Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low back pain: a clinical perspective.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hancock MJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2716151 | biostudies-other | 2008
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low back pain: a clinical perspective.
Hancock Mark J MJ Maher Christopher G CG Latimer Jane J
The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy 20080101 4
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 tis ...[more]
Similar Datasets
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:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a common disabling condition in older adults which often limits physical function and diminishes quality of life. Two clinical trials in older adults have shown spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) results in similar or small improvements relative to medical care; however, the effectiveness of adding SMT or rehabilitative exercise to home exercise is unclear.MethodsWe conducted a randomized clinical trial assessing the comparative effectiveness of adding SMT or supervised rehabilitative exercise to home exercise in adults 65 or older with sub-acute or chronic LBP. Treatments were provided over 12-weeks and self-report outcomes were collected at 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks. The primary outcome was pain severity. Secondary outcomes included back disability, health status, medication use, satisfaction with care, and global improvement. Linear mixed models were used to analyze outcomes. The primary analysis included longitudinal outcomes in the short (week 4-12) and long-term (week 4-52). An omnibus test assessing differences across all groups over the year was used to control for multiplicity. Secondary analyses included outcomes at each time point and responder analyses. This study was funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration.Results241 participants were randomized and 230 (95%) provided complete primary outcome data. The primary analysis showed group differences in pain over the one-year were small and not statistically significant. Pain severity was reduced by 30 to 40% after treatment in all 3 groups with the largest difference (eight percentage points) favoring SMT and home exercise over home exercise alone. Group differences at other time points ranged from 0 to 6 percentage points with no consistent pattern favoring one treatment. One-year post-treatment pain reductions diminished in all three groups. Secondary self-report outcomes followed a similar pattern with no important group differences, except satisfaction with care, where the two combination groups were consistently superior to home exercise alone.ConclusionsAdding spinal manipulation or supervised rehabilitative exercise to home exercise alone does not appear to improve pain or disability in the short- or long-term for older adults with chronic low back pain, but did enhance satisfaction with care.Trial registrationNCT00269321.
| S-EPMC6518769 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe inflammatory profiles of patients with acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP) patients are distinct. Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) has been shown to modulate the production of nociceptive chemokines differently in these patient cohorts. The present study further investigates the effect(s) of SMT on other inflammatory mediators in the same LBP patient cohorts.MethodsAcute (n = 22) and chronic (n = 25) LBP patients with minimum pain scores of 3 on a 10-point numeric scale, and asymptomatic controls (n = 24) were recruited according to stringent exclusion criteria. Blood samples were obtained at baseline and after 2 weeks during which patients received 6 SMTs in the lumbar or lumbosacral region. The in vitro production of tumor necrosis factor (TNFα), interleukin-1 β (IL-1β), IL-6, IL-2, interferon ɣ (IFNɣ), IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1RA), TNF soluble receptor type 2 (sTNFR2) and IL-10 was determined by specific immunoassays. Parametric as well as non-parametric statistics (PAST 3.18 beta software) was used to determine significance of differences between and within study groups prior and post-SMT. Effect size (ES) estimates were obtained using Cohen's d.ResultsCompared with asymptomatic controls, SMT-related change scores were significant (P = 0.03-0.01) in reducing the production levels of TNFα in both patient cohorts and those of IL-6, IFNɣ and sTNFR2 (P = 0.001-0.02) in patients with chronic LBP. Above-moderate to large ES (d > 0.6-1.4) was observed for these mediators. Compared with respective baselines, a significant post-SMT reduction (P = 0.01) of IL-6 production was detected only in patients with chronic LBP while a significant increase of IL-2 production (P = 0.001 vs. control, and P = 0.004 vs. chronic LBP group) and a large ES (d = 0.87) were observed in patients with acute LBP. Pain and disability scores declined significantly (P < 0.001) in all LBP patients, and were positively correlated (P = 0.03) with IFNɣ and IL-2 levels in the acute LBP cohort.ConclusionThe short course of SMT treatments of non-specific LBP patients resulted in significant albeit limited and diverse alterations in the production of several of the mediators investigated in this study. This exploratory study highlights the potential of SMT to modulate the production of inflammatory components in acute and chronic non-specific LBP patients and suggests a need for further, randomized controlled clinical trials in this area.Trial registrationThis study was prospectively registered April 2012 with Clinical Trials.gov ( #NCT01766141 ). https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S0003ZIL&selectaction=Edit&uid=U0001V74&ts=2&cx=-axvqtg.
