Dosing of lumbar spinal manipulative therapy and its association with escalated spine care: A cohort study of insurance claims.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between three distinct spinal manipulative therapy dose groups and escalated spine care by analyzing insurance claims from a cohort of patients with low back pain. METHODS: We compared three distinct spinal manipulative therapy dose groups (low = 1 SMT visits, moderate = 2-12 SMT visits, high = 13+ SMT visits), to a control group (no spinal manipulative therapy) regarding the outcome of escalated spine care. Escalated spine care procedures include imaging studies, injection procedures, emergency department visits, surgery, and opioid medication use. Propensity score matching was performed to address treatment selection bias. Modified Poisson regression modeling was used to estimate the relative risk of spine care escalation among three spinal manipulative therapy doses, adjusting for age, sex, retrospective risk score and claim count. RESULTS: 83,025 claims were categorized into 11,114 unique low back pain episodes; 8,137 claims had 0 spinal manipulative therapy visits, with the remaining episodes classified as low dose (n = 404), moderate dose (n = 1,763) or high dose (n = 810). After propensity score matching, 5,348 episodes remained; 2,454 had 0 spinal manipulative therapy visits with the remaining episodes classified as low dose (n = 404), moderate dose (n = 1,761), or high dose (n = 729). The estimated relative risk (vs no spinal manipulative therapy) for any escalated spine care was 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.38, 0.55, p <0.001), 0.58 (95% confidence interval 0.53, 0.63, p <0.001), and 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.95, 1.13, p = 0.461) for low, moderate, and high dose spinal manipulative therapy groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For claims associated with initial episodes of low back pain, low and moderate dose spinal manipulative therapy groups were associated with a 55% and 42% reduction, respectively, in the relative risk of any escalated spine care.

Can self-assessment and augmented feedback improve performance and learning retention in manual therapy: results from an experimental study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate how feedback and self-assessment strategies affect performance and retention of manual skills in a group of chiropractic students. METHODS: Seventy-five students participated in two spinal manipulation (SM) learning sessions using a force-sensing table. They were recruited between May and November 2022 during HVLA technical courses. Students were randomly assigned into three different groups: participants in group 1 received visual feedback, those in group 2 received visual feedback after self-assessment, and participants in group 3 (C) received no feedback. During the first session, participants started with one block of 3 familiarization trials, followed by two blocks of 6 SM HVLA (high velocity low amplitude) posterior-to-anterior thoracic SM trials, with 3 trials performed with a target force of 450 N and 3 others at 800 N. They received feedback according to their group during the first block, but no feedback was provided during the second block. All participants were invited to participate in a second session for the retention test and to perform a new set SM without any form of feedback. RESULTS: Results showed that visual feedback and visual feedback in addition to self-assessment did not improve short-term SM performance, nor did it improve performance at the one-week retention test. The group that received visual feedback and submitted to self-assessment increased the difference between the target force and the peak force applied, which can be considered a decrease in performance. CONCLUSION: No learning effects between the three groups of students exposed to different feedback and self-assessment learning strategies were highlighted in the present study. However, future research on innovative motor learning strategies could explore the role of external focus of attention, self-motivation and autonomy in SM performance training.

