Systematic Review to Inform a World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Practice Guideline: Benefits and Harms of Needling Therapies for Chronic Primary Low Back Pain in Adults.

PURPOSE: Evaluate benefits and harms of needling therapies (NT) for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing NT compared with placebo/sham, usual care, or no intervention (comparing interventions where the attributable effect could be isolated). We conducted meta-analyses where indicated and graded the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We screened 1831 citations and 109 full text RCTs, yeilding 37 RCTs. The certainty of evidence was low or very low across all included outcomes. There was little or no difference between NT and comparisons across most outcomes; there may be some benefits for certain outcomes. Compared with sham, NT improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (physical) (2 RCTs; SMD = 0.20, 95%CI 0.07; 0.32) at 6 months. Compared with no intervention, NT reduced pain at 2 weeks (21 RCTs; MD = - 1.21, 95%CI - 1.50; - 0.92) and 3 months (9 RCTs; MD = - 1.56, 95%CI - 2.80; - 0.95); and reduced functional limitations at 2 weeks (19 RCTs; SMD = - 1.39, 95%CI - 2.00; - 0.77) and 3 months (8 RCTs; SMD = - 0.57, 95%CI - 0.92; - 0.22). In older adults, NT reduced functional limitations at 2 weeks (SMD = - 1.10, 95%CI - 1.71; - 0.48) and 3 months (SMD = - 1.04, 95%CI - 1.66; - 0.43). Compared with usual care, NT reduced pain (MD = - 1.35, 95%CI - 1.86; - 0.84) and functional limitations (MD = - 2.55, 95%CI - 3.70; - 1.40) at 3 months. CONCLUSION: Based on low to very low certainty evidence, adults with CPLBP experienced some benefits in pain, functioning, or HRQoL with NT; however, evidence showed little to no differences for other outcomes.

Patient and provider characteristics associated with therapeutic intervention selection in a chiropractic clinical encounter: a cross-sectional analysis of the COAST and O-COAST study data.

BACKGROUND: Chiropractors use a variety of therapeutic interventions in clinical practice. How the selection of interventions differs across musculoskeletal regions or with different patient and provider characteristics is currently unclear. This study aimed to describe how frequently different interventions are used for patients presenting for chiropractic care, and patient and provider characteristics associated with intervention selection. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Chiropractic Observation and Analysis STudy (COAST) and Ontario (O-COAST) studies: practice-based, cross-sectional studies in Victoria, Australia (2010-2012) and Ontario, Canada (2014-2015). Chiropractors recorded data on patient diagnosis and intervention selection from up to 100 consecutive patient visits. The frequency of interventions selected overall and for each diagnostic category (e.g., different musculoskeletal regions) were descriptively analysed. Univariable multi-level logistic regression (provider and patient as grouping factors), stratified by diagnostic category, was used to assess the association between patient/provider variables and intervention selection. RESULTS: Ninety-four chiropractors, representative of chiropractors in Victoria and Ontario for age, sex, and years in practice, participated. Data were collected on 7,966 patient visits (6419 unique patients), including 10,731 individual diagnoses (mean age: 43.7 (SD: 20.7), 57.8% female). Differences in patient characteristics and intervention selection were observed between chiropractors practicing in Australia and Canada. Overall, manipulation was the most common intervention, selected in 63% (95%CI:62-63) of encounters. However, for musculoskeletal conditions presenting in the extremities only, soft tissue therapies were more commonly used (65%, 95%CI:62-68). Manipulation was less likely to be performed if the patient was female (OR:0.74, 95%CI:0.65-0.84), older (OR:0.79, 95%CI:0.77-0.82), presenting for an initial visit (OR:0.73, 95%CI:0.56-0.95) or new complaint (OR:0.82, 95%CI:0.71-0.95), had one or more comorbidities (OR:0.63, 95%CI:0.54-0.72), or was underweight (OR:0.47, 95%CI:0.35-0.63), or obese (OR:0.69, 95%CI:0.58-0.81). Chiropractors with more than five years clinical experience were less likely to provide advice/education (OR:0.37, 95%CI:0.16-0.87) and exercises (OR:0.17, 95%CI:0.06-0.44). CONCLUSION: In more than 10,000 diagnostic encounters, manipulation was the most common therapeutic intervention for spine-related problems, whereas soft tissue therapies were more common for extremity problems. Different patient and provider characteristics were associated with intervention selection. These data may be used to support further research on appropriate selection of interventions for common musculoskeletal complaints.