| S-EPMC7792327 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Current evidence suggests that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is effective in the treatment of people with low back pain (LBP); however, the corresponding mechanisms are unknown. Hypoalgesia is associated with SMT and is suggestive of specific mechanisms.The primary purpose of this study was to assess the immediate effects of SMT on thermal pain perception in people with LBP. A secondary purpose was to determine whether the resulting hypoalgesia was a local effect and whether psychological influences were associated with changes in pain perception.This study was a randomized controlled trial.A sample of convenience was recruited from community and outpatient clinics.Thirty-six people (10 men, 26 women) currently experiencing LBP participated in the study. The average age of the participants was 32.39 (SD=12.63) years, and the average duration of LBP was 221.79 (SD=365.37) weeks.Baseline demographic and psychological measurements were obtained, followed by quantitative sensory testing to assess temporal summation and Adelta fiber-mediated pain perception. Next, participants were randomly assigned to ride a stationary bicycle, perform low back extension exercises, or receive SMT. Finally, the same quantitative sensory testing protocol was reassessed to determine the immediate effects of each intervention on thermal pain sensitivity.Hypoalgesia to Adelta fiber-mediated pain perception was not observed. Group-dependent hypoalgesia of temporal summation specific to the lumbar innervated region was observed. Pair-wise comparisons indicated significant hypoalgesia in participants who received SMT, but not in those who rode a stationary bicycle or performed low back extension exercises. Psychological factors did not significantly correlate with changes in temporal summation in participants who received SMT.Only immediate effects of SMT were measured, so the authors are unable to comment on whether the inhibition of temporal summation is a lasting effect. Furthermore, the authors are unable to comment on the relationship between their findings and changes in clinical pain.Inhibition of Adelta fiber-mediated pain perception was similar for all groups. However, inhibition of temporal summation was observed only in participants receiving SMT, suggesting a modulation of dorsal horn excitability that was observed primarily in the lumbar innervated area.
| S-EPMC2794479 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcute low back pain is a common condition resulting in pain and disability. Current national and international guidelines advocate general practitioner care including advice and paracetamol (4 g daily in otherwise well adults) as the first line of care for people with acute low back pain. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) are advocated in many guidelines as second line management options for patients with acute low back pain who are not recovering. No studies have explored the role of NSAIDs and/or SMT in addition to first line management for acute low back pain. The primary aim of this study is to investigate if NSAIDs and/or SMT in addition to general practitioner advice and paracetamol results in shorter recovery times for patients with acute low back pain. The secondary aims of the study are to evaluate whether the addition of SMT and/or NSAIDs influences pain, disability and global perceived effect at 1, 2, 4 and 12 weeks after onset of therapy for patients with significant acute low back pain.Methods/designThis paper presents the rationale and design of a randomised controlled trial examining the addition of NSAIDs and/or SMT in 240 people who present to their general practitioner with significant acute low back pain.
