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.

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.

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.

Assessment of in vivo 3D kinematics of cervical spine manipulation: Influence of practitioner experience and occurrence of cavitation noise.

BACKGROUND: Investigations on 3D kinematics during spinal manipulation are widely reported for assessing motion data, task reliability and clinical effects. However the link between cavitation occurrence and specific kinematics remains questionable. OBJECTIVES: This paper investigates the 3D head-trunk kinematics during high velocity low amplitude (HVLA) manipulation for different practitioners with respect to the occurrence of cavitation. METHODS: Head-trunk 3D motions were sampled during HVLA manipulation in twenty asymptomatic volunteers manipulated by four practitioners with different seniority (years of experience). Four target levels were selected, C3 and C5 on each side, and were randomly allocated to the different practitioners. The data was recorded before, during and after each set of trial in each anatomical plane. The number of trials with cavitation occurrence was collected for each practitioner. RESULTS: The manipulation task was performed using extension, ipsilateral side bending and contra-lateral axial rotation independent of side or target level. The displayed angular motion magnitudes did not exceed normal active ROM. Regardless cavitation occurrence, wide variations were observed between practitioners, especially in terms of velocity and acceleration. Cavitation occurrence was related to several kinematics features (i.e. frontal ROM and velocity, sagittal acceleration) and practitioner experience. In addition, multilevel cavitation was observed regularly. CONCLUSIONS: Kinematics of cervical manipulation is dependent on practitioner and years of experience. Cavitation occurrence could be related to particular kinematics features. These aspects should be further investigated in order to improve teaching and learning of cervical manipulation technique.

Effect on healthcare utilization and costs of spinal manual therapy for acute low back pain in routine care: A propensity score matched cohort study.

Spinal manual therapy (SMT) is a popular treatment option for low back pain (LBP). The aim of our analysis was to evaluate the effects of manual therapy delivered by general practitioners and ambulatory orthopedic surgeons in routine care on follow up consultations, sick leave, health service utilization and costs for acute LBP compared to matched patients not receiving manual therapy. This is a propensity score matched cohort study based on health claims data. We identified a total of 113.652 adult patients with acute LBP and no coded red flags of whom 21.021 (18%) received SMT by physicians. In the final analysis 17.965 patients in each group could be matched. Balance on patients' coded characteristics, comorbidity and prior health service utilization was achieved. The provision of SMT for acute LBP had no relevant impact on follow up visits and days of sick leave for LBP in the index billing period and the following year. SMT was associated with a higher proportion of imaging studies for LBP (30.6% vs. 23%, SMD: 0.164 [95% CI 0.143-0.185]). SMT did not lead to meaningful savings by replacing other health services for LBP. SMT for acute non-specific LBP in routine care was not clinically meaningful effective to reduce sick leave and reconsultation rates compared to no SMT and did not lead to meaningful savings by replacing other health services from the perspective of health insurance. This does not imply that SMT is ineffective but might reflect a problem with selection of suitable patients and the quality and quantity of SMT in routine care. National Manual Medicine societies should state clearly that imaging is not routinely needed prior to SMT in patients with low suspicion of presence of red flags and monitor the quality of provided services.

Risk of stroke after chiropractic spinal manipulation in medicare B beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years with neck pain.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to quantify risk of stroke after chiropractic spinal manipulation, as compared to evaluation by a primary care physician, for Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years with neck pain. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort analysis of a 100% sample of annualized Medicare claims data on 1 157 475 beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years with an office visit to either a chiropractor or primary care physician for neck pain. We compared hazard of vertebrobasilar stroke and any stroke at 7 and 30 days after office visit using a Cox proportional hazards model. We used direct adjusted survival curves to estimate cumulative probability of stroke up to 30 days for the 2 cohorts. RESULTS: The proportion of subjects with stroke of any type in the chiropractic cohort was 1.2 per 1000 at 7 days and 5.1 per 1000 at 30 days. In the primary care cohort, the proportion of subjects with stroke of any type was 1.4 per 1000 at 7 days and 2.8 per 1000 at 30 days. In the chiropractic cohort, the adjusted risk of stroke was significantly lower at 7 days as compared to the primary care cohort (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.45), but at 30 days, a slight elevation in risk was observed for the chiropractic cohort (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare B beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years with neck pain, incidence of vertebrobasilar stroke was extremely low. Small differences in risk between patients who saw a chiropractor and those who saw a primary care physician are probably not clinically significant.

