Conservative Management of Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of conservative interventions compared with other interventions, placebo/sham interventions, or no intervention on disability, pain, function, quality of life, and psychological impact in adults with cervical radiculopathy (CR). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO from inception to June 15, 2022 to identify studies that were randomized controlled trials, had at least one conservative treatment arm, and diagnosed participants with CR through confirmatory clinical examination and/or diagnostic tests. Studies were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the quality of the evidence was rated using the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Of the 2561 records identified, 59 trials met our inclusion criteria (n = 4108 participants). Due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity, the findings were synthesized narratively. There is very-low certainty evidence supporting the use of acupuncture, prednisolone, cervical manipulation, and low-level laser therapy for pain and disability in the immediate to short-term, and thoracic manipulation and low-level laser therapy for improvements in cervical range of motion in the immediate term. There is low to very-low certainty evidence for multimodal interventions, providing inconclusive evidence for pain, disability, and range of motion. There is inconclusive evidence for pain reduction after conservative management compared with surgery, rated as very-low certainty. DISCUSSION: There is a lack of high-quality evidence, limiting our ability to make any meaningful conclusions. As the number of people with CR is expected to increase, there is an urgent need for future research to help address these gaps.

Adherence to spinal imaging guidelines and utilization of lumbar spine diagnostic imaging for low back pain at a Canadian Chiropractic College: a historical clinical cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic imaging is useful for assessing low back pain (LBP) when a clinician suspects a specific underlying pathology. Evidence-based imaging guidelines assist clinicians in appropriately determining the need for imaging when assessing LBP. A previous study reported high adherence to three clinical guidelines, with utilization rate of 12.3% in imaging of LBP patients attending a chiropractic teaching clinic. A new imaging guideline for spinal disorders has been published and used in teaching. Thus, the aims of our study were to assess the adherence to the new guideline and X-ray utilization in new episodes of LBP. METHODS: We conducted a historical clinical cohort study using patient electronic health record audits at seven teaching clinics over a period of 20 months. Records of patients who were at least 18 years of age, presented with a new onset of LBP, and consented to data collection were included. Abstracted data included patient demographics, the number and type of red flags, and the decision to image. Rate of guideline adherence (proportion of those not recommended for imaging, given no red flags) and rate of image utilization were descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: We included 498 patients in this study. At least 81% of included patients had one or more red flags reported. The most commonly reported individual red flag was age ≥ 50 (43.8%) followed by pain at rest (15.7%). In those referred for imaging, age ≥ 50 (93.3%) was the most frequently reported red flag. No red flag(s) were identified in 93 patient records, and none were referred for imaging of their LBP, yielding an adherence rate of 100% (95% CI 96, 100%). A total of 17 of 498 patients were recommended for imaging for their low back pain, resulting in an imaging utilization rate of 3.4% (95% CI 1.8, 5.0%). CONCLUSION: The imaging utilization rate was 3.4%, lower than 12.3% previously reported at a chiropractic teaching clinic. None without red flags were referred for imaging, yielding a 100%, adherence rate to current LBP imaging guidelines. Future research should consider currency of guideline, accuracy of red flags and factors influencing clinicians' decision, when assessing imaging adherence rates.

Non-operative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication: an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a growing health problem in older adults. We updated our previous Cochrane review (2013) to determine the effectiveness of non-operative treatment of LSS with neurogenic claudication. DESIGN: A systematic review. DATA SOURCES: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Index to Chiropractic Literature databases were searched and updated up to 22 July 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We only included randomised controlled trials published in English where at least one arm provided data on non-operative treatment and included participants diagnosed with neurogenic claudication with imaging confirmed LSS. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 1. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used for evidence synthesis. RESULTS: Of 15 200 citations screened, 156 were assessed and 23 new trials were identified. There is moderate-quality evidence from three trials that: Manual therapy and exercise provides superior and clinically important short-term improvement in symptoms and function compared with medical care or community-based group exercise; manual therapy, education and exercise delivered using a cognitive-behavioural approach demonstrates superior and clinically important improvements in walking distance in the immediate to long term compared with self-directed home exercises and glucocorticoid plus lidocaine injection is more effective than lidocaine alone in improving statistical, but not clinically important improvements in pain and function in the short term. The remaining 20 new trials demonstrated low-quality or very low-quality evidence for all comparisons and outcomes, like the findings of our original review. CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-quality evidence that a multimodal approach which includes manual therapy and exercise, with or without education, is an effective treatment and that epidural steroids are not effective for the management of LSS with neurogenic claudication. All other non-operative interventions provided insufficient quality evidence to make conclusions on their effectiveness. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020191860.

