Equestrian-Related Musculoskeletal Injuries Presenting to a Chiropractic Practice: A Retrospective Chart Review of 19 Patients.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe the types of equestrian-related musculoskeletal injuries and their management. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 19 patients who presented with injuries from equestrian activities at a chiropractic practice from December 2000 to December 2020. Deidentified data were extracted from the charts and summarized. Results: Of the 19 patients, 42.3% presented with acute trauma, 38.5% had overuse injuries, and 19.2% had chronic injuries as a result of previous trauma. We found that 90% of overuse injuries and 18.2% of acute injuries led to chronic conditions that needed ongoing management. Conclusion: From this sample of patients, there was a high percentage of overuse and chronic injuries for patients who participated in equestrian activities.

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

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

Measuring the Appropriateness of Spinal Manipulation for Chronic Low Back and Chronic Neck Pain in Chiropractic Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) applied to chiropractic manipulation for patients with chronic low-back pain (CLBP) and chronic neck pain (CNP). OBJECTIVE: Determine the rate of appropriate care provided by US chiropractors. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal manipulation has been shown effective for CLBP and CNP but may not be appropriate for all patients with these conditions. METHODS: Ratings of the appropriateness of spinal and cervical manipulation previously developed by two RUAM expert panels were applied to data abstracted from random samples of patient charts from chiropractors in six US regions to determine the appropriateness of manipulation for each patient. RESULTS: Of 125 chiropractors sampled, 89 provided charts that could be abstracted. Of the 2128 charts received, 1054 were abstracted. Charts received but not abstracted included 460 that were unusable (e.g., illegible), and 555 did not have CLBP or CNP. Across the abstracted charts 72% had CLBP, 57% had CNP, and 29% had both; 84% of patients with CLBP and 86% with CNP received manipulation. Patients with CLBP who had minor neurologic findings, sciatic nerve irritation, or no joint dysfunction were significantly less likely to receive manipulation. Patients with CNP who had substantial trauma etiology, no joint dysfunction, or no radiographs were significantly less likely to receive manipulation. Most manipulation for CLBP (64%) was appropriate and most manipulation for CNP (93%) was for patients where appropriateness was uncertain or equivocal. The proportions of patients receiving inappropriate manipulation for either condition were low (1%-3%) as were the numbers of patients presenting to these chiropractors for which manipulation was inappropriate. CONCLUSION: Chiropractors in this US sample tend to provide manipulation to very few patients with CLBP or CNP for which it is inappropriate. However, more research is needed to determine which patients with CNP benefit from manipulation.Level of Evidence: 4.

Extrapolating Beyond the Data in a Systematic Review of Spinal Manipulation for Nonmusculoskeletal Disorders: A Fall From the Summit.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to discuss a literature review-a recent systematic review of nonmusculoskeletal disorders-that demonstrates the potential for faulty conclusions and misguided policy implications, and to offer an alternate interpretation of the data using present models and criteria. METHODS: We participated in a chiropractic meeting (Global Summit) that aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature on the efficacy and effectiveness of mobilization or spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for the primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention and treatment of nonmusculoskeletal disorders. After considering an early draft of the resulting manuscript, we identified points of concern and therefore declined authorship. The present article was developed to describe those concerns about the review and its conclusions. RESULTS: Three main concerns were identified: the inherent limitations of a systematic review of 6 articles on the topic of SMT for nonmusculoskeletal disorders, the lack of biological plausibility of collapsing 5 different disorders into a single category, and considerations for best practices when using evidence in policy-making. We propose that the following conclusion is more consistent with a review of the 6 articles. The small cadre of high- or moderate-quality randomized controlled trials reviewed in this study found either no or equivocal effects from SMT as a stand-alone treatment for infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, or migraine, and found no or low-quality evidence available to support other nonmusculoskeletal conditions. Therefore, further research is needed to determine if SMT may have an effect in these and other nonmusculoskeletal conditions. Until the results of such research are available, the benefits of SMT for specific or general nonmusculoskeletal disorders should not be promoted as having strong supportive evidence. Further, a lack of evidence cannot be interpreted as counterevidence, nor used as evidence of falsification or verification. CONCLUSION: Based on the available evidence, some statements generated from the Summit were extrapolated beyond the data, have the potential to misrepresent the literature, and should be used with caution. Given that none of the trials included in the literature review were definitively negative, the current evidence suggests that more research on nonmusculoskeletal conditions is warranted before any definitive conclusions can be made. Governments, insurers, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should avoid using systematic reviews in decisions where the research is insufficient to determine the clinical appropriateness of specific care.

