The effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy procedures for spine pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a guideline-recommended treatment option for spinal pain. The recommendation is based on multiple systematic reviews. However, these reviews fail to consider that clinical effects may depend on SMT "application procedures" (i.e., how and where SMT is applied). Using network meta-analyses, we aim to investigate which SMT "application procedures" have the greatest magnitude of clinical effectiveness for reducing pain and disability, for any spinal complaint, at short-term and long-term follow-up. We will compare application procedural parameters by classifying the thrust application technique and the application site (patient positioning, assisted, vertebral target, region target, Technique name, forces, and vectors, application site selection approach and rationale) against: 1. Waiting list/no treatment; 2. Sham interventions not resembling SMT (e.g., detuned ultrasound); 3. Sham interventions resembling SMT; 4. Other therapies not recommended in clinical practice guidelines; and 5. Other therapies recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Secondly, we will examine how contextual elements, including procedural fidelity (whether the SMT was delivered as planned) and clinical applicability (whether the SMT is similar to clinical practice) of the SMT. METHODS: We will include randomized controlled trials (RCT) found through three search strategies, (i) exploratory, (ii) systematic, and (iii) other known sources. We define SMT as a high-velocity low-amplitude thrust or grade V mobilization. Eligibility is any RCT assessing SMT against any other type of SMT, any other active or sham intervention, or no treatment control on adult patients with pain in any spinal region. The RCTs must report on continuous pain intensity and/or disability outcomes. Two authors will independently review title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. Spinal manipulative therapy techniques will be classified according to the technique application and choice of application sites. We will conduct a network-meta analysis using a frequentist approach and multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses. DISCUSSION: This will be the most extensive review of thrust SMT to date, and will allow us to estimate the importance of different SMT application procedures used in clinical practice and taught across educational settings. Thus, the results are applicable to clinical practice, educational settings, and research studies. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022375836.

Feasibility of testing the effectiveness of a theory-informed intervention to reduce imaging for low back pain: a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: General medical practitioner (GP) recruitment and subsequent data collection in clinical practice are challenging and may limit successful completion of a large-scale trial. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of undertaking a cluster randomised controlled trial to test an intervention to reduce non-indicated imaging for low back pain in general medical practice. METHODS: A pilot cluster randomised controlled trial was performed, with recruitment of GPs and randomisation of GP clinics. All GPs attended a training session and were asked to record low back pain codes in electronic medical records for any low back pain presentations. Intervention group GPs were trained in the use of a patient education booklet to be used during low back pain patient visits. Control group GPs provided usual care. Outcomes for the proposed trial were collected to determine feasibility. GP recruitment was assessed as the proportion of GPs approached who consented to participate. Low back pain imaging outcomes were collected from electronic medical records (counts of patients presenting with low back pain) and from Australian healthcare administrative (Medicare) data (counts of imaging use). GP compliance with study procedures was assessed and qualitative data reported. RESULTS: Thirty-four GP clinics were approached, with four participating (12%). At these clinics, 13/19 (68%) GPs consented to participate, and 10/19 (53%) started the study. Outcome data were collected from medical records for all GPs. Three GPs (30%) withdrew consent to access Medicare data, limiting reporting of imaging outcome measures. Three GPs (30%) self-reported low compliance entering low back pain codes. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot cluster randomised controlled trial demonstrated the feasibility of many aspects of a full-scale effectiveness study, while also identifying a number of challenges that need to be resolved. Recommendations related to GP recruitment, study compliance, data collection, and outcome measures were made to increase the success of a future trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR), Trial ID: ACTRN12619000991112; Registered 11 July 2019, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=376973.

Physical activity promotion in chiropractic: a systematic review of clinician-based surveys.

BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is a global health pandemic. Allied healthcare providers, including chiropractors, are well placed to integrate individual physical activity (PA) promotion into routine care. A previous systematic review identified that approximately 90% of chiropractors held a positive opinion towards healthier patient lifestyles; however, the extent to which chiropractors promote PA to their patients within routine care is unclear. This systematic review aimed to describe chiropractors' attitudes towards and current practice in advising, counselling, discussing, supporting, or recommending PA to patients. METHODS: Five databases were searched from inception to December 2021 for cross-sectional surveys that explored PA promotion by chiropractors in practice. We assessed the risk of bias of the included studies with the 'Risk of Bias in Cross-Sectional Surveys of Attitudes and Practices' tool. Descriptive data were extracted, grouping similar survey questions and responses into emerging categories. Chiropractors' views regarding the perceived importance and/or their preparedness to counsel and provide PA or exercise information are reported. RESULTS: From 661 studies, 15 met the selection criteria. Surveys included 7999 chiropractors primarily from the USA, UK, Australia, and Sweden. All studies were rated as moderate-to-high risk of bias, with methodological weaknesses characterised by inconsistent reporting of missing data, non-representative samples, low response rates (i.e., less than 60%), and unknown validity of survey instruments. Chiropractors frequently recognised the importance of PA promotion, as demonstrated by the proportion of respondents reporting that they: (1) support the importance of providing PA or exercise information and counselling (64% to 100%); (2) are prepared to provide PA or exercise information and/or counselling to patients (91% to 92%,); (3) frequently obtain PA or exercise information from patients (87% to 97%,); 4) frequently discuss PA or exercise and/or provide PA or exercise information to patients (68% to 99%); and 5) frequently provide PA counselling to patients (50% to 81%.). CONCLUSION: A large majority of practising chiropractors actively engage with PA promotion. However, the results should be interpreted with caution owing to the moderate-to-high risk of bias of the included studies. Forthcoming research initiatives should explore unbiased surveys, further PA education and training as well as capitalising on chiropractors' own PA participation.