Assessment of skin blood flow following spinal manual therapy: a systematic review.

Skin blood flow (SBF) indexes have been used to describe physiological mechanisms associated with spinal manual therapy (SMT). The aims of the current review were to assess methods for data collection, assess how investigators interpreted SBF changes, and formulate recommendations to advance manual medicine research. A database search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature through April 2014. Articles were included if at least 1 outcome measure was changes in 1 SBF index following SMT. The database search yielded 344 records. Two independent authors applied the inclusion criteria. Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. Selected studies used heterogeneous methods to assess short-term post-SMT changes in SBF, usually vasoconstriction, which was interpreted as a general sympathoexcitatory effect through central mechanisms. However, this conclusion might be challenged by the current understanding of skin sympathetic nervous activity over local endothelial mechanisms that are specifically controlling SBF. Evaluation of SBF measurements in peripheral tissues following SMT may document physiological responses that are beyond peripheral sympathetic function. Based on the current use of SBF indexes in clinical and physiological research, 14 recommendations for advancing manual medicine research using laser Doppler flowmetry are presented.

Informed consent for chiropractic care: Comparing patients' perceptions to the legal perspective.

PURPOSE: This study explored chiropractic patients' perceptions of exchanging risk information during informed consent and compared them with the legal perspective of the informed consent process. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 26 participants, recruited from chiropractic clinics. Transcripts were analysed using a constant comparative method of analysis. FINDINGS: Participants experienced informed consent as an on-going process where risk information informed their decisions to receive treatment throughout four distinct stages. In the first stage, information acquired prior to arriving at the clinic for treatment shaped perceptions of risk. In stage two, participants assessed the perceived competence of their practitioners. Participants then signed the consent form and discussed the risks with their practitioners. Finally, they communicated with their practitioners during treatment to ensure their pain threshold was not crossed. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that chiropractic patients perceive informed consent as a process involving communication with their practitioners, and that it is possible to educate patients about the risks associated with treatment while satisfying the legal requirements of informed consent.

Symptomatic magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed lumbar disk herniation patients: a comparative effectiveness prospective observational study of 2 age- and sex-matched cohorts treated with either high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulative therapy or imaging-guided lumbar nerve root injections.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare self-reported pain and "improvement" of patients with symptomatic, magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed, lumbar disk herniations treated with either high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) or nerve root injections (NRI). METHODS: This prospective cohort comparative effectiveness study included 102 age- and sex-matched patients treated with either NRI or SMT. Numerical rating scale (NRS) pain data were collected before treatment. One month after treatment, current NRS pain levels and overall improvement assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Change scale were recorded. The proportion of patients, "improved" or "worse," was calculated for each treatment. Comparison of pretreatment and 1-month NRS scores used the paired t test. Numerical rating scale and NRS change scores for the 2 groups were compared using the unpaired t test. The groups were also compared for "improvement" using the χ(2) test. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Average direct procedure costs for each treatment were calculated. RESULTS: No significant differences for self-reported pain or improvement were found between the 2 groups. "Improvement" was reported in 76.5% of SMT patients and in 62.7% of the NRI group. Both groups reported significantly reduced NRS scores at 1 month (P = .0001). Average cost for treatment with SMT was Swiss Francs 533.77 (US $558.75) and Swiss Francs 697 (US $729.61) for NRI. CONCLUSIONS: Most SMT and NRI patients with radicular low back pain and magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed disk herniation matching symptomatic presentation reported significant and clinically relevant reduction in self-reported pain level and increased global perception of improvement. There were no significant differences in outcomes between NRI and SMT. When considering direct procedure costs, the average cost of SMT was slightly less expensive.

Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low back pain: an update of the cochrane review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of interventions. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for acute low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: SMT is one of many therapies for the treatment of low back pain, which is a worldwide, extensively practiced intervention. METHODS: An experienced librarian searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in multiple databases up to March 13, 2011. RCTs that examined manipulation or mobilization in adults with acute low back pain (<6-week duration) were included. The primary outcomes were pain, functional status and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life. Two authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) was used to assess the quality of the evidence. The effects were examined for SMT versus (1) inert interventions, (2) sham SMT, (3) other interventions, and (4) SMT as adjunct therapy. RESULTS: We identified 20 RCTs (total participants = 2674), 12 (60%) of which were not included in the previous review. In total, 6 trials (30% of all included studies) had a low risk of bias. In general, for the outcomes of pain and functional status, there is low- to very low-quality evidence suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared with inert interventions, sham SMT or as adjunct therapy. There was varying quality of evidence (from very low to moderate) suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared with other interventions. Data were particularly sparse for recovery, return-to-work, quality of life, and costs of care. No serious complications were observed with SMT. CONCLUSION: SMT is no more effective for acute low back pain than inert interventions, sham SMT or as adjunct therapy. SMT also seems to be no better than other recommended therapies. Our evaluation is limited by the few numbers of studies; therefore, future research is likely to have an important impact on these estimates. Future RCTs should examine specific subgroups and include an economic evaluation.

Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low-back pain.

BACKGROUND: Many therapies exist for the treatment of low-back pain including spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), which is a worldwide, extensively practised intervention. This report is an update of the earlier Cochrane review, first published in January 2004 with the last search for studies up to January 2000. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of SMT for acute low-back pain, which is defined as pain of less than six weeks duration. SEARCH METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted on 31 March 2011 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature. Other search strategies were employed for completeness. No limitations were placed on language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilization in adults with acute low-back pain were included. In addition, studies were included if the pain was predominantly in the lower back but the study allowed mixed populations, including participants with radiation of pain into the buttocks and legs. Studies which exclusively evaluated sciatica were excluded. No other restrictions were placed on the setting nor the type of pain. The primary outcomes were back pain, back-pain specific functional status, and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life. SMT was defined as any hands-on therapy directed towards the spine, which includes both manipulation and mobilization, and includes studies from chiropractors, manual therapists, and osteopaths. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted the study selection and risk of bias (RoB) assessment. Data extraction was checked by the second review author. The effects were examined in the following comparisons: SMT versus 1) inert interventions, 2) sham SMT, 3) other interventions, and 4) SMT as an additional therapy. In addition, we examined the effects of different SMT techniques compared to one another. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. Authors were contacted, where possible, for missing or unclear data. Outcomes were evaluated at the following time intervals: short-term (one week and one month), intermediate (three to six months), and long-term (12 months or longer). Clinical relevance was defined as: 1) small, mean difference (MD) < 10% of the scale or standardized mean difference (SMD) < 0.4; 2) medium, MD = 10% to 20% of the scale or SMD = 0.41 to 0.7; and 3) large, MD > 20% of the scale or SMD > 0.7. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 20 RCTs (total number of participants = 2674), 12 (60%) of which were not included in the previous review. Sample sizes ranged from 36 to 323 (median (IQR) = 108 (61 to 189)). In total, six trials (30% of all included studies) had a low RoB. At most, three RCTs could be identified per comparison, outcome, and time interval; therefore, the amount of data should not be considered robust. In general, for the primary outcomes, there is low to very low quality evidence suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared to inert interventions, sham SMT, or when added to another intervention. There was varying quality of evidence (from very low to moderate) suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared with other interventions, with the exception of low quality evidence from one trial demonstrating a significant and moderately clinically relevant short-term effect of SMT on pain relief when compared to inert interventions, as well as low quality evidence demonstrating a significant short-term and moderately clinically relevant effect of SMT on functional status when added to another intervention. In general, side-lying and supine thrust SMT techniques demonstrate a short-term significant difference when compared to non-thrust SMT techniques for the outcomes of pain, functional status, and recovery. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: SMT is no more effective in participants with acute low-back pain than inert interventions, sham SMT, or when added to another intervention. SMT also appears to be no better than other recommended therapies. Our evaluation is limited by the small number of studies per comparison, outcome, and time interval. Therefore, future research is likely to have an important impact on these estimates. The decision to refer patients for SMT should be based upon costs, preferences of the patients and providers, and relative safety of SMT compared to other treatment options. Future RCTs should examine specific subgroups and include an economic evaluation.

