Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Acute Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Chaibi A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8584283 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for the treatment of chronic low back pain.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesMedline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Index to Chiropractic Literature, and trial registries up to 4 May 2018, including reference lists of eligible trials and related reviews.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials examining the effect of spinal manipulation or mobilisation in adults (≥18 years) with chronic low back pain with or without referred pain. Studies that exclusively examined sciatica were excluded, as was grey literature. No restrictions were applied to language or setting.Review methodsTwo reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The effect of SMT was compared with recommended therapies, non-recommended therapies, sham (placebo) SMT, and SMT as an adjuvant therapy. Main outcomes were pain and back specific functional status, examined as mean differences and standardised mean differences (SMD), respectively. Outcomes were examined at 1, 6, and 12 months. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. A random effects model was used and statistical heterogeneity explored.Results47 randomised controlled trials including a total of 9211 participants were identified, who were on average middle aged (35-60 years). Most trials compared SMT with recommended therapies. Moderate quality evidence suggested that SMT has similar effects to other recommended therapies for short term pain relief (mean difference -3.17, 95% confidence interval -7.85 to 1.51) and a small, clinically better improvement in function (SMD -0.25, 95% confidence interval -0.41 to -0.09). High quality evidence suggested that compared with non-recommended therapies SMT results in small, not clinically better effects for short term pain relief (mean difference -7.48, -11.50 to -3.47) and small to moderate clinically better improvement in function (SMD -0.41, -0.67 to -0.15). In general, these results were similar for the intermediate and long term outcomes as were the effects of SMT as an adjuvant therapy. Evidence for sham SMT was low to very low quality; therefore these effects should be considered uncertain. Statistical heterogeneity could not be explained. About half of the studies examined adverse and serious adverse events, but in most of these it was unclear how and whether these events were registered systematically. Most of the observed adverse events were musculoskeletal related, transient in nature, and of mild to moderate severity. One study with a low risk of selection bias and powered to examine risk (n=183) found no increased risk of an adverse event (relative risk 1.24, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.81) or duration of the event (1.13, 0.59 to 2.18) compared with sham SMT. In one study, the Data Safety Monitoring Board judged one serious adverse event to be possibly related to SMT.ConclusionSMT produces similar effects to recommended therapies for chronic low back pain, whereas SMT seems to be better than non-recommended interventions for improvement in function in the short term. Clinicians should inform their patients of the potential risks of adverse events associated with SMT.
| S-EPMC6396088 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Neck pain poses enormous individual and societal costs worldwide. Spinal manipulative therapy and Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug treatment are frequently used despite a lack of compelling efficacy data. This protocol describes a multicentre 4-arm, clinical placebo randomized controlled trial (RCT), investigating the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) versus sham CSMT, ibuprofen, and placebo medicine for acute neck pain. This superiority study will employ parallel groups, featuring a 1:1:1:1 allocation ratio. We will randomize 320 participants equally into four groups: CSMT, sham CSMT, ibuprofen, or placebo medicine. CSMT groups are single-blinded, while the medicine groups are double-blinded. Data will be collected at baseline (Day 0), during treatment and post-treatment. The primary endpoint will assess the difference in mean pain intensity from Day 0 to Day 14 on a numeric rating scale 0-10; the CSMT group is compared to sham CSMT, ibuprofen, and placebo medicine groups, respectively. Secondary endpoints will assess mean pain intensity and mean duration at different time points, and adverse events, blinding success, and treatment satisfaction, including comparison between ibuprofen and placebo medicine. Power calculation is based on a mean neck pain rating of 5 at Day 0, with standard deviation of 1 in all groups. Mean pain reduction at Day 14 is expected to be 60% in the CSMT group, 40% in sham CSMT and ibuprofen groups, and 20% in the placebo medicine group. A linear mixed model will compare the mean values for groups with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. P values below 0.017 will be considered statistically significant. All analyses will be conducted blinded from group allocation. This RCT aims towards the highest research standards possible for manual-therapy RCTs owing to its two placebo arms. If CSMT and/or ibuprofen proves to be effective, it will provide evidence-based support for CSMT and/or ibuprofen for acute neck pain. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05374057. EU Clinical Trials Register: EudraCT number: 2021-005483-21.
