How well do participants in clinical trials represent the U.S. population with chronic neck or back pain?

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for assessing treatment effectiveness; however, they have been criticized for generalizability issues such as how well trial participants represent those who receive the treatments in clinical practice. We assessed the representativeness of participants from eight RCTs for chronic spine pain in the U.S., which were used for an individual participant data meta-analysis on the cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation for spine pain. In these clinical trials, spinal manipulation was performed by chiropractors. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective secondary analysis of RCT data to compare trial participants' socio-demographic characteristics, clinical features, and health outcomes to a representative sample of (a) U.S. adults with chronic spine pain and (b) U.S. adults with chronic spine pain receiving chiropractic care, using secondary data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). We assessed differences between trial and U.S. spine populations using independent t-tests for means and z-tests for proportions, accounting for the complex multi-stage survey design of the NHIS and MEPS. RESULTS: We found the clinical trials had an under-representation of individuals from health disparity populations with lower percentages of racial and ethnic minority groups (Black/African American 7% lower, Hispanic 8% lower), less educated (No high school degree 19% lower, high school degree 11% lower), and unemployed adults (25% lower) with worse health outcomes (physical health scores 2.5 lower and mental health scores 5.3 lower using the SF-12/36) relative to the U.S. population with spine pain. While the odds of chiropractic use in the U.S. are lower for individuals from health disparity populations, the trials also under-represented these populations relative to U.S. adults with chronic spine pain who visit a chiropractor. CONCLUSIONS: Health disparity populations are not well represented in spine pain clinical trials. Embracing key community-based approaches, which have shown promise for increasing participation of underserved communities, is needed.

Matching the Outcomes to Treatment Targets of Exercise for Low Back Pain: Does it Make a Difference? Results of Secondary Analyses From Individual Patient Data of Randomised Controlled Trials and Pooling of Results Across Trials in Comparative Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To explore whether using a single matched or composite outcome might affect the results of previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing exercise for non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). The first objective was to explore whether a single matched outcome generated greater standardized mean differences (SMDs) when compared with the original unmatched primary outcome SMD. The second objective was to explore whether a composite measure, composed of matched outcomes, generated a greater SMD when compared with the original primary outcome SMD. DESIGN: We conducted exploratory secondary analyses of data. SETTING: Seven RCTs were included, of which 2 were based in the USA (University research clinic, Veterans Affairs medical center) and the UK (primary care clinics, nonmedical centers). One each were based in Norway (clinics), Brazil (primary care), and Japan (outpatient clinics). PARTICIPANTS: The first analysis comprised 1) 5 RCTs (n=1033) that used an unmatched primary outcome but included (some) matched outcomes as secondary outcomes, and the second analysis comprised 2) 4 RCTs (n=864) that included multiple matched outcomes by developing composite outcomes (N=1897). INTERVENTION: Exercise compared with no exercise. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The composite consisted of standardized averaged matched outcomes. All analyses replicated the RCTs' primary outcome analyses. RESULTS: Of 5 RCTs, 3 had greater SMDs with matched outcomes (pooled effect SMD 0.30 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.04, 0.56], P=.02) compared with an unmatched primary outcome (pooled effect SMD 0.19 [95% CI -0.03, 0.40] P=.09). Of 4 composite outcome analyses, 3 RCTs had greater SMDs in the composite outcome (pooled effect SMD 0.28 [95% CI 0.05, 0.51] P=.02) compared with the primary outcome (pooled effect SMD 0.24 [95% CI -0.04, 0.53] P=.10). CONCLUSIONS: These exploratory analyses suggest that using an outcome matched to exercise treatment targets in NSLBP RCTs may produce greater SMDs than an unmatched primary outcome. Composite outcomes could offer a meaningful way of investigating superiority of exercise than single domain outcomes.

Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and biopsychosocial self-management compared to medical care for low back pain: a randomized trial study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is widespread, costly, and burdensome to patients and health systems. Little is known about non-pharmacological treatments for the secondary prevention of cLBP. There is some evidence that treatments addressing psychosocial factors in higher risk patients are more effective than usual care. However, most clinical trials on acute and subacute LBP have evaluated interventions irrespective of prognosis. METHODS: We have designed a phase 3 randomized trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. The study is also a Hybrid type 1 trial with focus on intervention effectiveness while simultaneously considering plausible implementation strategies. Adults (n = 1000) with acute/subacute LBP at moderate to high risk of chronicity based on the STarT Back screening tool will be randomized in to 1 of 4 interventions lasting up to 8 weeks: supported self-management (SSM), spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), both SSM and SMT, or medical care. The primary objective is to assess intervention effectiveness; the secondary objective is to assess barriers and facilitators impacting future implementation. Primary effectiveness outcome measures are: (1) average pain intensity over 12 months post-randomization (pain, numerical rating scale); (2) average low back disability over 12 months post-randomization (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire); (3) prevention of cLBP that is impactful at 10-12 months follow-up (LBP impact from the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0). Secondary outcomes include: recovery, PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0 measures to assess pain interference, physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. Other patient-reported measures include LBP frequency, medication use, healthcare utilization, productivity loss, STarT Back screening tool status, patient satisfaction, prevention of chronicity, adverse events, and dissemination measures. Objective measures include the Quebec Task Force Classification, Timed Up & Go Test, the Sit to Stand Test, and the Sock Test assessed by clinicians blinded to the patients' intervention assignment. DISCUSSION: By targeting those subjects at higher risk this trial aims to fill an important gap in the scientific literature regarding the effectiveness of promising non-pharmacological treatments compared to medical care for the management of patients with an acute episode of LBP and the prevention of progression to a severe chronic back problem. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03581123.

Learning to Apply Mindfulness to Pain (LAMP): Design for a Pragmatic Clinical Trial of Two Mindfulness-Based Interventions for Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are evidence-based nonpharmacological treatments for treating chronic pain. However, the predominant MBI, mindfulness-based stress reduction, has features that pose significant implementation barriers. OBJECTIVES: This study will test two approaches to delivering MBIs for improving Veterans' chronic pain and mental health comorbidities. These two approaches address key implementation barriers. METHODS: We will conduct a four-site, three-arm pragmatic randomized controlled trial, Learning to Apply Mindfulness to Pain (LAMP), to test the effectiveness of two MBIs at improving pain and mental health comorbidities. Mobile+Group LAMP consists of prerecorded modules presented by a mindfulness instructor that are viewed in an online group setting and interspersed with discussions led by a facilitator. Mobile LAMP consists of the same prerecorded modules but does not include a group component. We will test whether either of these MBIs will be more effective than usual care at improving chronic pain and whether the Mobile+Group LAMP will be more effective than Mobile LAMP at improving chronic pain. Comparisons for the primary hypotheses will be conducted with continuous outcomes (Brief Pain Inventory interference score) repeated at 10 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. The secondary hypotheses are that Mobile+Group LAMP and Mobile LAMP will be more effective than usual care at improving secondary outcomes (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder, depression). We will also confirm the comparisons for the primary and secondary hypotheses in gender-specific strata. IMPLICATIONS: This trial is expected to result in two approaches for delivering MBIs that will optimize engagement, adherence, and sustainability and be able to reach large numbers of Veterans.

Spinal rehabilitative exercise or manual treatment for the prevention of tension-type headache in adults.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess the short- and long-term effects of manual treatment and spinal rehabilitative exercise for the prevention of tension-type headache in adults.

Spinal rehabilitative exercise or manual treatment for the prevention of cervicogenic headache in adults.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To quantify and compare the short- and long-term effects of manual treatment and spinal rehabilitative exercise for cervicogenic headache, classified according to the International Headache Society's (IHS) diagnostic criteria, with an active or placebo/sham comparison or wait-list control.

Effect of Off-Axis Fluoroscopy Imaging on Two-Dimensional Kinematics in the Lumbar Spine: A Dynamic In Vitro Validation Study.

Spine intersegmental motion parameters and the resultant regional patterns may be useful for biomechanical classification of low back pain (LBP) as well as assessing the appropriate intervention strategy. Because of its availability and reasonable cost, two-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopy has great potential as a diagnostic and evaluative tool. However, the technique of quantifying intervertebral motion in the lumbar spine must be validated, and the sensitivity assessed. The purpose of this investigation was to (1) compare synchronous fluoroscopic and optoelectronic measures of intervertebral rotations during dynamic flexion-extension movements in vitro and (2) assess the effect of C-arm rotation to simulate off-axis patient alignment on intervertebral kinematics measures. Six cadaveric lumbar-sacrum specimens were dissected, and active marker optoelectronic sensors were rigidly attached to the bodies of L2-S1. Fluoroscopic sequences and optoelectronic kinematic data (0.15-mm linear, 0.17-0.20 deg rotational, accuracy) were obtained simultaneously. After images were obtained in a true sagittal plane, the image receptor was rotated in 5 deg increments (posterior oblique angulations) from 5 deg to 15 deg. Quantitative motion analysis (qma) software was used to determine the intersegmental rotations from the fluoroscopic images. The mean absolute rotation differences between optoelectronic values and dynamic fluoroscopic values were less than 0.5 deg for all the motion segments at each off-axis fluoroscopic rotation and were not significantly different (P > 0.05) for any of the off-axis rotations of the fluoroscope. Small misalignments of the lumbar spine relative to the fluoroscope did not introduce measurement variation in relative segmental rotations greater than that observed when the spine and fluoroscope were perpendicular to each other, suggesting that fluoroscopic measures of relative segmental rotation during flexion-extension are likely robust, even when patient alignment is not perfect.

Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment.

BACKGROUND: Manipulation and mobilisation are commonly used to treat neck pain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of manipulation or mobilisation alone compared wiith those of an inactive control or another active treatment on pain, function, disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults experiencing neck pain with or without radicular symptoms and cervicogenic headache (CGH) at immediate- to long-term follow-up. When appropriate, to assess the influence of treatment characteristics (i.e. technique, dosage), methodological quality, symptom duration and subtypes of neck disorder on treatment outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: Review authors searched the following computerised databases to November 2014 to identify additional studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to find relevant studies. We updated this search in June 2015, but these results have not yet been incorporated. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken to assess whether manipulation or mobilisation improves clinical outcomes for adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and applied Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods (very low, low, moderate, high quality). We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 trials (2920 participants, 18 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus control; 34 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus another treatment, 1 trial had two comparisons). Cervical manipulation versus inactive control: For subacute and chronic neck pain, a single manipulation (three trials, no meta-analysis, 154 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) relieved pain at immediate- but not short-term follow-up. Cervical manipulation versus another active treatment: For acute and chronic neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 446 participants, ranged from moderate to high quality) produced similar changes in pain, function, quality of life (QoL), global perceived effect (GPE) and patient satisfaction when compared with multiple sessions of cervical mobilisation at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. For acute and subacute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation were more effective than certain medications in improving pain and function at immediate- (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality) and long-term follow-up (one trial, 181 participants, moderate quality). These findings are consistent for function at intermediate-term follow-up (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality). For chronic CGH, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 125 participants, low quality) may be more effective than massage in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 65 participants, very low quality) may be favoured over transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain reduction at short-term follow-up. For acute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 20 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than thoracic manipulation in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Thoracic manipulation versus inactive control: Three trials (150 participants) using a single session were assessed at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. At short-term follow-up, manipulation improved pain in participants with acute and subacute neck pain (five trials, 346 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.86 to -0.66) and improved function (four trials, 258 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.40, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.55) in participants with acute and chronic neck pain. A funnel plot of these data suggests publication bias. These findings were consistent at intermediate follow-up for pain/function/quality of life (one trial, 111 participants, low quality). Thoracic manipulation versus another active treatment: No studies provided sufficient data for statistical analyses. A single session of thoracic manipulation (one trial, 100 participants, moderate quality) was comparable with thoracic mobilisation for pain relief at immediate-term follow-up for chronic neck pain. Mobilisation versus inactive control: Mobilisation as a stand-alone intervention (two trials, 57 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) may not reduce pain more than an inactive control. Mobilisation versus another active treatment: For acute and subacute neck pain, anterior-posterior mobilisation (one trial, 95 participants, very low quality) may favour pain reduction over rotatory or transverse mobilisations at immediate-term follow-up. For chronic CGH with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, multiple sessions of TMJ manual therapy (one trial, 38 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than cervical mobilisation in improving pain/function at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. For subacute and chronic neck pain, cervical mobilisation alone (four trials, 165 participants, ranged from low to very low quality) may not be different from ultrasound, TENS, acupuncture and massage in improving pain, function, QoL and participant satisfaction at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. Additionally, combining laser with manipulation may be superior to using manipulation or laser alone (one trial, 56 participants, very low quality). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although support can be found for use of thoracic manipulation versus control for neck pain, function and QoL, results for cervical manipulation and mobilisation versus control are few and diverse. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Research designed to protect against various biases is needed. Findings suggest that manipulation and mobilisation present similar results for every outcome at immediate/short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple cervical manipulation sessions may provide better pain relief and functional improvement than certain medications at immediate/intermediate/long-term follow-up. Since the risk of rare but serious adverse events for manipulation exists, further high-quality research focusing on mobilisation and comparing mobilisation or manipulation versus other treatment options is needed to guide clinicians in their optimal treatment choices.