GLA:D® Back Australia: a mixed methods feasibility study for implementation.

BACKGROUND: Practice-based guidelines recommend patient education and exercise as first-line care for low back pain (LBP); however, these recommendations are not routinely delivered in practice. GLA:D® Back, developed in Denmark to assist clinicians to implement guideline recommendations, offers a structured education and supervised exercise program for people with LBP in addition to a clinical registry to evaluate patient outcomes. In this study we evaluated the feasibility of implementing the GLA:D® Back program in Australia. We considered clinician and patient recruitment and retention, program fidelity, exploring clinicians' and patients' experiences with the program, and participant outcome data collection. METHODS: Clinicians (chiropractors and physiotherapists) were recruited and participated in a 2-day GLA:D® Back training course. Patients were eligible to participate if they had persistent or recurrent LBP. Feasibility domains included the ability to: (1) recruit clinicians to undergo training; (2) recruit and retain patients in the program; (3) observe program fidelity; and (4) perceive barriers and facilitators for GLA:D® Back implementation. We also collected data related to: (5) clinician confidence, attitudes, and behaviour; and (6) patient self-reported outcomes related to pain, disability, and performance tests. RESULTS: Twenty clinicians (8 chiropractors, 12 physiotherapists) participated in the training, with 55% (11/20) offering GLA:D® Back to their patients. Fifty-seven patients were enrolled in the program, with 67% (38/57) attending the final follow-up assessment. Loss to follow up was mainly due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. We observed program fidelity, with clinicians generally delivering the program as intended. Interviews revealed two clinician themes related to: (i) intervention acceptability; and (ii) barriers and facilitators to implementation. Patient interviews revealed themes related to: (i) intervention acceptability; and (ii) program efficacy. At 3 months follow-up, clinicians demonstrated high treatment confidence and biomedical orientation. Patient outcomes trended towards improvement. CONCLUSION: GLA:D® Back implementation in Australia appears feasible based on clinician recruitment, program acceptability and potential benefits for patient outcomes from the small sample of participating clinicians and patients. However, COVID-19 impacted patient recruitment, retention, and data collection. To scale-up GLA:D® Back in private and public settings, further work is warranted to address associated barriers, and to leverage facilitators.

COVID-19: how has a global pandemic changed manual therapy technique education in chiropractic programs around the world?

BACKGROUND: Manual therapy is a cornerstone of chiropractic education, whereby students work towards a level of skill and expertise that is regarded as competent to work within the field of chiropractic. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, chiropractic programs in every region around the world had to make rapid changes to the delivery of manual therapy technique education, however what those changes looked like was unknown. AIMS: The aims of this study were to describe the immediate actions made by chiropractic programs to deliver education for manual therapy techniques and to summarise the experience of academics who teach manual therapy techniques during the initial outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive approach was used to describe the immediate actions made by chiropractic programs to deliver manual therapy technique education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Chiropractic programs were identified from the webpages of the Councils on Chiropractic Education International and the Council on Chiropractic Education - USA. Between May and June 2020, a convenience sample of academics who lead or teach in manual therapy technique in those programs were invited via email to participate in an online survey with open-ended questions. Responses were entered into the NVivo software program and analysed using a reflexive thematic analysis by a qualitative researcher independent to the data collection. RESULTS: Data from 16 academics in 13 separate chiropractic programs revealed five, interconnected themes: Immediate response; Move to online delivery; Impact on learning and teaching; Additional challenges faced by educators; and Ongoing challenges post lockdown. CONCLUSION: This study used a qualitative descriptive approach to describe how some chiropractic programs immediately responded to the initial outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in their teaching of manual therapy techniques. Chiropractic programs around the world provided their students with rapid, innovative learning strategies, in an attempt to maintain high standards of chiropractic education; however, challenges included maintaining student engagement in an online teaching environment, psychomotor skills acquisition and staff workload.

The bench-top accuracy of the VerteTrack spinal stiffness assessment device.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of spinal stiffness by manual palpation in clinical settings has demonstrated both poor accuracy and reliability. More recently, mechanical methods for assessment of spinal stiffness have demonstrated superior accuracy and reliability. However, mechanical methods of spinal stiffness assessment can be expensive, time consuming and/or unsuited to clinical practice. While a new device has been designed to address these issues (VerteTrack), its benchtop performance remains unknown. AIM: To measure the bench-top performance of VerteTrack. METHODS: A series of laboratory-based experiments were conducted in February 2018 to investigate the accuracy (precision and bias) of load and displacement measurements obtained by VerteTrack and then were compared against an appropriate reference standard. Measurements of both multiple-level continuous assessment (multiple spinal levels measured), and single-level assessment (single spinal level measured) were performed on a viscoelastic foam medium (AIREX® balance beam, Switzerland) and the resulting stiffness calculated. RESULTS: VerteTrack demonstrated high precision at all loads and displacements. There was minimal systematic measurement bias identified for applied versus reference load (mean bias = - 0.123 N; 95%CI - 0.182 to 0.428 N, p < .001), and no systematic measurement bias for measured versus reference displacement (mean difference = 0.02 mm; 95%CI - 0.09 to 0.14 mm, p < .001). The magnitude of stiffness obtained during multiple-level continuous assessment was on average 0.25 N/mm (2.79%) less than that for single-level assessment (95%CI - 0.67 to 0.17 N/mm, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: VerteTrack demonstrated high accuracy (high precision, low bias) under bench-top conditions. The difference in stiffness found between multiple versus single spinal levels should be considered in the research context, but is unlikely to be clinically relevant. The results of this study demonstrate that VerteTrack may be suitable for both single and multi-level spinal stiffness measurements in-vivo.