Comparison of short-term response to two spinal manipulation techniques for patients with low back pain in a military beneficiary population. A randomized clinical trial comparing chiropractic adjustments to muscle relaxants for subacute low back pain. An open controlled assessment of osteopathic manipulation in nonspecific low-back pain. Comparison of the effectiveness of three manual physical therapy techniques in a subgroup of patients with low back pain who satisfy a clinical prediction rule: a randomized clinical trial. A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain most likely to benefit from spinal manipulation: a validation study. A comparison of physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, and provision of an educational booklet for the treatment of patients with low back pain. Acute low back pain in industry. A controlled prospective study with special reference to therapy and confounding factors. Back pain: a randomized clinical trial of rotational manipulation of the trunk. One-year follow-up comparison of the cost and effectiveness of chiropractic and physiotherapy as primary management for back pain. Subgroup analysis, recurrence, and additional health care utilization. Conservative treatment in patients sick-listed for acute low-back pain: a prospective randomised study with 12 months' follow-up. Assessment of diclofenac or spinal manipulative therapy, or both, in addition to recommended first-line treatment for acute low back pain: a randomised controlled trial. The Hmax/Mmax ratio as an outcome measure for acute low back pain. Acute low back pain. Comparison of two conservative treatment approaches. A randomised controlled trial of spinal manipulative therapy in acute low back pain. Identifying subgroups of patients with acute/subacute "nonspecific" low back pain: results of a randomized clinical trial. Manipulative therapy and clinical prediction criteria in treatment of acute nonspecific low back pain.
To determine whether military health care beneficiaries with low back pain (LBP) who are likely to respond successfully to spinal manipulation experience a difference in short-term clinical outcomes based on the manipulation technique that is used.
                Sixty patients with LBP identified as likely responders to manipulation underwent a standardized clinical examination and were randomized to receive a lumbopelvic (LP) or lumbar neutral gap (NG) manipulation technique. Outcome measures were a numeric pain rating scale and the modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire.
                Both the LP and NG groups experienced statistically significant reductions in pain and disability at 48 hours postmanipulation. The improvements seen in each group were small because of the short follow-up. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences in pain or disability between the two groups.
                The two manipulation techniques used in this study were equally effective at reducing pain and disability when compared at 48 hours posttreatment. Clinicians may employ either technique for the treatment of LBP and can expect similar outcomes in those who satisfy the clinical prediction rule (CPR). Further research is required to determine whether differences exist at longer-term follow-up periods, after multiple treatment sessions, or in different clinical populations. The adult lifetime incidence for low back pain is 75% to 85% in the United States. Investigating appropriate care has proven difficult, since, in general, acute pain subsides spontaneously and chronic pain is resistant to intervention. Subacute back pain has been rarely studied.
                To compare the relative efficacy of chiropractic adjustments with muscle relaxants and placebo/sham for subacute low back pain.
                A randomized, double-blind clinical trial.
                Subjects (N = 192) experiencing low back pain of 2 to 6 weeks' duration were randomly allocated to 3 groups with interventions applied over 2 weeks. Interventions were either chiropractic adjustments with placebo medicine, muscle relaxants with sham adjustments, or placebo medicine with sham adjustments. Visual Analog Scale for Pain, Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, and Modified Zung Depression Scale were assessed at baseline, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks. Schober's flexibility test, acetaminophen usage, and Global Impression of Severity Scale (GIS), a physician's clinical impression used as a secondary outcome, were assessed at baseline and 2 weeks.
                Baseline values, except GIS, were similar for all groups. When all subjects completing the protocol were combined (N = 146), the data revealed pain, disability, depression, and GIS decreased significantly (P <.0001); lumbar flexibility did not change. Statistical differences across groups were seen for pain, a primary outcome, (chiropractic group improved more than control group) and GIS (chiropractic group improved more than other groups). No significant differences were seen for disability, depression, flexibility, or acetaminophen usage across groups.
