Australian musculoskeletal physiotherapist's perceptions, attitudes and opinions towards pre-manipulative screening of the cervical spine prior to manual therapy: Report from the focus groups.

BACKGROUND: The Australian Physiotherapy Association 2006 VBI Guidelines are used by many of the member organisations of IFOMPT. These Guidelines are due for revision incorporating recent research findings, international guides, and member's recommendations. PURPOSE: To identify and consider Australian musculoskeletal physiotherapists' recommendations to inform revision of the 2006 VBI Guidelines. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted in the five larger Australian state capitals by an independent qualitative researcher and a subject expert. Qualitative data were collected from 41 musculoskeletal physiotherapists who were purposefully recruited for their broad range of experience and qualifications. The five stage Framework Analysis approach was used to analyse and interpret data. RESULTS: Participants recommended that the revised Guidelines have a new title reflecting a broader risk assessment and management approach, encompassing both musculoskeletal and relevant cardio-vascular risks and informed by contemporary research evidence and clinical experience. Participants requested a positively worded stepwise guide to clinical reasoning for all cervical spine manual treatment scenarios including the process of gaining and recording consent. Participants advised on individual components of the Guidelines needing to be revised or removed. The revised Guidelines, once approved, need to be disseminated in written and electronic formats to all clinicians. Training and education are required to ensure appropriate uptake within and beyond the profession. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: To ensure their clinical acceptance and utility, the Revised Guidelines need to reflect the current use and recommendations of musculoskeletal physiotherapists. Sound knowledge translation processes are then needed to ensure that the Guidelines are incorporated into practice.

Is Vitamin D Supplementation Effective for Low Back Pain? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. Current intervention strategies are failing to reduce the enormous global burden of LBP and are prompting researchers to investigate alternative management strategies, such as vitamin D supplementation. Vitamin D supplementation appears to down regulate pro-inflammatory cytokines which lead to pain and up regulate anti-inflammatory cytokines that reduce inflammation. These mechanisms might explain the increasing interest in the use of vitamin D supplementation for LBP. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether vitamin D supplementation improves pain more than a control intervention for individuals with LBP. STUDY DESIGN: This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. METHODS: We performed searches in numerous electronic databases combining key words relating to "vitamin D" and "LBP" until March 2017. Studies were included if they investigated vitamin D supplementation in participants with LBP, provided there was a comparison intervention. There was no restriction on the type of LBP, the intervention parameters investigated, or the type of clinical trial (e.g., randomized, non-randomized). Two reviewers independently performed the selection of studies, extracted data, rated the methodological quality of the included studies, and evaluated the overall quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Delevopment, and Evaulation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: After screening 3,534 articles, 8 clinical trials were included in this systematic review. There is very low quality evidence (based on the GRADE approach) that vitamin D supplementation is not more effective than any intervention (including placebo, no intervention, and other conservative/pharmacological interventions) (continuous pain measures [0-100]: mean difference [MD] = -2.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -10.42 to 5.12, P = 0.504, n = 5; self-reported reduction in pain: pooled odds ratio [OR] = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.35 to 3.26, P = 0.906, n = 5) or placebo/no intervention for individuals with LBP (continuous pain measures: MD = 1.29, 95% CI: -3.81 to 6.39, P = 0.620, n = 4; self-reported reduction in pain: pooled OR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.38 to 6.20, P = 0.550, n = 4), where 'n' is the number of studies included in the meta-analysis. These results did not change when we stratified the meta-analyses by the type of vitamin supplementation (vitamin D3 vs. alfacalcidol) or the type of LBP (non-specific vs. LBP resulting from osteoporosis or vertebral fractures). LIMITATIONS: The overall quality of evidence was "very low" due to the poor methodological quality and small sample sizes of the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin D supplementation is not more effective than placebo, no intervention, or other conservative/pharmacological interventions for LBP (based on very low quality evidence). These results are consistent, regardless of the type of LBP or vitamin D supplementation. Until well-designed and adequately powered clinical trials suggest otherwise, the prescription of vitamin D for LBP cannot be recommended. PROSPERO Registration No: CRD42016046874. www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID = CRD42016046874. KEY WORDS: Vitamin D, low back pain, chronic low back pain, alfacalcidol, osteoporosis, vertebral fractures, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D, systematic review.