Association between cervical artery dissection and spinal manipulative therapy -a medicare claims analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cervical artery dissection and subsequent ischemic stroke is the most serious safety concern associated with cervical spinal manipulation. METHODS: We evaluated the association between cervical spinal manipulation and cervical artery dissection among older Medicare beneficiaries in the United States. We employed case-control and case-crossover designs in the analysis of claims data for individuals aged 65+, continuously enrolled in Medicare Part A (covering hospitalizations) and Part B (covering outpatient encounters) for at least two consecutive years during 2007-2015. The primary exposure was cervical spinal manipulation; the secondary exposure was a clinical encounter for evaluation and management for neck pain or headache. We created a 3-level categorical variable, (1) any cervical spinal manipulation, 2) evaluation and management but no cervical spinal manipulation and (3) neither cervical spinal manipulation nor evaluation and management. The primary outcomes were occurrence of cervical artery dissection, either (1) vertebral artery dissection or (2) carotid artery dissection. The cases had a new primary diagnosis on at least one inpatient hospital claim or primary/secondary diagnosis for outpatient claims on at least two separate days. Cases were compared to 3 different control groups: (1) matched population controls having at least one claim in the same year as the case; (2) ischemic stroke controls without cervical artery dissection; and (3) case-crossover analysis comparing cases to themselves in the time period 6-7 months prior to their cervical artery dissection. We made each comparison across three different time frames: up to (1) 7 days; (2) 14 days; and (3) 30 days prior to index event. RESULTS: The odds of cervical spinal manipulation versus evaluation and management did not significantly differ between vertebral artery dissection cases and any of the control groups at any of the timepoints (ORs 0.84 to 1.88; p > 0.05). Results for carotid artery dissection cases were similar. CONCLUSION: Among Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older who received cervical spinal manipulation, the risk of cervical artery dissection is no greater than that among control groups.

Manual therapy versus advice to stay active for nonspecific back and/or neck pain: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Low back and neck pain are the most common musculoskeletal disorders worldwide, and imply suffering and substantial societal costs, hence effective interventions are crucial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of manual therapy compared with advice to stay active for working age persons with nonspecific back and/or neck pain. METHODS: The two interventions were: a maximum of 6 manual therapy sessions within 6 weeks, including spinal manipulation/mobilization, massage and stretching, performed by a naprapath (index group), respectively information from a physician on the importance to stay active and on how to cope with pain, according to evidence-based advice, at 2 occasions within 3 weeks (control group). A cost-effectiveness analysis with a societal perspective was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial including 409 persons followed for one year, in 2005. The outcomes were health-related Quality of Life (QoL) encoded from the SF-36 and pain intensity. Direct and indirect costs were calculated based on intervention and medication costs and sickness absence data. An incremental cost per health related QoL was calculated, and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The difference in QoL gains was 0.007 (95% CI - 0.010 to 0.023) and the mean improvement in pain intensity was 0.6 (95% CI 0.068-1.065) in favor of manual therapy after one year. Concerning the QoL outcome, the differences in mean cost per person was estimated at - 437 EUR (95% CI - 1302 to 371) and for the pain outcome the difference was - 635 EUR (95% CI - 1587 to 246) in favor of manual therapy. The results indicate that manual therapy achieves better outcomes at lower costs compared with advice to stay active. The sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main results. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that manual therapy for nonspecific back and/or neck pain is slightly less costly and more beneficial than advice to stay active for this sample of working age persons. Since manual therapy treatment is at least as cost-effective as evidence-based advice from a physician, it may be recommended for neck and low back pain. Further health economic studies that may confirm those findings are warranted. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56954776. Retrospectively registered 12 September 2006, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN56954776 .

Initial Choice of Spinal Manipulation Reduces Escalation of Care for Chronic Low Back Pain Among Older Medicare Beneficiaries.

STUDY DESIGN: We combined elements of cohort and crossover-cohort design. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare longterm outcomes for spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and opioid analgesic therapy (OAT) regarding escalation of care for patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Current evidence-based guidelines for clinical management of cLBP include both OAT and SMT. For long-term care of older adults, the efficiency and value of continuing either OAT or SMT are uncertain. METHODS: We examined Medicare claims data spanning a five-year period. We included older Medicare beneficiaries with an episode of cLBP beginning in 2013. All patients were continuously enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D. We analyzed the cumulative frequency of encounters indicative of an escalation of care for cLBP, including hospitalizations, emergency department visits, advanced diagnostic imaging, specialist visits, lumbosacral surgery, interventional pain medicine techniques, and encounters for potential complications of cLBP. RESULTS: SMT was associated with lower rates of escalation of care as compared to OAT. The adjusted rate of escalated care encounters was approximately 2.5 times higher for initial choice of OAT vs. initial choice of SMT (with weighted propensity scoring: rate ratio 2.67, 95% confidence interval 2.64-2.69, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Among older Medicare beneficiaries who initiated long-term care for cLBP with opioid analgesic therapy, the adjusted rate of escalated care encounters was significantly higher as compared to those who initiated care with spinal manipulative therapy.Level of Evidence: 3.