The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial. OBJECTIVES: We convened a Global Summit of international scientists to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of non-musculoskeletal disorders. GLOBAL SUMMIT: The Global Summit took place on September 14-15, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. It was attended by 50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations. At the summit, participants critically appraised the literature and synthesized the evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 15, 2019 using subject headings specific to each database and free text words relevant to manipulation/manual therapy, effectiveness, prevention, treatment, and non-musculoskeletal disorders. Eligible for review were randomized controlled trials published in English. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria for randomized controlled trials. We synthesized the evidence from articles with high or acceptable methodological quality according to the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) Guideline. The final risk of bias and evidence tables were reviewed by researchers who attended the Global Summit and 75% (38/50) had to approve the content to reach consensus. RESULTS: We retrieved 4997 citations, removed 1123 duplicates and screened 3874 citations. Of those, the eligibility of 32 articles was evaluated at the Global Summit and 16 articles were included in our systematic review. Our synthesis included six randomized controlled trials with acceptable or high methodological quality (reported in seven articles). These trials investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the management of infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. None of the trials evaluated the effectiveness of SMT in preventing the occurrence of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Consensus was reached on the content of all risk of bias and evidence tables. All randomized controlled trials with high or acceptable quality found that SMT was not superior to sham interventions for the treatment of these non-musculoskeletal disorders. Six of 50 participants (12%) in the Global Summit did not approve the final report. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review included six randomized clinical trials (534 participants) of acceptable or high quality investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function. Governments, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should consider this evidence when developing policies about the use and reimbursement of SMT for non-musculoskeletal disorders.

Multimodal non-surgical intervention for individuals with knee osteoarthritis: a retrospective case series.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to review the pain and functional outcomes of a multimodal intervention in three patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). This study explores how manual therapy can be delivered within an evidence-based framework for the management of knee OA. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for three patients with knee OA who underwent a standardized multimodal intervention including education, exercise, and manual therapy. Changes in pain intensity and function from baseline to post-intervention were calculated and compared to thresholds for minimal clinically important differences. RESULTS: One participant met the threshold for clinically significant improvement in pain and two participants for function. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Combined education, exercise, and manual therapy delivered over a 6-week period improved function in two of the three patients reviewed. Higher quality research is required to explore whether this multimodal intervention may improve outcomes in individuals with knee OA.

INTRODUCTION: Le but de cette étude est d'examiner les résultats en matière de douleur et de fonction d'une intervention multimodale chez trois patients atteints d'arthrose du genou. Cette étude explore comment la thérapie manuelle peut être dispensée dans un cadre fondé sur des données probantes pour la prise en charge de l'arthrose du genou. MÉTHODES: On a examiné les dossiers médicaux de trois patients atteints d'arthrose du genou qui ont subi une intervention multimodale normalisée comprenant l'éducation, l'exercice et la thérapie manuelle. Les changements concernant l'intensité de la douleur et la fonction entre le début et la fin de l'intervention ont été calculés et comparés aux seuils pour connaître les différences minimales importantes sur le plan clinique. RÉSULTATS: Un participant a atteint le seuil d'amélioration significative du point de vue clinique pour ce qui est de la douleur et deux participants pour ce qui est de la fonction. Aucun effet indésirable n'a été signalé. CONCLUSION: L'éducation, l'exercice et la thérapie manuelle combinés sur une période de six semaines ont amélioré les fonctions chez deux des trois patients examinés. Des recherches de meilleure qualité sont nécessaires pour déterminer si cette intervention multimodale peut améliorer les résultats chez les personnes atteintes d'arthrose du genou.

Effect of active TENS versus de-tuned TENS on walking capacity in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial.

Background context: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) leads to diminished blood flow to the spinal nerves causing neurogenic claudication and impaired walking ability. Animal studies have demonstrated increased blood flow to the spinal nerves and spinal cord with superficial para-spinal electrical stimulation of the skin. Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of active para-spinal transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) compared to de-tuned TENS applied while walking, on improving walking ability in LSS. Study design: This was a two-arm double-blinded (participant and assessor) randomized controlled trial. Patient sample: We recruited 104 participants 50 years of age or older with neurogenic claudication, imaging confirmed LSS and limited walking ability. Outcome measures: The primary measure was walking distance measured by the self-paced walking test (SPWT) and the primary outcome was the difference in proportions among participants in both groups who achieved at least a 30% improvement in walking distance from baseline using relative risk with 95% confidence intervals. Methods: The active TENS group (n = 49) received para-spinal TENS from L3-S1 at a frequency of 65-100 Hz modulated over 3-s intervals with a pulse width of 100-200 usec, and turned on 2 min before the start and maintained during the SPWT. The de-tuned TENS group (n = 51) received similarly applied TENS for 30 s followed by ramping down to zero stimulus and turned off before the start and during the SPWT.Study funded by The Arthritis Society ($365,000 CAN) and salary support for Carlo Ammendolia funded by the Canadian Chiropractic Research Foundation ($500,000 CAN over 5 years). Results: From August 2014 to January 2016 a total of 640 potential participants were screened for eligibility; 106 were eligible and 104 were randomly allocated to active TENS or de-tuned TENS. Both groups showed significant improvement in walking distance but there was no significant difference between groups. The mean difference between active and de-tuned TENS groups was 46.9 m; 95% CI (- 118.4 to 212.1); P = 0.57. A total of 71% (35/49) of active TENS and 74% (38/51) of de-tuned TENS participants achieved at least 30% improvement in walking distance; relative risk (RR), 0.96; 95% CI, (0.7 to 1.2) P = 0.77. Conclusions: Active TENS applied while walking is no better than de-tuned TENS for improving walking ability in patients with degenerative LSS and therefore should not be a recommended treatment in clinical practice. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02592642. Registration October 30, 2015.

