How Reproducible Are Manual Therapy Interventions in Trials for Low Back Pain? A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the reproducibility of manual therapy interventions used in clinical trials for low back pain (LBP), and summarize knowledge gaps in assessing the reproducibility of manual therapy interventions for LBP. DESIGN: Scoping review. LITERATURE SEARCH: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase were searched for trials from inception through April 2023. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials were included if they described the use of manual therapy to treat LBP in adults 18 to 65 years old and were accessible in English. DATA SYNTHESIS: The Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) checklist, used for exercise reporting, was previously modified for manual therapy reporting. This 11-item modified CERT was used to extract details of manual therapy reporting in the included trials. Frequency counts were calculated to identify items most and least commonly reported. RESULTS: Of 128 trials, none reported all 11 items of the modified CERT. The most commonly reported items were the description of how the application of manual therapy was decided (n = 113, 88.3%) and a description of adjunct interventions provided (n = 82, 64.1%). The least reported items were the description of an associated home program (n = 27, 21.1%) and a detailed description of the application of manual therapy (n = 22, 17.2%). CONCLUSION: Reporting of manual therapy interventions in trials investigating LBP was poor overall, limiting the reproducibility of these treatments. Using a checklist designed explicitly for manual therapy intervention reporting may improve reproducibility of these interventions and help align clinical outcomes with experimental findings. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(4):1-10. Epub 29 January 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12201.

Physical therapy interventions used to treat individuals with biceps tendinopathy: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder pain related to pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) can be debilitating. Chronic LHBT tendinopathy is a common condition that is difficult to treat. Little consensus exists regarding the optimal approach to treating individuals with LHBT tendinopathy. OBJECTIVE: To systematically scope the literature to identify and present the available information regarding physical therapist interventions used for the management of individuals with LHBT tendinopathy including types of interventions used or recommended. METHODS: A scoping review of physical therapist interventions used to treat LHBT was conducted of the CINAHL, Embase, Medline, and SportDiscus databases. Full text records reporting physical therapist-based interventions in individuals with proximal LHBT pathology were included. Articles not written in English were excluded. RESULTS: Of the 4059 records identified, 14 articles met the inclusion criteria. Interventions used to treat LHBT tendinopathy identified in quantitative studies included: extracorporeal shock wave therapy, polarized light, ultrasound, low-level laser, iontophoresis, general exercise, eccentric training, stretching, dry needling, and joint mobilization. Interventions described in literature reviews, clinical commentaries, and a Delphi study included: therapeutic modalities, manual therapy, exercise, dry needling, and patient education. CONCLUSION: This scoping review reported interventions primarily based on therapeutic modalities in quantitative studies while literature reviews, clinical commentaries, and a Delphi study described the addition of manual therapy, patient education, exercise, and dry needling. Overall, there is a dearth of evidence detailing the conservative management of LHBT tendinopathy.

Evaluating and Characterizing the Scope of Care for Interventions Labeled as Manual Therapy in Low Back Pain Trials: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this scoping review was to evaluate and characterize the scope of care for low back pain that falls under the specific label of manual therapy. METHODS: PubMed database, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and SPORTDiscus were searched from journal inception through May 2022 for randomized controlled trials that investigated the treatment of low back pain using manual therapy. Terminology used to define manual therapy was extracted and categorized by using only the words included in the description of the intervention. An expert consultation phase was undertaken to gather feedback. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-six trials met final inclusion criteria, and 169 unique terms labeled as manual therapy for the treatment of low back pain were found. The most frequent terms were mobilization (29.0%), manipulation (16.0%), and thrust (6.4%). Eight percent of trials did not define or specify what type of manual therapy was used in the study. After removing duplicates, 169 unique terms emerged within 18 categories. CONCLUSIONS: Manual therapy intervention labels used in low back pain trials are highly variable. With such variation, the heterogeneity of the intervention in trials is likely large, and the likelihood that different trials are comparing the same interventions is low. Researchers should consider being more judicious with the use of the term manual therapy and provide greater detail in titles, methods, and supplementary appendices in order to improve clarity, clinical applicability, and usefulness of future research. IMPACT: The ability to interpret and apply findings from manual therapy-related research for low back pain is challenging due to the heterogeneity of interventions under this umbrella term. A clear use of terminology and description of interventions by researchers will allow for improved understanding for the role of manual therapy in managing back pain.