Mapping the Association between Vitamin D and Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is the highest contributor to disability worldwide, with current intervention strategies only providing small to moderate analgesic effects. The use of vitamin D supplementation for LBP has gained interest due to its proposed anti-inflammatory and neuromodulatory properties. However, it is still unclear whether vitamin D levels differ between those with and without LBP or if vitamin D levels are associated with pain intensity. OBJECTIVES: We aim to investigate the association between vitamin D levels and LBP and to determine if vitamin D levels correlate with pain intensity in individuals with LBP. STUDY DESIGN: This study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines for performing a Meta-analysis and Systematic Review Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE). METHODS: We performed electronic database searches combined keywords relating to vitamin D and LBP in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, AMED, WEB OF SCIENCE, and SCOPUS from the earliest record to March 2017. Studies were included if they reported any quantitative measure of vitamin D, such as serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D], with adequate data in patients with and without LBP or adequate data on pain intensity in patients with LBP. No restriction on the type or duration of LBP, nor the age and gender of patients was applied. Two reviewers independently performed the selection of studies, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using a modified 15-item Downs and Black checklist. RESULTS: After the removal of duplicates and the screening of titles and abstracts, 105 full texts were evaluated. There were 29 articles included in this systemic review (22 entered into a meta-analysis), including 19 cross-sectional studies, 9 case-control studies, and one single-arm surgical trial where the pre-operative data were used in our analyses. The pooled results from 19 studies showed that individuals with LBP were more likely to have vitamin D deficiency (pooled OR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.20 - 2.12, P = 0.001, n = 19), severe deficiency (pooled OR = 2.08, 95% CI: 1.19 - 3.64, P = 0.010, n = 7), and lower serum concentrations of 25(OH)D (weighted MD = 3.86, 95% CI: 0.20 - 7.52, P = 0.039, n = 12) compared to those without LBP (where "n" is the number of studies). The association between vitamin D deficiency (pooled OR = 1.83, 95% CI: 1.26 - 2.66, P = 0.002, n = 9) or serum 25(OH)D (weighted MD = 7.64, 95% CI: 4.02 - 11.26, P < 0.001, n = 4) and LBP was stronger for women but failed to be statistically significant for men (pooled OR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.62 - 1.81, P = 0.213, n = 3). In addition, there were strong associations between vitamin D deficiency and LBP in patients < 60 years old (particularly women). We found minimal evidence to support an association between vitamin D levels and pain intensity in patients with LBP. LIMITATIONS: We were unable to investigate whether vitamin D deficiency increases the risk of developing LBP as there were no longitudinal studies included in this review. CONCLUSION: Vitamin D deficiency is associated with LBP, with stronger associations observed in younger women and those with severe levels of deficiency. The association between vitamin D levels and pain intensity is inconsistent. These results may guide the implementation of future studies on vitamin D supplementation for LBP. PROSPERO Registration No: CRD42016046874. KEY WORDS: Vitamin D, low back pain, deficiency, pain intensity, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D, supplementation, cross-sectional study, case-control study.

A randomized controlled trial of exercise and manipulative therapy for cervicogenic headache.

STUDY DESIGN: A multicenter, randomized controlled trial with unblinded treatment and blinded outcome assessment was conducted. The treatment period was 6 weeks with follow-up assessment after treatment, then at 3, 6, and 12 months. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of manipulative therapy and a low-load exercise program for cervicogenic headache when used alone and in combination, as compared with a control group. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Headaches arising from cervical musculoskeletal disorders are common. Conservative therapies are recommended as the first treatment of choice. Evidence for the effectiveness of manipulative therapy is inconclusive and available only for the short term. There is no evidence for exercise, and no study has investigated the effect of combined therapies for cervicogenic headache. METHODS: In this study, 200 participants who met the diagnostic criteria for cervicogenic headache were randomized into four groups: manipulative therapy group, exercise therapy group, combined therapy group, and a control group. The primary outcome was a change in headache frequency. Other outcomes included changes in headache intensity and duration, the Northwick Park Neck Pain Index, medication intake, and patient satisfaction. Physical outcomes included pain on neck movement, upper cervical joint tenderness, a craniocervical flexion muscle test, and a photographic measure of posture. RESULTS: There were no differences in headache-related and demographic characteristics between the groups at baseline. The loss to follow-up evaluation was 3.5%. At the 12-month follow-up assessment, both manipulative therapy and specific exercise had significantly reduced headache frequency and intensity, and the neck pain and effects were maintained (P < 0.05 for all). The combined therapies was not significantly superior to either therapy alone, but 10% more patients gained relief with the combination. Effect sizes were at least moderate and clinically relevant. CONCLUSION: Manipulative therapy and exercise can reduce the symptoms of cervicogenic headache, and the effects are maintained.