Clinical Outcomes in Neurogenic Claudication Using a Multimodal Program for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Study of 49 Patients With Prospective Long-term Follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess long-term outcomes of a 6-week multimodal program (manual therapy, exercises, and self-management strategies) in patients with neurogenic claudication due to degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: This study evaluated 49 patients with neurogenic claudication who completed a 6-week multimodal program between 2010 and 2013. Outcomes included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), and Numeric Rating Scale. Mean differences, paired t tests, and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to compare outcomes at baseline, 6 weeks, and long-term follow-up. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients completed the follow-up questionnaire (47% response rate). Median follow-up was 3.6 years (interquartile range: 3.3-4.6). The mean age was 73.5 years (standard deviation: 8.5). Between baseline and long-term follow-up, there were statistically significant and clinically important improvements in disability (ODI: -23.7 [95% confidence interval (CI): -15.7 to -31.6]; ODI walking item: -1.96 [95% CI: -1.34 to -2.57]; ZCQ function scale: -0.42 [95% CI: -0.10 to -0.70]) and pain (leg pain: -3.53 [95% CI: -1.80 to -5.20]; ZCQ symptom scale: -0.71 [95% CI: -0.30 to -1.10]), but not low back pain (Numeric Rating Scale: -1.03 [95% CI: -1.00 to 3.10]). There was no statistically significant change in any outcomes between 6 weeks and long-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: In a sample of patients with neurogenic claudication participating in a 6-week multimodal program, clinically important improvements in leg pain and disability, but not low back pain while walking, were maintained in the long term (median duration of 3.6 years) when compared to baseline.

Non-pharmacological management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain: A clinical practice guideline from the Ontario protocol for traffic injury management (OPTIMa) collaboration.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an evidence-based guideline for the non-pharmacological management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain (i.e., tension-type or cervicogenic). METHODS: This guideline is based on systematic reviews of high-quality studies. A multidisciplinary expert panel considered the evidence of clinical benefits, cost-effectiveness, societal and ethical values, and patient experiences when formulating recommendations. Target audience includes clinicians; target population is adults with persistent headaches associated with neck pain. RESULTS: When managing patients with headaches associated with neck pain, clinicians should (a) rule out major structural or other pathologies, or migraine as the cause of headaches; (b) classify headaches associated with neck pain as tension-type headache or cervicogenic headache once other sources of headache pathology has been ruled out; (c) provide care in partnership with the patient and involve the patient in care planning and decision making; (d) provide care in addition to structured patient education; (e) consider low-load endurance craniocervical and cervicoscapular exercises for tension-type headaches (episodic or chronic) or cervicogenic headaches >3 months duration; (f) consider general exercise, multimodal care (spinal mobilization, craniocervical exercise and postural correction) or clinical massage for chronic tension-type headaches; (g) do not offer manipulation of the cervical spine as the sole form of treatment for episodic or chronic tension-type headaches; (h) consider manual therapy (manipulation with or without mobilization) to the cervical and thoracic spine for cervicogenic headaches >3 months duration. However, there is no added benefit in combining spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization and exercises; and (i) reassess the patient at every visit to assess outcomes and determine whether a referral is indicated. CONCLUSIONS: Our evidence-based guideline provides recommendations for the conservative management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain. The impact of the guideline in clinical practice requires validation. SIGNIFICANCE: Neck pain and headaches are very common comorbidities in the population. Tension-type and cervicogenic headaches can be treated effectively with specific exercises. Manual therapy can be considered as an adjunct therapy to exercise to treat patients with cervicogenic headaches. The management of tension-type and cervicogenic headaches should be patient-centred.