| S-EPMC10703251 | 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:BackgroundRecent experimental research has suggested that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) may reduce pain through modulation of the ascending pain signals and/or the central pain-regulating mechanisms. People with persistent neck pain (NP) have also been found to have disturbances in autonomic nervous system (ANS) regulation. A common way to study the ANS is to measure heart rate variability (HRV). It is not known whether deviations in HRV are related to changes in pain perception or to the treatment response to SMT. Commonly, an individual in pain will experience pain reduction when exposed to a second pain stimulus, a mechanism known as conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Patients with persistent pain have been found to have a reduced CPM reaction. It is not known whether this is predictive of treatment response to SMT. The aim of the study is to examine the effects of SMT on HRV and pain. Further, a secondary aim is to test whether a CPM test can be used to predict treatment response in a population of patients with recurrent and persistent NP.Method/designA multicentre randomized controlled clinical trial will be carried out in multidisciplinary primary care clinics. This setting is chosen to minimize bias resulting from patient preference for the treatment modality and provider. The subjects are either self-referred or referred from other health care practitioners locally. The treatment modalities are two well-known interventions for NP; SMT and stretching exercises compared to stretching exercises alone. HRV will be measured using a portable heart monitor. The subjective pain experience will be investigated by assessing pain intensity and the affective quality of pain. CPM will be measured with a standardized cold pressor test. Measurements will be performed three times during a 2-week treatment series.DiscussionThe study will utilize normal clinical procedures, which should aid the transferability and external validity of the results. The study will provide knowledge regarding the underlying mechanisms of the effects of SMT. Furthermore, the study will examine whether a CPM test is predictive of treatment outcome in a population of patients with recurrent and persistent NP.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03576846 . Registered on 3 July 2018.
| S-EPMC6790043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As chronic pain affects 115 million people and costs $600B annually in the US alone, effective noninvasive nonpharmacological remedies are desirable. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and the generalisability of Noxipoint therapy (NT), a novel electrotherapy characterised by site-specific stimulation, intensity-and-submodality-specific settings and a immobilization period, for chronic neck and shoulder pain. Ninety-seven heavily pretreated severe chronic neck/shoulder pain patients were recruited; 34 and 44 patients were randomly allocated to different treatment arms in two patient-and-assessor-blinded, randomised controlled studies. The participants received NT or conventional physical therapy including transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PT-TENS) for three to six 90-minute sessions. In Study One, NT improved chronic pain (-89.6%, Brief Pain Inventory, p?<?0.0001, 95% confidence interval), function (+77.4%, range of motion) and quality of life (+88.1%) at follow-up (from 4 weeks to 5 months), whereas PT-TENS resulted in no significant changes in these parameters. Study Two demonstrated similar advantages of NT over PT-TENS and the generalisability of NT. NT-like treatments in a randomised rat study showed a similar reduction in chronic hypersensitivity (-81%, p?<?0.01) compared with sham treatments. NT substantially reduces chronic neck and shoulder pain, restores function, and improves quality of life in a sustained manner.
