Temporal Trends and Geographic Variations in the Supply of Clinicians Who Provide Spinal Manipulation to Medicare Beneficiaries: A Serial Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal manipulation (SM) is recommended for first-line treatment of patients with low back pain. Inadequate access to SM may result in inequitable spine care for older US adults, but the supply of clinicians who provide SM under Medicare is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to measure temporal trends and geographic variations in the supply of clinicians who provide SM to Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: Medicare is a US government-administered health insurance program that provides coverage primarily for older adults and people with disabilities. We used a serial cross-sectional design to examine Medicare administrative data from 2007 to 2015 for SM services identified by procedure code. We identified unique providers by National Provider Identifier and distinguished between chiropractors and other specialties by Physician Specialty Code. We calculated supply as the number of providers per 100 000 beneficiaries, stratified by geographic location and year. RESULTS: Of all clinicians who provide SM to Medicare beneficiaries, 97% to 98% are doctors of chiropractic. The geographic supply of doctors of chiropractic providing SM services in 2015 ranged from 20/100 000 in the District of Columbia to 260/100 000 in North Dakota. The supply of other specialists performing the same services ranged from fewer than 1/100 000 in 11 states to 8/100 000 in Colorado. Nationally, the number of Medicare-active chiropractors declined from 47 102 in 2007 to 45 543 in 2015. The count of other clinicians providing SM rose from 700 in 2007 to 1441 in 2015. CONCLUSION: Chiropractors constitute the vast majority of clinicians who bill for SM services to Medicare beneficiaries. The supply of Medicare-active SM providers varies widely by state. The overall supply of SM providers under Medicare is declining, while the supply of nonchiropractors who provide SM is growing.

Moderators of the Effect of Spinal Manipulative Therapy on Pain Relief and Function in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify which participant characteristics moderate the effect of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) on pain and functioning in chronic LBP. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND: The effects of SMT are comparable to other interventions recommended in guidelines for chronic low back pain (LBP); however, it is unclear which patients are more likely to benefit from SMT compared to other therapies. METHODS: IPD were requested from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of SMT in adults with chronic LBP for pain and function compared to various other therapies (stratified by comparison). Potential patient moderators (n = 23) were a priori based on their clinical relevance. We investigated each moderator using a one-stage approach with IPD and investigated this interaction with the intervention for each time point (1, 3, 6, and 12 months). RESULTS: We received IPD from 21 of 46 RCTs (n = 4223). The majority (12 RCTs, n = 2249) compared SMT to recommended interventions. The duration of LBP, baseline pain (confirmatory), smoking, and previous exposure to SMT (exploratory) had a small moderating effect across outcomes and follow-up points; these estimates did not represent minimally relevant differences in effects; for example, patients with <1 year of LBP demonstrated more positive point estimates for SMT versus recommended therapy for the outcome pain (mean differences ranged from 4.97 (95% confidence interval, CI: -3.20 to 13.13) at 3 months, 10.76 (95% CI: 1.06 to 20.47) at 6 months to 5.26 (95% CI: -2.92 to 13.44) at 12 months in patients with over a year LBP. No other moderators demonstrated a consistent pattern across time and outcomes. Few moderator analyses were conducted for the other comparisons because of too few data. CONCLUSION: We did not identify any moderators that enable clinicians to identify which patients are likely to benefit more from SMT compared to other treatments.Level of Evidence: 2.

