Chronic Low Back Pain in Adults: Evaluation and Management.

Chronic low back pain, defined as lumbar pain persisting for 12 weeks or more, occurs in about 13% of U.S. adults. Patients with chronic low back pain should have a history and physical examination to identify red flags that may indicate serious conditions that warrant immediate intervention or yellow flags (i.e., psychological, environmental, and social factors) that indicate risk of disability. The examination should include an evaluation for radicular symptoms. Routine imaging is not recommended but is indicated when red flags are present, there is a neuromuscular deficit, or if pain does not resolve with conservative therapy. Patients should avoid bed rest. Nonpharmacologic treatment is first-line management and may include therapies with varying evidence of support, such as counseling, exercise therapy, spinal manipulation, massage, heat, dry needling, acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and physical therapy. Pharmacologic interventions are second-line treatment. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the initial medication of choice; duloxetine may also be beneficial. Evidence is inconclusive to recommend the use of benzodiazepines, muscle relaxants, antidepressants, corticosteroids, insomnia agents, anticonvulsants, cannabis, acetaminophen, or long-term opioids. Epidural corticosteroid injections are not recommended except for short-term symptom relief in patients with radicular pain. Most patients with chronic low back pain will not require surgery; evaluation for surgery may be considered in those with persistent functional disabilities and pain from progressive spinal stenosis, worsening spondylolisthesis, or herniated disk. Physicians should consider prevention of chronic low back pain when patients present with acute back pain. Screening tools are available to predict the progression from acute to chronic low back pain, and targeted treatment strategies are beneficial for preventing progression.

A new role for spinal manual therapy and for chiropractic? Part II: strengths and opportunities.

In a previous paper, we presented some important weaknesses of and threats to the chiropractic profession as we see them. We further argued that the chiropractic profession's relationship with its principal clinical tool (spinal manual therapy) is at the core of the ideological divide that fractures the profession and prevents professional development towards greater integration in the healthcare landscape. In this manuscript, we shall argue that the historical predilection for spinal manipulation also gifts the profession with some obvious strengths and opportunities, and that these are inextricably linked to the management of musculoskeletal disorders. The onus is now on the chiropractic profession itself to redefine its raison d'être in a way that plays to those strengths and delivers in terms of the needs of patients and the wider healthcare system/market. We suggest chiropractors embrace and cultivate a role as coordinators of long-term and broad-focused management of musculoskeletal disorders. We make specific recommendations about how the profession, from individual clinicians to political organizations, can promote such a development.

Association between chiropractic spinal manipulation and cauda equina syndrome in adults with low back pain: Retrospective cohort study of US academic health centers.

BACKGROUND: Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a lumbosacral surgical emergency that has been associated with chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSM) in case reports. However, identifying if there is a potential causal effect is complicated by the heightened incidence of CES among those with low back pain (LBP). The study hypothesis was that there would be no increase in the risk of CES in adults with LBP following CSM compared to a propensity-matched cohort following physical therapy (PT) evaluation without spinal manipulation over a three-month follow-up period. METHODS: A query of a United States network (TriNetX, Inc.) was conducted, searching health records of more than 107 million patients attending academic health centers, yielding data ranging from 20 years prior to the search date (July 30, 2023). Patients aged 18 or older with LBP were included, excluding those with pre-existing CES, incontinence, or serious pathology that may cause CES. Patients were divided into two cohorts: (1) LBP patients receiving CSM or (2) LBP patients receiving PT evaluation without spinal manipulation. Propensity score matching controlled for confounding variables associated with CES. RESULTS: 67,220 patients per cohort (mean age 51 years) remained after propensity matching. CES incidence was 0.07% (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.05-0.09%) in the CSM cohort compared to 0.11% (95% CI: 0.09-0.14%) in the PT evaluation cohort, yielding a risk ratio and 95% CI of 0.60 (0.42-0.86; p = .0052). Both cohorts showed a higher rate of CES during the first two weeks of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that CSM is not a risk factor for CES. Considering prior epidemiologic evidence, patients with LBP may have an elevated risk of CES independent of treatment. These findings warrant further corroboration. In the meantime, clinicians should be vigilant to identify LBP patients with CES and promptly refer them for surgical evaluation.