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is common, disabling and costly. Exercise is one treatment approach. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of exercises to improve pain, disability, function, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults with neck pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, MANTIS, ClinicalTrials.gov and three other computerized databases up to between January and May 2014 plus additional sources (reference checking, citation searching, contact with authors). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing single therapeutic exercise with a control for adults suffering from neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radiculopathy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted trial selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment and clinical relevance. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. Meta-analyses were performed for relative risk and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) after judging clinical and statistical heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-seven trials (2485 analyzed /3005 randomized participants) met our inclusion criteria.For acute neck pain only, no evidence was found.For chronic neck pain, moderate quality evidence supports 1) cervico-scapulothoracic and upper extremity strength training to improve pain of a moderate to large amount immediately post treatment [pooled SMD (SMDp) -0.71 (95% CI: -1.33 to -0.10)] and at short-term follow-up; 2) scapulothoracic and upper extremity endurance training for slight beneficial effect on pain at immediate post treatment and short-term follow-up; 3) combined cervical, shoulder and scapulothoracic strengthening and stretching exercises varied from a small to large magnitude of beneficial effect on pain at immediate post treatment [SMDp -0.33 (95% CI: -0.55 to -0.10)] and up to long-term follow-up and a medium magnitude of effect improving function at both immediate post treatment and at short-term follow-up [SMDp -0.45 (95%CI: -0.72 to -0.18)]; 4) cervico-scapulothoracic strengthening/stabilization exercises to improve pain and function at intermediate term [SMDp -14.90 (95% CI:-22.40 to -7.39)]; 5) Mindfulness exercises (Qigong) minimally improved function but not global perceived effect at short term. Low evidence suggests 1) breathing exercises; 2) general fitness training; 3) stretching alone; and 4) feedback exercises combined with pattern synchronization may not change pain or function at immediate post treatment to short-term follow-up. Very low evidence suggests neuromuscular eye-neck co-ordination/proprioceptive exercises may improve pain and function at short-term follow-up.For chronic cervicogenic headache, moderate quality evidence supports static-dynamic cervico-scapulothoracic strengthening/endurance exercises including pressure biofeedback immediate post treatment and probably improves pain, function and global perceived effect at long-term follow-up. Low grade evidence supports sustained natural apophyseal glides (SNAG) exercises.For acute radiculopathy, low quality evidence suggests a small benefit for pain reduction at immediate post treatment with cervical stretch/strengthening/stabilization exercises. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No high quality evidence was found, indicating that there is still uncertainty about the effectiveness of exercise for neck pain. Using specific strengthening exercises as a part of routine practice for chronic neck pain, cervicogenic headache and radiculopathy may be beneficial. Research showed the use of strengthening and endurance exercises for the cervico-scapulothoracic and shoulder may be beneficial in reducing pain and improving function. However, when only stretching exercises were used no beneficial effects may be expected. Future research should explore optimal dosage.

Spinal manipulation and home exercise with advice for subacute and chronic back-related leg pain: a trial with adaptive allocation.

BACKGROUND: Back-related leg pain (BRLP) is often disabling and costly, and there is a paucity of research to guide its management. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) plus home exercise and advice (HEA) compared with HEA alone reduces leg pain in the short and long term in adults with BRLP. DESIGN: Controlled pragmatic trial with allocation by minimization conducted from 2007 to 2011. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00494065). SETTING: 2 research centers (Minnesota and Iowa). PATIENTS: Persons aged 21 years or older with BRLP for least 4 weeks. INTERVENTION: 12 weeks of SMT plus HEA or HEA alone. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was patient-rated BRLP at 12 and 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes were self-reported low back pain, disability, global improvement, satisfaction, medication use, and general health status at 12 and 52 weeks. Blinded objective tests were done at 12 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 192 enrolled patients, 191 (99%) provided follow-up data at 12 weeks and 179 (93%) at 52 weeks. For leg pain, SMT plus HEA had a clinically important advantage over HEA (difference, 10 percentage points [95% CI, 2 to 19]; P=0.008) at 12 weeks but not at 52 weeks (difference, 7 percentage points [CI, -2 to 15]; P=0.146). Nearly all secondary outcomes improved more with SMT plus HEA at 12 weeks, but only global improvement, satisfaction, and medication use had sustained improvements at 52 weeks. No serious treatment-related adverse events or deaths occurred. LIMITATION: Patients and providers could not be blinded. CONCLUSION: For patients with BRLP, SMT plus HEA was more effective than HEA alone after 12 weeks, but the benefit was sustained only for some secondary outcomes at 52 weeks. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

"I know it's changed": a mixed-methods study of the meaning of Global Perceived Effect in chronic neck pain patients.