The clinical efficacy of Shi-style lumbar manipulations for symptomatic degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: protocol for a randomized, blinded, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) presents spinal problems in daily life. Shi-style lumbar manipulation (SLM), as an alternative treatment for DLS, is popular in China. SLM is based on the channels and collaterals theory of the traditional Chinese medicine, in which the symptoms are believed to result from channel blockage and joint displacement. However, there is no solid evidence to show the effect of the SLM on the management of symptomatic DLS. METHODS/DESIGN: We conduct a prospective randomized, blinded, controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of SLM with mechanical lumbar traction and explore whether it could be a potential therapy for symptomatic DLS. A total of 60 patients with symptomatic DLS will be enrolled and treated with the SLM or mechanical lumbar traction for 2 weeks. VAS score and SF-36 questionnaire were assessed at baseline and at 2, 4, 12, and 24 weeks. Any signs of acute adverse reactions, such as lower limb paralysis or syndrome of cauda equina, will be recorded at each visit during treatment. DISCUSSION: Although the SLM has been used in China for many years to treat symptomatic DLS, there is a lack of consensus about its effectiveness. This trial will provide convincing evidence about the effect of SLM on symptomatic DLS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on 6 January 2019; the trial number is ChiCTR1900020519 .

Effects of spinal manipulative therapy biomechanical parameters on clinical and biomechanical outcomes of participants with chronic thoracic pain: a randomized controlled experimental trial.

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) includes biomechanical parameters that vary between clinicians, but for which the influence on the therapy clinical effects is unknown. This parallel-randomized controlled trial aimed to investigate the effect of SMT biomechanical parameters on the outcomes of participants with chronic thoracic pain (CTP) following three treatment sessions (follow-up at one week). METHODS: Adults reporting CTP (pain within the evaluated region [T6 to T8] for ≥3 months) were asked to participate in a four-session trial. At the first session, participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups (different SMT doses) or the control group (no SMT). During the first three sessions, one SMT was executed at T7 for the experimental groups, while a 5-min rest was provided to the control group. SMT were delivered through an apparatus using a servo-controlled linear actuator motor and doses consisted of peak forces, impulse durations, and rates of force application set at 135 N, 125 ms and 920 N/s (group 1), at 250 N, 125 ms and 1840 N/s (group 2), and at 250 N, 250 ms, 920 N/s (group 3). Disability and pain intensity were evaluated at each session (primary outcomes). Spinal stiffness was assessed before-and-after each SMT/rest and at follow-up. Tenderness and muscle activity were evaluated during each spinal stiffness trial. Improvement was evaluated at follow-up. Differences in outcomes between groups and sessions were evaluated as well as factors associated with clinical improvement. RESULTS: Eighty-one participants were recruited and 17, 20, 20 participants of the three experimental groups and 18 of the control group completed the protocol. In exception of higher pain intensity at baseline in the control group, no between-group differences were found for any of the outcomes. A decrease in pain intensity, disability, spinal stiffness, and tenderness during spinal stiffness were observed (p-values< 0.05). At follow-up, 24% of participants were classified as 'improved'. Predictors of improvement were a greater decrease in pain intensity and in tenderness (p-values< 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In an experimental setting, the delivery of a SMT does not lead to significantly different outcomes in participants with CTP than a control condition (spinal stiffness assessment). Studies are still required to explore the mechanisms underlying SMT effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03063177 , registered 24 February 2017).

Effectiveness of Kinesio Taping in Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of Kinesio Taping (KT) in patients with nonspecific low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: KT is widely used in patients with low back pain. METHODS: We conducted searches on PubMed, EMBASE, PEDro, SciELO, and LILACS up to February 26, 2018. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with chronic nonspecific low back pain that compared KT to no intervention or placebo as well as RCTs that compared KT combined with exercise against exercise alone. The methodological quality and statistical reporting of the eligible trials were measured by the 11-item PEDro scale. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE classification. We considered pain intensity and disability as the primary outcomes. Whenever possible, the data were pooled through meta-analysis. RESULTS: We identified 11 RCTs for this systematic review (pooled n = 743). Two clinical trials (pooled n = 100) compared KT to no intervention at the short-term follow-up. Four studies compared KT to placebo (pooled n = 287) at short-term follow-up and two trials (pooled n = 100) compared KT to placebo at intermediate-term follow-up. Five trials (pooled n = 296) compared KT combined with exercises or electrotherapy to exercises or spinal manipulation alone. No statistically significant difference was found for most comparisons. CONCLUSION: Very low to moderate quality evidence shows that KT was no better than any other intervention for most the outcomes assessed in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. We found no evidence to support the use of KT in clinical practice for patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

Physicians using spinal manipulative treatment in The Netherlands: a description of their characteristics and their patients.