| S-EPMC4639784 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAcute low back pain is common and spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a treatment option. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have reported different conclusions about the effectiveness of SMT.ObjectiveTo systematically review studies of the effectiveness and harms of SMT for acute (≤6 weeks) low back pain.Data sourcesSearch of MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and Current Nursing and Allied Health Literature from January 1, 2011, through February 6, 2017, as well as identified systematic reviews and RCTs, for RCTs of adults with low back pain treated in ambulatory settings with SMT compared with sham or alternative treatments, and that measured pain or function outcomes for up to 6 weeks. Observational studies were included to assess harms.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was done in duplicate. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Risk of Bias tool. This tool has 11 items in the following domains: randomization, concealment, baseline differences, blinding (patient), blinding (care provider [care provider is a specific quality metric used by the CBN Risk of Bias tool]), blinding (outcome), co-interventions, compliance, dropouts, timing, and intention to treat. Prior research has shown the CBN Risk of Bias tool identifies studies at an increased risk of bias using a threshold of 5 or 6 as a summary score. The evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria.Main outcomes and measuresPain (measured by either the 100-mm visual analog scale, 11-point numeric rating scale, or other numeric pain scale), function (measured by the 24-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire or Oswestry Disability Index [range, 0-100]), or any harms measured within 6 weeks.FindingsOf 26 eligible RCTs identified, 15 RCTs (1711 patients) provided moderate-quality evidence that SMT has a statistically significant association with improvements in pain (pooled mean improvement in the 100-mm visual analog pain scale, -9.95 [95% CI, -15.6 to -4.3]). Twelve RCTs (1381 patients) produced moderate-quality evidence that SMT has a statistically significant association with improvements in function (pooled mean effect size, -0.39 [95% CI, -0.71 to -0.07]). Heterogeneity was not explained by type of clinician performing SMT, type of manipulation, study quality, or whether SMT was given alone or as part of a package of therapies. No RCT reported any serious adverse event. Minor transient adverse events such as increased pain, muscle stiffness, and headache were reported 50% to 67% of the time in large case series of patients treated with SMT.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with acute low back pain, spinal manipulative therapy was associated with modest improvements in pain and function at up to 6 weeks, with transient minor musculoskeletal harms. However, heterogeneity in study results was large.
| S-EPMC5470352 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A clinical prediction rule to identify patients most likely to respond to spinal manipulation has been published and widely cited but requires further testing for external validity. We performed a pre-planned secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial investigating the efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy in 239 patients presenting to general practice clinics for acute, non-specific, low back pain. Patients were randomised to receive spinal manipulative therapy or placebo 2 to 3 times per week for up to 4 weeks. All patients received general practitioner care (advice and paracetamol). Outcomes were pain and disability measured at 1, 2, 4 and 12 weeks. Status on the clinical prediction rule was measured at baseline. The clinical prediction rule performed no better than chance in identifying patients with acute, non-specific low back pain most likely to respond to spinal manipulative therapy (pain P = 0.805, disability P = 0.600). At 1-week follow-up, the mean difference in effect of spinal manipulative therapy compared to placebo in patients who were rule positive rather than rule negative was 0.3 points less on a 10-point pain scale (95% CI -0.8 to 1.4). The clinical prediction rule proposed by Childs et al. did not generalise to patients presenting to primary care with acute low back pain who received a course of spinal manipulative therapy.
| S-EPMC2443269 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionChronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly prevalent and disabling condition. Identifying subgroups of patients afflicted with CLBP is a current research priority, for which a classification system based on pain mechanisms was proposed. Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is recommended for the management of CLBP. Yet, little data are available regarding its mechanisms of action, making it difficult to match this intervention to the patients who may benefit the most. It was suggested that SMT may influence mechanisms associated with central sensitisation. Therefore, classifying patients with CLBP according to central sensitisation mechanisms may help predict their response to SMT.Methods and analysisThis protocol describes a randomised placebo-controlled trial aiming to examine which variables linked to central sensitisation may help predict the clinical response to SMT in a cohort of patients with CLBP. One hundred patients with chronic primary low back pain will be randomised to receive 12 sessions of SMT or placebo SMT over a 4-week period. Pain intensity and disability will be assessed as primary outcomes after completing the 4-week treatment (primary endpoint), and at 4-week and 12-week follow-ups. Baseline values of two pain questionnaires, lumbar pressure pain thresholds, concentrations of an inflammatory cytokine and expectations of pain relief will be entered as predictors of the response to SMT in a multiple regression model. Changes in these variables after treatment will be used in a second multiple regression model. The reference values of these predictors will be measured from 50 age and sex-matched healthy controls to allow interpretation of values in patients. Mixed analyses of variance will also be conducted to compare the primary outcomes and the predictors between groups (SMT vs placebo) over time (baseline vs post-treatment).Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was granted by the Fundación Jiménez Díaz Clinical Research Ethics Committee.Trial registration numberNCT05162924.