Comparative Clinical Effectiveness of Nonsurgical Treatment Methods in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most common reason for spine surgery in older US adults. There is an evidence gap about nonsurgical LSS treatment options. Objective: To explore the comparative clinical effectiveness of 3 nonsurgical interventions for patients with LSS. Design, Setting, and Participants: Three-arm randomized clinical trial of 3 years' duration (November 2013 to June 2016). Analysis began in August 2016. All interventions were delivered during 6 weeks with follow-up at 2 months and 6 months at an outpatient research clinic. Patients older than 60 years with LSS were recruited from the general public. Eligibility required anatomical evidence of central canal and/or lateral recess stenosis (magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography) and clinical symptoms associated with LSS (neurogenic claudication; less symptoms with flexion). Analysis was intention to treat. Interventions: Medical care, group exercise, and manual therapy/individualized exercise. Medical care consisted of medications and/or epidural injections provided by a physiatrist. Group exercise classes were supervised by fitness instructors in senior community centers. Manual therapy/individualized exercise consisted of spinal mobilization, stretches, and strength training provided by chiropractors and physical therapists. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were between-group differences at 2 months in self-reported symptoms and physical function measured by the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire (score range, 12-55) and a measure of walking capacity using the self-paced walking test (meters walked for 0 to 30 minutes). Results: A total of 259 participants (mean [SD] age, 72.4 [7.8] years; 137 women [52.9%]) were allocated to medical care (88 [34.0%]), group exercise (84 [32.4%]), or manual therapy/individualized exercise (87 [33.6%]). Adjusted between-group analyses at 2 months showed manual therapy/individualized exercise had greater improvement of symptoms and physical function compared with medical care (-2.0; 95% CI, -3.6 to -0.4) or group exercise (-2.4; 95% CI, -4.1 to -0.8). Manual therapy/individualized exercise had a greater proportion of responders (≥30% improvement) in symptoms and physical function (20%) and walking capacity (65.3%) at 2 months compared with medical care (7.6% and 48.7%, respectively) or group exercise (3.0% and 46.2%, respectively). At 6 months, there were no between-group differences in mean outcome scores or responder rates. Conclusions and Relevance: A combination of manual therapy/individualized exercise provides greater short-term improvement in symptoms and physical function and walking capacity than medical care or group exercises, although all 3 interventions were associated with improvements in long-term walking capacity. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01943435.

Effect of a prototype lumbar spinal stenosis belt versus a lumbar support on walking capacity in lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) can impair blood flow to the spinal nerves giving rise to neurogenic claudication and limited walking ability. Reducing lumbar lordosis can increases the volume of the spinal canal and reduce neuroischemia. We developed a prototype LSS belt aimed at reducing lumbar lordosis while walking. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the short-term effectiveness of a prototype LSS belt compared to a lumbar support in improving walking ability in patients with degenerative LSS. STUDY DESIGN: This was a two-arm, double-blinded (participant and assessor) randomized controlled trial. PATIENT SAMPLE: We recruited 104 participants aged 50 years or older with neurogenic claudication, imaging confirmed degenerative LSS, and limited walking ability. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary measure was walking distance measured by the self-paced walking test (SPWT) and the primary outcome was the difference in proportions among participants in both groups who achieved at least a 30% improvement in walking distance from baseline using relative risk with 95% confidence intervals. METHODS: Within 1 week of a baseline SPWT, participants randomized to the prototype LSS belt group (n=52) and those randomized to the lumbar support group (n=52) performed a SPWT that was conducted by a blinded assessor. The Arthritis Society funded this study ($365,000 CAN) with salary support for principal investigator funded by the Canadian Chiropractic Research Foundation ($500,000 CAN for 5 years). RESULTS: Both groups showed significant improvement in walking distance, but there was no significant difference between groups. The mean group difference in walking distance was -74 m (95% CI: -282.8 to 134.8, p=.49). In total, 62% of participants wearing the prototype LSS belt and 82% of participants wearing the lumbar support achieved at least 30% improvement in walking distance (relative risk, 0.7; 95% CI: 0.5-1.3, p=.43). CONCLUSIONS: A prototype LSS belt demonstrated significant improvement in walking ability in degenerative LSS but was no better than a lumbar support.

The physical and psychological impact of neurogenic claudication: the patients' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: The patient perspective regarding the impact of neurogenic claudication (NC) has not been well studied. The objectives of this study were to determine what is most bothersome among patients with NC and how it impacts their lives and expectations with surgical and non-surgical treatment. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted, audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis categorized key findings based on relative importance and impact on participants. RESULTS: Twenty-eight individuals participated in this study. Participants were most bothered by the pain of NC, which dramatically impacted their lives. Inability to walk was the dominant functional limitation and this impacted the ability to engage in recreational and social activities. The most surprising finding was how frequently participants reported significant emotional effects of NC. CONCLUSIONS: From a patients' perspective NC has a significant multidimensional effects with pain, limited walking ability and emotional effects being most impactful to their lives.