PURPOSE: Global Perceived Effect (GPE) is a commonly used outcome measure for musculoskeletal conditions like neck pain; however, little is known regarding the factors patients take into account when determining their GPE. The overall objective of this work was to describe the thematic variables, which comprise the GPE from the patient's perspective. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods study in which qualitative data were collected within a randomized clinical trial assessing exercise and manual therapy for chronic neck pain. A consecutive sample of 106 patients who completed the trial intervention took part in semi-structured interviews querying the meaning of GPE. Quantitative measures were collected through self-report questionnaires. Interview transcripts were analyzed using content analysis to identify themes, which were then quantified to assess potential relationships. RESULTS: A model of GPE for chronic neck pain emerged comprised of five main themes: neck symptoms (cited by 85%), biomechanical performance (38%), activities of daily living (31%), self-efficacy (10%), and need for other treatment (6%). Influencing factors included those contributing to GPE: treatment process (64%), biomechanical performance (51%), self-efficacy (16%), and the nature of the condition (8%). Factors, which detracted from GPE or prevented recovery included perceived nature of condition (58%), required daily activities (10%), lack of diagnosis (5%), and history of failed treatment (5%). CONCLUSIONS: GPE appears to capture chronic neck pain patient perceptions of change in different domains important to their individual pain experiences that may not be captured by other outcome instruments. Thus, GPE is a suitable patient-oriented outcome that can complement other measures in research and clinical practice. Importantly, many chronic neck pain patients believe it impossible to reach complete recovery because of a perceived intractable aspect of their neck condition; this has important implications regarding long-term disability and health-seeking behaviors.

Exploring patient satisfaction: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial of spinal manipulation, home exercise, and medication for acute and subacute neck pain.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess satisfaction with specific aspects of care for acute neck pain and explore the relationship between satisfaction with care, neck pain, and global satisfaction. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of patient satisfaction from a randomized trial of spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) delivered by doctors of chiropractic, home exercise and advice (HEA) delivered by exercise therapists, and medication (MED) prescribed by a medical doctors for acute/subacute neck pain. Differences in satisfaction with specific aspects of care were analyzed using a linear mixed model. The relationship between specific aspects of care and (1) change in neck pain (primary outcome of the randomized trial) and (2) global satisfaction were assessed using Pearson's correlation and multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Individuals receiving SMT or HEA were more satisfied with the information and general care received than MED group participants. Spinal manipulation therapy and HEA groups reported similar satisfaction with information provided during treatment; however, the SMT group was more satisfied with general care. Satisfaction with general care (r = -0.75 to -0.77; R(2) = 0.55-0.56) had a stronger relationship with global satisfaction compared with satisfaction with information provided (r = -0.65 to 0.67; R(2) = 0.39-0.46). The relationship between satisfaction with care and neck pain was weak (r = 0.17-0.38; R(2) = 0.08-0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with acute/subacute neck pain were more satisfied with specific aspects of care received during spinal manipulation therapy or home exercise interventions compared to receiving medication. The relationship between neck pain and satisfaction with care was weak.

Regional lumbar motion and patient-rated outcomes: a secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship in change scores between regional lumbar motion and patient-rated pain of the previous week and back-related function in chronic low back pain patients enrolled in a randomized clinical trial and treated with either exercise therapy or spinal manipulation using 6 different motion parameters. METHODS: Regional lumbar motions were sampled using a 6 degrees of freedom instrumented spatial linkage system in 199 participants at baseline and 12-week follow-up. The regional lumbar motion data were analyzed as a total cohort as well as relative to subgroup stratifications; back pain only vs back and leg pain, and treatment modality. For identifying clinically meaningful improvements in the measurements of back pain and back-related function, we used a 30% threshold. RESULTS: The relationship between change scores in patient-rated outcomes and objective measures of regional lumbar motion was found to be weak. In contrast, distribution of pain and treatment received affected associations between motion parameters and patient-rated outcomes. Thus, stronger correlation coefficients and significant differences between clinically relevant improved vs no clinical relevant change were found in some motion parameters in the subgroup with back pain only and the treatment group receiving spinal manipulation. CONCLUSION: Overall, changes in regional lumbar motion were poorly associated with patient-rated outcomes measured by back-related function and back pain intensity scores. However, associations between regional lumbar motion vs patient-rated pain and back-related function were different in relative subgroups (back pain only vs back and leg pain and treatment).

Causally interpretable meta-analysis: Clearly defined causal effects and two case studies.

Meta-analysis is commonly used to combine results from multiple clinical trials, but traditional meta-analysis methods do not refer explicitly to a population of individuals to whom the results apply and it is not clear how to use their results to assess a treatment's effect for a population of interest. We describe recently-introduced causally interpretable meta-analysis methods and apply their treatment effect estimators to two individual-participant data sets. These estimators transport estimated treatment effects from studies in the meta-analysis to a specified target population using the individuals' potentially effect-modifying covariates. We consider different regression and weighting methods within this approach and compare the results to traditional aggregated-data meta-analysis methods. In our applications, certain versions of the causally interpretable methods performed somewhat better than the traditional methods, but the latter generally did well. The causally interpretable methods offer the most promise when covariates modify treatment effects and our results suggest that traditional methods work well when there is little effect heterogeneity. The causally interpretable approach gives meta-analysis an appealing theoretical framework by relating an estimator directly to a specific population and lays a solid foundation for future developments.