Motion palpation used as a postmanipulation assessment tool for monitoring end-feel improvement: a randomized controlled trial of test responsiveness.

OBJECTIVE: A tenet of motion palpation theory is the ability to confirm postadjustive segmental end-feel improvement (EFI). Only one previous trial has evaluated the responsiveness of EFI; this was a study of the thoracic spine. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the responsiveness of postadjustive end-feel for evaluating improvement in putative segmental spinal motion restriction after spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) of the cervical spine. METHODS: A prospective, blinded, randomized placebo-controlled pilot trial was conducted with 20 symptomatic and 10 asymptomatic participants recruited from a chiropractic teaching clinic. The treatment group received SMT, and the control group received placebo detuned ultrasound. Responsiveness was evaluated as the etiologic fraction (% of cases with EFI attributable to SMT) and as the sensitivity and specificity of change. RESULTS: For the entire sample, the etiologic fraction was 63% (P = .002), sensitivity was 93%, and specificity was 67%. For symptomatic participants, a strong relationship appeared to exist between receiving SMT and EFI (etiologic fraction = 78%, P = .006; sensitivity = 90%; specificity = 80%). A strong relationship was not found for asymptomatic participants (etiologic fraction = 40%, P = .444; sensitivity = 100%; specificity = 40%), where EFI was recorded frequently, whether participants received SMT or detuned ultrasound. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study showed that motion palpation of end-feel assessment appears to be a responsive postmanipulation assessment tool in the cervical spine for determining whether perceived motion restriction found before treatment improves after SMT. This observation may be limited to symptomatic participants.

Manual physical assessment of spinal segmental motion: intent and validity.

Validity of a clinical test can be defined as the extent to which the test actually assesses what it is intended to assess. In order to investigate the validity of manual physical assessment of the spine, it is therefore essential to establish what physical therapists intend to assess when they are applying these tests. The aims of this study were to (1) establish what manual physical therapists are intending to assess while applying passive intervertebral motion tests; and (2) examine the face validity and content validity for manual physical assessment of the spine. We surveyed 1502 members of the national manual physical therapist organisations of New Zealand and the United States of America using a web-based survey instrument. Sixty-six percent of 466 respondents believed passive accessory intervertebral motion (PAIVM) tests were valid for assessing quantity of segmental motion, and 76% believed passive physiologic intervertebral motion (PPIVM) tests were valid for assessing quantity of segmental motion. Ninety-eight percent of manual physical therapists base treatment decisions at least in part on the results of segmental motion tests. Quality of resistance to passive segmental motion was considered of greater importance than quantity of kinematic motion during PAIVM tests, while the quality of complex kinematic motion was considered of greater importance than quantity of displacement kinematics during PPIVM tests. Manual physical therapists accept the face validity of manual physical assessment of spinal segmental motion to a great extent, however a minority voice scepticism. Content validity is dominated by concepts of segmental kinematics and the force-displacement relationship. Intent of assessment does, however, vary widely between therapists. These data will inform the design of concurrent validity studies. Further work is recommended to increase consistency of intent, methodology and terminology in manual physical assessment of the spine.