BACKGROUND: Various health care professionals apply Spinal Manipulative Treatment (SMT) in daily practice. While the characteristics of chiropractors and manual therapists and the characteristics of their patient populations are well described, there is little research about physicians who use SMT techniques. A distinct group of physicians in The Netherlands has been trained in musculoskeletal (MSK) medicine, which includes the use of SMT. Our objective was to describe the characteristics of these physicians and their patient population. METHODS: All registered MSK physicians were approached with questionnaires and telephone interviews to collect data about their characteristics. Data about patient characteristics were extracted from a web-based register. In this register physicians recorded basic patient data (age, gender, the type and duration of the main complaint, concomitant complaints and the type of referral) at the first consultation. Patients were invited to fill in web-based questionnaires to provide baseline data about previous treatments and the severity of their main complaint. Functional impairment was measured with Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). RESULTS: Questionnaires were sent to 138 physicians of whom 90 responded (65%). Most physicians were trained in MSK medicine after a career in other medical specialities. They reported to combine their SMT treatment with a variety of diagnostic and treatment options part of which were only permissible for physicians, such as prescription medication and injections. The majority of patients presented with complaints of long duration (62.1% > 1 year), most frequently low back pain (48.1%) or neck pain (16.9%), with mean scores of 6.0 and 6.2, respectively, on a 0 to10 numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain intensity. Mean scores on all PROMs showed moderate impairment. Patients most frequently reported previous treatment by physical therapists (68.1%), manual therapists (37.7%) or chiropractors (17.0%). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that MSK physicians in The Netherlands used an array of SMT techniques. They embedded their SMT techniques in a broad array of other diagnostic and treatment options, part of which were limited to medical doctors. Most patients consulted MSK physicians with spinal pain of long duration with moderate functional impairment.

Prediction of pain outcomes in a randomized controlled trial of dose-response of spinal manipulation for the care of chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: No previous studies have created and validated prediction models for outcomes in patients receiving spinal manipulation for care of chronic low back pain (cLBP). We therefore conducted a secondary analysis alongside a dose-response, randomized controlled trial of spinal manipulation. METHODS: We investigated dose, pain and disability, sociodemographics, general health, psychosocial measures, and objective exam findings as potential predictors of pain outcomes utilizing 400 participants from a randomized controlled trial. Participants received 18 sessions of treatment over 6-weeks and were followed for a year. Spinal manipulation was performed by a chiropractor at 0, 6, 12, or 18 visits (dose), with a light-massage control at all remaining visits. Pain intensity was evaluated with the modified von Korff pain scale (0-100). Predictor variables evaluated came from several domains: condition-specific pain and disability, sociodemographics, general health status, psychosocial, and objective physical measures. Three-quarters of cases (training-set) were used to develop 4 longitudinal models with forward selection to predict individual "responders" (≥50% improvement from baseline) and future pain intensity using either pretreatment characteristics or post-treatment variables collected shortly after completion of care. The internal validity of the predictor models were then evaluated on the remaining 25% of cases (test-set) using area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), R(2), and root mean squared error (RMSE). RESULTS: The pretreatment responder model performed no better than chance in identifying participants who became responders (AUC = 0.479). Similarly, the pretreatment pain intensity model predicted future pain intensity poorly with low proportion of variance explained (R(2) = .065). The post-treatment predictor models performed better with AUC = 0.665 for the responder model and R(2) = 0.261 for the future pain model. Post-treatment pain alone actually predicted future pain better than the full post-treatment predictor model (R(2) = 0.350). The prediction errors (RMSE) were large (19.4 and 17.5 for the pre- and post-treatment predictor models, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Internal validation of prediction models showed that participant characteristics preceding the start of care were poor predictors of at least 50% improvement and the individual's future pain intensity. Pain collected shortly after completion of 6 weeks of study intervention predicted future pain the best.