Long-Term Medicare Costs Associated With Opioid Analgesic Therapy vs Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain in a Cohort of Older Adults.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare Medicare healthcare expenditures for patients who received long-term treatment of chronic low back pain (cLBP) with either opioid analgesic therapy (OAT) or spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study using a cohort design for analysis of Medicare claims data. The study population included Medicare beneficiaries enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D from 2012 through 2016. We assembled cohorts of patients who received long-term management of cLBP with OAT or SMT (such as delivered by chiropractic or osteopathic practitioners) and evaluated the comparative effect of OAT vs SMT upon expenditures, using multivariable regression to control for beneficiary characteristics and measures of health status, and propensity score weighting and binning to account for selection bias. RESULTS: The study sample totaled 28,160 participants, of whom 77% initiated long-term care of cLBP with OAT, and 23% initiated care with SMT. For care of low back pain specifically, average long-term costs for patients who initiated care with OAT were 58% lower than those who initiated care with SMT. However, overall long-term healthcare expenditures under Medicare were 1.87 times higher for patients who initiated care via OAT compared with those initiated care with SMT (95% CI 1.65-2.11; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Adults aged 65 to 84 who initiated long-term treatment for cLBP via OAT incurred lower long-term costs for low back pain but higher long-term total healthcare costs under Medicare compared with patients who initiated long-term treatment with SMT.

Risk of Treatment Escalation in Recipients vs Nonrecipients of Spinal Manipulation for Musculoskeletal Cervical Spine Disorders: An Analysis of Insurance Claims.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between treatment escalation and spinal manipulation in a retrospective cohort of people diagnosed with musculoskeletal disorders of the cervical spine. METHODS: We used retrospective analysis of insurance claims data (2012-2018) from a single Fortune 500 company. After isolating the first episode of care, we categorized 58 147 claims into 7951 unique patient episodes. Treatment escalation included claims where imaging, injection, emergency room, or surgery was present. Modified Poisson regression was used to determine the relative risk of treatment escalation comparing recipients vs nonrecipients of spinal manipulation, adjusted for age, sex, episode duration, and risk scores. RESULTS: The sample was 55% women, with a mean age of 44 years (range, 18-103). Treatment escalation was present in 42% of episodes overall: 2448 (46%) associated with other care and 876 (26%) associated with spinal manipulation. The estimated risk of any treatment escalation was 2.38 times higher in those who received other care than in those who received spinal manipulation (95% confidence interval, 2.22-2.55, P = .001). CONCLUSION: Among episodes of care associated with neck pain diagnoses, those associated with other care had twice the risk of any treatment escalation compared with those associated with spinal manipulation. In the United States, over 90% of spinal manipulation is provided by doctors of chiropractic; therefore, these findings are relevant and should be considered in addressing solutions for neck pain. Additional research investigating the factors influencing treatment escalation is necessary to moderate the use of high-cost and guideline-incongruent procedures in people with neck pain.

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.

Initial Choice of Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain Leads to Reduced Long-term Risk of Adverse Drug Events Among Older Medicare Beneficiaries.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. OBJECTIVE: Opioid Analgesic Therapy (OAT) and Spinal Manipulative Therapy (SMT) are evidence-based strategies for treatment of chronic low back pain (cLBP), but the long-term safety of these therapies is uncertain. The objective of this study was to compare OAT versus SMT with regard to risk of adverse drug events (ADEs) among older adults with cLBP. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: We examined Medicare claims data spanning a 5-year period on fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 to 84 years, continuously enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D for a 60-month study period, and with an episode of cLBP in 2013. We excluded patients with a diagnosis of cancer or use of hospice care. METHODS: All included patients received long-term management of cLBP with SMT or OAT. We assembled cohorts of patients who received SMT or OAT only, and cohorts of patients who crossed over from OAT to SMT or from SMT to OAT. We used Poisson regression to estimate the adjusted incidence rate ratio for outpatient ADE among patients who initially chose OAT as compared with SMT. RESULTS: With controlling for patient characteristics, health status, and propensity score, the adjusted rate of ADE was more than 42 times higher for initial choice of OAT versus initial choice of SMT (rate ratio 42.85, 95% CI 34.16-53.76, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Among older Medicare beneficiaries who received long-term care for cLBP the adjusted rate of ADE for patients who initially chose OAT was substantially higher than those who initially chose SMT.Level of Evidence: 2.