Distance Management of Spinal Disorders During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond: Evidence-Based Patient and Clinician Guides From the Global Spine Care Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly limited patients' access to care for spine-related symptoms and disorders. However, physical distancing between clinicians and patients with spine-related symptoms is not solely limited to restrictions imposed by pandemic-related lockdowns. In most low- and middle-income countries, as well as many underserved marginalized communities in high-income countries, there is little to no access to clinicians trained in evidence-based care for people experiencing spinal pain. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe the development and present the components of evidence-based patient and clinician guides for the management of spinal disorders where in-person care is not available. METHODS: Ultimately, two sets of guides were developed (one for patients and one for clinicians) by extracting information from the published Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) papers. An international, interprofessional team of 29 participants from 10 countries on 4 continents participated. The team included practitioners in family medicine, neurology, physiatry, rheumatology, psychology, chiropractic, physical therapy, and yoga, as well as epidemiologists, research methodologists, and laypeople. The participants were invited to review, edit, and comment on the guides in an open iterative consensus process. RESULTS: The Patient Guide is a simple 2-step process. The first step describes the nature of the symptoms or concerns. The second step provides information that a patient can use when considering self-care, determining whether to contact a clinician, or considering seeking emergency care. The Clinician Guide is a 5-step process: (1) Obtain and document patient demographics, location of primary clinical symptoms, and psychosocial information. (2) Review the symptoms noted in the patient guide. (3) Determine the GSCI classification of the patient's spine-related complaints. (4) Ask additional questions to determine the GSCI subclassification of the symptom pattern. (5) Consider appropriate treatment interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The Patient and Clinician Guides are designed to be sufficiently clear to be useful to all patients and clinicians, irrespective of their location, education, professional qualifications, and experience. However, they are comprehensive enough to provide guidance on the management of all spine-related symptoms or disorders, including triage for serious and specific diseases. They are consistent with widely accepted evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. They also allow for adequate documentation and medical record keeping. These guides should be of value during periods of government-mandated physical or social distancing due to infectious diseases, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. They should also be of value in underserved communities in high-, middle-, and low-income countries where there is a dearth of accessible trained spine care clinicians. These guides have the potential to reduce the overutilization of unnecessary and expensive interventions while empowering patients to self-manage uncomplicated spinal pain with the assistance of their clinician, either through direct in-person consultation or via telehealth communication.

Visit Frequency and Outcomes for Patients Using Ongoing Chiropractic Care for Chronic Low-Back and Neck Pain: An Observational Longitudinal Study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spinal pain is prevalent and long-lasting. Although provider-based nonpharmacologic therapies, such as chiropractic care, have been recommended, healthcare and coverage policies provide little guidance or evidence regarding long-term use of this care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationships between visit frequency and outcomes for patients using ongoing chiropractic care for chronic spinal pain. STUDY DESIGN: Observational 3-month longitudinal study. SETTING: Data collected from patients of 124 chiropractic clinics in 6 United States regions. METHODS: We examined the impact of visit frequency and patient characteristics on pain (pain 0-10 numeric rating scale) and functional outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] for low-back pain and Neck Disability Index [NDI] for neck pain, both 0-100 scale) using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) in a large national sample of chiropractic patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and/or chronic neck pain (CNP). This study was approved by the RAND Human Subjects Protection Committee and registered under ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03162952. RESULTS: One thousand, three hundred, sixty-two patients with CLBP and 1,214 with CNP were included in a series of HLM models. Unconditional (time-only) models showed patients on average had mild pain and function, and significant, but slight improvements in these over the 3-month observation period: back and neck pain decreased by 0.40 and 0.44 points, respectively; function improved by 2.7 (ODI) and 3.0 points (NDI) (all P < 0.001). Adding chiropractic visit frequency to the models revealed that those with worse baseline pain and function used more visits, but only visits more than once per week for those with CLBP were associated with significantly better improvement. These relationships remained when other types of visits and baseline patient characteristics were included. LIMITATIONS: This is an observational study based on self-reported data from a sample representative of chiropractic patients, but not all patients with CLBP or CNP. CONCLUSIONS: This 3-month window on chiropractic patients with CLBP and/or CNP revealed that they were improving, although slowly; may have reached maximum therapeutic improvement; and are possibly successfully managing their chronic pain using a variety of chiropractic visit frequencies. These results may inform payers when building coverage policies for ongoing chiropractic care for patients with chronic pain.