Gender differences in PTSD severity and pain outcomes: Baseline results from the LAMP trial.

BACKGROUND: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and chronic pain are highly prevalent comorbid conditions. Veterans dually burdened by PTSD and chronic pain experience more severe outcomes compared to either disorder alone. Few studies have enrolled enough women Veterans to test gender differences in pain outcomes [catastrophizing, intensity, interference] by the severity of PTSD symptoms. AIM: Examine gender differences in the association between PTSD symptoms and pain outcomes among Veterans enrolled in a chronic pain clinical trial. METHODS: Participants were 421 men and 386 women Veterans with chronic pain who provided complete data on PTSD symptoms and pain outcomes. We used hierarchical linear regression models to examine gender differences in pain outcomes by PTSD symptoms. RESULTS: Adjusted multivariable models indicated that PTSD symptoms were associated with higher levels of pain catastrophizing (0.57, 95% CI [0.51, 0.63]), pain intensity (0.30, 95% CI [0.24, 0.37]), and pain interference (0.46, 95% CI [0.39, 0.52]). No evidence suggesting gender differences in this association were found in either the crude or adjusted models (all interaction p-values<0.05). CONCLUSION: These findings may reflect the underlying mutual maintenance of these conditions whereby the sensation of pain could trigger PTSD symptoms, particularly if the trauma and pain are associated with the same event. Clinical implications and opportunities testing relevant treatments that may benefit both chronic pain and PTSD are discussed.

Traction for low-back pain with or without sciatica.

BACKGROUND: Traction has been used to treat low-back pain (LBP), often in combination with other treatments. We included both manual and machine-delivered traction in this review. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1995, and previously updated in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of traction compared to placebo, sham traction, reference treatments and no treatment in people with LBP. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Back Review Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2012, Issue 8), MEDLINE (January 2006 to August 2012), EMBASE (January 2006 to August 2012), CINAHL (January 2006 to August 2012), and reference lists of articles and personal files. The review authors are not aware of any important new randomized controlled trial (RCTs) on this topic since the date of the last search. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs involving traction to treat acute (less than four weeks' duration), subacute (four to 12 weeks' duration) or chronic (more than 12 weeks' duration) non-specific LBP with or without sciatica. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. As there were insufficient data for statistical pooling, we performed a descriptive analysis. We did not find any case series that identified adverse effects, therefore we evaluated adverse effects that were reported in the included studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 RCTs involving 2762 participants in this review. We considered 16 trials, representing 57% of all participants, to have a low risk of bias based on the Cochrane Back Review Group's 'Risk of bias' tool.For people with mixed symptom patterns (acute, subacute and chronic LBP with and without sciatica), there was low- to moderate-quality evidence that traction may make little or no difference in pain intensity, functional status, global improvement or return to work when compared to placebo, sham traction or no treatment. Similarly, when comparing the combination of physiotherapy plus traction with physiotherapy alone or when comparing traction with other treatments, there was very-low- to moderate-quality evidence that traction may make little or no difference in pain intensity, functional status or global improvement.For people with LBP with sciatica and acute, subacute or chronic pain, there was low- to moderate-quality evidence that traction probably has no impact on pain intensity, functional status or global improvement. This was true when traction was compared with controls and other treatments, as well as when the combination of traction plus physiotherapy was compared with physiotherapy alone. No studies reported the effect of traction on return to work.For chronic LBP without sciatica, there was moderate-quality evidence that traction probably makes little or no difference in pain intensity when compared with sham treatment. No studies reported on the effect of traction on functional status, global improvement or return to work.Adverse effects were reported in seven of the 32 studies. These included increased pain, aggravation of neurological signs and subsequent surgery. Four studies reported that there were no adverse effects. The remaining studies did not mention adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that traction, either alone or in combination with other treatments, has little or no impact on pain intensity, functional status, global improvement and return to work among people with LBP. There is only limited-quality evidence from studies with small sample sizes and moderate to high risk of bias. The effects shown by these studies are small and are not clinically relevant. Implications for practice To date, the use of traction as treatment for non-specific LBP cannot be motivated by the best available evidence. These conclusions are applicable to both manual and mechanical traction. Implications for research Only new, large, high-quality studies may change the point estimate and its accuracy, but it should be noted that such change may not necessarily favour traction. Therefore, little priority should be given to new studies on the effect of traction treatment alone or as part of a package.