Perceptions and use of passive intervertebral motion assessment of the spine: a survey among physiotherapists specializing in manual therapy.

Manual therapists commonly use passive intervertebral motion (PIVM) assessment within physical examination. Data describing the use and interpretation of this manual diagnostic procedure, as well as therapists' perception of related importance and confidence, are lacking. A survey was conducted among Dutch physiotherapists specializing in manual therapy (MT) using a 13-item, self-administered, structured questionnaire. Three hundred and sixty-seven questionnaires were analysed. Response rate from the postal part of the survey was 56%. Dutch manual therapists most frequently apply passive segmental motion assessment to the cervical region and they prefer three-dimensionally coupled motions. They consider end-feel or, to a lesser extent, provocation of patient's pain as decisive for diagnostic conclusions. Respondents believe that these spinal motion tests are important for treatment decisions and are confident in their conclusions drawn from it. These perceptions were largely stable across subgroups of therapists with different gender, age, experience, and educational background. Weekly amount of work related to spinal disorders was positively associated with perceived importance and confidence. Reported use and interpretation of PIVM assessment and related perceptions could only partly be substantiated by evidence. Results from this survey will help researchers design studies better reflecting daily practice in MT.

Clinical assessment techniques for detecting ligament and membrane injuries in the upper cervical spine region--a comparison with MRI results.

In this study we examined whether results from a clinical test of passive mobility of soft tissue structures in the upper cervical spine, corresponded with signs of physical injuries, as judged by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Results were based on examinations of 122 study participants, 92 with and 30 without a diagnosis of whiplash-associated disorder, type 2. The structures considered were the alar and the transverse ligaments, and the tectorial and the posterior atlanto-occipital membranes. Ordinary and weighted kappa coefficients were used as a measure of agreement, whereas McNemar's test was used for evaluating differences in rating. The clinical classification and the MRI examination both comprised four response categories (grades 0-3), with 0 representing a normal structure, and 3 indicating a structure with pronounced abnormality. In our sample, an abnormal clinical test reflected a hyper- rather than hypo-mobility. Considering all four-response categories, the kappa coefficient indicated moderate agreement (range 0.45-0.60) between the clinical and the MRI classification. The results for the membranes appeared somewhat better than for the ligaments. When there was disagreement, the classifications obtained by the clinical test were significantly lower than the MRI grading, but mainly within one grade difference. When combining grade 0-1 (normal) and 2-3 (abnormal), the agreement improved considerably (range 0.70-0.90). Although results from the clinical test seem to be slightly more conservative than the MRI assessment, we believe that a clinical test can serve as valuable clinical tool in the assessment of WAD patients. However, further validity- and reliability studies are needed.

Assessment of diclofenac or spinal manipulative therapy, or both, in addition to recommended first-line treatment for acute low back pain: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate whether the addition of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or spinal manipulative therapy, or both, would result in faster recovery for patients with acute low back pain receiving recommended first-line care. METHODS: 240 patients with acute low back pain who had seen their general practitioner and had been given advice and paracetamol were randomly allocated to one of four groups in our community-based study: diclofenac 50 mg twice daily and placebo manipulative therapy (n=60); spinal manipulative therapy and placebo drug (n=60); diclofenac 50 mg twice daily and spinal manipulative therapy (n=60); or double placebo (n=60). The primary outcome was days to recovery from pain assessed by survival curves (log-rank test) in an intention-to-treat analysis. This trial was registered with the Australian Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN012605000036617. FINDINGS: Neither diclofenac nor spinal manipulative therapy appreciably reduced the number of days until recovery compared with placebo drug or placebo manipulative therapy (diclofenac hazard ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.84-1.42, p=0.516; spinal manipulative therapy hazard ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.77-1.31, p=0.955). 237 patients (99%) either recovered or were censored 12 weeks after randomisation. 22 patients had possible adverse reactions including gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness, and heart palpitations. Half of these patients were in the active diclofenac group, the other half were taking placebo. One patient taking active diclofenac had a suspected hypersensitivity reaction and ceased treatment. INTERPRETATION: Patients with acute low back pain receiving recommended first-line care do not recover more quickly with the addition of diclofenac or spinal manipulative therapy.