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

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

Osteopathic manipulative treatment in individuals with vertigo and somatic dysfunction: a randomized, controlled, comparative feasibility study.

CONTEXT: There is a paucity of research assessing the efficacy of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) in patients with vertigo. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of conducting a randomized, controlled trial comparing OMT and vestibular rehabilitation therapy (VRT), alone or in combination, in patients with vertigo and somatic dysfunction. METHODS: Volunteers with vertigo who were also diagnosed with somatic dysfunction (SD) were prospectively enrolled in a blinded, randomized, controlled cohort comparative effectiveness study and assigned to 1 of 4 groups: OMT alone, VRT alone, a combination of OMT and VRT (OMT/VRT), or a nonintervention control group. Participants between 18 and 79 years of age were included if they had experienced symptoms of vertigo for at least 3 months' duration, demonstrated somatic dysfunction, and could participate in computerized dynamic posturography (CDP) testing, tolerate manual therapy and exercises, and communicate effectively in English or Spanish. A total of 3 treatments lasting 45 minutes each were administered 1 week apart to each participant. OMT in this study consisted of counterstrain, myofascial release, balanced ligamentous tension, soft tissue, HVLA, and articulatory techniques. Comparisons were made between composite scores (CS) assessed with computerized dynamic posturography (CDP), dizziness handicap inventory (DHI), optometric evaluation, and osteopathic structural examinations collected before the first treatment, after the third/final treatment, and 3 months after the final treatment. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01529151). RESULTS: A total of 23 patients were included in the study: 7 in the OMT group, 5 in the VRT group, 6 in the OMT/VRT group, and 5 in the control group. The OMT/VRT group demonstrated significant improvement in DHI score (P=0.0284) and CS (P=0.0475) between pre- and 3-month posttreatment measures. For total severity, improvements were significant in the OMT group both from pretreatment to immediate posttreatment measures (P=0.0114) and from pretreatment to 3-month posttreatment measures (P=0.0233). There was a statistical difference between the OMT and control groups from pretreatment to 3-month posttreatment DHI scores (P=0.0332). Also, there was a statistical difference in DHI score between VRT and control from pre- to 3-month posttreatment scores (P=0.0338). OMT/VRT statistically and clinically improved visual acuity in patients' right eyes from pre- to posttreatment (P=0.0325). In all participants, vergence dysfunction was prevalent (5; 21.7%) in addition to vertical heterophoria (15; 65.2%). CONCLUSION: A combination of OMT and VRT significantly reduced vertigo and improved balance 3 months after treatment (P<0.05). There was a high prevalence in vergence and vertical heterophoria, which are not typical screening measurements used by physical therapists and physicians to assess vertigo patients. With a small sample size, this study demonstrated the feasibility of an interdisciplinary team evaluating and treating patients with vertigo in a community setting. A larger study is needed to assess the efficacy of OMT/VRT in vertigo patients.