CONTEXTE: Le point de vue du patient concernant l'effet de la claudication neurogène (CN) n'a pas fait l'objet d'études poussées. Les objectifs de cette étude étaient de déterminer ce qui gêne le plus les patients atteints de CN, ainsi que les répercussions sur leur vie et leurs attentes vis-à-vis des traitements chirurgicaux et non chirurgicaux. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Entrevues téléphoniques semistructurées avec enregistrement audio et transcription textuelle. Une analyse thématique a permis de catégoriser les principales conclusions selon l'importance relative et les répercussions sur les participants. RÉSULTATS: Vingt-huit personnes ont participé à l'étude. Les participants étaient surtout gênés par la douleur de la CN, qui a d'énormes répercussions sur leur vie. L'incapacité à marcher constituait la limitation fonctionnelle dominante qui avait des conséquences sur la capacité à réaliser des activités récréatives et sociales. La conclusion la plus surprenante était la fréquence à laquelle les participants ont déclaré d'importantes séquelles émotionnelles associées à la CN. CONCLUSIONS: Du point de vue des patients, la CN présente d'importants effets multidimensionnels avec la douleur, la capacité de locomotion limitée et les séquelles émotionnelles comme répercussions les plus considérables sur la vie des patients.

Management of neck pain and associated disorders: A clinical practice guideline from the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration.

PURPOSE: To develop an evidence-based guideline for the management of grades I-III neck pain and associated disorders (NAD). METHODS: This guideline is based on recent systematic reviews of high-quality studies. A multidisciplinary expert panel considered the evidence of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, societal and ethical values, and patient experiences (obtained from qualitative research) when formulating recommendations. Target audience includes clinicians; target population is adults with grades I-III NAD <6 months duration. RECOMMENDATION 1: Clinicians should rule out major structural or other pathologies as the cause of NAD. Once major pathology has been ruled out, clinicians should classify NAD as grade I, II, or III. RECOMMENDATION 2: Clinicians should assess prognostic factors for delayed recovery from NAD. RECOMMENDATION 3: Clinicians should educate and reassure patients about the benign and self-limited nature of the typical course of NAD grades I-III and the importance of maintaining activity and movement. Patients with worsening symptoms and those who develop new physical or psychological symptoms should be referred to a physician for further evaluation at any time during their care. RECOMMENDATION 4: For NAD grades I-II ≤3 months duration, clinicians may consider structured patient education in combination with: range of motion exercise, multimodal care (range of motion exercise with manipulation or mobilization), or muscle relaxants. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer structured patient education alone, strain-counterstrain therapy, relaxation massage, cervical collar, electroacupuncture, electrotherapy, or clinic-based heat. RECOMMENDATION 5: For NAD grades I-II >3 months duration, clinicians may consider structured patient education in combination with: range of motion and strengthening exercises, qigong, yoga, multimodal care (exercise with manipulation or mobilization), clinical massage, low-level laser therapy, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer strengthening exercises alone, strain-counterstrain therapy, relaxation massage, relaxation therapy for pain or disability, electrotherapy, shortwave diathermy, clinic-based heat, electroacupuncture, or botulinum toxin injections. RECOMMENDATION 6: For NAD grade III ≤3 months duration, clinicians may consider supervised strengthening exercises in addition to structured patient education. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer structured patient education alone, cervical collar, low-level laser therapy, or traction. RECOMMENDATION 7: For NAD grade III >3 months duration, clinicians should not offer a cervical collar. Patients who continue to experience neurological signs and disability more than 3 months after injury should be referred to a physician for investigation and management. RECOMMENDATION 8: Clinicians should reassess the patient at every visit to determine if additional care is necessary, the condition is worsening, or the patient has recovered. Patients reporting significant recovery should be discharged.

Are non-invasive interventions effective for the management of headaches associated with neck pain? An update of the Bone and Joint Decade Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration.