Assessment of Studies Evaluating Spinal Manipulative Therapy and Infectious Disease and Immune System Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Claims that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) can improve immune function have increased substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic and may have contributed to the rapid spread of both accurate and inaccurate information (referred to as an infodemic by the World Health Organization). Objective: To identify, appraise, and synthesize the scientific literature on the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT in preventing the development of infectious disease or improving disease-specific outcomes in patients with infectious disease and to examine the association between SMT and selected immunological, endocrine, and other physiological biomarkers. Evidence Review: A literature search of MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Index to Chiropractic Literature, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase was conducted from inception to April 15, 2020. Randomized clinical trials and cohort studies were included. Eligible studies were critically appraised, and evidence with high and acceptable quality was synthesized using the Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis guideline. Findings: A total of 2593 records were retrieved; after exclusions, 50 full-text articles were screened, and 16 articles reporting the findings of 13 studies comprising 795 participants were critically appraised. The literature search found no clinical studies that investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT in preventing the development of infectious disease or improving disease-specific outcomes among patients with infectious disease. Eight articles reporting the results of 6 high- and acceptable-quality RCTs comprising 529 participants investigated the effect of SMT on biomarkers. Spinal manipulative therapy was not associated with changes in lymphocyte levels or physiological markers among patients with low back pain or participants who were asymptomatic compared with sham manipulation, a lecture series, and venipuncture control groups. Spinal manipulative therapy was associated with short-term changes in selected immunological biomarkers among asymptomatic participants compared with sham manipulation, a lecture series, and venipuncture control groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review of 13 studies, no clinical evidence was found to support or refute claims that SMT was efficacious or effective in changing immune system outcomes. Although there were limited preliminary data from basic scientific studies suggesting that SMT may be associated with short-term changes in immunological and endocrine biomarkers, the clinical relevance of these findings is unknown. Given the lack of evidence that SMT is associated with the prevention of infectious diseases or improvements in immune function, further studies should be completed before claims of efficacy or effectiveness are made.

Rupture Risk Assessment of Cervical Spinal Manipulations on Carotid Atherosclerotic Plaque by a 3D Fluid-Structure Interaction Model.

METHOD: The FSI model, based on MRI data of an atherosclerosis patient, was used to simulate the deformations of the plaque and lumen during the process of two kinds of typical cSMT (the high-speed, low-amplitude spinal manipulation and the cervical rotatory manipulation). The biomechanical parameters were recorded, such as the highest wall shear stress (WSS), the maximum plaque wall stress (PWS), the wall tensile stress (Von mises stress, VWTS), and the strain. RESULT: The max_WSS was 33.77 kPa in the most extensive deformation. The highest WSS region on the plaque surface was also the highest PWS region. The max_PWS in a 12% stretch was 55.11 kPa, which was lower than the rupture threshold. The max_VWTS of the cap in 12% stretch which approached the fracture stress level was 116.75 kPa. Moreover, the vessel's max_VWTS values in 10% and 12% stretch were 554.21 and 855.19 kPa. They were higher than the fracture threshold, which might cause media fracture. Meanwhile, the 7% stretched strain was 0.29, closed to the smallest experimental green strains at rupture. CONCLUSION: The carotid arteries' higher stretch generated the higher stress level of the plaque. Cervical rotatory manipulation might cause plaque at a high risk of rupture in deformation after 12% stretch and more. Lower deformation of the plaque and artery caused by the high-speed, low-amplitude spinal manipulation might be safer.