Predictors of visit frequency for patients using ongoing chiropractic care for chronic low back and chronic neck pain; analysis of observational data.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spinal pain is prevalent, expensive and long-lasting. Several provider-based nonpharmacologic therapies have now been recommended for chronic low-back pain (CLBP) and chronic neck pain (CNP). However, healthcare and coverage policies provide little guidance or evidence regarding the long-term use of this care. To provide one glimpse into the long-term use of nonpharmacologic provider-based care, this study examines the predictors of visit frequency in a large sample of patients with CLBP and CNP using ongoing chiropractic care. METHODS: Observational data were collected from a large national sample of chiropractic patients in the US with non-specific CLBP and CNP. Visit frequency was defined as average number of chiropractic visits per month over the 3-month study period. Potential baseline predictor variables were entered into two sets of multi-level models according to a defined causal theory-in this case, Anderson's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use. RESULTS: Our sample included 852 patients with CLBP and 705 with CNP. Visit frequency varied significantly by chiropractor/clinic, so our models controlled for this clustering. Patients with either condition used an average of 2.3 visits per month. In the final models visit frequency increased (0.44 visits per month, p = .008) for those with CLBP and some coverage for chiropractic, but coverage had little effect on visits for patients with CNP. Patients with worse function or just starting care also had more visits and those near to ending care had fewer visits. However, visit frequency was also determined by the chiropractor/clinic where treatment was received. Chiropractors who reported seeing more patients per day also had patients with higher visit frequency, and the patients of chiropractors with 20 to 30 years of experience had fewer visits per month. In addition, after controlling for both patient and chiropractor characteristics, the state in which care was received made a difference, likely through state-level policies and regulations. CONCLUSIONS: Chiropractic patients with CLBP and CNP use a range of visit frequencies for their ongoing care. The predictors of these frequencies could be useful for understanding and developing policies for ongoing provider-based care.

Researching the Appropriateness of Care in the Complementary and Integrative Health Professions Part 5: Using Patient Records: Selection, Protection, and Abstraction.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this paper is to describe the 4-step process (consent, selection, protection, and abstraction) of acquiring a large sample of chiropractic patient records from multiple practices and subsequent data abstraction. METHODS: From April 2017 to December 2017, RAND acquired patient records from 99 chiropractic practices across the United States. The records included patients enrolled in a survey e-study (prospective sample) and a random sample of all clinic patients (retrospective sample) with chronic back or neck pain. Clinic staff were trained to collect the sample, scan, and transfer the records. We designed an online data collection tool for abstraction. Protocols were instituted to protect patient confidentiality. Doctors of chiropractic were selected and trained as abstractors, and a system was established to monitor data collection. RESULTS: In compliance with data protection protocols, 3603 patient records were scanned, including 1475 in the prospective sample and 2128 in the random sample. A total of 1716 patients (prospective sample) consented to having their records scanned, but only 1475 could be retrieved. Of records scanned, 19% were unusable owing to illegibility, no care during the period of interest, or poor scanning. The abstractor interrater reliability for appropriateness of care decisions was fair to moderate (κ .38-.48). CONCLUSION: The acquisition, handling, and abstraction of a large sample of chiropractic records was a complex task with challenges that necessitated adapting planned approaches. Of the records abstracted, many revealed incomplete provider documentation regarding the details of and rationale for care. Better documentation and more standardized record keeping would facilitate future research using patient records.

An Exploratory Analysis of Gender as a Potential Modifier of Treatment Effect Among Patients in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Integrative Acupuncture and Spinal Manipulation for Low Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the potential association of self-reported gender on pain and disability among patients in a randomized controlled trial of integrative acupuncture and spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) for low back pain (LBP). METHODS: In the original study, 100 participants with LBP were randomized to receive acupuncture, SMT, or both combined. Eighty completed treatment and were followed for 60 days. Primary outcome measures were the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and numeric pain scales. This study was a secondary analysis and used regression models to estimate and test for gender-specific differences in outcomes from baseline through end of treatment. RESULTS: Women assigned to acupuncture averaged a 3.8-point reduction in highest LBP vs 2.0 points for SMT, whereas men assigned to SMT averaged a 3.5-point reduction vs 1.8 points for acupuncture (P for interaction = .04). There was a trend toward the same for disability (P for interaction = .12). For women, acupuncture alone led to better outcomes without SMT, and for men, SMT alone led to better outcomes without acupuncture. Women who received acupuncture were more likely to experience 50% or greater reductions in disability and pain, whereas men who received SMT were more likely to experience 50% or greater reductions in disability and pain. CONCLUSION: An association was found between self-reported gender and response to LBP treatment. Women demonstrated a greater reduction in pain and disability with acupuncture and men with SMT. Future clinical trials should consider sex as a potential determinant of treatment outcomes for LBP.