| S-EPMC1298305 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives: The long-term goal of our study is to improve the understanding of the biological mechanisms associated with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in low back pain.Methods: This project involved a pilot randomized, blinded clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT03078114) of 3-week SMT in chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP) patients. We recruited 29 participants and randomly assigned them into either a SMT (n = 14) or sham SMT (n = 15) group. Pre- and postintervention, we quantified the effect of SMT on clinical outcomes (Numeric Pain Rating Scale and Oswestry Disability Index) and pressure pain threshold (PPT) at local (lumbar spine), regional (lower extremity), and remote (upper extremity) anatomical sites.Results: We observed a significant main effect for time signifying reduced hypersensitivity (increased PPT) at local (p = .015) and regional (p = .014) locations at 3 weeks. Furthermore, we found significant main effects of time indicating improvements in pain (p < .001) and disability (p = .02) from baseline among all participants regardless of intervention. However, no between-group differences were observed in PPT, clinical pain, or disability between the SMT and sham SMT groups over 3 weeks.Conclusions: After 3 weeks of SMT or sham SMT in CNSLBP patients, we found hypoalgesia at local and remote sites along with improved pain and low back-related disability.Level of Evidence: 1b.
| S-EPMC7006726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this analysis is to report the incremental costs and benefits of different doses of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP).We randomized 400 patients with chronic LBP to receive a dose of 0, 6, 12, or 18 sessions of SMT. Participants were scheduled for 18 visits for 6 weeks and received SMT or light massage control from a doctor of chiropractic. Societal costs in the year after study enrollment were estimated using patient reports of health care use and lost productivity. The main health outcomes were the number of pain-free days and disability-free days. Multiple regression was performed on outcomes and log-transformed cost data.Lost productivity accounts for most societal costs of chronic LBP. Cost of treatment and lost productivity ranged from $3398 for 12 SMT sessions to $3815 for 0 SMT sessions with no statistically significant differences between groups. Baseline patient characteristics related to increase in costs were greater age (P = .03), greater disability (P = .01), lower quality-adjusted life year scores (P = .01), and higher costs in the period preceding enrollment (P < .01). Pain-free and disability-free days were greater for all SMT doses compared with control, but only SMT 12 yielded a statistically significant benefit of 22.9 pain-free days (P = .03) and 19.8 disability-free days (P = .04). No statistically significant group differences in quality-adjusted life years were noted.A dose of 12 SMT sessions yielded a modest benefit in pain-free and disability-free days. Care of chronic LBP with SMT did not increase the costs of treatment plus lost productivity.
| S-EPMC4095804 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn a prior randomized trial, we demonstrated that participants receiving spinal manipulative therapy at a pain-sensitive segment instead of a stiff segment experienced increased mechanical pressure pain thresholds. We hypothesized that the targeted segment mediated this increase through a segment-dependent neurophysiological reflective pathway. Presently, it is not known if this decrease in pain sensitivity is associated with clinical improvement. Therefore, we performed an explorative analysis to examine if changes in experimental pain sensitivity (mechanical and thermal) and lumbar stiffness were further dependent on clinical improvement in disability and patient-reported low back pain.MethodsThis study is a secondary explorative analysis of data from the randomized trial that compared 132 participants with chronic low back pain who received lumbar spinal manipulative therapy applied at either i) the stiffest segment or ii) the segment having the lowest pain threshold (i.e., the most pain-sensitive segment). We collected data at baseline, after the fourth session of spinal manipulation, and at 14-days follow-up. Participants were dichotomized into responders/non-responders using different clinical variables (disability and patient-reported low back pain) with varying threshold values (0, 30, and 50% improvement). Mixed models were used to assess changes in experimental outcomes (stiffness and pain sensitivity). The fixed interaction terms were time, segment allocation, and responder status.ResultsWe observed a significant increase in mechanical pressure pain thresholds for the group, which received spinal manipulative therapy at the most pain-sensitive segment independent of whether they improved clinically or not. Those who received spinal manipulation at the stiffest segment also demonstrated increased mechanical pain sensitivity, but only in the subgroup with clinical improvement. We did not observe any changes in lumbar stiffness.ConclusionOur results suggest the existence of two different mechanistic pathways associated with the spinal manipulation target. i) A decrease of mechanical pain sensitivity independent of clinical outcome (neurophysiological) and ii) a decrease as a reflection of the clinical outcome. Together, these observations may provide a novel framework that improves our understanding of why some respond to spinal manipulative therapy while others do not.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04086667 registered retrospectively September 11th 2019.
