No Differences in Outcomes in People with Low Back Pain Who Met the Clinical Prediction Rule for Lumbar Spine Manipulation When a Pragmatic Non-thrust Manipulation Was Used as the Comparator.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Learman K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4403352 | BioStudies | 2014-01-01
REPOSITORIES: biostudies
Similar Datasets
Project description:Recently a clinical prediction rule (CPR) has been developed and validated that accurately identifies patients with low back pain (LBP) that are likely to benefit from a lumbo-pelvic thrust manipulation. The studies that developed and validated the rule used the identical manipulation procedure. However, recent evidence suggests that different manual therapy techniques may result similar outcomes. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of three different manual therapy techniques in a subgroup of patient with low back pain that satisfy the CPR.Consecutive patients with LBP referred to physical therapy clinics in one of four geographical locations who satisfy the CPR will be invited to participate in this randomized clinical trial. Subjects who agree to participate will undergo a standard evaluation and complete a number of patient self-report questionnaires including the Oswestry Disability Index (OSW), which will serve as the primary outcome measure. Following the baseline examination patients will be randomly assigned to receive the lumbopelvic manipulation used in the development of the CPR, an alternative lumbar manipulation technique, or non-thrust lumbar mobilization technique for the first 2 visits. Beginning on visit 3, all 3 groups will receive an identical standard exercise program for 3 visits (visits 3,4,5). Outcomes of interest will be captured by a therapist blind to group assignment at 1 week (3rd visit), 4 weeks (6th visit) and at a 6-month follow-up. The primary aim of the study will be tested with analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the change in OSW score from baseline to 4-weeks (OSWBaseline - OSW4-weeks) as the dependent variable. The independent variable will be treatment with three levels (lumbo-pelvic manipulation, alternative lumbar manipulation, lumbar mobilization).This trial will be the first to investigate the effectiveness of various manual therapy techniques for patients with LBP who satisfy a CPR.
2006-01-01 | S-EPMC1421401 | BioStudies
Project description:BACKGROUND:Spinal fusion (SF)is a common surgical intervention for individuals with idiopathic scoliosis. However, individuals may experience continued pain and disability from suspected mechanical dysfunction. CASE DESCRIPTION:The purpose of this case report was to describe how specific thrust manipulation (TM) was used to treat a patient with scoliosis after multilevel SF. The 25-year-old female patient presented with left-sided pain in the rib, thoracic, and lumbar and sacroiliac joint regions that had been aggravated by trail running. After clearance from her surgeon, physical therapy examination and subsequent diagnosis were consistent with mechanical dysfunction of the ribs, lumbar spine, and sacroiliac joint causing decreased ability to participate in high-level activities, such as running. OUTCOMES:The patient was treated for eight visits her 4 months with specific TM, movement analysis, and physiotherapeutic scoliosis-specific exercises. Pain and function were assessed with the Trunk Appearance Perception scale (TAPS), Scoliosis Research Society questionnaire (SRS-22), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and spirometry. Pain and function improved during treatment, but outcomes for the ODI and spirometry remained the same. DISCUSSION:The current case report suggests specific TM to areas outside of the fused spinal segments may be beneficial for decreasing pain and improving functional activities and participation levels. However, more research is needed to verify the efficacy of this treatment in clinical practice.
2019-01-01 | S-EPMC6484491 | BioStudies
Project description:Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the within and between-group effects of segmental and distal dry needling (DN) without needle manipulation to a semi-standardized non-thrust manipulation (NTM) targeting the symptomatic spinal level for patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). Methods: Sixty-five patients with NSLBP were randomized to receive either DN (n = 30) or NTM (n = 35) for six sessions over 3 weeks. Outcomes collected included the oswestry disability index (ODI), patient specific functional scale (PSFS), numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), and pain pressure thresholds (PPT). At discharge, patients perceived recovery was assessed. Results: A two-way mixed model ANOVA demonstrated that there was no group*time interaction for PSFS (p = 0.26), ODI (p = 0.57), NPRS (p = 0.69), and PPT (p = 0.51). There was significant within group effects for PSFS (3.1 [2.4, 3.8], p = 0.018), ODI (14.5% [10.0%, 19.0%], p = 0.015), NPRS (2.2 [1.5, 2.8], p = 0.009), but not for PPT (3.3 [0.5, 6.0], p = 0.20). Discussion: The between-group effects were neither clinically nor statistically significant. The within group effects were both significant and exceeded the reported minimum clinically important differences for the outcomes tools except the PPT. DN and NTM produced comparable outcomes in this sample of patients with NSLBP. Level of evidence: 1b.
