ethiopia, there is no adequate evidence on the overall prevalence of occupational-related upper and low back pain, and they remain less prioritized and empirically unrepresented. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the prevalence of occupational-related upper and low back pain among the working population of Ethiopia.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis considered studies conducted in Ethiopia, written in English, and published from 2017 to 2020. Articles were searched from 9 electronic databases (Web of Science, SCOPUS, PubMed, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, African Index Medicus, African Journals Online database, and Science Direct) using a combination of Boolean logic operators, Medical Subject Headings, and main keywords. The quality assessment of the articles was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools to determine the relevance of the articles to the study. A random effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence, the 95% confidence interval, and the degree of heterogeneity among the included studies. Sensitivity analyses were performed to identify the influence of outliers and to identify sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Of the 1114 studies identified from the included databases, 20 studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of occupational-related upper and low back pain in the previous year was (27.1% [95% CI: 18.4, 37.9]) and (54.2% [95% CI: 48.2, 60.0]), respectively. Based on a subgroup analysis by publication year, study population, and regions where the studies were conducted, the prevalence of upper back pain was (43.8% [95% CI: 39.3, 47.7]), (34.7% [95% CI: 33.1, 36.2]), and (36.2% [95% CI: 33.6, 39.0]), respectively, while the prevalence of low back pain was (61.8% [95% CI: 58.9, 64.6], (52.8% [95% CI: 51.3, 54.3]), and (55.2% [95% CI: 51.4, 59.0]), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis found that 54.2% of the included study participants experienced low back pain in the previous year, while 27.1% experienced upper back pain. The highest prevalence was reported among pedestrian back-loading women.

Cross-Validation of a Screening Tool to Distinguish Between Fallers and Nonfallers in Community-Dwelling Older Adults With Knee Osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to cross-validate a previously developed knee osteoarthritis falls (KOAF) screening tool to distinguish between fallers and nonfallers among community-dwelling older adults with knee osteoarthritis (OA).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey study.

SETTING

Three independent orthopedic clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Older outpatients with knee OA (N=86; 71 women, 15 men; mean age, 75.2±6.2y).

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was to identify fallers and nonfallers among outpatients with OA based on their history of falls within the past year. We investigated factors including sex, age, body mass index, Kellgren-Lawrence grade, affected side (bilateral or unilateral knee OA), number of comorbidities, pharmacotherapy, physical therapy, pain, and activity as individual predictors of falls. Participants performed the one-leg standing test and the 5 times sit-to-stand test to determine motor function. Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, and post-test probability of the KOAF screening tool were calculated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS

The results of the one-leg standing test and 5 times sit-to-stand test differed significantly between the 2 groups (P<.05). ROC curve analysis showed that the area under the curve was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.96; P<.001). The post-test probability of falls was 83.3% (positive likelihood ratio, 11.54) when the total score of KOAF screening tool was 2 points and 2.6% (negative likelihood ratio, 0.06) when the total score of KOAF screening tool was less than 1 point.

CONCLUSIONS

Cross-validation results for the KOAF screening tool were better, confirming that the screening tool could distinguish between fallers and nonfallers with high accuracy. Our findings suggest that this simple screening tool could be readily used in clinical practice and could aid in clinical decision-making through providing choices for physical therapy evaluation and recommendations for physical therapy programs.

Predicting who responds to spinal manipulative therapy using a short-time frame methodology: Results from a 238-participant study

Background

Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is among the nonpharmacologic interventions that has been recommended in clinical guidelines for patients with low back pain, however, some patients appear to benefit substantially more from SMT than others. Several investigations have examined potential factors to modify patients’ responses prior to SMT application. The objective of this study was to determine if the baseline prediction of SMT responders can be improved through the use of a restricted, non-pragmatic methodology, established variables of responder status, and newly developed physical measures observed to change with SMT.

Materials and methods

We conducted a secondary analysis of a prior study that provided two applications of standardized SMT over a period of 1 week. After initial exploratory analysis, principal component analysis and optimal scaling analysis were used to reduce multicollinearity among predictors. A multiple logistic regression model was built using a forward Wald procedure to explore those baseline variables that could predict response status at 1-week reassessment.

Results

Two hundred and thirty-eight participants completed the 1-week reassessment (age 40.0± 11.8 years; 59.7% female). Response to treatment was predicted by a model containing the following 8 variables: height, gender, neck or upper back pain, pain frequency in the past 6 months, the STarT Back Tool, patients’ expectations about medication and strengthening exercises, and extension status. Our model had a sensitivity of 72.2% (95% CI, 58.1–83.1), specificity of 84.2% (95% CI, 78.0–89.0), a positive likelihood ratio of 4.6 (CI, 3.2–6.7), a negative likelihood ratio of 0.3 (CI, 0.2–0.5), and area under ROC curve, 0.79.

Conclusion

It is possible to predict response to treatment before application of SMT in low back pain patients. Our model may benefit both patients and clinicians by reducing the time needed to re-evaluate an initial trial of care.