PURPOSE: To update findings of the 2000-2010 Bone and Joint Decade Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders and evaluate the effectiveness of non-invasive and non-pharmacological interventions for the management of patients with headaches associated with neck pain (i.e., tension-type, cervicogenic, or whiplash-related headaches). METHODS: We searched five databases from 1990 to 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies comparing non-invasive interventions with other interventions, placebo/sham, or no interventions. Random pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria to determine scientific admissibility. Studies with a low risk of bias were synthesized following best evidence synthesis principles. RESULTS: We screened 17,236 citations, 15 studies were relevant, and 10 had a low risk of bias. The evidence suggests that episodic tension-type headaches should be managed with low load endurance craniocervical and cervicoscapular exercises. Patients with chronic tension-type headaches may also benefit from low load endurance craniocervical and cervicoscapular exercises; relaxation training with stress coping therapy; or multimodal care that includes spinal mobilization, craniocervical exercises, and postural correction. For cervicogenic headaches, low load endurance craniocervical and cervicoscapular exercises; or manual therapy (manipulation with or without mobilization) to the cervical and thoracic spine may also be helpful. CONCLUSIONS: The management of headaches associated with neck pain should include exercise. Patients who suffer from chronic tension-type headaches may also benefit from relaxation training with stress coping therapy or multimodal care. Patients with cervicogenic headache may also benefit from a course of manual therapy.

Are manual therapies, passive physical modalities, or acupuncture effective for the management of patients with whiplash-associated disorders or neck pain and associated disorders? An update of the Bone and Joint Decade Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders by the OPTIMa collaboration.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: In 2008, the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) found limited evidence on the effectiveness of manual therapies, passive physical modalities, or acupuncture for the management of whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) or neck pain and associated disorders (NAD). PURPOSE: This review aimed to update the findings of the Neck Pain Task Force, which examined the effectiveness of manual therapies, passive physical modalities, and acupuncture for the management of WAD or NAD. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This is a systematic review and best evidence synthesis. SAMPLE: The sample includes randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies comparing manual therapies, passive physical modalities, or acupuncture with other interventions, placebo or sham, or no intervention. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures were self-rated or functional recovery, pain intensity, health-related quality of life, psychological outcomes, or adverse events. METHODS: We systematically searched five databases from 2000 to 2014. Random pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Studies with a low risk of bias were stratified by the intervention's stage of development (exploratory vs. evaluation) and synthesized following best evidence synthesis principles. Funding was provided by the Ministry of Finance. RESULTS: We screened 8,551 citations, and 38 studies were relevant and 22 had a low risk of bias. Evidence from seven exploratory studies suggests that (1) for recent but not persistent NAD grades I-II, thoracic manipulation offers short-term benefits; (2) for persistent NAD grades I-II, technical parameters of cervical mobilization (eg, direction or site of manual contact) do not impact outcomes, whereas one session of cervical manipulation is similar to Kinesio Taping; and (3) for NAD grades I-II, strain-counterstrain treatment is no better than placebo. Evidence from 15 evaluation studies suggests that (1) for recent NAD grades I-II, cervical and thoracic manipulation provides no additional benefit to high-dose supervised exercises, and Swedish or clinical massage adds benefit to self-care advice; (2) for persistent NAD grades I-II, home-based cupping massage has similar outcomes to home-based muscle relaxation, low-level laser therapy (LLLT) does not offer benefits, Western acupuncture provides similar outcomes to non-penetrating placebo electroacupuncture, and needle acupuncture provides similar outcomes to sham-penetrating acupuncture; (3) for WAD grades I-II, needle electroacupuncture offers similar outcomes as simulated electroacupuncture; and (4) for recent NAD grades III, a semi-rigid cervical collar with rest and graded strengthening exercises lead to similar outcomes, and LLLT does not offer benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Our review adds new evidence to the Neck Pain Task Force and suggests that mobilization, manipulation, and clinical massage are effective interventions for the management of neck pain. It also suggests that electroacupuncture, strain-counterstrain, relaxation massage, and some passive physical modalities (heat, cold, diathermy, hydrotherapy, and ultrasound) are not effective and should not be used to manage neck pain.

Clinical outcomes for neurogenic claudication using a multimodal program for lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this preliminary study was to assess the effectiveness of a 6-week, nonsurgical, multimodal program that addresses the multifaceted aspects of neurogenic claudication. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 2 researchers independently extracted data from the medical records from January 2010 to April 2013 of consecutive eligible patients who had completed the 6-week Boot Camp Program. The program consisted of manual therapy twice per week (eg, soft tissue and neural mobilization, chiropractic spinal manipulation, lumbar flexion-distraction, and muscle stretching), structured home-based exercises, and instruction of self-management strategies. A paired t test was used to compare differences in outcomes from baseline to 6-week follow-up. Outcomes included self-reported pain, disability, walking ability, and treatment satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 49 patients were enrolled, with a mean age of 70 years. The mean difference in the Oswestry Disability Index was 15.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.39-18.92), and that for the functional and symptoms scales of the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.26-0.56) and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.55-0.93), respectively. Numeric pain scores for both leg and back showed statistically significant improvements. Improvements in all outcomes were clinically important. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed preliminary evidence for improved outcomes in patients with neurogenic claudication participating in a 6-week nonsurgical multimodal Boot Camp Program.