Cervical arterial dysfunction assessment and manual therapy.

In this paper, we present a clinical overview of cervical arterial dysfunction (CAD) for manual therapists who treat patients presenting with cervical pain and headache syndromes. An overview of vertebrobasilar arterial insufficiency (VBI) is given, with reference to assessment procedures recommended by commonly used guidelines. We suggest that the evidence supporting contemporary practice is limited and present a more holistic, evidence-based approach to considering CAD. This approach considers typical pain patterns and clinical progressions of both vertebrobasilar, and internal carotid arterial pathologies. Attention to the risk factors and pathomechanics of arterial dysfunction is also given. We suggest that consideration of the information provided in this Masterclass will enhance the manual therapist's clinical reasoning with regard to differential diagnosis of cervical pain syndromes, and prediction of serious adverse reactions to treatment.

Comparison of the effectiveness of a behavioural graded activity program and manual therapy in patients with sub-acute neck pain: design of a randomized clinical trial.

The objective is to present the design of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a behavioural graded activity programme compared with manual therapy in patients with sub-acute neck pain. Sub-acute is defined as pain existing for 4-12 weeks. The behavioural graded activity programme is a time-contingent increase in activities from baseline towards pre-determined goals. Manual therapy consists mainly of specific spinal mobilization techniques and exercises. The primary outcomes are global perceived effect and functional status. Secondary outcomes are kinesiophobia, distress, coping, depression and somatization. The intensity and persistence of the pain and its interference with activities are also assessed. Direct and indirect costs are measured by means of cost diaries. Measurements take place at baseline and 6 and 12 weeks after randomization. To assess the long-term effect, measurements will also take place after 6 and 12 months. Finally some challenges are discussed concerning the use of a behavioural graded activity programme, manual therapy and outcomes.

Lumbar spine segmental mobility assessment: an examination of validity for determining intervention strategies in patients with low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the predictive validity of posterior-anterior (PA) mobility testing in a group of patients with low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient physical therapy clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with LBP (N=131; mean age +/- standard deviation, 33.9+/-10.9 y; range, 19-59 y), and a median symptom duration of 27 days (range, 1-5941 d). Patients completed a baseline examination, including PA mobility testing, and were categorized with respect to both hypomobility and hypermobility (present or absent), and treated for 4 weeks. INTERVENTION: Seventy patients were randomized to an intervention involving manipulation and 61 to a stabilization exercise intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) scores were collected at baseline and after 4 weeks. Three-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were performed to assess the effect of mobility categorization and intervention group on the change on the ODQ with time. Number-needed-to-treat (NNT) statistics were calculated. RESULTS: Ninety-three (71.0%) patients were judged to have hypomobility present and 15 (11.5%) were judged with hypermobility present. The ANOVAs resulted in significant interaction effects. Pairwise comparisons showed greater improvements among patients receiving manipulation categorized with hypomobility present versus absent (mean difference, 23.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1%-42.4%), and among patients receiving stabilization categorized with hypermobility present versus absent (mean difference, 36.4%; 95% CI, 10.3%-69.3%). For patients with hypomobility, failure rates were 26% with manipulation and 74.4% with stabilization (NNT=2.1; 95% CI, 1.6-3.5). For patients with hypermobility, failure rates were 83.3% and 22.2% for manipulation and stabilization, respectively (NNT=1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-10.2). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with LBP judged to have lumbar hypomobility experienced greater benefit from an intervention including manipulation; those judged to have hypermobility were more likely to benefit from a stabilization exercise program.