Shared decision making through informed consent in chiropractic management of low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to propose questions that may be helpful to educate patients considering treatment approaches to manage low back pain (LBP) and to determine if the information currently presented in informed consent (IC) documents at chiropractic colleges is sufficient to help a patient considering chiropractic management of LBP make a fully informed decision. METHODS: Questions to inform decision making for a patient contemplating any intervention for LBP were developed by the authors based on their clinical and research experience. Answers to the questions were suggested based on findings from recent clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews. Institutions that are members of the Association of Chiropractic Colleges (ACC) were surveyed and asked to provide a copy of the IC documents currently used in their outpatient educational clinics. The IC documents were analyzed to determine if they stated (or implied) information that may be helpful in addressing each of the proposed questions. RESULTS: The list of 20 questions included 4 questions on each of the following 5 topics: condition, proposed treatment, potential benefits, potential harms, and possible alternatives. A total of 21 ACC institutions were contacted, of which 20 responded. The number of questions that could potentially be answered with information provided in the IC documents ranged from 2 to 13, with a mean of 6.5, including a mean of 3.6 stated answers and 2.9 implied answers. CONCLUSIONS: Some information to help patients consider chiropractic management of LBP is currently included in the IC documents used in clinics of ACC institutions. However, many of the questions that could help achieve shared decision making are not included. Modifying IC documents may help patients understand the nature, benefits, harms, costs, and alternatives to LBP care.

Spinal manipulation: an update of a systematic review of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this update is to critically evaluate the evidence for or against the effectiveness of spinal manipulation in patients with any type of clinical condition. DESIGN: Four electronic databases were searched to identify all relevant systematic reviews of the effectiveness of spinal manipulation in any condition published between 2005 and January 2011. Reviews were defined as systematic, if they included an explicit and repeatable inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies. RESULTS: Forty-five systematic reviews were included relating to the following conditions: low back pain (n=7), headache (n=6), neck pain (n=4), asthma (n=4), musculoskeletal conditions (n=3), any non-musculoskeletal conditions (n=2), fibromyalgia (n=2), infant colic (n=2), any medical problem (n=1), any paediatric conditions (n=1), carpal tunnel syndrome (n=1), cervicogenic dizziness (n=1), dysmenorrhoea (n=1), gastrointestinal problems (n=1), hypertension (n=1), idiopathic scoliosis (n=1), lateral epicondylitis (n=1), lower extremity conditions (n=1), pregnancy and related conditions (n=1), psychological outcome (n=1), shoulder pain (n=1), upper extremity conditions (n=1) and whiplash injury (n=1). Positive or, for multiple SR, unanimously positive conclusions were drawn for psychological outcomes (n=1) and whiplash (n=1). CONCLUSION: Collectively these data fail to demonstrate convincingly that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition.

Systematic reviews of spinal manipulations for headaches: an attempt to clear up the confusion.

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulation (SM) is a therapy which is frequently used for headaches. During the last decade, several systematic reviews (SRs) of this topic have been published. Confusingly, their conclusions are far from uniform. The aim of this article is to identify the reasons for this confusion and to create more clarity about the therapeutic value of SM. METHODS: SRs were identified through searches of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Amed, Cinahl, and PsychInfo. They were considered if they were recent, systematic, and evaluated the effectiveness of SM for headache disorders. RESULTS: Six SRs were included. Their methodological quality was assessed using the Oxman criteria for SRs. Five SRs were of high quality and one was associated with a high risk of bias. The findings of the SRs differed considerably. This variance seemed to be caused by several factors: differences in conditions included, treatments assessed, or primary studies analyzed. CONCLUSION: We conclude that high-quality SRs with a clear focus are required before the value of SM for headaches can be defined.