Spinal Manipulation vs Prescription Drug Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain: Beliefs, Satisfaction With Care, and Qualify of Life Among Older Medicare Beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare patients' perspectives on the use of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) compared to prescription drug therapy (PDT) with regard to health-related quality of life (HRQoL), patient beliefs, and satisfaction with treatment. METHODS: Four cohorts of Medicare beneficiaries were assembled according to previous treatment received as evidenced in claims data: SMT, PDT, and 2 crossover cohorts (where participants experienced both types of treatments). A total of 195 Medicare beneficiaries responded to the survey. Outcome measures used were a 0-to-10 numeric rating scale to measure satisfaction, the Low Back Pain Treatment Beliefs Questionnaire to measure patient beliefs, and the 12-item Short Form Health Survey to measure HRQoL. RESULTS: Recipients of SMT were more likely to be very satisfied with their care (84%) than recipients of PDT (50%; P = .002). The SMT cohort self-reported significantly higher HRQoL compared to the PDT cohort; mean differences in physical and mental health scores on the 12-item Short Form Health Survey were 12.85 and 9.92, respectively. The SMT cohort had a lower degree of concern regarding chiropractic care for their back pain compared to the PDT cohort's reported concern about PDT (P = .03). CONCLUSION: Among older Medicare beneficiaries with chronic low back pain, long-term recipients of SMT had higher self-reported rates of HRQoL and greater satisfaction with their modality of care than long-term recipients of PDT. Participants who had longer-term management of care were more likely to have positive attitudes and beliefs toward the mode of care they received.

Three Patterns of Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Back Pain and Their Association With Imaging Studies, Injection Procedures, and Surgery: A Cohort Study of Insurance Claims.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between procedures and care patterns in back pain episodes by analyzing health insurance claims. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of insurance claims data from a single Fortune 500 company. The 3 care patterns we analyzed were initial spinal manipulative therapy, delayed spinal manipulative therapy, and no spinal manipulative therapy. The 3 procedures analyzed were imaging studies, injection procedures, and back surgery. We considered "escalated care" to be any claims with diagnostic imaging, injection procedures, or back surgery. Modified-Poisson regression modeling was used to determine relative risk of escalated care. RESULTS: There were 83 025 claims that were categorized into 10 372 unique patient first episodes. Spinal manipulative therapy was present in 2943 episodes (28%). Initial spinal manipulation was present in 2519 episodes (24%), delayed spinal manipulation was present in 424 episodes (4%), and 7429 (72%) had no evidence of spinal manipulative therapy. The estimated relative risk, adjusted for age, sex, and risk score, for care escalation (eg, imaging, injections, or surgery) was 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.65-0.75, P < .001) for initial spinal manipulation and 1.22 (95% confidence interval 1.10-1.35, P < .001) for delayed spinal manipulation with no spinal manipulation used as the reference group. CONCLUSION: For claims associated with initial episodes of back pain, initial spinal manipulative therapy was associated with an approximately 30% decrease in the risk of imaging studies, injection procedures, or back surgery compared with no spinal manipulative therapy. The risk of imaging studies, injection procedures, or back surgery in episodes in the delayed spinal manipulative therapy group was higher than those without spinal manipulative therapy.

Learning Spinal Manipulation: Objective and Subjective Assessment of Performance.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate associations between objective spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) biomechanical parameters and subjective assessments provided by patients, clinicians, and expert assessors. METHODS: Chiropractic students (N = 137) and expert instructors (N = 14) were recruited. Students were asked to perform a thoracic SMT alternately on each other on a force-sensing table while being observed by an expert instructor. Students who performed (clinicians) and received (patients) SMT, and expert instructors, independently scored each SMT performance using visual analog scales. Correlations between these subjective scores and SMT biomechanical parameters were calculated. The following parameters were evaluated: peak force, preload force, thrust duration, and drop in preload force. Spinal manipulation therapy comfort was also assessed by patients, clinicians, and expert instructors. RESULTS: Results of the study indicate that thrust duration assessed by instructors and patients was the only parameters significantly correlated with the table data (r = .37; P < .001 and r = .26; P = .002). Comfort assessed by clinicians was significantly correlated with their own assessments of thrust duration (r = .37; P < .001) and preload force (r = .23; P = .007), whereas comfort assessed by instructors was significantly correlated with their own assessment of thrust duration (r = .27; P = .002) and drop in preload force (r = -.34; P < .001). Objective biomechanical parameters of performance did not predict perceived comfort. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the results from the subjective assessments of SMT performance are weakly correlated with objective measures of SMT performance. Only the thrust duration evaluated by expert instructors and patients was associated with scores obtained from the table. Perceived comfort of the procedure seems to be associated mostly with perceived thrust duration and preload characteristics.