Spinal manipulation, medication, or home exercise with advice for acute and subacute neck pain: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical neck pain is a common condition that affects an estimated 70% of persons at some point in their lives. Little research exists to guide the choice of therapy for acute and subacute neck pain. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative efficacy of spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), medication, and home exercise with advice (HEA) for acute and subacute neck pain in both the short and long term. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00029770) SETTING: 1 university research center and 1 pain management clinic in Minnesota. PARTICIPANTS: 272 persons aged 18 to 65 years who had nonspecific neck pain for 2 to 12 weeks. INTERVENTION: 12 weeks of SMT, medication, or HEA. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was participant-rated pain, measured at 2, 4, 8, 12, 26, and 52 weeks after randomization. Secondary measures were self-reported disability, global improvement, medication use, satisfaction, general health status (Short Form-36 Health Survey physical and mental health scales), and adverse events. Blinded evaluation of neck motion was performed at 4 and 12 weeks. RESULTS: For pain, SMT had a statistically significant advantage over medication after 8, 12, 26, and 52 weeks (P ≤ 0.010), and HEA was superior to medication at 26 weeks (P = 0.02). No important differences in pain were found between SMT and HEA at any time point. Results for most of the secondary outcomes were similar to those of the primary outcome. LIMITATIONS: Participants and providers could not be blinded. No specific criteria for defining clinically important group differences were prespecified or available from the literature. CONCLUSION: For participants with acute and subacute neck pain, SMT was more effective than medication in both the short and long term. However, a few instructional sessions of HEA resulted in similar outcomes at most time points. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Identifying body awareness-related brain network changes after Spring Forest Qigong™ practice or P.Volve low-intensity exercise in adults with chronic low back pain: a feasibility Phase I Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) affects the quality of life of 52 million Americans and leads to an enormous personal and economic burden. A multidisciplinary approach to cLBP management is recommended. Since medication has limited efficacy and there are mounting concerns about opioid addiction, the American College of Physicians and American Pain Society recommend non-pharmacological interventions, such as mind and body approaches (e.g., Qigong, yoga, Tai Chi) before prescribing medications. Of those, Qigong practice might be most accessible given its gentle movements and because it can be performed standing, sitting, or lying down. The three available Qigong studies in adults with cLBP showed that Qigong reduced pain more than waitlist and equally well than exercise. Yet, the duration and/or frequency of Qigong practice were low (<12 weeks or less than 3x/week). The objectives of this study were to investigate the feasibility of practicing Spring Forest Qigong™ or performing P.Volve low intensity exercises 3x/week for 12 weeks, feasibility of recruitment, data collection, delivery of the intervention as intended, as well as identify estimates of efficacy on brain function and behavioral outcomes after Qigong practice or exercise. To our knowledge, this is the first study investigating the feasibility of the potential effect of Qigong on brain function in adults with cLBP. Methods: We conducted a feasibility Phase I Randomized Clinical Trial. Of the 36 adults with cLBP recruited between January 2020 and June 2021, 32 were enrolled and randomized to either 12 weeks of remote Spring Forest Qigong™ practice or remote P.Volve low-intensity exercises. Participants practiced at least 3x/week for 41min/session with online videos. Our main outcome measures were the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (highest, average, and lowest cLBP pain intensity levels in the prior week), assessed weekly and fMRI data (resting-state and task-based fMRI tasks: pain imagery, kinesthetic imagery of a Qigong movement, and robot-guided shape discrimination). We compared baseline resting-state connectivity and brain activation during fMRI tasks in adults with cLBP with data from a healthy control group (n=28) acquired in a prior study. Secondary outcomes included measures of function, disability, body awareness, kinesiophobia, balance, self-efficacy, core muscle strength, and ankle proprioceptive acuity with a custom-build device. Results: Feasibility of the study design and methods was demonstrated with 30 participants completing the study (94% retention) and reporting high satisfaction with the programs; 96% adherence to P.Volve low-intensity exercises, and 128% of the required practice intensity for Spring Forest Qigong™ practice. Both groups saw promising reductions in low back pain (effect sizes Cohen's d =1.01-2.22) and in most other outcomes ( d =0.90-2.33). Markers of ankle proprioception were not significantly elevated in the cLBP group after the interventions. Brain imaging analysis showed weaker parietal operculum and insula network connectivity in adults with cLBP (n=26), compared to data from a healthy control group (n=28). The pain imagery task elicited lower brain activation of insula, parietal operculum, angular gyrus and supramarginal gyrus at baseline in adults with cLBP than in healthy adults. Adults with cLBP had lower precentral gyrus activation than healthy adults for the Qigong movement and robot task at baseline. Pre-post brain function changes showed individual variability: Six (out of 13) participants in the Qigong group showed increased activation in the parietal operculum, angular gyrus, supramarginal gyrus, and precentral gyrus during the Qigong fMRI task. Interpretation: Our data indicate the feasibility and acceptability of using Spring Forest Qigong™ practice or P.Volve low-intensity exercises for cLBP relief showing promising results in terms of pain relief and associated symptoms. Our brain imaging results indicated brain function improvements after 12 weeks of Qigong practice in some participants, pointing to the need for further investigation in larger studies. Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04164225 .