                Chiropractic was more beneficial than placebo in reducing pain and more beneficial than either placebo or muscle relaxants in reducing GIS. An open controlled pilot trial on nonspecific low-back pain sufferers demonstrated responsiveness to osteopathic manipulation of some patients presenting with pain durations of 14 to 28 days. No response was demonstrated in those with shorter episodes at presentation. The advantage to manipulated patients was maximal between 1 and 2 weeks after commencing treatment, but was not discernable after 4 weeks. The demonstration of a similar responsive stratum by other investigators, with both teams totally unaware of each other's work during data collection, suggests a high degree of reliability for this finding. Randomized clinical trial.
                The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to examine the generalizability of 3 different manual therapy techniques in a patient population with low back pain that satisfy a clinical prediction rule (CPR).
                Recently a CPR that identifies patients with LBP who are likely to respond rapidly and dramatically to thrust manipulation has been developed and validated. The generalizability of the CPR requires further investigation.
                A total of 112 patients were enrolled in the trial and provided demographic information and completed a number of self-report questionnaires including the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) at baseline, 1-week, 4-weeks, and 6-months. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 of the 3 manual therapy techniques for 2 consecutive treatment sessions followed by exercise regimen for an additional 3 sessions. We examined the primary aim using a linear mixed model for repeated measures, using the ODQ and NPRS as dependent variables. The hypothesis of interest was the group by time interaction, which was further explored with pair-wise comparisons of the estimated marginal means.
                There was a significant group x time interaction for the ODQ (P < 0.001) and NPRS scores (P = 0.001). Pair-wise comparisons revealed no differences between the supine thrust manipulation and side-lying thrust manipulation at any follow-up period. Significant differences in the ODQ and NPRS existed at each follow-up between the thrust manipulation and the nonthrust manipulation groups at 1-week and 4-weeks. There was also a significant difference in ODQ scores at 6-months in favor of the thrust groups.
                The results of the study support the generalizability of the CPR to another thrust manipulation technique, but not to the nonthrust manipulation technique that was used in this study. In general, our results also provided support that the CPR can be generalized to different settings from which it was derived and validated. However, additional research is needed to examine this issue. Conflicting evidence exists about the effectiveness of spinal manipulation.
                To validate a manipulation clinical prediction rule.
                Multicenter randomized, controlled trial.
                Physical therapy clinics.
                131 consecutive patients with low back pain, 18 to 60 years of age, who were referred to physical therapy.
                Patients were randomly assigned to receive manipulation plus exercise or exercise alone by a physical therapist for 4 weeks.
                Patients were examined according to the clinical prediction rule criteria (symptom duration, symptom location, fear-avoidance beliefs, lumbar mobility, and hip rotation range of motion). Disability and pain at 1 and 4 weeks and 6 months were assessed.
                Outcome from spinal manipulation depends on a patient's status on the prediction rule. Treatment effects are greatest for the subgroup of patients who were positive on the rule (at least 4 of 5 criteria met); health care utilization among this subgroup was decreased at 6 months. Compared with patients who were negative on the rule and received exercise, the odds of a successful outcome among patients who were positive on the rule and received manipulation were 60.8 (95% CI, 5.2 to 704.7). The odds were 2.4 (CI, 0.83 to 6.9) among patients who were negative on the rule and received manipulation and 1.0 (CI, 0.28 to 3.6) among patients who were positive on the rule and received exercise. A patient who was positive on the rule and received manipulation has a 92% chance of a successful outcome, with an associated number needed to treat for benefit at 4 weeks of 1.9 (CI, 1.4 to 3.5).
                The response rate for the 6-month follow-up resulted in inadequate power to detect statistically significant differences for some comparisons.
                The spinal manipulation clinical prediction rule can be used to improve decision making for patients with low back pain. There are few data on the relative effectiveness and costs of treatments for low back pain. We randomly assigned 321 adults with low back pain that persisted for seven days after a primary care visit to the McKenzie method of physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, or a minimal intervention (provision of an educational booklet). Patients with sciatica were excluded. Physical therapy or chiropractic manipulation was provided for one month (the number of visits was determined by the practitioner but was limited to a maximum of nine); patients were followed for a total of two years. The bothersomeness of symptoms was measured on an 11-point scale, and the level of dysfunction was measured on the 24-point Roland Disability Scale.