Yoga for Quality of Life in Individuals With Chronic Disease: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases, including heart disease, stroke, cancer, and chronic pulmonary disease are the leading causes of death and disability worldwide. Compounding symptoms and loss of function, people living with chronic disease often experience reduced quality of life (QoL). Various physical and mental practices have been shown to relieve stress and improve QoL. Yoga is a physical and mental practice that may be a viable approach for improving QoL in people with chronic disease. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine and summarize the evidence for the effectiveness of yoga on QoL in patients with chronic disease. DESIGN: The study design was a a systematic review with qualitative synthesis. METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of yoga on QoL or health-related QoL (HRQoL) for individuals with chronic disease. We included only studies that used at least 1 previously validated measure of QoL or HRQoL and specified a minimum duration of follow-up of at least 1 wk. INTERVENTIONS: We included both movement-based and breath-based yoga practices. Studies that included yoga as part of a larger intervention program (eg, mindfulness-based stress reduction training) or studies that did not provide findings specific to yoga were excluded. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome analyzed was improvement in QoL as measured by a validated QoL or HRQoL scale. RESULTS: Among the 1488 studies that were identified on initial search, 7 articles met all inclusion criteria. Five studies reported a statistically significant advantage over usual care alone for improvement of QoL in patients with chronic disease, but the clinical significance of the differences was clear in only 1 trial. We found considerable heterogeneity among the included studies and study quality was generally low. CONCLUSIONS: More high-quality research is needed to determine the value of yoga as an adjunctive approach to improving QoL in patients with chronic disease.

Manipulation and Mobilization for Treating Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for an Appropriateness Panel.

BACKGROUND: Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used by patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain; however, questions remain around efficacy, dosing, and safety, as well as how these approaches compare to other therapies. OBJECTIVES: Based on published trials, to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic nonspecific neck pain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We identified studies published between January 2000 and September 2017, by searching multiple electronic databases, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation and/or mobilization therapies to sham, no treatment, each other, and other active therapies, or when combined as multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias by using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. When possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project was funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under award number U19AT007912 and ultimately used to inform an appropriateness panel. RESULTS: A total of 47 randomized trials (47 unique trials in 53 publications) were included in the systematic review. These studies were rated as having low risk of bias and included a total of 4,460 patients with nonspecific chronic neck pain who were being treated by a practitioner using various types of manipulation and/or mobilization interventions. A total of 37 trials were categorized as unimodal approaches and involved thrust or nonthrust compared with sham, no treatment, or other active comparators. Of these, only 6 trials with similar intervention styles, comparators, and outcome measures/timepoints were pooled for meta-analysis at 1, 3, and 6 months, showing a small effect in favor of thrust plus exercise compared to an exercise regimen alone for a reduction in pain and disability. Multimodal approaches appeared to be effective at reducing pain and improving function from the 10 studies evaluated. Health-related quality of life was seldom reported. Some 22/47 studies did not report or mention adverse events. Of the 25 that did, either no or minor events occurred. LIMITATIONS: The current evidence is heterogeneous, and sample sizes are generally small. CONCLUSIONS: Studies published since January 2000 provide low-moderate quality evidence that various types of manipulation and/or mobilization will reduce pain and improve function for chronic nonspecific neck pain compared to other interventions. It appears that multimodal approaches, in which multiple treatment approaches are integrated, might have the greatest potential impact. The studies comparing to no treatment or sham were mostly testing the effect of a single dose, which may or may not be helpful to inform practice. According to the published trials reviewed, manipulation and mobilization appear safe. However, given the low rate of serious adverse events, other types of studies with much larger sample sizes would be required to fully describe the safety of manipulation and/or mobilization for nonspecific chronic neck pain. KEY WORDS: Chronic neck pain, nonspecific, chiropractic, manipulation, mobilization, systematic review, meta-analysis, appropriateness.

