NASS Contemporary Concepts in Spine Care: Spinal manipulation therapy for acute low back pain

Palladian Health, 2732 Transit Rd, West Seneca, NY 14224, USA.
The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society (Impact Factor: 2.8). 10/2010; 10(10):918-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.07.389
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Low back pain (LBP) continues to be a very prevalent, disabling, and costly spinal disorder. Numerous interventions are routinely used for symptoms of acute LBP. One of the most common approaches is spinal manipulation therapy (SMT).
To assess the current scientific literature related to SMT for acute LBP.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Systematic review (SR).
Literature was identified by searching MEDLINE using indexed and free text terms. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English, and SMT was administered to a group of patients with LBP of less than 3 months. RCTs included in two previous SRs were also screened, as were reference lists of included studies. Combined search results were screened for relevance by two reviewers. Data related to methods, risk of bias, harms, and results were abstracted independently by two reviewers.
The MEDLINE search returned 699 studies, of which six were included; an additional eight studies were identified from two previous SRs. There were 2,027 participants in the 14 included RCTs, which combined SMT with education (n=5), mobilization (MOB) (n=4), exercise (n=3), modalities (n=3), or medication (n=2). The groups that received SMT were most commonly compared with those receiving physical modalities (n=7), education (n=6), medication (n=5), exercise (n=5), MOB (n=3), or sham SMT (n=2). The most common providers of SMT were chiropractors (n=5) and physical therapists (n=5). Most studies (n=6) administered 5 to 10 sessions of SMT over 2 to 4 weeks for acute LBP. Outcomes measured included pain (n=10), function (n=10), health-care utilization (n=6), and global effect (n=5). Studies had a follow-up of less than 1 month (n=7), 3 months (n=1), 6 months (n=3), 1 year (n=2), or 2 years (n=1). When compared with various control groups, results for improvement in pain in the SMT groups were superior in three RCTs and equivalent in three RCTs in the short term, equivalent in four RCTs in the intermediate term, and equivalent in two RCTs in the long term. For improvement in function, results from the SMT groups were superior in one RCT and equivalent in four RCTs in the short term, superior in one RCT and equivalent in one RCT in the intermediate term, and equivalent in one RCT and inferior in one RCT in the long term. No harms related to SMT were reported in these RCTs.
Several RCTs have been conducted to assess the efficacy of SMT for acute LBP using various methods. Results from most studies suggest that 5 to 10 sessions of SMT administered over 2 to 4 weeks achieve equivalent or superior improvement in pain and function when compared with other commonly used interventions, such as physical modalities, medication, education, or exercise, for short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up. Spine care clinicians should discuss the role of SMT as a treatment option for patients with acute LBP who do not find adequate symptomatic relief with self-care and education alone.

Download full-text


Available from: Michael D Freeman, Jun 19, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper provides a general overview of performance based outcome measures used in an attempt to objectively measure the ramifications of spinal manipulation. While not a systematic or exhaustive review it serves to categorize, and provide insight into the background, successes and shortcomings of measurement techniques used. The outcome measures are drawn from the full spectrum of approaches to research and are broken down into the following sections: (1) biomechanically constrained motor performance measures, (2) neurologically constrained performance measures and (3) perceptual, perceptual motor, and complex task constrained performance measures. The paper concludes with some future research directions to enhance the understanding of the impact of spinal manipulation, and how to objectively measure its mechanical and physiological effects on the human system.
    Journal of electromyography and kinesiology: official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology 03/2012; 22(5):697-707. DOI:10.1016/j.jelekin.2012.02.005 · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate changes in methodological quality and sample size in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for neck and low back pain over a specified period. A secondary purpose was to make recommendations for improvement for future SMT trials based upon our findings. Methods Randomized controlled trials that examined the effect of SMT in adults with neck and/or low back pain and reported at least 1 patient-reported outcome measure were included. Studies were identified from recent Cochrane reviews of SMT, and an update of the literature was conducted (March 2013). Risk of bias was assessed using the 12-item criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. In addition, sample size was examined. The relationship between the overall risk of bias and sample size over time was evaluated using regression analyses, and RCTs were grouped into periods (epochs) of approximately 5 years. Results In total, 105 RCTs were included, of which 41 (39%) were considered to have a low risk of bias. There is significant improvement in the mean risk of bias over time (P < .05), which is the most profound for items related to selection bias and, to a lesser extent, attrition and selective outcome reporting bias. Furthermore, although there is no significant increase in sample size over time (overall P = .8), the proportion of studies that performed an a priori sample size calculation is increasing statistically (odds ratio, 2.1; confidence interval, 1.5-3.0). Sensitivity analyses suggest no appreciable difference between studies for neck or low back pain for risk of bias or sample size. Conclusion Methodological quality of RCTs of SMT for neck and low back pain is improving, whereas overall sample size has shown only small and nonsignificant increases. There is an increasing trend among studies to conduct sample size calculations, which relate to statistical power. Based upon these findings, 7 areas of improvement for future SMT trials are suggested.
    Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 10/2014; 37(8). DOI:10.1016/j.jmpt.2014.07.007 · 1.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is an intervention prac-ticed worldwide by a variety of professionals. Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined the effectiveness of SMT; however, interpretation of those treatment effects can be hampered by a high risk of bias and poor reporting as well as small sample sizes. Objective: To provide a descriptive overview of RCTs on SMT for low-back pain as well as an analysis of the trends with time in relation to risk of bias and sample size. Methods: Descriptive data on 61 RCTs of SMT for low-back pain were extracted. RCTs published prior to March 31, 2011, which fulfilled the inclusion criteria, were included. Publication date of the individual RCTs was used in the analyses. Linear regression was conducted to test trends in sample size; however, trends in risk of bias was not formally tested due to insufficient data. Results: Of the included RCTs, SMT was delivered by either a chiropractor or manual therapist in most (68%), and approximately half (49%) examined a high-velocity thrust. Sufficient data are available for the outcomes, pain and functional status, but lacking for other outcomes. Overall, 28% of the RCTs met the criteria for a low risk of bias and the median sample size for SMT (interquartile range) was 60 (34, 90). There is a positive trend over time in studies with a low risk of bias, in addition to improvements in reporting of specific items related to selection biasijos and selective reporting bias as well as intention to-treat. Despite this trend, many items were fulfilled by less than half of the studies published in the last decade. In addition, there is a trend towards larger studies for SMT as the intervention, although this also demonstrates variation with time. Conclusions: The continuing uncertainty regarding the effect of SMT for low-back pain is hampered by too many studies with a high risk of bias, which in some cases, are too small to detect clinically-relevant differences. It is our wish that the lessons learned from this analysis be applied in the design of future trials of SMT as well as other non-pharmacological therapies.
    International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine 06/2012; 15(2):37-52. DOI:10.1016/j.ijosm.2012.02.001 · 0.73 Impact Factor