Are clinical practice guidelines for low back pain interventions of high quality and updated? A systematic review using the AGREE II instrument

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide recommendations for practice, but the proliferation of CPGs issued by multiple organisations in recent years has raised concern about their quality. The aim of this study was to systematically appraise CPGs quality for low back pain (LBP) interventions and to explore inter-rater reliability (IRR) between quality appraisers. The time between systematic review search and publication of CPGs was recorded.

METHODS

Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, PEDro, TRIP), guideline organisation databases, websites, and grey literature were searched from January 2016 to January 2020 to identify GPCs on rehabilitative, pharmacological or surgical intervention for LBP management. Four independent reviewers used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool to evaluate CPGs quality and record the year the CPGs were published and the year the search strategies were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 21 CPGs met the inclusion criteria and were appraised. Seven (33%) were broad in scope and involved surgery, rehabilitation or pharmacological intervention. The score for each AGREE II item was: Editorial Independence (median 67%, interquartile range [IQR] 31-84%), Scope and Purpose (median 64%, IQR 22-83%), Rigour of Development (median 50%, IQR 21-72%), Clarity and Presentation (median 50%, IQR 28-79%), Stakeholder Involvement (median 36%, IQR 10-74%), and Applicability (median 11%, IQR 0-46%). The IRR between the assessors was nearly perfect (interclass correlation 0.90; 95% confidence interval 0.88-0.91). The median time span was 2 years (range, 1-4), however, 38% of the CPGs did not report the coverage dates for systematic searches.

CONCLUSIONS

We found methodological limitations that affect CPGs quality. In our opinion, a universal database is needed in which guidelines can be registered and recommendations dynamically developed through a living systematic reviews approach to ensure that guidelines are based on updated evidence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1 TRIAL REGISTRATION: REGISTRATION PROSPERO DETAILS: CRD42019127619 .

Clinical predictive modelling of post-surgical recovery in individuals with cervical radiculopathy: a machine learning approach

Prognostic models play an important role in the clinical management of cervical radiculopathy (CR). No study has compared the performance of modern machine learning techniques, against more traditional stepwise regression techniques, when developing prognostic models in individuals with CR. We analysed a prospective cohort dataset of 201 individuals with CR. Four modelling techniques (stepwise regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator [LASSO], boosting, and multivariate adaptive regression splines [MuARS]) were each used to form a prognostic model for each of four outcomes obtained at a 12 month follow-up (disability-neck disability index [NDI]), quality of life (EQ5D), present neck pain intensity, and present arm pain intensity). For all four outcomes, the differences in mean performance between all four models were small (difference of NDI < 1 point; EQ5D < 0.1 point; neck and arm pain < 2 points). Given that the predictive accuracy of all four modelling methods were clinically similar, the optimal modelling method may be selected based on the parsimony of predictors. Some of the most parsimonious models were achieved using MuARS, a non-linear technique. Modern machine learning methods may be used to probe relationships along different regions of the predictor space.

Factors Impacting Physical Therapy Utilization for Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Retrospective Analysis of a Clinical Data Set

OBJECTIVE

Factors predicting physical therapy utilization for lower back pain (LBP) remain unclear, limiting the development of value-based initiatives. The purpose of this study was to identify important factors that impact the number of physical therapist visits per episode of care for US adults with nonspecific LBP.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective observational cohort study of a clinical dataset derived from 80 clinics of a single physical therapy provider organization. Research variables were categorized at the individual (patient) level and the organization (therapist, clinic) level. A hierarchical regression model was designed to identify factors influencing the number of physical therapist visits per episode of care.

RESULTS

Higher out-of-pocket payments per visit, receipt of "active" physical therapy, longer average visit length, earlier use of physical therapy, and sex of the therapist (male) were found to predict fewer visits per episode of care. Percent change of function, prior receipt of physical therapy by the same provider organization, self-discharge from physical therapy, level of starting function, and therapist certification were found to predict more visits. Of the variance in number of visits, 8.0% was attributable to the health care organization.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual factors, such as higher out-of-pocket payment, have a significant impact on reducing visits per episode of care and should be considered when developing value-based initiatives to optimize clinical and utilization outcomes.

IMPACT

Payers use consumer-directed healthcare to reduce costs by discouraging utilization of low value services and encouraging use of low-cost providers. LBP is a costly condition for which physical therapy is a high-value treatment. This study shows that non-need factors predict the number of physical therapy visits per episode of care for patients with nonspecific LBP. Insurance benefit plans with lower out-of-pocket payments for physical therapy and higher reimbursement for active physical therapist interventions may facilitate appropriate utilization of high-value treatment for LBP.