Correlation of Personal Experience and Acquired Knowledge With Intent to Recommend Adjunctive Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment or Yoga for Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain.

CONTEXT: Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) and yoga are both recommended by systematic reviews in the evidence-based research literature for low back pain management. It is unknown, to the authors' knowledge, what the effect of personal experience with OMT or yoga, reading research articles on OMT or yoga, or both will have on medical students' recommendations for these treatment options to future patients with chronic low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the likelihood of osteopathic medical students recommending OMT or yoga to treat patients with chronic low back pain based on their personal experience or reading research articles that recommend OMT or yoga for patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, researchers administered an anonymous 18-question online survey for osteopathic medical students. The survey included a patient vignette, 2 evidence-based articles, and multiple choice, yes/no, and Likert-type questions. Participants were recruited via email from all 4 years of medical school. Between-group differences in proportions were assessed with descriptive statistics and χ2 tests; differences within groups were assessed with the McNemar test; and Fischer exact tests were used when expected cell counts were less than 5. RESULTS: A total of 180 participants (100 male, 80 female) completed the study. Personal experience increased the likelihood of osteopathic medical students recommending OMT (P<.018) or yoga (P<.001) to a future patient or to a patient in a case vignette (P<.05) with chronic low back pain. Students who read research articles were more likely to recommend OMT to the case patient and future patients before and after reading the intervention article regardless of their experience (P<.001). CONCLUSION: Personal experience and reading evidence-based research may increase the likelihood that osteopathic medical students will recommend OMT to future patients with chronic low back pain.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: public health and prevention interventions for common spine disorders in low- and middle-income communities.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop recommendations for prevention interventions for spinal disorders that could be delivered globally, but especially in underserved areas and in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We extracted risk factors, associations, and comorbidities of common spinal disorders (e.g., back and neck pain, spinal trauma, infection, developmental disorders) from a scoping review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews of clinical trials, cohort studies, case control studies, and cross-sectional studies. Categories were informed by the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) classification system using the biopsychosocial model. Risk factors were clustered and mapped visually. Potential prevention interventions for individuals and communities were identified. RESULTS: Forty-one risk factors, 51 associations, and 39 comorbidities were extracted; some were associated with more than one disorder. Interventions were at primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary prevention levels. Public health-related actions included screening for osteopenia, avoiding exposure to certain substances associated with spinal disorders, insuring adequate dietary intake for vitamins and minerals, smoking cessation, weight management, injury prevention, adequate physical activity, and avoiding harmful clinical practices (e.g., over-medicalization). CONCLUSION: Prevention principles and health promotion strategies were identified that were incorporated in the GSCI care pathway. Interventions should encourage healthy behaviors of individuals and promote public health interventions that are most likely to optimize physical and psychosocial health targeting the unique characteristics of each community. Prevention interventions that are implemented in medically underserved areas should be based upon best evidence, resource availability, and selected through group decision-making processes by individuals and the community. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Manipulation and mobilization for treating chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used to benefit patients with chronic low back pain. However, questions remain about their efficacy, dosing, safety, and how these approaches compare with other therapies. PURPOSE: The present study aims to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic low back pain. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. OUTCOME MEASURES: The present study measures self-reported pain, function, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. METHODS: We identified studies by searching multiple electronic databases from January 2000 to March 2017, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation or mobilization therapies with sham, no treatment, other active therapies, and multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Where possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project is funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under Award Number U19AT007912. RESULTS: Fifty-one trials were included in the systematic review. Nine trials (1,176 patients) provided sufficient data and were judged similar enough to be pooled for meta-analysis. The standardized mean difference for a reduction of pain was SMD=-0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.09, p=.004; I2=57% after treatment; within seven trials (923 patients), the reduction in disability was SMD=-0.33, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.03, p=.03; I2=78% for manipulation or mobilization compared with other active therapies. Subgroup analyses showed that manipulation significantly reduced pain and disability, compared with other active comparators including exercise and physical therapy (SMD=-0.43, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.00; p=.05, I2=79%; SMD=-0.86, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.45; p<.0001, I2=46%). Mobilization interventions, compared with other active comparators including exercise regimens, significantly reduced pain (SMD=-0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.04; p=.01; I2=0%) but not disability (SMD=-0.10, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.07; p=.25; I2=21%). Studies comparing manipulation or mobilization with sham or no treatment were too few or too heterogeneous to allow for pooling as were studies examining relationships between dose and outcomes. Few studies assessed health-related quality of life. Twenty-six of 51 trials were multimodal studies and narratively described. CONCLUSION: There is moderate-quality evidence that manipulation and mobilization are likely to reduce pain and improve function for patients with chronic low back pain; manipulation appears to produce a larger effect than mobilization. Both therapies appear safe. Multimodal programs may be a promising option.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: a narrative review of psychological and social issues in back pain in low- and middle-income communities.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this review was to describe psychological and social factors associated with low back pain that could be applied in spine care programs in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We performed a narrative review of cohort, cross-sectional, qualitative and mixed methods studies investigating adults with low back pain using Medline and PubMed were searched from January 2000 to June 2015. Eligible studies had at least one of the following outcomes: psychological, social, psychosocial, or cultural/ethnicity factors. Studies met the following criteria: (1) English language, (2) published in peer-reviewed journal, (3) adults with spinal disorders, (4) included treatment, symptom management or prevention. RESULTS: Out of 58 studies, 29 were included in this review. There are few studies that have evaluated psychological and social factors associated with back pain in low- and middle-income communities, therefore, adapting recommendations from other regions may be needed until further studies can be achieved. CONCLUSION: Psychological and social factors are important components to addressing low back pain and health care providers play an important role in empowering patients to take control of their spinal health outcomes. Patients should be included in negotiating their spinal treatment and establishing treatment goals through careful listening, reassurance, and information providing by the health care provider. Instruments need to be developed for people with low literacy in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries, especially where psychological and social factors may be difficult to detect and are poorly addressed. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