The immediate effect of cervical rotation-traction manipulation on cervical paravertebral soft tissue: a study using soft tissue tension cloud chart technology.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the reliability of the Soft Tissue Tension Cloud Chart (STTCC) technology, an original method combining multi-point Cervical Paravertebral Soft Tissue Test (CPSTT) with MATLAB software, we conducted a preliminary analysis on the immediate effects of Orthopaedic Manual Therapy (OMT) on cervical paravertebral soft tissue. METHODS: 30 patients with Cervical Spondylotic Radiculopathy (CSR) were included in this study. We analyzed the differences in CPSTT before and after treatment with Cervical Rotation-Traction Manipulation (CRTM), a representative OMT technique in Traditional Chinese Medicine, using the STTCC technology. RESULTS: The STTCC results demonstrated that post-treatment CPSTT levels in CSR patients were significantly lower than pre-treatment levels after application of CRTM, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001). Additionally, pre-treatment CPSTT levels on the symptomatic side (with radicular pain or numbness) were higher across the C5 to C7 vertebrae compared to the asymptomatic side (without symptoms) (P < 0.001). However, this difference disappeared after CRTM treatment (P = 0.231). CONCLUSIONS: The STTCC technology represents a reliable method for analyzing the immediate effects of OMT. CSR patients display uneven distribution of CPSTT characterized by higher tension on the symptomatic side. CRTM not only reduces overall cervical soft tissue tension in CSR patients, but can also balance the asymmetrical tension between the symptomatic and asymptomatic sides. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was approved by the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (Website: . https://www.chictr.org.cn .) on 20/04/2021 and the Registration Number is ChiCTR2100045648.

Enhancing the Development and Growth of Infant Cerebral Palsy Rats Using Selective Spinal Manipulations.

Cerebral palsy (CP) is a refractory pediatric disease with a high prevalence, high disability rate, and difficult treatment. A variety of treatments are currently used for CP. The treatment involves drug and non-drug therapy. Traditional Chinese medicine external therapy is a very distinctive treatment method in non-drug therapy. As one of the external therapies of traditional Chinese medicine, massage is used in treating cerebral palsy and has good efficacy, small side effects, and strong operability. As a part of TCM external therapy, selective spinal manipulation can effectively promote the growth and development of infant rats with cerebral palsy.The operation was mainly divided into four steps: first, the rubbing method was applied to the spine and both sides of the spine for 1 min. The pressing and kneading method was applied to the spine for 5 min, and the muscles on both sides of the spine for 5 min. Second, pressing and kneading the sensitive local acupoints in the spine for 2 min were performed. Thirdly, the affected limb was treated by twisting method for 1 min. Fourth, the rubbing method was applied to a midline from the forehead to the back of the brain for 1 min. This study aimed to use selective spinal manipulation to treat infant rats with cerebral palsy. The weight, Rotarod test, Foot-fault score, and growth hormone of infant rats with cerebral palsy were detected to understand the effect of selective spinal manipulation on the growth and development of infant rats with cerebral palsy. The results showed that it can promote weight gain, improve balance ability and motor function, promote growth and development of infant cerebral palsy rats, promote growth hormone secretion, and increase the temperature of sensitive parts of the back.

Physical treatment of migraine.

Physical modalities, including acupuncture, massage therapy, physical therapy, and spinal manipulation, are commonly sought for migraine headache management. Acupuncture has been helpful in management of migraine, particularly as an adjunct to standard therapy. Some studies support acupuncture in combination with electroacupuncture and a traditional Chinese medicine form of massage called tuina as beneficial. An estimated 15% of patients with migraine seek spinal manipulation with osteopathic physicians or chiropractors, though evidence of benefit is lacking and potential for adverse effects is low but present. Studies of massage therapy in migraine have been heterogeneous and of low quality, often combined with other manual therapies to show effect. While manual therapies appear to reduce pain and improve quality of life, further study is needed to determine which specific types of manual therapy are most effective. While exercise is good for all patients, specific migraine management with physical therapy and regular exercise is not supported by evidence. Nevertheless, these modalities should be considered in certain situations when performed by trained and licensed professionals.

