Article

Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Chronic Low-Back Pain An Update of a Cochrane Review

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Spine (Impact Factor: 2.45). 06/2011; 36(13):E825-46. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182197fe1
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Systematic review of interventions.
To assess the effects of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for chronic low-back pain.
SMT is one of the many therapies for the treatment of low-back pain, which is a worldwide, extensively practiced intervention.
Search methods. An experienced librarian searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in multiple databases up to June 2009. Selection criteria. RCTs that examined manipulation or mobilization in adults with chronic low-back pain were included. The primary outcomes were pain, functional status, and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life. Data collection and analysis. Two authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence.
We included 26 RCTs (total participants = 6070), 9 of which had a low risk of bias. Approximately two-thirds of the included studies (N = 18) were not evaluated in the previous review. There is a high-quality evidence that SMT has a small, significant, but not clinically relevant, short-term effect on pain relief (mean difference -4.16, 95% confidence interval -6.97 to -1.36) and functional status (standardized mean difference -0.22, 95% confidence interval -0.36 to -0.07) in comparison with other interventions. There is varying quality of evidence that SMT has a significant short-term effect on pain relief and functional status when added to another intervention. There is a very low-quality evidence that SMT is not more effective than inert interventions or sham SMT for short-term pain relief or functional status. Data were particularly sparse for recovery, return-to-work, quality of life, and costs of care. No serious complications were observed with SMT.
High-quality evidence suggests that there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low-back pain. Determining cost-effectiveness of care has high priority.

0 Followers
 · 
278 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There have been no full-scale trials of the optimal number of visits for the care of any condition with spinal manipulation. To identify the dose-response relationship between visits to a chiropractor for spinal manipulation and chronic low back pain (cLBP) outcomes and to determine the efficacy of manipulation by comparison with a light massage control. Practice-based randomized controlled trial. Four hundred participants with cLBP. The primary cLBP outcomes were the 100-point modified Von Korff pain intensity and functional disability scales evaluated at the 12- and 24-week primary end points. Secondary outcomes included days with pain and functional disability, pain unpleasantness, global perceived improvement, medication use, and general health status. One hundred participants with cLBP were randomized to each of four dose levels of care: 0, 6, 12, or 18 sessions of spinal manipulation from a chiropractor. Participants were treated three times per week for 6 weeks. At sessions when manipulation was not assigned, they received a focused light massage control. Covariate-adjusted linear dose effects and comparisons with the no-manipulation control group were evaluated at 6, 12, 18, 24, 39, and 52 weeks. For the primary outcomes, mean pain and disability improvement in the manipulation groups were 20 points by 12 weeks and sustainable to 52 weeks. Linear dose-response effects were small, reaching about two points per six manipulation sessions at 12 and 52 weeks for both variables (p<.025). At 12 weeks, the greatest differences from the no-manipulation control were found for 12 sessions (8.6 pain and 7.6 disability points, p<.025); at 24 weeks, differences were negligible; and at 52 weeks, the greatest group differences were seen for 18 visits (5.9 pain and 8.8 disability points, p<.025). The number of spinal manipulation visits had modest effects on cLBP outcomes above those of 18 hands-on visits to a chiropractor. Overall, 12 visits yielded the most favorable results but was not well distinguished from other dose levels.
    The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society 10/2013; 14(7). DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.468 · 2.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Evidence Based Medicine - Closer to Patients or Scientists?, 04/2012; , ISBN: 978-953-51-0504-6
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Complementary medicine and alternative approaches to chronic and intractable health conditions are increasingly being used, and require critical evaluation. The aim of this review was to systematically evaluate available evidence for the effectiveness and safety of instruction in the Alexander Technique in health-related conditions. PUBMED, EMBASE, PSYCHINFO, ISI Web-of-Knowledge, AMED, CINHAL-plus, Cochrane library and Evidence-based Medicine Reviews were searched to July 2011. Inclusion criteria were prospective studies evaluating Alexander Technique instruction (individual lessons or group delivery) as an intervention for any medical indication/health-related condition. Studies were categorised and data extracted on study population, randomisation method, nature of intervention and control, practitioner characteristics, validity and reliability of outcome measures, completeness of follow-up and statistical analyses. Results:  Of 271 publications identified, 18 were selected: three randomised, controlled trials (RCTs), two controlled non-randomised studies, eight non-controlled studies, four qualitative analyses and one health economic analysis. One well-designed, well-conducted RCT demonstrated that, compared with usual GP care, Alexander Technique lessons led to significant long-term reductions in back pain and incapacity caused by chronic back pain. The results were broadly supported by a smaller, earlier RCT in chronic back pain. The third RCT, a small, well-designed, well-conducted study in individuals with Parkinson's disease, showed a sustained increased ability to carry out everyday activities following Alexander lessons, compared with usual care. The 15 non-RCT studies are also reviewed. Strong evidence exists for the effectiveness of Alexander Technique lessons for chronic back pain and moderate evidence in Parkinson's-associated disability. Preliminary evidence suggests that Alexander Technique lessons may lead to improvements in balance skills in the elderly, in general chronic pain, posture, respiratory function and stuttering, but there is insufficient evidence to support recommendations in these areas.
    International Journal of Clinical Practice 01/2012; 66(1):98-112. DOI:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2011.02817.x · 2.54 Impact Factor