Presenters at chiropractic research conferences 2010-2019: is there a gender equity problem?

BACKGROUND: Presenting at professional and scientific conferences can be an important part of an individual's career advancement, especially for researchers communicating scientific findings, and can signal expertise and leadership. Generally, women presenting at conferences are underrepresented in various science disciplines. We aimed to evaluate the gender of presenters at research-oriented chiropractic conferences from 2010 to 2019. METHODS: We investigated the gender of presenters at conferences hosted by chiropractic organisations from 2010 to 2019 that utilised an abstract submission process. Gender classification was performed by two independent reviewers. The gender distribution of presenters over the ten-year period was analysed with linear regression. The association of conference factors with the gender distribution of presenters was also assessed with linear regression, including the gender of organising committees and abstract peer reviewers, and the geographic region where the conference was hosted. RESULTS: From 39 conferences, we identified 4,340 unique presentations. Women gave 1,528 (35%) of the presentations. No presenters were classified as gender diverse. Overall, the proportion of women presenters was 30% in 2010 and 42% in 2019, with linear regression demonstrating a 1% increase in women presenting per year (95% CI = 0.4-1.6%). Invited/keynote speakers had the lowest proportion of women (21%) and the most stagnant trajectory over time. The gender of conference organisers and abstract peer reviewers were not significantly associated with the gender of presenters. Oceanic conferences had a lower proportion of women presenting compared to North America (27% vs. 36%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, women gave approximately one-third of presentations at the included conferences, which gradually increased from 2010 to 2019. However, the disparity widens for the most prestigious class of keynote/invited presenters. We make several recommendations to support the goal of gender equity, including monitoring and reporting on gender diversity at future conferences.

The effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy procedures for spine pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a guideline-recommended treatment option for spinal pain. The recommendation is based on multiple systematic reviews. However, these reviews fail to consider that clinical effects may depend on SMT "application procedures" (i.e., how and where SMT is applied). Using network meta-analyses, we aim to investigate which SMT "application procedures" have the greatest magnitude of clinical effectiveness for reducing pain and disability, for any spinal complaint, at short-term and long-term follow-up. We will compare application procedural parameters by classifying the thrust application technique and the application site (patient positioning, assisted, vertebral target, region target, Technique name, forces, and vectors, application site selection approach and rationale) against: 1. Waiting list/no treatment; 2. Sham interventions not resembling SMT (e.g., detuned ultrasound); 3. Sham interventions resembling SMT; 4. Other therapies not recommended in clinical practice guidelines; and 5. Other therapies recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Secondly, we will examine how contextual elements, including procedural fidelity (whether the SMT was delivered as planned) and clinical applicability (whether the SMT is similar to clinical practice) of the SMT. METHODS: We will include randomized controlled trials (RCT) found through three search strategies, (i) exploratory, (ii) systematic, and (iii) other known sources. We define SMT as a high-velocity low-amplitude thrust or grade V mobilization. Eligibility is any RCT assessing SMT against any other type of SMT, any other active or sham intervention, or no treatment control on adult patients with pain in any spinal region. The RCTs must report on continuous pain intensity and/or disability outcomes. Two authors will independently review title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. Spinal manipulative therapy techniques will be classified according to the technique application and choice of application sites. We will conduct a network-meta analysis using a frequentist approach and multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses. DISCUSSION: This will be the most extensive review of thrust SMT to date, and will allow us to estimate the importance of different SMT application procedures used in clinical practice and taught across educational settings. Thus, the results are applicable to clinical practice, educational settings, and research studies. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022375836.