2019-01-01 | S-EPMC6598540 | BioStudies
Project description:Thoracic spine manipulation has been shown to be effective for the management of neck pain. The purpose of this study was to investigate the immediate effect of a T3-T4 spinal thrust manipulation on autonomic nervous system activity in subjects with chronic cervical pain. An additional aim was to determine if the manipulation resulted in an immediate pain relief in patients with chronic neck pain when compared to a placebo intervention. One hundred subjects with chronic neck pain were randomly assigned to receive either a thoracic thrust manipulation or a placebo intervention. The Friedman's test was used to evaluate the change in pupil diameter within both groups. The Wilcoxen signed-ranks test was used to explore pupil changes over time and to make paired comparisons of the pupil change between the groups. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the change in pain perception for the chronic cervical pain group subjects receiving either the thrust manipulation or the placebo intervention. The results demonstrated that manipulation did not result in a change in sympathetic activity. Additionally, there was no significant difference in the subject's pain perception (P?=?0.961) when comparing the effects of the thrust manipulation to the placebo intervention within this group of subjects with chronic neck pain. The clinical impression of this study is that manipulation of the thoracic spine may not be effective in immediately reducing pain in patients with chronic neck pain.
1000-01-01 | S-EPMC3113268 | BioStudies
Project description:Objectives:To determine the difference on neck outcomes with directional manipulation to the thoracic spine. There is evidence that thoracic spine manipulation is effective in treating patients with neck pain. However, there is no research that determines if the assessment of directional hypomobility and the selection of thrust direction offer improved outcomes. Methods:A total of 69 patients with cervical spine pain were randomly assigned to receive either a manipulation that was consistent with their thoracic spine motion loss (matched) or opposite their motion loss (unmatched). The patient was given care consistent with the orthopedic section guidelines for neck pain and the physical therapist's clinical reasoning. Baseline outcome measures (NPRS, NDI, GROC) were taken and reassessed two days and two weeks after treatment. Results:Both groups had positive results when pain, neck disability index, and global rating of change were assessed. There was no difference between the matched and unmatched groups. Discussion:Directional manipulation of hypomobile thoracic spine segments may not be required to improved outcomes in patients with neck pain. Future studies should assess a variety of factors when determining the best available treatment, including manual therapy procedures, exercise, and patient selection. Level of Evidence:1b.
2018-01-01 | S-EPMC5810769 | BioStudies
Project description: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.
2014-01-01 | S-EPMC3989479 | BioStudies
Project description:The purpose of this secondary analysis was 1) to examine patient expectations related to a variety of common interventions for low back pain (LBP) and 2) to determine the influence that specific expectations about spinal manipulation might have had on self-report of disability.We collected patients' expectations about the benefit of specific interventions for low back pain. We also collected patients' general expectations about treatment and tested the relationships among the expectation of benefit from an intervention, receiving that intervention and disability-related outcomes.Patients expected exercise and manual therapy interventions to provide more benefit than surgery and medication. There was a statistical association between expecting relief from thrust techniques and receiving thrust techniques, related to meeting the general expectation for treatment (chi-square: 15.5, P ?=? 0.008). This was not the case for patients who expected relief from thrust techniques but did not receive it (chi-square: 6.9, P ?=?0.4). Logistic regression modeling was used to predict change in disability at treatment visit 5. When controlling for whether the general expectations for treatment were met, intervention assignment and the interaction between intervention assignment and expectations regarding thrust techniques, the parsimonious model only included intervention as the significant contributor to the model (P < 0.001). The adjusted odds ratio of success comparing thrust techniques to non-thrust in this study was 41.2 (11.0, 201.7).The findings of this secondary analysis indicate that patients seeking intervention for LBP expect active interventions and manual therapy to significantly help improve their pain more than interventions like traction, rest, surgery, or medication. Additionally, in patients who meet the clinical prediction rule for good prognosis when managed with thrust techniques, treating with thrust techniques is more important than matching treatment to patient expectation.