Effectiveness of Spinal Manipulation and Biopsychosocial Self-Management compared to Medical Care for Low Back Pain: A Randomized Trial Study Protocol.

Background Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is widespread, costly, and burdensome to patients and health systems. Little is known about non-pharmacological treatments for the secondary prevention of cLBP. There is some evidence that treatments addressing psychosocial factors in higher risk patients are more effective than usual care. However, most clinical trials on acute and subacute LBP have evaluated interventions irrespective of prognosis. Methods We have designed a phase 3 randomized trial with a 2x2 factorial design. The study is also a Hybrid type 1 trial with focus on intervention effectiveness while simultaneously considering plausible implementation strategies. Adults (n = 1000) with acute/subacute LBP at moderate to high risk of chronicity based on the STarT Back screening tool will be randomized in to 1 of 4 interventions lasting up to 8 weeks: supported self-management (SSM), spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), both SSM and SMT, or medical care. The primary objective is to assess intervention effectiveness; the secondary objective is to assess barriers and facilitators impacting future implementation. Primary effectiveness outcome measures are: (1) average pain intensity over 12 months post-randomization (pain, numerical rating scale); (2) average low back disability over 12 months post-randomization (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire); (3) prevention of cLBP that is impactful at 10-12 months follow-up (LBP impact from the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0). Secondary outcomes include: recovery, PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0 measures to assess pain interference, physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. Other patient-reported measures include LBP frequency, medication use, healthcare utilization, productivity loss, STarT Back screening tool status, patient satisfaction, prevention of chronicity, adverse events, and dissemination measures. Objective measures include the Quebec Task Force Classification, Timed Up & Go Test, the Sit to Stand Test, and the Sock Test assessed by clinicians blinded to the patients' intervention assignment. Discussion By targeting those subjects at higher risk this trial aims to fill an important gap in the scientific literature regarding the effectiveness of promising non-pharmacological treatments compared to medical care for the management of patients with an acute episode of LBP and the prevention of progression to a severe chronic back problem. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03581123.

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders.

BACKGROUND: Neck disorders are common, disabling and costly. The effectiveness of exercise as a physiotherapy intervention remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To improve pain, disability, function, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults with neck pain. SEARCH METHODS: Computerized searches were conducted up to February 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included single therapeutic exercise randomized controlled trials for adults with neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radiculopathy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and clinical relevance. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Relative risk and standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated.  After judging clinical and statistical heterogeneity, we performed meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Six of the 21 selected trials had low risk of bias. Moderate quality evidence shows that combined cervical, scapulothoracic stretching and strengthening are beneficial for pain relief post treatment (pooled SMD -0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.60, -0.10) and at intermediate follow-up (pooled SMD -0.31, 95% CI: -0.57, -0.06), and improved function short term and intermediate term (pooled SMD -0.45, 95% CI: -0.72, -0.18) for chronic neck pain. Moderate quality evidence demonstrates patients are very satisfied with their care when treated with therapeutic exercise. Low quality evidence shows exercise is of benefit for pain in the short term and for function up to long-term follow-up for chronic neck pain. Low to moderate quality evidence shows that chronic neck pain does not respond to upper extremity stretching and strengthening or a general exercise program.Low to moderate quality evidence supports self-mobilization, craniocervical endurance and low load cervical-scapular endurance exercises in reducing pain, improving function and global perceived effect in the long term for subacute/chronic cervicogenic headache. Low quality evidence supports neck strengthening exercise in acute cervical radiculopathy for pain relief in the short term. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low to moderate quality evidence supports the use of specific cervical and scapular stretching and strengthening exercise for chronic neck pain immediately post treatment and intermediate term, and cervicogenic headaches in the long term. Low to moderate evidence suggests no benefit for some upper extremity stretching and strengthening exercises or a general exercise program.  Future trials should consider using an exercise classification system to establish similarity between protocols and adequate sample sizes. Factorial trials would help determine the active treatment agent within a treatment regimen where a standardized representation of dosage is essential. Standardized reporting of adverse events is needed for balancing the likelihood of treatment benefits over potential harms.