Convergent and Discriminative Validity of the PROMIS Physical Function 4 Questionnaire for Assessing Pain-related Disability in Low Back Pain Patients Seeking Chiropractic Care.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To investigate construct validity by examining the convergent and discriminative validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function 4a (PROMIS-PF4) questionnaire in low back pain (LBP) patients seeking care from Danish chiropractors. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) is often used to assess physical functioning in LBP. However, it consists of 24 items, which is time consuming to complete in clinical practice. The PROMIS-PF4 questionnaire has only four items and may be more applicable for clinical use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with LBP seeking care from chiropractors in Denmark completed the PROMIS-PF4, RMDQ, Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back screening tool, and Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) in advance of their first appointment with the chiropractor. Convergent validity was assessed using Spearman correlation coefficients between the PROMIS-PF4 and RMDQ and NPRS, respectively. Discriminative validity of the PROMIS-PF4 was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) when plotting the PROMIS-PF4 t score against a reference case for RMDQ; NPRS; and high and low risk groups using the STarT Back screening tool. RESULTS: Among 356 patients the PROMIS-PF4 questionnaire had strong convergent validity with the RMDQ ( r =-0.76) and moderate convergent validity with the NPRS ( r =-0.42). The PROMIS-PF4 had good and acceptable discriminative validity for disability (AUC=0.88) and high risk of persisting disability (AUC=0.72), and poor or no discriminative validity for pain intensity (AUC=0.66) and low-risk of persisting disability (AUC=0.26), respectively. CONCLUSION: As hypothesized, for convergent validity the PROMIS-PF4 has stronger correlation with the RMDQ than the NPRS and good discriminative validity for identifying patients with pain-related disability and at high risk of persisting disability but not for identifying pain intensity or low-risk of persisting disability. Consequently, the PROMIS-PF4 has adequate construct validity for measuring pain-related disability in an LBP population in chiropractic care.

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.

Intervention usage for the management of low back pain in a chiropractic teaching clinic.

BACKGROUND: Despite numerous low back pain (LBP) clinical practice guidelines, published studies suggest guideline nonconcordant care is still offered. However, there is limited literature evaluating the degree to which chiropractors, particularly students, follow clinical practice guidelines when managing LBP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency of use of specific interventions for LBP by students at a chiropractic teaching clinic, mapping recommended, not recommend, and without recommendation interventions based on two clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of patients presenting to the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College teaching clinic with a new complaint of LBP from January to July 2019. Interventions provided under treatment plans for each patient were extracted. Interventions were classified as recommended, not recommended, or without recommendation according to two guidelines, the NICE and OPTIMa LBP guideline. RESULTS: 1000 patient files were identified with 377 files meeting the inclusion criteria. The most frequent interventions provided to patients were manipulation/mobilization (99%) and soft tissue therapy (91%). Exercise, localized percussion, and advice and/or education were included in just under half of the treatment plans. Patient files contained similar amounts of recommended (70%) and not recommended (80%) interventions according to the NICE guideline classification, with half the treatment plans including an intervention without recommendation. Under the OPTIMa acute guideline, patient files contained similar amounts of recommended and not recommended care, while more recommended care was provided than not recommended under the OPTIMa chronic guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Despite chiropractic interns providing guideline concordant care for the majority of LBP patients, interventions classified as not recommended and without recommendation are still frequently offered. This study provides a starting point to understand the treatment interventions provided by chiropractic interns. Further research should be conducted to improve our understanding of the use of LBP guideline recommended care in the chiropractic profession. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework # g74e8.

Management of knee and hip osteoarthritis: an opportunity for the Canadian chiropractic profession.

Knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) place a significant burden on the Canadian health system and are a major public health challenge. This brief commentary discusses the recently published Osteoarthritis Research Society International guideline and the American College of Rheumatology guideline for the management of OA. Special attention has been given to the role of manual therapy, exercise, and patient education for the treatment of knee and hip OA. This article also reviews the Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D®) treatment program for knee and hip OA and the implementation of this program in Canada. Lastly, the authors discuss the opportunity for the Canadian chiropractic profession to embrace treatment programs like GLA:D® and take an active role in the strengthening of the Canadian health system from a musculoskeletal perspective.

L'ostéoarthrite (OA) du genou et de la hanche impose un lourd fardeau économique au système de santé canadien et constitue un grave problème de santé publique. Le présent article porte sur la ligne directrice publiée récemment par l'Osteoarthritis Research Society International et la ligne directrice sur la prise en charge de l'ostéoarthrite de l'American College of Rheumatology. L'auteur accorde une attention spéciale à la thérapie manuelle, à l'exercice physique et à l'information au patient dans le traitement de l'OA du genou et de la hanche. Les auteurs passent en revue le programme Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D®) servant à mettre en œuvre des lignes directrices pour le traitement de l'OA du genou et de la hanche et à mettre en œuvre ce programme au Canada. Enfin, les auteurs se penchent sur l'occasion donnée aux chiropraticiens canadiens d'adopter des programmes de traitement comme GLA:D® et de jouer un rôle actif dans le renforcement du système de soins de santé canadien en prenant en charge des affections musculosquelettiques.

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.