| S-EPMC9923302 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a distinctive modality commonly used by osteopathic physicians to complement their conventional treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. Previous reviews and meta-analyses of spinal manipulation for low back pain have not specifically addressed OMT and generally have focused on spinal manipulation as an alternative to conventional treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.Computerized bibliographic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, OSTMED, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were supplemented with additional database and manual searches of the literature. Six trials, involving eight OMT vs control treatment comparisons, were included because they were randomized controlled trials of OMT that involved blinded assessment of low back pain in ambulatory settings. Data on trial methodology, OMT and control treatments, and low back pain outcomes were abstracted by two independent reviewers. Effect sizes were computed using Cohen's d statistic and meta-analysis results were weighted by the inverse variance of individual comparisons. In addition to the overall meta-analysis, stratified meta-analyses were performed according to control treatment, country where the trial was conducted, and duration of follow-up. Sensitivity analyses were performed for both the overall and stratified meta-analyses.Overall, OMT significantly reduced low back pain (effect size, -0.30; 95% confidence interval, -0.47 - -0.13; P = .001). Stratified analyses demonstrated significant pain reductions in trials of OMT vs active treatment or placebo control and OMT vs no treatment control. There were significant pain reductions with OMT regardless of whether trials were performed in the United Kingdom or the United States. Significant pain reductions were also observed during short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-up.OMT significantly reduces low back pain. The level of pain reduction is greater than expected from placebo effects alone and persists for at least three months. Additional research is warranted to elucidate mechanistically how OMT exerts its effects, to determine if OMT benefits are long lasting, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.
| S-EPMC1208896 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND CONTEXT:Chronic neck pain is a prevalent and disabling condition among older adults. Despite the large burden of neck pain, little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of commonly used treatments. PURPOSE:This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of home exercise and advice (HEA), spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) plus HEA, and supervised rehabilitative exercise (SRE) plus HEA. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING:Cost-effectiveness analysis conducted alongside a randomized clinical trial (RCT) was performed. PATIENT SAMPLE:A total of 241 older adults (?65 years) with chronic mechanical neck pain comprised the patient sample. OUTCOME MEASURES:The outcome measures were direct and indirect costs, neck pain, neck disability, SF-6D-derived quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a 1-year time horizon. METHODS:This work was supported by grants from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (#F32AT007507), National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (#P60AR062799), and Health Resources and Services Administration (#R18HP01425). The RCT is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT00269308). A societal perspective was adopted for the primary analysis. A healthcare perspective was adopted as a sensitivity analysis. Cost-effectivenesswas a secondary aim of the RCT which was not powered for differences in costs or QALYs. Differences in costs and clinical outcomes were estimated using generalized estimating equations and linear mixed models, respectively. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were calculated to assess the uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness estimates. RESULTS:Total costs for SMT+HEA were 5% lower than HEA (mean difference: -$111; 95% confidence interval [CI] -$1,354 to $899) and 47% lower than SRE+HEA (mean difference: -$1,932; 95% CI -$2,796 to -$1,097). SMT+HEA also resulted in a greater reduction of neck pain over the year relative to HEA (0.57; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.92) and SRE+HEA (0.41; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.76). Differences in disability and QALYs favored SMT+HEA. The probability that adding SMT to HEA is cost-effective at willingness to pay thresholds of $50,000 to $200,000 per QALY gained ranges from 0.75 to 0.81. If adopting a health-care perspective, costs for SMT+HEA were 66% higher than HEA (mean difference: $515; 95% CI $225 to $1,094), resulting in an ICER of $55,975 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION:On average, SMT+HEA resulted in better clinical outcomes and lower total societal costs relative to SRE+HEA and HEA alone, with a 0.75 to 0.81 probability of cost-effectiveness for willingness to pay thresholds of $50,000 to $200,000 per QALY.
| S-EPMC5106317 | biostudies-literature