Comparison of non-surgical treatment methods for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis is the most common reason for spinal surgery in older adults. Previous studies have shown that surgery is effective for severe cases of stenosis, but many patients with mild to moderate symptoms are not surgical candidates. These patients and their providers are seeking effective non-surgical treatment methods to manage their symptoms; yet there is a paucity of comparative effectiveness research in this area. This knowledge gap has hindered the development of clinical practice guidelines for non-surgical treatment approaches for lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial that will be conducted from November 2013 through October 2016. The sample will consist of 180 older adults (>60 years) who have both an anatomic diagnosis of stenosis confirmed by diagnostic imaging, and signs/symptoms consistent with a clinical diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis confirmed by clinical examination. Eligible subjects will be randomized into one of three pragmatic treatment groups: 1) usual medical care; 2) individualized manual therapy and rehabilitative exercise; or 3) community-based group exercise. All subjects will be treated for a 6-week course of care. The primary subjective outcome is the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, a self-reported measure of pain/function. The primary objective outcome is the Self-Paced Walking Test, a measure of walking capacity. The secondary objective outcome will be a measurement of physical activity during activities of daily living, using the SenseWear Armband, a portable device to be worn on the upper arm for one week. The primary analysis will use linear mixed models to compare the main effects of each treatment group on the changes in each outcome measure. Secondary analyses will include a responder analysis by group and an exploratory analysis of potential baseline predictors of treatment outcome. DISCUSSION: Our study should provide evidence that helps to inform patients and providers about the clinical benefits of three non-surgical approaches to the management of lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01943435.

Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated pathological spinal conditions. It frequently afflicts the elderly population. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence for the effectiveness of nonoperative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication. SEARCH METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL) databases were searched up to June 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials published in English, in which at least one arm provided data on nonoperative treatments DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Risk of bias in each study was independently assessed by two review authors using the 12 criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group (Furlan 2009). Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as relative risk, continuous outcomes as mean difference or standardized mean difference; uncertainty was expressed with 95% confidence intervals. If possible a meta-analysis was performed, otherwise results were described qualitatively. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: From the 8635 citations screened, 56 full-text articles were assessed and 21 trials (1851 participants) were included. There was very low-quality evidence from six trials that calcitonin is no better than placebo or paracetamol, regardless of mode of administration or outcome assessed. From single small trials, there was low-quality evidence for prostaglandins, and very low-quality evidence for gabapentin or methylcobalamin that they improved walking distance. There was very low-quality evidence from a single trial that epidural steroid injections improved pain, function, and quality of life, up to two weeks, compared with home exercise or inpatient physical therapy. There was low-quality evidence from a single trial that exercise is of short-term benefit for leg pain and function compared with no treatment. There was low and very low-quality evidence from six trials that multimodal nonoperative treatment is less effective than indirect or direct surgical decompression with or without fusion. A meta-analysis of two trials comparing direct decompression with or without fusion to multimodal nonoperative care found no significant difference in function at six months (mean difference (MD) -3.66, 95% CI -10.12 to 2.80) and one year (MD -6.18, 95% CI -15.03 to 2.66), but at 24 months a significant difference was found favouring decompression (MD -4.43, 95% CI -7.91 to -0.96). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate and high-quality evidence for nonoperative treatment is lacking and thus prohibits recommendations for guiding clinical practice. Given the expected exponential rise in the prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication, large high-quality trials are urgently needed.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and safety of selected complementary and alternative medicine for neck and low-back pain.

Background. Back pain is a common problem and a major cause of disability and health care utilization. Purpose. To evaluate the efficacy, harms, and costs of the most common CAM treatments (acupuncture, massage, spinal manipulation, and mobilization) for neck/low-back pain. Data Sources. Records without language restriction from various databases up to February 2010. Data Extraction. The efficacy outcomes of interest were pain intensity and disability. Data Synthesis. Reports of 147 randomized trials and 5 nonrandomized studies were included. CAM treatments were more effective in reducing pain and disability compared to no treatment, physical therapy (exercise and/or electrotherapy) or usual care immediately or at short-term follow-up. Trials that applied sham-acupuncture tended towards statistically nonsignificant results. In several studies, acupuncture caused bleeding on the site of application, and manipulation and massage caused pain episodes of mild and transient nature. Conclusions. CAM treatments were significantly more efficacious than no treatment, placebo, physical therapy, or usual care in reducing pain immediately or at short-term after treatment. CAM therapies did not significantly reduce disability compared to sham. None of the CAM treatments was shown systematically as superior to one another. More efforts are needed to improve the conduct and reporting of studies of CAM treatments.