                After adjustment for base-line differences, the chiropractic group had less severe symptoms than the booklet group at four weeks (P=0.02), and there was a trend toward less severe symptoms in the physical therapy group (P=0.06). However, these differences were small and not significant after transformations of the data to adjust for their non-normal distribution. Differences in the extent of dysfunction among the groups were small and approached significance only at one year, with greater dysfunction in the booklet group than in the other two groups (P=0.05). For all outcomes, there were no significant differences between the physical-therapy and chiropractic groups and no significant differences among the groups in the numbers of days of reduced activity or missed work or in recurrences of back pain. About 75 percent of the subjects in the therapy groups rated their care as very good or excellent, as compared with about 30 percent of the subjects in the booklet group (P<0.001). Over a two-year period, the mean costs of care were $437 for the physical-therapy group, $429 for the chiropractic group, and $153 for the booklet group.
                For patients with low back pain, the McKenzie method of physical therapy and chiropractic manipulation had similar effects and costs, and patients receiving these treatments had only marginally better outcomes than those receiving the minimal intervention of an educational booklet. Whether the limited benefits of these treatments are worth the additional costs is open to question. nan nan A randomized trial was conducted in which patients with back and neck pain, visiting a general practitioner, were allocated to chiropractic or physiotherapy.
                To compare outcome and costs of chiropractic and physiotherapy as primary treatment for patients with back and neck pain, with special reference to subgroups, recurrence rate, and additional health care use at follow-up evaluation 12 months after treatment.
                Earlier studies on the effect of spinal manipulation have shown inconsistent results. Mostly they include only short-term follow-up periods, and few cost-effectiveness analyses have been made.
                A group of 323 patients aged 18-60 years who had no contraindications to manipulation and who had not been treated within the previous month were included. Outcome measures were changes in Oswestry scores, pain intensity, and general health; recurrence rate; and direct and indirect costs.
                No differences were detected in health improvement, costs, or recurrence rate between the two groups. According to Oswestry score, chiropractic was more favorable for patients with a current pain episode of less than 1 week (5%) and physiotherapy for patients with a current pain episode of greater than 1 month (6.8%). Nearly 60% of the patients reported two or more recurrences. More patients in the chiropractic group (59%) than in the physiotherapy group (41%) sought additional health care. Costs varied considerably among individuals and subgroups; the direct costs were lower for physiotherapy in a few subgroups.
                Effectiveness and costs of chiropractic or physiotherapy as primary treatment were similar for the total population, but some differences were seen according to subgroups. Back problems often recurred, and additional health care was common. Implications of the result are that treatment policy and clinical decision models must consider subgroups and that the problem often is recurrent. Models must be implemented and tested. We evaluated three different conservative treatment methods for acute low-back pain patients in groups following a manual therapy programme, an intensive training programme, or a general practitioner programme, the latter serving as the control group. Patients aged 19-64 years on sick leave for low-back pain with or without sciatica were included in a prospective randomised study evaluating outcomes such as impairment, pain, functional disability, socio-economic disability and satisfaction with the treatment or explanations. Evaluation by unbiased observers was performed at 1, 3 and 12 months. The three treatment groups were comparable at baseline. With regard to satisfaction, the patients in the manual therapy programme and those in the intensive training programme were more satisfied with the treatment than those in the general practitioner programme at all follow-ups. With regard to the explanations of current low-back pain episodes, the patients in the manual therapy programme were more satisfied than those in the general practitioner programme at all follow-ups. The manual therapy programme group were also more satisfied with the explanations than those in the intensive training programme at the 1-month follow-up. However, no differences were revealed between the groups with respect to outcomes on measures of impairment, pain, functional disability or socioeconomic disability. All three study groups showed rapid improvement. After 1 month a significant improvement was noted in all outcome values compared with the values on entry to the study. Within the limitations discussed in our study, it is concluded that (1) patients sick listed with acute low-back pain, with or without sciatica, will be significantly improved after 1 month regardless of conservative treatment programme; (2) they will be more satisfied with the treatment if they are referred to a manual treatment programme or a training treatment programme; (3) they will be more satisfied with the explanations of the acute low-back problem if they are referred to one of the above groups, especially the manual treatment group; (4) they will not show any other differences with respect to subjective and objective variables, either at short-term or at long-term follow-ups. We aimed to investigate whether the addition of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or spinal manipulative therapy, or both, would result in faster recovery for patients with acute low back pain receiving recommended first-line care.