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.

Posteroanterior Segmental Displacement of the Lumbar Spine: Assessment Using Ultrasound in Asymptomatic Men.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess posteroanterior (PA) segmental displacement of the lumbar spine using ultrasound (US). METHODS: Eight asymptomatic male participants (20.1 ± 0.4 years) were included in this study. The relative depth between the tip of the L4 and L3 spinous processes from the US probe (mm) was measured using US in the following 7 conditions, which were without PA force, applying PA force of 9.8 newton (N), 19.6 N, 29.4 N, 39.2 N, 49.0 N, and 58.8 N to both sides of the L4 costal processes. The measurements were repeated twice within a day. The intraclass correlation coefficient, standard error of measurement (SEM), and minimal detectable change (MDC) were calculated. A repeated-measures analysis of variance was also used to determine the influence of PA force on the relative depth. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficients for the intrarater reliability of the 7 conditions were 0.95 (SEM: 0.43 mm, MDC: 1.19 mm), 0.93 (SEM: 0.45 mm, MDC: 1.25 mm), 0.93 (SEM: 0.47 mm, MDC: 1.30 mm), 0.95 (SEM: 0.37 mm, MDC: 1.02 mm), 0.95 (SEM: 0.40 mm, MDC: 1.10 mm), 0.96 (SEM: 0.38 mm, MDC: 1.04 mm), and 0.95 (SEM: 0.42 mm, MDC: 1.15 mm), respectively. The intrarater reliability of the relative depth using US was reliable. There was no significant change in the relative depth among the 7 conditions (F = 0.88, P = .41). Incrementally greater PA force was not related to greater intersegmental translation. CONCLUSION: Our US method could not detect PA segmental displacement of the lumbar spine.

The impact of patient preferences and costs on the appropriateness of spinal manipulation and mobilization for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain.

BACKGROUND: Although the delivery of appropriate healthcare is an important goal, the definition of what constitutes appropriate care is not always agreed upon. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method is one of the most well-known and used approaches to define care appropriateness from the clinical perspective-i.e., that the expected effectiveness of a treatment exceeds its expected risks. However, patient preferences (the patient perspective) and costs (the healthcare system perspective) are also important determinants of appropriateness and should be considered. METHODS: We examined the impact of including information on patient preferences and cost on expert panel ratings of clinical appropriateness for spinal mobilization and manipulation for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. RESULTS: The majority of panelists thought patient preferences were important to consider in determining appropriateness and that their inclusion could change ratings, and half thought the same about cost. However, few actually changed their appropriateness ratings based on the information presented on patient preferences regarding the use of these therapies and their costs. This could be because the panel received information on average patient preferences for spinal mobilization and manipulation whereas some panelists commented that appropriateness should be determined based on the preferences of individual patients. Also, because these therapies are not expensive, their ratings may not be cost sensitive. The panelists also generally agreed that preferences and costs would only impact their ratings if the therapies were considered clinically appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the information presented on patient preferences and costs for spinal mobilization and manipulation had little impact on the rated appropriateness of these therapies for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. Although it was generally agreed that patient preferences and costs were important to the appropriateness of M/M for CLBP and CNP, it seems that what would be most important were the preferences of the individual patient, not patients in general, and large cost differentials.

Access to chiropractic care and the cost of spine conditions among older adults.