2011-01-01 | S-EPMC3172953 | BioStudies
Project description:BACKGROUND:Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used by patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain; however, questions remain around efficacy, dosing, and safety, as well as how these approaches compare to other therapies. OBJECTIVES:Based on published trials, to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic nonspecific neck pain. STUDY DESIGN:A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. METHODS:We identified studies published between January 2000 and September 2017, by searching multiple electronic databases, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation and/or mobilization therapies to sham, no treatment, each other, and other active therapies, or when combined as multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias by using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. When possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project was funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under award number U19AT007912 and ultimately used to inform an appropriateness panel. RESULTS:A total of 47 randomized trials (47 unique trials in 53 publications) were included in the systematic review. These studies were rated as having low risk of bias and included a total of 4,460 patients with nonspecific chronic neck pain who were being treated by a practitioner using various types of manipulation and/or mobilization interventions. A total of 37 trials were categorized as unimodal approaches and involved thrust or nonthrust compared with sham, no treatment, or other active comparators. Of these, only 6 trials with similar intervention styles, comparators, and outcome measures/timepoints were pooled for meta-analysis at 1, 3, and 6 months, showing a small effect in favor of thrust plus exercise compared to an exercise regimen alone for a reduction in pain and disability. Multimodal approaches appeared to be effective at reducing pain and improving function from the 10 studies evaluated. Health-related quality of life was seldom reported. Some 22/47 studies did not report or mention adverse events. Of the 25 that did, either no or minor events occurred. LIMITATIONS:The current evidence is heterogeneous, and sample sizes are generally small. CONCLUSIONS:Studies published since January 2000 provide low-moderate quality evidence that various types of manipulation and/or mobilization will reduce pain and improve function for chronic nonspecific neck pain compared to other interventions. It appears that multimodal approaches, in which multiple treatment approaches are integrated, might have the greatest potential impact. The studies comparing to no treatment or sham were mostly testing the effect of a single dose, which may or may not be helpful to inform practice. According to the published trials reviewed, manipulation and mobilization appear safe. However, given the low rate of serious adverse events, other types of studies with much larger sample sizes would be required to fully describe the safety of manipulation and/or mobilization for nonspecific chronic neck pain. KEY WORDS:Chronic neck pain, nonspecific, chiropractic, manipulation, mobilization, systematic review, meta-analysis, appropriateness.
2019-01-01 | S-EPMC6800035 | BioStudies
Project description:Background:A therapeutic recommendation for restoring function in individuals with chronic low back pain (CLBP) is manual therapy through manipulative spinal or muscle energy techniques. Objectives:To compare the effectiveness of two osteopathic manipulative techniques on clinical low back symptoms and trunk neuromuscular postural control in male workers with CLBP. Method:Ten male workers with CLBP were randomly allocated to two groups: high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation or muscle energy techniques (MET). Each group received one therapy per week for both techniques during 7 weeks of treatment. Pain and function were measured by using the Numeric Pain-Rating Scale, the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. The lumbar flexibility was assessed by Modified Schober Test. Electromyography (EMG) and force platform measurements were used for evaluation of trunk muscular activation and postural balance, respectively at three different times: baseline, post intervention, and 15 days later. Results:Both techniques were effective (p < 0.01) in reducing pain with large clinical differences (-1.8 to -2.8) across immediate and after 15 days. However, no significant effect between groups and times was found for other variables, namely neuromuscular activation and postural balance measures. Conclusion:Both techniques (HVLA thrust manipulation and MET) were effective in reducing back pain immediately and 15 days later. Neither technique changed the trunk neuromuscular activation patterns nor postural balance in male workers with LBP. Clinical implications:These results may facilitate clinical decision-making for CLBP management in physiotherapy programs.
2020-01-01 | S-EPMC7669951 | BioStudies
Project description:Study Design?Systematic review. Study Rationale?Neck pain is a prevalent condition. Spinal manipulation and mobilization procedures are becoming an accepted treatment for neck pain. However, data on the effectiveness of these treatments have not been summarized. Objective?To compare manipulation or mobilization of the cervical spine to physical therapy or exercise for symptom improvement in patients with neck pain. Methods?A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed, the National Guideline Clearinghouse Database, and bibliographies of key articles, which compared spinal manipulation or mobilization therapy with physical therapy or exercise in patients with neck pain. Articles were included based on predetermined criteria and were appraised using a predefined quality rating scheme. Results?From 197 citations, 7 articles met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were no differences in pain improvement when comparing spinal manipulation to exercise, and there were inconsistent reports of pain improvement in subjects who underwent mobilization therapy versus physical therapy. No disability improvement was reported between treatment groups in studies of acute or chronic neck pain patients. No functional improvement was found with manipulation therapy compared with exercise treatment or mobilization therapy compared with physical therapy groups in patients with acute pain. In chronic neck pain subjects who underwent spinal manipulation therapy compared to exercise treatment, results for short-term functional improvement were inconsistent. Conclusion?The data available suggest that there are minimal short- and long-term treatment differences in pain, disability, patient-rated treatment improvement, treatment satisfaction, health status, or functional improvement when comparing manipulation or mobilization therapy to physical therapy or exercise in patients with neck pain. This systematic review is limited by the variability of treatment interventions and lack of standardized outcomes to assess treatment benefit.
1000-01-01 | S-EPMC3699243 | BioStudies