Association between spinal manipulative therapy and lumbar spine reoperation after discectomy: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients who undergo lumbar discectomy may experience ongoing lumbosacral radiculopathy (LSR) and seek spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage these symptoms. We hypothesized that adults receiving SMT for LSR at least one year following lumbar discectomy would be less likely to undergo lumbar spine reoperation compared to matched controls not receiving SMT, over two years' follow-up. METHODS: We searched a United States network of health records (TriNetX, Inc.) for adults aged ≥ 18 years with LSR and lumbar discectomy ≥ 1 year previous, without lumbar fusion or instrumentation, from 2003 to 2023. We divided patients into two cohorts: (1) chiropractic SMT, and (2) usual care without chiropractic SMT. We used propensity matching to adjust for confounding variables associated with lumbar spine reoperation (e.g., age, body mass index, nicotine dependence), calculated risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and explored cumulative incidence of reoperation and the number of SMT follow-up visits. RESULTS: Following propensity matching there were 378 patients per cohort (mean age 61 years). Lumbar spine reoperation was less frequent in the SMT cohort compared to the usual care cohort (SMT: 7%; usual care: 13%), yielding an RR (95% CIs) of 0.55 (0.35-0.85; P = 0.0062). In the SMT cohort, 72% of patients had ≥ 1 follow-up SMT visit (median = 6). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that adults experiencing LSR at least one year after lumbar discectomy who received SMT were less likely to undergo lumbar spine reoperation compared to matched controls not receiving SMT. While these findings hold promise for clinical implications, they should be corroborated by a prospective study including measures of pain, disability, and safety to confirm their relevance. We cannot exclude the possibility that our results stem from a generalized effect of engaging with a non-surgical clinician, a factor that may extend to related contexts such as physical therapy or acupuncture. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/vgrwz ).

Clinician approaches to new spine pain cases in primary care: Balance of opioid prescribing and early linkage to exercise therapy and spinal manipulation.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Spine pain (SP) is common and often disabling. Clinical practice guidelines discourage opioid treatment and outline the value of varied nonpharmacologic therapies (NPTs). This study elucidates the amount of variability in primary-care clinicians' (PCPs') prescribing of opioids and in their cases' receipt of the two most common NPTs (exercise therapy and spinal manipulation). METHOD: The design was a retrospective cohort study examining variation in the treatment of PCPs' new SP cases, classified by receipt of (a) prescription of an opioid at the initial visit; (b) exercise therapy and/or spinal manipulation within 30 days of initial visit. The study was set in the primary care clinics at military treatment facilities of the US Military Health System in the period between October 2011 and September 2016. RESULTS: The majority of cases did not receive a study treatment (66.3%); 19.6% of cases received only NPT within 30 days of initial visit; 11.5% were prescribed only an opioid at the initial visit with receipt of both NPT and opioid during early treatment rare (2.6%). Exercise therapy within 30 days exhibited more than a twofold difference in interquartile percentile rates (IQR) (median provision 15.8%, IQR 9.8%-22.1%). The other treatments exhibited even greater variation; specifically, spinal manipulation (median 8.5%, IQR 3.3%-15.8%), and opioid at initial visit (median 10.3%, IQR 4.4%-18.2%). The availability of physical therapists and doctors of chiropractic had significant association with several clinical provision rates. CONCLUSION: Among providers of spine care for a sample of Army soldiers, there was substantial variation in the early provision of exercise therapy, spinal manipulation, and opioid prescriptions. The magnitude of the case-mix adjusted variation and its association with facility availability of providers suggests that quality of care initiatives may help reduce this variation.

Spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a multi-center randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Nonoperative management of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) includes activity modification, medication, injections, and physical therapy. Conventional physical therapy includes a multimodal approach of exercise, manual therapy, and electro-thermal modalities. There is a paucity of evidence supporting the use of spinal manipulation and dry needling as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy in patients with LSS. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the effects of adding thrust spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling to conventional physical therapy in patients with LSS. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Randomized, single-blinded, multi-center, parallel-group clinical trial. PATIENT SAMPLE: One hundred twenty-eight (n=128) patients with LSS from 12 outpatient clinics in 8 states were recruited over a 34-month period. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes included the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes included the Roland Morris Disability Index (RMDI), Global Rating of Change (GROC), and medication intake. Follow-up assessments were taken at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either spinal manipulation, electrical dry needling, and conventional physical therapy (MEDNCPT group, n=65) or conventional physical therapy alone (CPT group, n=63). RESULTS: At 3 months, the MEDNCPT group experienced greater reductions in overall low back, buttock, and leg pain (NPRS: F=5.658; p=.002) and related-disability (ODI: F=9.921; p<.001; RMDI: F=7.263; p<.001) compared to the CPT group. Effect sizes were small at 2 and 6 weeks, and medium at 3 months for the NPRS, ODI, and RMDI. At 3 months, significantly (p=.003) more patients in the MEDNCPT group reported a successful outcome (GROC≥+5) than the CPT group. CONCLUSION: Patients with LSS who received electrical dry needling and spinal manipulation in addition to impairment-based exercise, manual therapy and electro-thermal modalities experienced greater improvements in low back, buttock and leg pain and related-disability than those receiving exercise, manual therapy, and electro-thermal modalities alone at 3 months, but not at the 2 or 6 week follow-up.

Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for acute neck pain: A 4-arm clinical placebo randomized controlled trial. A prospective study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Neck pain poses enormous individual and societal costs worldwide. Spinal manipulative therapy and Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug treatment are frequently used despite a lack of compelling efficacy data. This protocol describes a multicentre 4-arm, clinical placebo randomized controlled trial (RCT), investigating the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) versus sham CSMT, ibuprofen, and placebo medicine for acute neck pain. This superiority study will employ parallel groups, featuring a 1:1:1:1 allocation ratio. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We will randomize 320 participants equally into four groups: CSMT, sham CSMT, ibuprofen, or placebo medicine. CSMT groups are single-blinded, while the medicine groups are double-blinded. Data will be collected at baseline (Day 0), during treatment and post-treatment. The primary endpoint will assess the difference in mean pain intensity from Day 0 to Day 14 on a numeric rating scale 0-10; the CSMT group is compared to sham CSMT, ibuprofen, and placebo medicine groups, respectively. Secondary endpoints will assess mean pain intensity and mean duration at different time points, and adverse events, blinding success, and treatment satisfaction, including comparison between ibuprofen and placebo medicine. Power calculation is based on a mean neck pain rating of 5 at Day 0, with standard deviation of 1 in all groups. Mean pain reduction at Day 14 is expected to be 60% in the CSMT group, 40% in sham CSMT and ibuprofen groups, and 20% in the placebo medicine group. A linear mixed model will compare the mean values for groups with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. P values below 0.017 will be considered statistically significant. All analyses will be conducted blinded from group allocation. DISCUSSION: This RCT aims towards the highest research standards possible for manual-therapy RCTs owing to its two placebo arms. If CSMT and/or ibuprofen proves to be effective, it will provide evidence-based support for CSMT and/or ibuprofen for acute neck pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05374057. EU Clinical Trials Register: EudraCT number: 2021-005483-21.

Socioeconomic differences in the utilization of diagnostic imaging and non-pharmaceutical conservative therapies for spinal diseases.

BACKGROUND: A different utilization of health care services due to socioeconomic status on the same health plan contradicts the principle of equal treatment. We investigated the presence and magnitude of socioeconomic differences in utilization of diagnostic imaging and non-pharmaceutical conservative therapies for patients with spinal diseases. METHODS: The cohort study based on routine healthcare data from Germany with 11.7 million patient-years between 2012 and 2016 for patients with physician-confirmed spinal diseases (ICD-10: M40-M54), occupation and age 20 to 64 years. A Poisson model estimated the effects of the socioeconomic status (school education, professional education and occupational position) for the risk ratio of receiving diagnostic imaging (radiography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging) and non-pharmaceutical conservative therapies (physical therapy including exercise therapy, manual therapy and massage, spinal manipulative therapy, acupuncture). RESULTS: Patients received diagnostic imaging in 26%, physical therapy in 32%, spinal manipulative therapy in 25%, and acupuncture in 4% of all patient-years. Similar to previous survey-based studies higher rates of utilization were associated with higher socioeconomic status. These differences were most pronounced for manual therapy, exercise therapy, and magnetic resonance imaging. CONCLUSIONS: The observed differences in health care utilization were highly related to socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic differences were higher for more expensive health services. Further research is necessary to identify barriers to equitable access to health services and to take appropriate action to decrease existing social disparities.