                240 patients with acute low back pain who had seen their general practitioner and had been given advice and paracetamol were randomly allocated to one of four groups in our community-based study: diclofenac 50 mg twice daily and placebo manipulative therapy (n=60); spinal manipulative therapy and placebo drug (n=60); diclofenac 50 mg twice daily and spinal manipulative therapy (n=60); or double placebo (n=60). The primary outcome was days to recovery from pain assessed by survival curves (log-rank test) in an intention-to-treat analysis. This trial was registered with the Australian Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN012605000036617.
                Neither diclofenac nor spinal manipulative therapy appreciably reduced the number of days until recovery compared with placebo drug or placebo manipulative therapy (diclofenac hazard ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.84-1.42, p=0.516; spinal manipulative therapy hazard ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.77-1.31, p=0.955). 237 patients (99%) either recovered or were censored 12 weeks after randomisation. 22 patients had possible adverse reactions including gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness, and heart palpitations. Half of these patients were in the active diclofenac group, the other half were taking placebo. One patient taking active diclofenac had a suspected hypersensitivity reaction and ceased treatment.
                Patients with acute low back pain receiving recommended first-line care do not recover more quickly with the addition of diclofenac or spinal manipulative therapy. To evaluate the use of the Hmax/Mmax (H/M) ratio as an outcome measure for acute low back pain and to determine the change of this ratio in acute low back pain patients treated with spinal manipulation.
                Randomized clinical trial.
                Chiropractic college teaching clinic.
                Thirty-six patients with acute low back pain (pain of less than 2 wk duration) were referred by clinicians of the teaching clinic. Eligibility criteria for inclusion into the study consisted of the following: a score of eight or more on the Oswestry questionnaire, 33 mm or greater on a 100-mm visual analog scale, no involvement in litigation related to the low back pain complaint, patient not pregnant and no physical or electrodiagnostic signs of nerve root entrapment.
                The patients were randomly assigned to either a treatment or control group. The treatment group (n = 17) received treatment deemed appropriate by the clinician as long as it included a side-lying manipulation to the appropriate level. The control group (n = 19) received detuned ultrasound, application of a cold pack and 15-30 sec of very gentle soft tissue massage. Patients were treated three to five times over a period of 10 days and were subsequently reevaluated.
                The Hmax/Mmax ratio was calculated from the results of electrodiagnostic testing of the posterior tibial nerve. Extension/flexion ratio of the trunk musculature, Oswestry score and Visual Analog Scale score were also measured.
                The mean difference between H/M ratios pre- and postintervention for the group treated by chiropractic methods was -0.101 on the left and -0.117 on the right. The mean difference for the control group was 0.038 on the left and 0.036 on the right. Although not statistically significant, trends suggest that at the time of final assessment, the group receiving chiropractic care had improved more than the control group.
                The H/M ratio was found to be within normal limits in subjects with acute low back pain. The H/M ratio showed greater change in the group which received spinal manipulation, but the change was subtle. The results indicate that the H/M ratio may be of limited value in clinical practice. In a controlled clinical trial, we allocated 48 subjects with acute low back pain but without neurological signs, at random to two treatment groups. The conservative treatments compared were passive mobilisation and manipulation of the lumbar spine and a regimen of microwave diathermy, isometric abdominal exercises and ergonomic instructions. The duration of low back pain symptoms was significantly shorter for subjects receiving mobilisation and manipulation; they also achieved symptom-free status with fewer treatment sessions. While the duration of symptoms before first treatment, the treatment administered, and the pretest forward flexion movement indices accounted for 44% of the variance in the duration of symptoms, a stepwise multiple regression analysis showed that treatment is the most significant factor in predicting the length of time before a subject achieves symptom-free status. To determine whether treatment with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) administered in addition to standard care is associated with clinically relevant early reductions in pain and analgesic consumption.