Effect of Spinal Manipulative and Mobilization Therapies in Young Adults With Mild to Moderate Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common reasons for seeking medical care. Manual therapy is a common treatment of LBP, yet few studies have directly compared the effectiveness of thrust (spinal manipulation) vs nonthrust (spinal mobilization) techniques.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization at reducing pain and disability compared with a placebo control group (sham cold laser) in a cohort of young adults with chronic LBP.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This single-blinded (investigator-blinded), placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial with 3 treatment groups was conducted at the Ohio Musculoskeletal and Neurological Institute at Ohio University from June 1, 2013, to August 31, 2017. Of 4903 adult patients assessed for eligibility, 4741 did not meet inclusion criteria, and 162 patients with chronic LBP qualified for randomization to 1 of 3 treatment groups. Recruitment began on June 1, 2013, and the primary completion date was August 31, 2017. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2017, to January 20, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants received 6 treatment sessions of (1) spinal manipulation, (2) spinal mobilization, or (3) sham cold laser therapy (placebo) during a 3-week period.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Coprimary outcome measures were the change from baseline in Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) score over the last 7 days and the change in disability assessed with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater disability) 48 to 72 hours after completion of the 6 treatments.

RESULTS

A total of 162 participants (mean [SD] age, 25.0 [6.2] years; 92 women [57%]) with chronic LBP (mean [SD] NPRS score, 4.3 [2.6] on a 1-10 scale, with higher scores indicating greater pain) were randomized. Fifty-four participants were randomized to the spinal manipulation group, 54 to the spinal mobilization group, and 54 to the placebo group. There were no significant group differences for sex, age, body mass index, duration of LBP symptoms, depression, fear avoidance, current pain, average pain over the last 7 days, and self-reported disability. At the primary end point, there was no significant difference in change in pain scores between spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization (0.24 [95% CI, -0.38 to 0.86]; P = .45), spinal manipulation and placebo (-0.03 [95% CI, -0.65 to 0.59]; P = .92), or spinal mobilization and placebo (-0.26 [95% CI, -0.38 to 0.85]; P = .39). There was no significant difference in change in self-reported disability scores between spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization (-1.00 [95% CI, -2.27 to 0.36]; P = .14), spinal manipulation and placebo (-0.07 [95% CI, -1.43 to 1.29]; P = .92) or spinal mobilization and placebo (0.93 [95% CI, -0.41 to 2.29]; P = .17).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial, neither spinal manipulation nor spinal mobilization appeared to be effective treatments for mild to moderate chronic LBP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01854892.

Biomechanical characteristics of lumbar manipulation performed by expert, resident, and student physical therapists

BACKGROUND

Lumbar manipulation is a commonly used treatment for low back pain, but little research evidence exists regarding practitioner biomechanics during manipulation. Most existing evidence describes rate of force production through the hands into instrumented manikins and it is unclear how the practitioner moves their body and legs to generate this force.

OBJECTIVES

To identify and characterize important kinetic and kinematic factors in practitioners of varying experience performing lumbar manipulation in order to identify which factors distinguish experts from less experienced practitioners.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a cohort observational laboratory study.

METHODS

43 male physical therapists (PT) and PT students (4 experts, 11 residents, 13 third year, and 15 first year students) performed 4 manipulations each on asymptomatic patient models. Angular and linear kinematics of the pelvis were measured using motion capture, and ground reaction forces were measured with force plates under the practitioner's feet.

RESULTS

Peak pelvic angular velocity was greater and in the opposite direction in experts compared to other groups in the frontal plane (p = 0.020) and transverse plane (p = 0.000). Experts had greater downward pelvic linear velocity than third year students and first year students (p = 0.000). Experts also demonstrated faster rate of vertical ground reaction force unloading during the manipulation (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Expert performance of manipulation was characterized by increased speed of linear and angular pelvic motion, and increased modulation of vertical ground reaction force. These results help to inform educators and practitioners that teach and use this complex manual skill.

The Effects of Thrust Joint Manipulation on the Resting and Contraction Thickness of Transversus Abdominis in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Randomized Control Trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the immediate changes in resting and contracted thickness of the transversus abdominis (TrA) muscle after application of thrust joint manipulation (TJM) vs sham manipulation in participants with low back pain.

METHODS

A pretest-posttest randomized controlled trial design was performed. Consecutive subjects satisfying eligibility criteria completed patient-report outcome baseline measures, pretreatment rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI) measurements, followed by the randomly assigned intervention then, post-treatment RUSI measurements, and post-treatment & final patient-reported outcome measures. To compare the outcomes of TJM and sham manipulation on the TrA muscle thickness, a 2-by-2 analysis of variance (treatment [TJM and sham manipulation]) by time (pretreatment and post-treatment) was completed for both the TrA muscle thickness at rest and muscle thickness during contraction. Descriptive statistics including independent-sample t tests for continuous variables and χ² tests for categorical variables were used to analyze differences in patient-reported outcome measures between groups.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven eligible participants agreed to participate. No significant interactions were identified for either muscle thickness at rest or contraction.

CONCLUSION

This study did not support the hypothesis that manipulation would result in greater changes in TrA thickness at rest or during contraction in participants with low back pain. Based on prior research that identified subgroups of participants likely to respond to manipulation, future research should include participants more likely to respond favorably to TJM. This study was a priori registered with clinicaltrails.gov (NCT02558855).