OBJECTIVES: Chiropractic care is a service that operates outside of the conventional medical system and is reimbursed by Medicare. Our objective was to examine the extent to which accessibility of chiropractic care affects spending on medical spine care among Medicare beneficiaries. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study that used beneficiary relocation as a quasi-experiment. METHODS: We used a combination of national data on provider location and Medicare claims to perform a quasi-experimental study to examine the effect of chiropractic care accessibility on healthcare spending. We identified 84,679 older adults enrolled in Medicare with a spine condition who relocated once between 2010 and 2014. For each year, we measured accessibility using the variable-distance enhanced 2-step floating catchment area method. Using data for the years before and after relocation, we estimated the effect of moving to an area of lower or higher chiropractic accessibility on spine-related spending adjusted for access to medical physicians. RESULTS: There are approximately 45,000 active chiropractors in the United States, and local accessibility varies considerably. A negative dose-response relationship was observed for spine-related spending on medical evaluation and management as well as diagnostic imaging and testing (mean differences, $20 and $40, respectively, among those exposed to increasingly higher chiropractic accessibility; P <.05 for both). Associations with other types of spine-related spending were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Among older adults, access to chiropractic care may reduce medical spending on services for spine conditions.

A risk-benefit assessment strategy to exclude cervical artery dissection in spinal manual-therapy: a comprehensive review.

Cervical artery dissection refers to a tear in the internal carotid or the vertebral artery that results in an intramural haematoma and/or an aneurysmal dilatation. Although cervical artery dissection is thought to occur spontaneously, physical trauma to the neck, especially hyperextension and rotation, has been reported as a trigger. Headache and/or neck pain is the most common initial symptom of cervical artery dissection. Other symptoms include Horner's syndrome and lower cranial nerve palsy. Both headache and/or neck pain are common symptoms and leading causes of disability, while cervical artery dissection is rare. Patients often consult their general practitioner for headache and/or neck pain, and because manual-therapy interventions can alleviate headache and/or neck pain, many patients seek manual therapists, such as chiropractors and physiotherapists. Cervical mobilization and manipulation are two interventions that manual therapists use. Both interventions have been suspected of being able to trigger cervical artery dissection as an adverse event. The aim of this review is to provide an updated step-by-step risk-benefit assessment strategy regarding manual therapy and to provide tools for clinicians to exclude cervical artery dissection. Key messages Cervical mobilization and/or manipulation have been suspected to be able to trigger cervical artery dissection (CAD). However, these assumptions are based on case studies which are unable to established direct causality. The concern relates to the chicken and the egg discussion, i.e. whether the CAD symptoms lead the patient to seek cervical manual-therapy or whether the cervical manual-therapy provoked CAD along with the non-CAD presenting complaint. Thus, instead of proving a nearly impossible causality hypothesis, this study provide clinicians with an updated step-by-step risk-benefit assessment strategy tool to (a) facilitate clinicians understanding of CAD, (b) appraise the risk and applicability of cervical manual-therapy, and (c) provide clinicians with adequate tools to better detect and exclude CAD in clinical settings.

Cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation, exercise, and self-management for spinal pain using an individual participant data meta-analysis approach: a study protocol.

Background: Spinal pain is a common and disabling condition with considerable socioeconomic burden. Spine pain management in the United States has gathered increased scrutiny amidst concerns of overutilization of costly and potentially harmful interventions and diagnostic tests. Conservative interventions such as spinal manipulation, exercise and self-management may provide value for the care of spinal pain, but little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions in the U.S. Our primary objective for this project is to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, and self-management for spinal pain using an individual patient data meta-analysis approach. Methods/design: We will estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, and self-management using cost and clinical outcome data collected in eight randomized clinical trials performed in the U.S. Cost-effectiveness will be assessed from both societal and healthcare perspectives using QALYs, pain intensity, and disability as effectiveness measures. The eight randomized clinical trials used similar methods and included different combinations of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, or self-management for spinal pain. They also collected similar clinical outcome, healthcare utilization, and work productivity data. A two-stage approach to individual patient data meta-analysis will be conducted. Discussion: This project capitalizes on a unique opportunity to combine clinical and economic data collected in a several clinical trials that used similar methods. The findings will provide important information on the value of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, and self-management for spinal pain management in the U.S.