Complementary and alternative therapies for back pain II.

BACKGROUND: Back and neck pain are important health problems with serious societal and economic implications. Conventional treatments have been shown to have limited benefit in improving patient outcomes. Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) therapies offer additional options in the management of low back and neck pain. Many trials evaluating CAM therapies have poor quality and inconsistent results. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the efficacy, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and harms of acupuncture, spinal manipulation, mobilization, and massage techniques in management of back, neck, and/or thoracic pain. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched up to 2010; unpublished literature and reference lists of relevant articles were also searched. study selection: All records were screened by two independent reviewers. Primary reports of comparative efficacy, effectiveness, harms, and/or economic evaluations from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the CAM therapies in adults (age ≥ 18 years) with back, neck, or thoracic pain were eligible. Non-randomized controlled trials and observational studies (case-control, cohort, cross-sectional) comparing harms were also included. Reviews, case reports, editorials, commentaries or letters were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers using a predefined form extracted data on study, participants, treatments, and outcome characteristics. RESULTS: 265 RCTs and 5 non-RCTs were included. Acupuncture for chronic nonspecific low back pain was associated with significantly lower pain intensity than placebo but only immediately post-treatment (VAS: -0.59, 95 percent CI: -0.93, -0.25). However, acupuncture was not different from placebo in post-treatment disability, pain medication intake, or global improvement in chronic nonspecific low back pain. Acupuncture did not differ from sham-acupuncture in reducing chronic non-specific neck pain immediately after treatment (VAS: 0.24, 95 percent CI: -1.20, 0.73). Acupuncture was superior to no treatment in improving pain intensity (VAS: -1.19, 95 percent CI: 95 percent CI: -2.17, -0.21), disability (PDI), functioning (HFAQ), well-being (SF-36), and range of mobility (extension, flexion), immediately after the treatment. In general, trials that applied sham-acupuncture tended to produce negative results (i.e., statistically non-significant) compared to trials that applied other types of placebo (e.g., TENS, medication, laser). Results regarding comparisons with other active treatments (pain medication, mobilization, laser therapy) were less consistent Acupuncture was more cost-effective compared to usual care or no treatment for patients with chronic back pain. For both low back and neck pain, manipulation was significantly better than placebo or no treatment in reducing pain immediately or short-term after the end of treatment. Manipulation was also better than acupuncture in improving pain and function in chronic nonspecific low back pain. Results from studies comparing manipulation to massage, medication, or physiotherapy were inconsistent, either in favor of manipulation or indicating no significant difference between the two treatments. Findings of studies regarding costs of manipulation relative to other therapies were inconsistent. Mobilization was superior to no treatment but not different from placebo in reducing low back pain or spinal flexibility after the treatment. Mobilization was better than physiotherapy in reducing low back pain (VAS: -0.50, 95 percent CI: -0.70, -0.30) and disability (Oswestry: -4.93, 95 percent CI: -5.91, -3.96). In subjects with acute or subacute neck pain, mobilization compared to placebo significantly reduced neck pain. Mobilization and placebo did not differ in subjects with chronic neck pain. Massage was superior to placebo or no treatment in reducing pain and disability only amongst subjects with acute/sub-acute low back pain. Massage was also significantly better than physical therapy in improving back pain (VAS: -2.11, 95 percent CI: -3.15, -1.07) or disability. For subjects with neck pain, massage was better than no treatment, placebo, or exercise in improving pain or disability, but not neck flexibility. Some evidence indicated higher costs for massage use compared to general practitioner care for low back pain. Reporting of harms in RCTs was poor and inconsistent. Subjects receiving CAM therapies reported soreness or bleeding on the site of application after acupuncture and worsening of pain after manipulation or massage. In two case-control studies cervical manipulation was shown to be significantly associated with vertebral artery dissection or vertebrobasilar vascular accident. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence was of poor to moderate grade and most of it pertained to chronic nonspecific pain, making it difficult to draw more definitive conclusions regarding benefits and harms of CAM therapies in subjects with acute/subacute, mixed, or unknown duration of pain. The benefit of CAM treatments was mostly evident immediately or shortly after the end of the treatment and then faded with time. Very few studies reported long-term outcomes. There was insufficient data to explore subgroup effects. The trial results were inconsistent due probably to methodological and clinical diversity, thereby limiting the extent of quantitative synthesis and complicating interpretation of trial results. Strong efforts are warranted to improve the conduct methodology and reporting quality of primary studies of CAM therapies. Future well powered head to head comparisons of CAM treatments and trials comparing CAM to widely used active treatments that report on all clinically relevant outcomes are needed to draw better conclusions.