Creating and testing a questionnaire to predict immediate and strong positive responders to spinal manipulative therapy for non-specific low back pain. A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Many chiropractors use spinal manipulative techniques (SMT) to treat spinal pain. A recent Delphi study posited 18 items across five domains as predictors of patients experiencing non-specific low back pain most likely to experience a strong and immediate positive response to SMT. We sought to create a 'pen and paper' questionnaire that would measure these items and then pilot its use in a clinical setting to determine its 'usability' for a larger study. Knowing this information would inform a more efficacious use of SMT. METHOD: Of the 18 items identified in the Delphi study, 13 were deemed historical in nature and readily provided by the chiropractor and patient. A literature search revealed reliable and valid measures for two more items. The remaining three items were generated by creating descriptive questions matched to an appropriate Likert scale. A panel of six chiropractors who had used SMT for at least 7 years when treating non-specific low back pain was formed to evaluate the items for clarity and relevance. Ten Western Australian chiropractors were then recruited to pilot the questionnaire on ten consecutive patients with non-specific low back pain where SMT was used from March to June 2020. Ethics approval was obtained from Murdoch University. RESULTS: COVID-19 restrictions impacted on practitioner recruitment and delayed the data collection. Of the intended 100 participants, only 63 could be recruited over a 3-month period from seven chiropractors. Time constraints forced the closure of the data collection. The measures of all predictor items demonstrated ceiling effects. Feedback from open-ended practitioner questions was minimal, suggesting an ease of use. CONCLUSION: The length of time and level of participation required to collect the calculated sample size was inadequate and suggested that incentivization may be required for a larger investigation. Significant ceiling effects were found and suggested that participants did so because of a positive bias toward chiropractic care and the use of SMT. The questionnaires in this pilot study require alternative measures and further validation before use in a larger study.

Spinal manipulation characteristics: a scoping literature review of force-time characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulation (SM) is a recommended and effective treatment for musculoskeletal disorders. Biomechanical (kinetic) parameters (e.g. preload/peak force, rate of force application and thrust duration) can be measured during SM, quantifying the intervention. Understanding these force-time characteristics is the first step towards identifying possible active ingredient/s responsible for the clinical effectiveness of SM. Few studies have quantified SM force-time characteristics and with considerable heterogeneity evident, interpretation of findings is difficult. The aim of this study was to synthesise the literature describing force-time characteristics of manual SM. METHODS: This scoping literature review is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) statement. Databases were searched from inception to October 2022: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, ICL, PEDro and Cochrane Library. The following search terms and their derivatives were adapted for each platform: spine, spinal, manipulation, mobilization or mobilisation, musculoskeletal, chiropractic, osteopathy, physiotherapy, naprapathy, force, motor skill, biomechanics, dosage, dose-response, education, performance, psychomotor, back, neck, spine, thoracic, lumbar, pelvic, cervical and sacral. Data were extracted and reported descriptively for the following domains: general study characteristics, number of and characteristics of individuals who delivered/received SM, region treated, equipment used and force-time characteristics of SM. RESULTS: Of 7,607 records identified, 66 (0.9%) fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. Of these, SM was delivered to the cervical spine in 12 (18.2%), the thoracic spine in 40 (60.6%) and the lumbopelvic spine in 19 (28.8%) studies. In 6 (9.1%) studies, the spinal region was not specified. For SM applied to all spinal regions, force-time characteristics were: preload force (range: 0-671N); peak force (17-1213N); rate of force application (202-8700N/s); time to peak thrust force (12-938ms); and thrust duration (36-2876ms). CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variability in the reported kinetic force-time characteristics of SM exists. Some of this variability is likely due to differences in SM delivery (e.g. different clinicians) and the measurement equipment used to quantify force-time characteristics. However, improved reporting in certain key areas could facilitate more sophisticated syntheses of force-time characteristics data in the future. Such syntheses could provide the foundation upon which dose-response estimates regarding the clinical effectiveness of SM are made.

Effectiveness of thoracic spine manipulation for upper quadrant musculoskeletal disorders: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Upper quadrant musculoskeletal disorders (UQMD), comprising of cranial, cervical, shoulder and upper extremity disorders, are among the most frequently reported disorders in clinical practice. Thoracic high velocity low amplitude thrust (Tx-HVLAT) manipulation is a form of conservative management recommended in systematic reviews as an effective treatment option for aspects of UQMD disorders such headache, shoulder pain and lateral elbow pain. However, no recent systematic reviews have assessed the effectiveness across UQMD. Therefore, this systematic review aims to update the current evidence on the effectiveness of Tx-HVLAT for patients with UQMD on (1) patient-reported outcomes, (2) performance measures or (3) psychosocial outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and Index to Chiropractic Literature will be searched from inception using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), Thesaurus and/or free-text words. Combinations will be made based on localisation, disorder, intervention and design. Following guidelines as advised by the Cochrane Back Review Group, published randomised controlled trials will be included. Two review authors will independently assess the risk of bias (ROB) using the Cochrane Back Review Group's recommended ROB2 tool and will independently extract the data using a standardised data extraction form. Overall quality of the evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. For continuous data, we will calculate standardised mean differences with 95% CIs. For dichotomous outcomes, relative risks and 95% CIs will be calculated. Where possible we will present a subgroup analysis by disorder. For pooling, a random-effects model will be used. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this systematic review. The study findings will be submitted to a relevant peer-reviewed journal for dissemination and presented at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023429996.

