The safety of spinal manipulative therapy in children under 10?years: a rapid review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Corso M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7041232 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The safety of spinal manipulative therapy in children under 10 years: a rapid review.
Corso Melissa M Cancelliere Carol C Mior Silvano S Taylor-Vaisey Anne A Côté Pierre P
Chiropractic & manual therapies 20200225 1
<h4>Introduction</h4>The safety of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in children is controversial. We were mandated by the College of Chiropractors of British Columbia to review the evidence on this issue.<h4>Objectives</h4>We conducted a rapid review of the safety of SMT in children (< 10 years). We aimed to: 1) describe adverse events; 2) report the incidence of adverse events; and 3) determine whether SMT increases the risk of adverse events compared to other interventions.<h4>Evidence review ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionIn individuals having low back pain, the application of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) has been shown to reduce spinal stiffness in those who report improvements in post-SMT disability. The underlying mechanism for this rapid change in stiffness is not understood presently. As clinicians and patients may benefit from a better understanding of this mechanism in terms of optimizing care delivery, the objective of this scoping review of current literature was to identify if potential mechanisms that explain this clinical response have been previously described or could be elucidated from existing data.MethodsThree literature databases were systematically searched (MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PubMed). Our search terms included subject headings and keywords relevant to SMT, spinal stiffness, lumbar spine, and mechanism. Inclusion criteria for candidate studies were publication in English, quantification of lumbar spinal stiffness before and after SMT, and publication between January 2000 and June 2019.ResultsThe search identified 1931 articles. Of these studies, 10 were included following the application of the inclusion criteria. From these articles, 7 themes were identified with respect to potential mechanisms described or derived from data: 1) change in muscle activity; 2) increase in mobility; 3) decrease in pain; 4) increase in pressure pain threshold; 5) change in spinal tissue behavior; 6) change in the central nervous system or reflex pathways; and 7) correction of a vertebral dysfunction.ConclusionsThis scoping review identified 7 themes put forward by authors to explain changes in spinal stiffness following SMT. Unfortunately, none of the studies provided data which would support the promotion of one theme over another. As a result, this review suggests a need to develop a theoretical framework to explain rapid biomechanical changes following SMT to guide and prioritize future investigations in this important clinical area.
| S-EPMC7087370 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is widely used by manual therapists to manage spinal complaints. Notwithstanding the perceived relative safety of SMT, instances of severe thoracic adverse events (AE) have been documented. An evidence synthesis is required to understand the nature, severity and characteristics of thoracic AE following all SMT. The primary objective of this study was to report thoracic AE following SMT and secondly to report patient characteristics to inform further research for safe practice. Methods: A systematic review and data synthesis were conducted according to a registered protocol (PROSPERO CRD42019123140). A sensitive topic-based search strategy for key databases, gray literature and registers used study population terms and keywords, to search to 12/6/19. Two reviewers were involved at each stage. Using the Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine (CEBM) the level evidence was evaluated with grade presented for each AE. Results were reported in the context of overall quality. Results: From 1013 studies identified from searches, 19 studies (15 single case studies and 4 case series) reporting 21 unique thoracic AE involving the spinal cord tissues [nonvascular (n = 7), vascular (n = 6)], pneumothorax or hemothorax (n = 3), fracture (n = 3), esophageal rupture (n = 1), rupture of thoracic aorta (n = 1), partial pancreatic transection (n = 1). Reported outcomes included fully recovery (n = 8), permanent neurological deficit (n = 5), and death (n = 4). Conclusion: Although causality cannot be confirmed, serious thoracic AE to include permanent neurological deficit and death have been reported following SMT. Findings highlight the importance of clinical reasoning, including pre-thrust examination, as part of best and safe practice for SMT.
| S-EPMC7733904 | biostudies-literature
Project description:UnlabelledBackgroundAlthough there is evidence that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) can reduce pain, the mechanisms involved are not well established. There is a need to review the scientific literature to establish the evidence-base for the reduction of pain following SMT.ObjectivesTo determine if SMT can reduce experimentally induced pain, and if so, if the effect is i) only at the level of the treated spinal segment, ii) broader but in the same general region as SMT is performed, or iii) systemic.DesignA systematic critical literature review.MethodsA systematic search was performed for experimental studies on healthy volunteers and people without chronic syndromes, in which the immediate effect of SMT was tested. Articles selected were reviewed blindly by two authors. A summary quality score was calculated to indicate level of manuscript quality. Outcome was considered positive if the pain-reducing effect was statistically significant. Separate evidence tables were constructed with information relevant to each research question. Results were interpreted taking into account their manuscript quality.ResultsTwenty-two articles were included, describing 43 experiments, primarily on pain produced by pressure (n?=?27) or temperature (n?=?9). Their quality was generally moderate. A hypoalgesic effect was shown in 19/27 experiments on pressure pain, produced by pressure in 3/9 on pain produced by temperature and in 6/7 tests on pain induced by other measures. Second pain provoked by temperature seems to respond to SMT but not first pain. Most studies revealed a local or regional hypoalgesic effect whereas a systematic effect was unclear. Manipulation of a "restricted motion segment" ("manipulable lesion") seemed not to be essential to analgesia. In relation to outcome, there was no discernible difference between studies with higher vs. lower quality scores.ConclusionsThese results indicate that SMT has a direct local/regional hypoalgesic effect on experimental pain for some types of stimuli. Further research is needed to determine i) if there is also a systemic effect, ii) the exact mechanisms by which SMT attenuates pain, and iii) whether this response is clinically significant.
