Dataset Information

Clinical Scenarios for Which Spinal Mobilization and Manipulation Are Considered by an Expert Panel to be Inappropriate (and Appropriate) for Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Spinal mobilization and manipulation are 2 therapies found to be generally safe and effective for chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, the question remains whether they are appropriate for all CLBP patients. RESEARCH DESIGN:An expert panel used a well-validated approach, including an evidence synthesis and clinical acumen, to develop and then rate the appropriateness of the use of spinal mobilization and manipulation across an exhaustive list of clinical scenarios which could present for CLBP. Decision tree analysis (DTA) was used to identify the key patient characteristics that affected the ratings. RESULTS:Nine hundred clinical scenarios were defined and then rated by a 9-member expert panel as to the appropriateness of spinal mobilization and manipulation. Across clinical scenarios more were rated appropriate than inappropriate. However, the number patients presenting with each scenario is not yet known. Nevertheless, DTA indicates that all clinical scenarios that included major neurological findings, and some others involving imaging findings of central herniated nucleus pulposus, spinal stenosis, or free fragments, were rated as inappropriate for both spinal mobilization and manipulation. DTA also identified the absence of these imaging findings and no previous laminectomy as the most important patient characteristics in predicting ratings of appropriate. CONCLUSIONS:A well-validated expert panel-based approach was used to develop and then rate the appropriateness of the use of spinal mobilization and manipulation across the clinical scenarios which could present for CLBP. Information on the clinical scenarios for which these therapies are inappropriate should be added to clinical guidelines for CLBP.

SUBMITTER: Herman PM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6459705 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical Scenarios for Which Spinal Mobilization and Manipulation Are Considered by an Expert Panel to be Inappropriate (and Appropriate) for Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain.

Herman Patricia M PM Hurwitz Eric L EL Shekelle Paul G PG Whitley Margaret D MD Coulter Ian D ID

Medical care 20190501 5

<h4>Background</h4>Spinal mobilization and manipulation are 2 therapies found to be generally safe and effective for chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, the question remains whether they are appropriate for all CLBP patients.<h4>Research design</h4>An expert panel used a well-validated approach, including an evidence synthesis and clinical acumen, to develop and then rate the appropriateness of the use of spinal mobilization and manipulation across an exhaustive list of clinical scenarios whi ...[more]

PMID: 30870390

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND CONTEXT:Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used to benefit patients with chronic low back pain. However, questions remain about their efficacy, dosing, safety, and how these approaches compare with other therapies. PURPOSE:The present study aims to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic low back pain. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING:This is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. OUTCOME MEASURES:The present study measures self-reported pain, function, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. METHODS:We identified studies by searching multiple electronic databases from January 2000 to March 2017, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation or mobilization therapies with sham, no treatment, other active therapies, and multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Where possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project is funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under Award Number U19AT007912. RESULTS:Fifty-one trials were included in the systematic review. Nine trials (1,176 patients) provided sufficient data and were judged similar enough to be pooled for meta-analysis. The standardized mean difference for a reduction of pain was SMD=-0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.09, p=.004; I2=57% after treatment; within seven trials (923 patients), the reduction in disability was SMD=-0.33, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.03, p=.03; I2=78% for manipulation or mobilization compared with other active therapies. Subgroup analyses showed that manipulation significantly reduced pain and disability, compared with other active comparators including exercise and physical therapy (SMD=-0.43, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.00; p=.05, I2=79%; SMD=-0.86, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.45; p<.0001, I2=46%). Mobilization interventions, compared with other active comparators including exercise regimens, significantly reduced pain (SMD=-0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.04; p=.01; I2=0%) but not disability (SMD=-0.10, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.07; p=.25; I2=21%). Studies comparing manipulation or mobilization with sham or no treatment were too few or too heterogeneous to allow for pooling as were studies examining relationships between dose and outcomes. Few studies assessed health-related quality of life. Twenty-six of 51 trials were multimodal studies and narratively described. CONCLUSION:There is moderate-quality evidence that manipulation and mobilization are likely to reduce pain and improve function for patients with chronic low back pain; manipulation appears to produce a larger effect than mobilization. Both therapies appear safe. Multimodal programs may be a promising option.

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.

Dataset Information

Clinical Scenarios for Which Spinal Mobilization and Manipulation Are Considered by an Expert Panel to be Inappropriate (and Appropriate) for Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain.

Publications

Clinical Scenarios for Which Spinal Mobilization and Manipulation Are Considered by an Expert Panel to be Inappropriate (and Appropriate) for Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure