Psychological response in spinal manipulation (PRISM): a systematic review of psychological outcomes in randomised controlled trials.

Department of General Practice, Cardiff University, Centre for Health Services Research/North Wales Clinical School, Gwenfro Building, Wrecsam Technology Park, Wrecsam LL13 7YP, United Kingdom.
Complementary Therapies in Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.22). 01/2008; 15(4):271-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctim.2007.01.008
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The most important risk factors for back and neck pain are psychosocial. Nevertheless, systematic reviews of spinal manipulation have concentrated on pain and spine related disability, and ignored psychological outcomes.
To assess whether spinal manipulation was effective in improving psychological outcome.
Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
RCTs were identified by searching Medline, CINAHL, Embase, CENTRAL, AMED, PsycINFO until November 2005. Trials reporting psychological outcomes including the mental health components of generic outcomes were extracted, and combined where appropriate in meta-analyses.
One hundred and twenty nine RCTs of spinal manipulation were identified; 12 had adequately reported psychological outcomes. Six trials with a verbal intervention comparator were combined in a meta-analysis, and found a mean benefit from spinal manipulation equivalent to 0.34 of the population standard deviation (S.D.) [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23-0.45] at 1-5 months; 0.27 of the S.D. [95% CI 0.14-0.40] at 6-12 months. Eight trials with a physical treatment comparator were combined in a meta-analysis and found a mean benefit of 0.13 of the S.D. [95% CI 0.01-0.24] in favour of manipulation at 1-5 months; 0.11 of the S.D. [95% CI -0.02 to 0.25] at 6-12 months.
There was some evidence that spinal manipulation improved psychological outcomes compared with verbal interventions.


Available from: Nefyn H Williams, Apr 17, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to identify the minimal clinically important threshold score for rate of recovery (RoR) using the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) as an anchor measure, and to measure the association of the RoR with the raw and percentage change scores of the QuickDASH and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Threshold measures for RoR and the PASS were examined using a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve. Participants were dichotomized to those who stated "yes" and those who stated "no" on the PASS. Pearson correlation coefficients were performed to determine the relationship between the NPRS and QuickDASH raw and percentage change scores and the RoR at discharge. ROC curve statistics suggest that a cut-point of greater than 87% on the self-report RoR (SN=0.62, SP=0.73; +LR=2.26: -LR=0.56) corresponded to the patient considering their state acceptable. No significant associations existed between either the raw NPRS or the raw QuickDASH, and the RoR scores although percentage change scores were associated with the RoR (QuickDASH r=0.29; p=0.02; NPRS = r=0.30; p=0.02). Patients reporting greater than or equal to 87% on RoR are likely to have met the Patient Acceptable Symptom State. Although statistically significant, the lack of strong association between RoR and change scores for the NPRS and QuickDASH suggests that the measures capture different constructs. Level 2C.
    06/2013; 8(6):784-92. DOI:10.1002/pri.1538
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Low back pain (LBP) is common and costly and few treatments have been shown to be markedly superior to any other. Effort has been focused on stratifying patients to better target treatment. Recently the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT) has been developed for use in primary care to enable sub grouping of patients based on modifiable baseline characteristics and has been shown to be associated with differential outcomes. In the UK the SBT is being recommended to assist in care decisions for those presenting to general practitioners with LBP. In the light of growing recommendation for widespread use of this tool, generalisability to other LBP populations is important. However, studies to date have focused only on patients attending physiotherapy whereas LBP patients seeking other treatment have not been investigated. This study aims to investigate the utility of the SBT to predict outcomes in LBP patients presenting for chiropractic management. A total of 404 patients undergoing chiropractic care were asked to complete the SBT before initial treatment. Clinical outcomes were collected at 14, 30 and 90 days following this initial consultation. The clinical course was described comparing SBT categories and logistic regression analysis performed to examine the tool's prognostic utility. Although the high-risk categories had greater pain at baseline this difference rapidly faded, with both change in composite outcome scores and pain scores being statistically insignificant between the risk groups at 30 and 90 days follow up. In addition, both univariate and adjusted analysis showed no prognostic utility of the SBT categorisations to differentiate clinical outcomes between risk groups. Whilst the SBT appears useful in some back pain populations it does not appear to differentiate outcomes in LBP patients seeking chiropractic care.
    06/2012; 20(1):17. DOI:10.1186/2045-709X-20-17
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS) is a complex, multi-factorial problem that is treated with a variety of different conservative options. One conservative option that has shown effectiveness is manual therapy to the thoracic spine. Another option, manual therapy to the cervical spine, has been studied only once with good results, evaluating short-term outcomes, in a small sample size. The purpose of this study was to investigate the benefit of neck manual therapy for patients with SIS. The study was a randomised, single blinded, clinical trial where both groups received pragmatic, evidence-based treatment to the shoulder and one group received neck manual therapy. Subjects with neck pain were excluded from the study. Comparative pain, disability, rate of recovery and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) measures were analyzed on the 68 subjects seen over an average of 56.1 days (standard deviation (SD)=55.4). Eighty-six percent of the sample reported an acceptable change on the PASS at discharge. There were no between-groups differences in those who did or did not receive neck manual therapy; however, both groups demonstrated significant within-groups improvements. On average both groups improved 59.7% (SD=25.1) for pain and 53.5% (SD=40.2) for the Quick Disabilities of the Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH) from baseline. This study found no value when neck manual therapy was added to the treatment of SIS. Reasons may include the lack of therapeutic dosage provided for the manual therapy approach or the lack of benefit to treating the neck in subjects with SIS who do not have concomitant neck problems.
    Manual therapy 06/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.math.2013.05.007 · 1.76 Impact Factor