| S-EPMC3527169 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Low back pain (LBP) is an extremely common cause of pain and disability. While many treatments for acute LBP exist, one of the most widely used, but also most controversial, is spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). This therapy includes both high-velocity manipulative techniques and low-velocity mobilization techniques. The literature regarding the use of SMT is often conflicting, which explains the difference in recommendations regarding SMT in international LBP guidelines. The lack of a clear tissue diagnosis in the majority of patients with LBP combined with the unknown mechanism of action of SMT adds to the difficulty for clinicians in providing SMT in a logical and effective manner. Despite these limitations, the existing literature does provide some assistance to clinicians on when to provide SMT and how to provide it in an optimal way. This review aims to summarize the key research literature investigating SMT in LBP in order to help clinicians make informed decisions about the use of SMT for their patients with acute LBP.
| S-EPMC2716151 | biostudies-other
Project description:Objective: Spinal Manipulative Therapy (SMT) is a routinely applied treatment modality for various musculoskeletal conditions, including low back pain. The precise mechanisms by which SMT elicits its effects are largely unknown, but recent research supports a multi-system explanation recognizing both biomechanical and neurophysiological mechanisms. Although the evaluation of changes in clinical presentation is complex, objective neurophysiological measures of sensitivity to movement (e.g. neurodynamic tests) can be a valuable clinical indicator in evaluating the effects of SMT. This review aimed to synthesize current literature investigating the effects of SMT on lower limb neurodynamics.Method: Eight electronic databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) that applied SMT (against any control) and evaluated lower limb neurodynamics (Passive Straight Leg Raise or Slump Test). Selection and data extraction were conducted by one researcher, reviewed by a second author. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria.Results: Eight RCTs were included, one with high RoB. SMT produced a clinically meaningful (≥6⁰) difference in five of these studies compared with inert control, hamstring stretching, and as an adjunct to conventional physiotherapy, but not compared with standard care, as an adjunct to home exercise and advice, or when comparing different SMT techniques. Findings compared to sham were mixed. When reported, effects tentatively lasted up to 6 weeks post-intervention.Conclusion: Limited evidence suggests SMT-improved range of motion and was more effective than some other interventions. Future research, using standardized Neurodynamic tests, should explore technique types and evaluate longer-term effects.Level of Evidence: 1a.
| S-EPMC7006656 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Background: Acute neck pain is common and usually managed by medication and/or manual therapy. General practitioners (GPs) hesitate to refer to manual therapy due to uncertainty about the effectiveness and adverse events (AEs); (2) Method: To review original randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for acute neck pain. Data extraction was done in duplicate and formulated in tables. Quality and evidence were assessed using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, respectively; (3) Results: Six studies were included. The overall pooled effect size for neck pain was very large -1.37 (95% CI, -2.41, -0.34), favouring treatments with SMT compared with controls. A single study that showed that SMT was statistically significantly better than medicine (30 mg ketorolac im.) one day post-treatment, ((-2.8 (46%) (95% CI, -2.1, -3.4) vs. -1.7 (30%) (95% CI, -1.1, -2.3), respectively; p = 0.02)). Minor transient AEs reported included increased pain and headache, while no serious AEs were reported; (4) Conclusions: SMT alone or in combination with other modalities was effective for patients with acute neck pain. However, limited quantity and quality, pragmatic design, and high heterogeneity limit our findings.
| S-EPMC8584283 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceClaims that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) can improve immune function have increased substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic and may have contributed to the rapid spread of both accurate and inaccurate information (referred to as an infodemic by the World Health Organization).ObjectiveTo identify, appraise, and synthesize the scientific literature on the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT in preventing the development of infectious disease or improving disease-specific outcomes in patients with infectious disease and to examine the association between SMT and selected immunological, endocrine, and other physiological biomarkers.Evidence reviewA literature search of MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Index to Chiropractic Literature, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase was conducted from inception to April 15, 2020. Randomized clinical trials and cohort studies were included. Eligible studies were critically appraised, and evidence with high and acceptable quality was synthesized using the Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis guideline.FindingsA total of 2593 records were retrieved; after exclusions, 50 full-text articles were screened, and 16 articles reporting the findings of 13 studies comprising 795 participants were critically appraised. The literature search found no clinical studies that investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT in preventing the development of infectious disease or improving disease-specific outcomes among patients with infectious disease. Eight articles reporting the results of 6 high- and acceptable-quality RCTs comprising 529 participants investigated the effect of SMT on biomarkers. Spinal manipulative therapy was not associated with changes in lymphocyte levels or physiological markers among patients with low back pain or participants who were asymptomatic compared with sham manipulation, a lecture series, and venipuncture control groups. Spinal manipulative therapy was associated with short-term changes in selected immunological biomarkers among asymptomatic participants compared with sham manipulation, a lecture series, and venipuncture control groups.Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review of 13 studies, no clinical evidence was found to support or refute claims that SMT was efficacious or effective in changing immune system outcomes. Although there were limited preliminary data from basic scientific studies suggesting that SMT may be associated with short-term changes in immunological and endocrine biomarkers, the clinical relevance of these findings is unknown. Given the lack of evidence that SMT is associated with the prevention of infectious diseases or improvements in immune function, further studies should be completed before claims of efficacy or effectiveness are made.
| S-EPMC8044731 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:In children, spinal pain is transitory for most, but up to 20% experience recurrent and bothersome complaints. It is generally acknowledged that interventions may be more effective for subgroups of those affected with low back pain. In this secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial, we tested whether five indicators of a potential increased need for treatment might act as effect modifiers for manipulative therapy in the treatment of spinal pain in children. We hypothesized that the most severely affected children would benefit more from manipulative therapy. Method:This study was a secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial comparing advice, exercises and soft tissue treatment with and without the addition of manipulative therapy in 238 Danish school children aged 9-15 years complaining of spinal pain. A text message system (SMS) and clinical examinations were used for data collection (February 2012 to April 2014).Five pre-specified potential effect modifiers were explored: Number of weeks with spinal pain 6 months prior to inclusion, number of weeks with co-occurring musculoskeletal pain 6 months prior to inclusion, expectations of the clinical course, pain intensity, and quality of life.Outcomes were number of recurrences of spinal pain, number of weeks with pain, length of episodes, global perceived effect, and change in pain intensity. To explore potential effect modification, various types of regression models were used depending on the type of outcome, including interaction tests. Results:We found that children with long duration of spinal pain or co-occurring musculoskeletal pain prior to inclusion as well as low quality of life at baseline tended to benefit from manipulative therapy over non-manipulative therapy, whereas the opposite was seen for children reporting high intensity of pain. However, most results were statistically insignificant. Conclusions:This secondary analysis indicates that children more effected by certain baseline characteristics, but not pain intensity, have a greater chance to benefit from treatment that include manipulative therapy. However, these analyses were both secondary and underpowered, and therefore merely exploratory. The results underline the need for a careful choice of inclusion criteria in future investigations of manipulative therapy in children. Trial registration:NCT01504698; results.
| S-EPMC6902507 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveBeginning in October 2021 in the US and elsewhere, cases of severe pediatric hepatitis of unknown etiology were identified in young children. While the adenovirus and adenovirus-associated virus have emerged as leading etiologic suspects, we attempted to investigate a potential role for SARS-CoV-2 in the development of subsequent liver abnormalities.DesignWe conducted a study utilizing retrospective cohorts of de-identified, aggregated data from the electronic health records of over 100 million patients contributed by US health care organizations.ResultsCompared to propensity-score-matched children with other respiratory infections, children aged 1-10 years with COVID-19 had a higher risk of elevated transaminases (Hazard ratio (HR) (95% Confidence interval (CI)) 2.16 (1.74-2.69)) or total bilirubin (HR (CI) 3.02 (1.91-4.78)), or new diagnoses of liver diseases (HR (CI) 1.67 (1.21-2.30)) from one to six months after infection. Patients with pre-existing liver abnormalities, liver abnormalities surrounding acute infection, younger age (1-4 years), or illness requiring hospitalization all had similarly elevated risk. Children who developed liver abnormalities following COVID-19 had more pre-existing conditions than those who developed abnormalities following other infections.ConclusionThese results indicate that SARS-CoV-2 may prime the patient for subsequent development of liver infections or non-infectious liver diseases. While rare (∼1 in 1,000), SARS-CoV-2 is a risk for subsequent abnormalities in liver function or the diagnosis of diseases of the liver.What is already known on this topicClusters of severe hepatitis in children in 2022 coincident with the increase in COVID-19 infections in children raised the question of the contribution of SARS-CoV-2 to the hepatitis outbreak, though it was soon determined that SARS-CoV-2 was not the primary etiologic agent.What this study addsSARS-CoV-2 may prime the patient for subsequent development of liver infections or non-infectious liver diseases.How this study might affect research practice or policyDespite the mild initial disease in children, there may be longer term consequences of COVID-19, such as liver abnormalities, that warrants further investigation.
| S-EPMC10543044 | biostudies-literature