                104 patients with acute low back pain were randomly assigned to SMT in addition to standard care (n = 52) or standard care alone (n = 52). Standard care consisted of general advice and paracetamol, diclofenac or dihydrocodeine as required. Other analgesic drugs or non-pharmacological treatments were not allowed. Primary outcomes were pain intensity assessed on the 11-point box scale (BS-11) and analgesic use based on diclofenac equivalence doses during days 1-14. An extended follow-up was performed at 6 months.
                Pain reductions were similar in experimental and control groups, with the lower limit of the 95% CI excluding a relevant benefit of SMT (difference 0.5 on the BS-11, 95% CI -0.2 to 1.2, p = 0.13). Analgesic consumptions were also similar (difference -18 mg diclofenac equivalents, 95% CI -43 mg to 7 mg, p = 0.17), with small initial differences diminishing over time. There were no differences between groups in any of the secondary outcomes and stratified analyses provided no evidence for potential benefits of SMT in specific patient groups. The extended follow-up showed similar patterns.
                SMT is unlikely to result in relevant early pain reduction in patients with acute low back pain. Randomized clinical trial.
                Compare outcomes of patients with low back pain receiving treatments matched or unmatched to their subgrouping based on initial clinical presentation.
                Patients with "nonspecific" low back pain are often viewed as a homogeneous group, equally likely to respond to any particular intervention. Others have proposed methods for subgrouping patients as a means for determining the treatment most likely to benefit patients with particular characteristics.
                Patients with low back pain of less than 90 days' duration referred to physical therapy were examined before treatment and classified into one of three subgroups based on the type of treatment believed most likely to benefit the patient (manipulation, stabilization exercise, or specific exercise). Patients were randomly assigned to receive manipulation, stabilization exercises, or specific exercise treatment during a 4-week treatment period. Disability was assessed in the short-term (4 weeks) and long-term (1 year) using the Oswestry. Comparisons were made between patients receiving treatment matched to their subgroup, versus those receiving unmatched treatment.
                A total of 123 patients participated (mean age, 37.7 +/- 10.7 years; 45% female). Patients receiving matched treatments experienced greater short- and long-term reductions in disability than those receiving unmatched treatments. After 4 weeks, the difference favoring the matched treatment group was 6.6 Oswestry points (95% CI, 0.70-12.5), and at long-term follow-up the difference was 8.3 points (95% CI, 2.5-14.1). Compliers-only analysis of long-term outcomes yielded a similar result.
                Nonspecific low back pain should not be viewed as a homogenous condition. Outcomes can be improved when subgrouping is used to guide treatment decision-making. Manipulative therapy as part of a multidimensional approach may be more effective than standard physical therapy in treating Acute Nonspecific Low Back Pain. 64 participants, 29 women and 35 men, with Acute Nonspecific Low Back Pain and a mean age of 40 yr. (SD=9.6) were randomly assigned to two groups: an experimental group (manipulative therapy plus physical therapy) and a control group (only physical therapy). A multicentre, nonblinded, randomised clinical trial was conducted. Pain relief was the main performance criteria measured together with secondary criteria which included functional status and mobility of the lower back. Fritz, Childs, and Flynn's clinical prediction rule--a duration of symptoms less than 16 days, no pain distal of the knee--was used to analyse the results. In combination with an age >35 years, results showed a statistical significant effect for disability, but no statistically significant benefit of additional manipulative therapy over physical therapy found for pain and mobility within 4 treatments. Controlled for the applied clinical prediction rule, there were statistically significant interaction effects with low effect size for disability and sex, but no significant effects were found for pain of mobility.
SMT is no more effective in participants with acute low-back pain than inert interventions, sham SMT, or when added to another intervention. SMT also appears to be no better than other recommended therapies. Our evaluation is limited by the small number of studies per comparison, outcome, and time interval. Therefore, future research is likely to have an important impact on these estimates. The decision to refer patients for SMT should be based upon costs, preferences of the patients and providers, and relative safety of SMT compared to other treatment options. Future RCTs should examine specific subgroups and include an economic evaluation.