Comparison of general exercise, motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: A randomized trial.

School of Physiotherapy, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Pain (Impact Factor: 5.64). 10/2007; 131(1-2):31-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2006.12.008
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Practice guidelines recommend various types of exercise and manipulative therapy for chronic back pain but there have been few head-to-head comparisons of these interventions. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare effects of general exercise, motor control exercise and manipulative therapy on function and perceived effect of intervention in patients with chronic back pain. Two hundred and forty adults with non-specific low back pain 3months were allocated to groups that received 8weeks of general exercise, motor control exercise or spinal manipulative therapy. General exercise included strengthening, stretching and aerobic exercises. Motor control exercise involved retraining specific trunk muscles using ultrasound feedback. Spinal manipulative therapy included joint mobilization and manipulation. Primary outcomes were patient-specific function (PSFS, 3-30) and global perceived effect (GPE, -5 to 5) at 8weeks. These outcomes were also measured at 6 and 12months. Follow-up was 93% at 8weeks and 88% at 6 and 12months. The motor control exercise group had slightly better outcomes than the general exercise group at 8weeks (between-group difference: PSFS 2.9, 95% CI: 0.9-4.8; GPE 1.7, 95% CI: 0.9-2.4), as did the spinal manipulative therapy group (PSFS 2.3, 95% CI: 0.4-4.2; GPE 1.2, 95% CI: 0.4-2.0). The groups had similar outcomes at 6 and 12months. Motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy produce slightly better short-term function and perceptions of effect than general exercise, but not better medium or long-term effects, in patients with chronic non-specific back pain.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: [Purpose] The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of manual therapy using joint mobilization and flexion-distraction techniques on chronic low back pain and disc heights. [Subjects] This study was conducted with 31 chronic low back pain patients who were divided into a manual therapy group (MTG; n=16) and a spinal decompression therapy group (SDTG; n=15). [Methods] The MTG was treated using joint mobilization techniques and flexion-distraction techniques, and the SDTG was treated using spinal decompression therapeutic apparatuses. Conservative physical therapy was used in both groups, and the therapy was implemented three times per week for 6 weeks. The visual analog scale (VAS) was used to measure patient's low back pain scores, and a picture archiving and communication system was used to measure disc height by comparing and analyzing the images. [Results] In comparisons of the VAS within each of the two groups, both the MTG and the SDTG showed significant decreases. In comparisons of disc height within each of the two groups, the MTG showed statistically significant increases. [Conclusion] Manual therapy using joint mobilization techniques and flexion-distraction techniques is considered an effective intervention for addressing low back pain and disc heights in patients with chronic low back pain.
    Journal of Physical Therapy Science 08/2014; 26(8):1259-62. · 0.20 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; · 1.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is a large and costly problem. It has a lifetime prevalence of 80% and results in high levels of healthcare cost. It is a major cause for long term sickness amongst the workforce and is associated with high levels of fear avoidance and kinesiophobia. Stabilisation (or 'core stability') exercises have been suggested to reduce symptoms of pain and disability and form an effective treatment. Despite it being the most commonly used form of physiotherapy treatment within the UK there is a lack of positive evidence to support its use. The aims of this systematic review update is to investigate the effectiveness of stabilisation exercises for the treatment of NSLBP, and compare any effectiveness to other forms of exercise. A systematic review published in 2008 was updated with a search of PubMed, CINAHL, AMED, Pedro and The Cochrane Library, October 2006 to October 2013. Two authors independently selected studies, and two authors independently extracted the data. Methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale. Meta-analysis was carried out when appropriate. 29 studies were included: 22 studies (n = 2,258) provided post treatment effect on pain and 24 studies (n = 2,359) provided post treatment effect on disability. Pain and disability scores were transformed to a 0 to 100 scale. Meta-analysis showed significant benefit for stabilisation exercises versus any alternative treatment or control for long term pain and disability with mean difference of -6.39 (95% CI -10.14 to -2.65) and -3.92 (95% CI -7.25 to -0.59) respectively. The difference between groups was clinically insignificant. When compared with alternative forms of exercise, there was no statistical or clinically significant difference. Mean difference for pain was -3.06 (95% CI -6.74 to 0.63) and disability -1.89 (95% CI -5.10 to 1.33). There is strong evidence stabilisation exercises are not more effective than any other form of active exercise in the long term. The low levels of heterogeneity and large number of high methodological quality of available studies, at long term follow-up, strengthen our current findings, and further research is unlikely to considerably alter this conclusion.
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 12/2014; 15(1):416. · 1.90 Impact Factor


Available from
May 17, 2014