Lack of efficacy of manual therapy in children and adolescents with suspected cervicogenic headache: results of a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, and blinded trial.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical trials concerning cervical spine manipulation and mobilization in children and adolescents with cervicogenic headache are lacking. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, and blinded trial in 52 children and adolescents (21 boys, 31 girls) aged 7-15. After prospective baseline documentation for 2 months patients were either assigned to placebo or true manipulation with another 2-month follow-up. Main outcome measures were defined as: percentage of days with headache, total duration of headache, days with school absence due to headache, consume of analgesics, intensity of headache. RESULTS: We did not find a significant difference comparing the groups with placebo and true manipulation with respect to the defined main outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: We were not able to show an efficacy of cervical spine manipulation in 52 children and adolescents.

[The history and principle of spinal manipulation in the treatment of lumbar intervertebral disc herniation].

It is generally agreed that spinal manipulation has been applied into the treatment of lumbar intervertebral disc herniation (LDH) for thousands of years according to historical reviews of the paper. The balance restore of spinal column had been always the main aim of spinal manipulation during the time. The situation has been changed after LDH was discovered pathomechanically about 70 years ago and the protruded nucleus pulposus has attracted the attention of whole world ever since and surgery become the major choice for LDH patients. Nevertheless, some latest reports of clinical observation in past decades explored more and more solid evidences to prove that most of the patients need no surgery at all and would be cured by conservative therapy without any changes of protruded nucleus pulposus at involved segment. The modern management of LDH suggests that we should not only pay attention to the protruded disk but also to the biomechanical balance of spinal column again as we had for thousands of years,which is concluded from the reviews of previous reports and history of LDH recognition in the paper. The only thing we should care more about is how to make full use of our modern knowledge to adjust our view of observation and management in clinical practice of spinal manipulation and to make a further understanding of the pathomechanics of LDH.

Migraine: a review and future directions for treatment.

Migraine is a chronic, neurological disorder generally manifesting itself in attacks with severe headache, nausea and an increased reactivity to sensory stimuli. A low migraine threshold is set by genetic factors, although the phenotype also modulates the manifestations. The 1-year prevalence is approximately 13% and is higher among women. Patients usually experience neuropsychological dysfunction, and sometimes also reversible focal neurological symptoms. The trajectories of the characteristic symptoms of acute migraine usually follow a similar time course, indicating a reciprocal underlying mechanism. A central nervous system hyperexcitability has been demonstrated in neurophysiological studies. The dibilitating effects of migraine are not confined to the attacks per se. Many individuals do not recover completely between the attacks and most report a negative impact on the most important life domains, and an interest in testing other treatments. Young persons have a higher frequency of attacks. Acute treatment should routinely be initiated with an analgesic plus a prokinetic anti-emetic. Triptans must not be provided early during the attack to ensure their efficacy. The natural course of attacks is commonly only temporarily altered by acute treatment. Non-pharmacological treatment and drugs may be equally viable in prophylaxis for migraine. In more complicated cases, conjoint therapy should be considered. New strategies to improve adherence with existing therapeutic regimens might yield greater benefits than will new pharmacological agents.

The 2005 conference on the biology of manual therapies.

A historic and critically important scientific workshop for all professions involved with manual therapies was held at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on June 9 and 10, 2005. The conference was jointly sponsored and organized by the NIH and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and was the first ever national or international research conference to focus on the biologic mechanisms that underlie a broad range of interventions, which can be described as "manual therapies." Leading scientific experts from North America and Europe presented their latest findings and theories related to 5 different areas of science relevant to manual therapies: neuroscience, biomechanics, endocrinology, imaging, and immunology. During the conference, breakout groups composed of scientists, physicians and therapists, and patient advocates were formed in the relevant disciplines. These groups developed consensus statements on key unanswered research questions, which were then submitted back to the conference for comment and approval. The outcomes of this workshop have subsequently been incorporated into a new initiative by the NIH and Canadian Institutes of Health Research for funding research on the biology of manual therapies. This editorial includes presentation summaries and 13 key consensus recommendations relating to mechanisms of action for manual therapies.