SafetyNET Community-based patient safety initiatives: development and application of a Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To: 1) develop/adapt and validate an instrument to measure patient safety attitudes and opinions of community-based spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) providers; 2) implement the instrument; and 3) compare results among healthcare professions. METHODS: A review of the literature and content validation were used for the survey development. Community-based chiropractors and physiotherapists in 4 Canadian provinces were invited. RESULTS: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture was the preferred instrument. The survey was modified and validated, measuring 14 patient safety dimensions. 276 SMT providers volunteered to respond to the survey. Generally, SMT providers had similar or better patient safety dimension scores compared to the AHRQ 2016 medical offices database. DISCUSSION: We developed the first instrument measuring patient safety attitudes and opinions of community-based SMT providers. This instrument provides understanding of SMT providers' opinions and attitudes on patient safety and identifies potential areas for improvement.

OBJECTIFS: 1) Élaborer/adapter et valider un instrument servant à évaluer les attitudes à l'égard de la sécurité du patient et les opinions des praticiens effectuant des manipulations vertébrales (MV); 2) adopter cet instrument; et 3) comparer les résultats obtenus entre les professionnels de la santé. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Pour élaborer le sondage, on a revu la littérature, on a validé le contenu et on a invité des chiropraticiens et des physiothérapeutes de quatre provinces canadiennes à participer. RÉSULTATS: Le Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture de l'Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) était l'instrument préféré. Le sondage a été modifié et validé et a servi à mesurer 14 aspects de la sécurité du patient. 276 professionnels effectuant des MV ont accepté de répondre au sondage. En règle générale, les cotes obtenues chez les professionnels effectuant des MV pour ce qui des aspects de la sécurité étaient comparables ou meilleurs que celles des professionnels de la santé enregistrés dans la base de données de 2016 de l'AHRQ. DISCUSSION: On a élaboré le premier instrument servant à évaluer les attitudes à l'égard de la sécurité et les opinions des praticiens effectuant des MV dans une collectivité. Cet instrument permet de comprendre les opinions et les attitudes à l'égard de la sécurité du patient des professionnels effectuant des MV et de cerner les aspects qui pourraient être améliorés.