Incomplete reporting of manual therapy interventions and a lack of clinician and setting diversity in clinical trials for neck pain limits replication and real-world translation. A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Neck pain is a leading cause of disability, and manual therapy (MT) is a common intervention used across disciplines and settings to treat it. While there is consistent support for MT in managing neck pain, questions remain about the feasibility of incorporating MT from research into clinical practice. The purpose of this scoping review was to assess the adequacy of MT intervention descriptions and the variability in clinician and setting for MT delivery in trials for neck pain. METHODS: Medline (via PubMed), CINAHL, PEDRo, and the Cochrane Central Registry for Controlled Trials were searched for clinical trials published from January 2010 to November 2021. A 11-item tool modified from the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template was used to assess appropriateness of intervention reporting. Clinicians, subclassifications of neck pain, and clinical settings were also extracted. RESULTS: 113 trials were included. A low percentage of studies provided the recommended level of detail in the description of how MT was delivered (4.4%), while 39.0% included no description at all. Just over half of trials included clinician's qualifications (58.4%), dose of MT (59.3%), and occurrence of adverse events (55.8%). The proportion of trials with clinicians delivering MT were physical therapists (77.9%), chiropractors (10.6%), and osteopaths (2.7%). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: These results reveal incomplete reporting of essential treatment parameters, and a lack of clinician diversity. To foster reproducibility, researchers should report detailed descriptions of MT interventions. Future research should incorporate a variety of MT practitioners to improve generalizability.

Over Half of Clinical Trials of Mobilization and Manipulation for Patients With Low Back Pain May Have Limited Real-World Applicability: A Systematic Review of 132 Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the existing body of trials assessing manual therapy for low back pain (LBP) to determine where it falls on the efficacyeffectiveness continuum. DESIGN: Methodology systematic review. LITERATURE SEARCH: PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) were searched for trials published between January 1, 2000, and April 30, 2021. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized clinical trials investigating joint mobilization and manipulation for adults with nonspecific LBP that were available in English. DATA SYNTHESIS: We used the Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool to score included trials across 4 domains: participant characteristics, trial setting, flexibility of intervention(s), and clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention(s). Proportions of trials with greater emphasis on efficacy or effectiveness were calculated for each domain. RESULTS: Of the 132 included trials, a greater proportion emphasized efficacy than effectiveness for domains participant characteristics (50% vs 38%), trial setting (71% vs 20%), and flexibility of intervention(s) (61% vs 25%). The domain clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention(s) had lower emphasis on efficacy (41% vs 50%). CONCLUSION: Most trials investigating manual therapy for LBP lack pragmatism across the RITES domains (ie, they emphasize efficacy). To improve real-world implementation, more research emphasizing effectiveness is needed. This could be accomplished by recruiting from more diverse participant pools, involving multiple centers that reflect common clinical practice settings, involving clinicians with a variety of backgrounds/experience, and allowing flexibility in how interventions are delivered. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(8):532-545. Epub: 19 June 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10962.

What do patients referred to physical therapy for a musculoskeletal condition expect? A qualitative assessment.

BACKGROUND: Patient expectations related to physical therapy outcomes are commonly collected through surveys and close-ended questionnaires. These methods may not optimally capture patients' expectations for physical therapy, especially in the patients' own words. Louis Gifford identified four questions attempting to guide clinicians' understanding of patients' expectations for physical therapy. However, a qualitative assessment mapping the expectations that patients have prior to starting physical therapy appears to be undocumented. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine patient expectations prior to beginning physical therapy for individuals with musculoskeletal conditions. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis with structured interviews and open-ended participant responses. METHODS: Twenty-five people (18 female, 7 male; mean age: 47.04 years) were interviewed prior to their initial physical therapy evaluation using a pragmatic approach rooted in phenomenology. Data were transcribed, coded, and thematized using qualitative data analysis software. RESULTS: Outcome, education, exercise, evaluation, and cause of pain were key themes expressed by participants. Participants appear to want to better understand their symptoms, how they can improve symptoms, what the clinician will do, and how long they will attend physical therapy. Many participants were not certain where physical therapy fit within their overall healthcare plan, and perceptions of manual therapy were vague. CONCLUSIONS: These identified themes highlight what patients may expect from a physical therapy experience and clinicians should work to identify and satisfy each patient's individual expectations to optimize outcomes.

The influence of manual therapy dosing on outcomes in patients with hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To 1) Determine if specific dosing parameters of manual therapy are related to improved pain, disability, and quality of life outcomes in patients with hip osteoarthritis and 2) to provide recommendations for optimal manual therapy dosing based on our findings. DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials from the PubMed, CINAHL, and OVID databases that used manual therapy interventions to treat hip osteoarthritis was performed. Three reviewers assessed the risk of bias for included studies and extracted relevant outcome data based on predetermined criteria. Baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations for outcome measures were used to calculate effect sizes for within and between-group differences. RESULTS: Ten studies were included in the final analyses totaling 768 participants, and half were graded as high risk of bias. Trends emerged: 1) large effect sizes were seen using long-axis distraction, mobilization and thrust manipulation, 2) mobilization with movement showed large effects for pain and range of motion, and (3) small effects were associated with graded mobilization. Durations of 10 to 30 minutes per session, and frequency 2-3 times per week for 2-6 weeks were the most common dosing parameters. CONCLUSIONS: There were varied effect sizes associated with pain, function, and quality of life for both thrust and non-thrust mobilizations, and mobilization with movement into hip flexion and internal rotation. Due to the heterogeneity of MT dosage, it is difficult to recommend a specific manual therapy dosage for those with hip osteoarthritis.