| S-EPMC7786943 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Chronic lower back pain (CLBP) is problematic in older veterans. Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is commonly utilized for CLBP in older adults, yet there are few randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating SMT. METHODS:The purpose of the study was to compare the effectiveness of SMT to a sham intervention on pain (Visual Analogue Scale, SF-36 pain subscale), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), and physical function (SF-36 subscale, Timed Up and Go) by performing a randomized placebo-controlled trial at 2 Veteran Affairs Clinics. RESULTS:Older veterans (? 65 years of age) who were naive to chiropractic were recruited. A total of 136 were included in the study with 69 being randomly assigned to SMT and 67 to sham intervention. Patients were treated 2 times per week for 4 weeks assessing outcomes at baseline, 5, and 12 weeks postbaseline. Both groups demonstrated significant decrease in pain and disability at 5 and 12 weeks. At 12 weeks, there was no significant difference in pain and a statistically significant decline in disability scores in the SMT group when compared to the sham intervention group. There were no significant differences in adverse events between the groups. CONCLUSIONS:The SMT did not result in greater improvement in pain when compared to our sham intervention; however, SMT did demonstrate a slightly greater improvement in disability at 12 weeks. The fact that patients in both groups showed improvements suggests the presence of a nonspecific therapeutic effect.
| S-EPMC4252156 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common reasons for seeking medical care. Manual therapy is a common treatment of LBP, yet few studies have directly compared the effectiveness of thrust (spinal manipulation) vs nonthrust (spinal mobilization) techniques. Objective:To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization at reducing pain and disability compared with a placebo control group (sham cold laser) in a cohort of young adults with chronic LBP. Design, Setting, and Participants:This single-blinded (investigator-blinded), placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial with 3 treatment groups was conducted at the Ohio Musculoskeletal and Neurological Institute at Ohio University from June 1, 2013, to August 31, 2017. Of 4903 adult patients assessed for eligibility, 4741 did not meet inclusion criteria, and 162 patients with chronic LBP qualified for randomization to 1 of 3 treatment groups. Recruitment began on June 1, 2013, and the primary completion date was August 31, 2017. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2017, to January 20, 2020. Interventions:Participants received 6 treatment sessions of (1) spinal manipulation, (2) spinal mobilization, or (3) sham cold laser therapy (placebo) during a 3-week period. Main Outcomes and Measures:Coprimary outcome measures were the change from baseline in Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) score over the last 7 days and the change in disability assessed with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater disability) 48 to 72 hours after completion of the 6 treatments. Results:A total of 162 participants (mean [SD] age, 25.0 [6.2] years; 92 women [57%]) with chronic LBP (mean [SD] NPRS score, 4.3 [2.6] on a 1-10 scale, with higher scores indicating greater pain) were randomized. Fifty-four participants were randomized to the spinal manipulation group, 54 to the spinal mobilization group, and 54 to the placebo group. There were no significant group differences for sex, age, body mass index, duration of LBP symptoms, depression, fear avoidance, current pain, average pain over the last 7 days, and self-reported disability. At the primary end point, there was no significant difference in change in pain scores between spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization (0.24 [95% CI, -0.38 to 0.86]; P?=?.45), spinal manipulation and placebo (-0.03 [95% CI, -0.65 to 0.59]; P?=?.92), or spinal mobilization and placebo (-0.26 [95% CI, -0.38 to 0.85]; P?=?.39). There was no significant difference in change in self-reported disability scores between spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization (-1.00 [95% CI, -2.27 to 0.36]; P?=?.14), spinal manipulation and placebo (-0.07 [95% CI, -1.43 to 1.29]; P?=?.92) or spinal mobilization and placebo (0.93 [95% CI, -0.41 to 2.29]; P?=?.17). Conclusions and Relevance:In this randomized clinical trial, neither spinal manipulation nor spinal mobilization appeared to be effective treatments for mild to moderate chronic LBP. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01854892.
| S-EPMC7407093 | biostudies-literature