Can self-assessment and augmented feedback improve performance and learning retention in manual therapy: results from an experimental study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate how feedback and self-assessment strategies affect performance and retention of manual skills in a group of chiropractic students. METHODS: Seventy-five students participated in two spinal manipulation (SM) learning sessions using a force-sensing table. They were recruited between May and November 2022 during HVLA technical courses. Students were randomly assigned into three different groups: participants in group 1 received visual feedback, those in group 2 received visual feedback after self-assessment, and participants in group 3 (C) received no feedback. During the first session, participants started with one block of 3 familiarization trials, followed by two blocks of 6 SM HVLA (high velocity low amplitude) posterior-to-anterior thoracic SM trials, with 3 trials performed with a target force of 450 N and 3 others at 800 N. They received feedback according to their group during the first block, but no feedback was provided during the second block. All participants were invited to participate in a second session for the retention test and to perform a new set SM without any form of feedback. RESULTS: Results showed that visual feedback and visual feedback in addition to self-assessment did not improve short-term SM performance, nor did it improve performance at the one-week retention test. The group that received visual feedback and submitted to self-assessment increased the difference between the target force and the peak force applied, which can be considered a decrease in performance. CONCLUSION: No learning effects between the three groups of students exposed to different feedback and self-assessment learning strategies were highlighted in the present study. However, future research on innovative motor learning strategies could explore the role of external focus of attention, self-motivation and autonomy in SM performance training.

Benefits and Harms of Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Treating Recent and Persistent Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate the benefits and harms of cervical spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for treating neck pain. DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, Chiropractic Literature Index bibliographic databases, and grey literature sources, up to June 6, 2022. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs evaluating SMT compared to guideline-recommended and nonrecommended interventions, sham SMT, and no intervention for adults with neck pain were eligible for our systematic review. Prespecified outcomes included pain, range of motion, disability, health-related quality of life. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analysis for clinically homogenous RCTs at short-term and long-term outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach to judge the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 28 RCTs. There was very low to low certainty evidence that SMT was more effective than recommended interventions for improving pain at short term (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35, 0.97) and long term (SMD, 0.73; 95% CI: 0.31, 1.16), and for reducing disability at short-term (SMD, 0.95; 95% CI: 0.48, 1.42) and long term (SMD, 0.65; 95% CI: 0.23, 1.06). Transient side effects only were found (eg, muscle soreness). CONCLUSION: There was very low certainty evidence supporting cervical SMT as an intervention to reduce pain and improve disability in people with neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(9):510-528. Epub: 10 August 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11708.

Association between chiropractic spinal manipulation and gabapentin prescription in adults with radicular low back pain: retrospective cohort study using US data.

OBJECTIVES: Radicular low back pain (rLBP) is often treated off-label with gabapentin or by chiropractors using chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT). To date, no studies have examined the association between these interventions. We hypothesised that adults under 50 years of age receiving CSMT for newly diagnosed rLBP would have reduced odds of receiving a gabapentin prescription over 1 year-follow-up. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: US network including linked medical records, medical claims and pharmacy claims of >122 million patients attending large healthcare organisations (TriNetX), queried 15 June 2023, yielding data from 2017 to 2023. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 18-49 were included at their first occurrence of rLBP diagnosis. Exclusions were severe pathology, other spinal conditions, on-label gabapentin indications and gabapentin contraindications. Propensity score matching controlled for variables associated with gabapentin use and receipt of prescription medication over the preceding year. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were divided into CSMT or usual medical care cohorts based on the care received on the index date of rLBP diagnosis. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: OR for gabapentin prescription. RESULTS: After propensity matching, there were 1635 patients per cohort (mean age 36.3±8.6 years, 60% women). Gabapentin prescription over 1-year follow-up was significantly lower in the CSMT cohort compared with the usual medical care cohort, with an OR (95% CI) of 0.53 (0.40 to 0.71; p<0.0001). Sensitivity analyses revealed early divergence in cumulative incidence of prescription; and no significant between-cohort difference in a negative control outcome (gastrointestinal medication) suggesting adequate control for pharmacological care preference. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that US adults receiving CSMT for newly diagnosed rLBP have significantly reduced odds of receiving a gabapentin prescription over 1-year follow-up compared with those receiving usual medical care. Results may not be generalisable and should be replicated in other healthcare settings and corroborated by a prospective study to reduce confounding.

Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Does Targeting a Specific Vertebral Level Make a Difference?: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine whether targeting spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), by applying the intervention to a specific vertebral level, produces superior clinical outcomes than a nontargeted approach in patients with nonspecific low back pain. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, PEDro, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were searched up to May 31, 2023. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing targeted SMT (mobilization or manipulation) to a nontargeted approach in patients with nonspecific low back pain, and measuring the effects on pain intensity and patient-reported disability. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data extraction, risk of bias, and evaluation of the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach were performed by 2 authors independently. Meta-analyses were performed using the restricted maximum likelihood method. RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials (n = 931 patients) were included. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference between targeted SMT and a nontargeted approach for pain intensity at postintervention (weighted mean difference = -0.20 [95% CI: -0.51, 0.10]) and at follow-up (weighted mean difference = 0.05 [95% CI: -0.26, 0.36]). For patient-reported disability, there was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference at postintervention (standardized mean difference = -0.04 [95% CI: -0.36, 0.29]) and at follow-up (standardized mean difference = -0.05 [95% CI: -0.24, 0.13]). Adverse events were reported in 4 trials, and were minor and evenly distributed between groups. CONCLUSION: Targeting a specific vertebral level when administering SMT for patients with nonspecific low back pain did not result in improved outcomes on pain intensity and patient-reported disability compared to a nontargeted approach. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(9):1-11. Epub: 28 July 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11962.

Immediate Effects of a Single Session of Cervical Spine Manipulation on Cervical Movement Patterns in People With Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess the immediate effects of a single session of cervical spine manipulation on cervical movement patterns, disability, and the patient's perceived improvement in people with nonspecific neck pain. METHODS: A single-blinded, randomized, sham-controlled trial was carried out at a biomechanics institute. Fifty participants diagnosed with acute and chronic nonspecific neck pain (minimum duration of the symptoms being 1 month) were randomized to an experimental group (EG, n = 25) or a sham-control group (CG, n = 25, 23 of whom completed the study). EG received a single cervical spine manipulation session; CG received a single placebo intervention. Both groups received manipulation or sham from the same physiotherapist. Main outcome measures were neck kinematics (ie, range of motion and movement harmony) during cyclic movements, self-reported neck disability, and impression of change assessed before and 5 minutes after treatment. RESULTS: The EG showed no significant improvements (P > .05) in any of the studied biomechanical variables, except for right-side bending and left rotation, in which we found a range of motion significant mean difference of 1.97° and 1.95°, respectively (P < .05). The CG showed enhanced harmonic motion during flexion (P < .05). Both groups showed a significant decrease in self-reported neck disability after treatment (P < .05), and EG participants perceived a significantly larger improvement after manipulation compared with the CG (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: A single session of cervical manipulation provided by a physiotherapist had no impact on cervical motion during cyclic movements, but rather induced self-reported perceived improvement in neck disability and impression of change after treatment in people with nonspecific neck pain.

Investigating force-time characteristics of prone thoracic SMT and self-reported patient outcome measures: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is commonly used to treat musculoskeletal conditions, including thoracic spine pain. Applying patient-specific force-time characteristics are believed to be important to improve SMT's effectiveness. Investigating SMT as part of a multimodal approach is fundamental to account for the complexity of chiropractic clinical practice. Therefore, pragmatic investigations balancing minimal disruptions to the clinical encounter at the same time as ensuring a robust data quality with rigorous protocols are needed. Consequently, preliminary studies are required to assess the study protocol, quality of data recorded and the sustainability of such investigation. Therefore, this study examined the feasibility of investigating SMT force-time characteristics and clinical outcome measures in a clinical setting. METHODS: In this mixed-methods study, providers recorded thoracic SMT force-time characteristics delivered to patients with thoracic spinal pain during regular clinical encounters. Self-reported clinical outcomes of pain, stiffness, comfort during the SMT (using an electronic visual analogue scale), and global rating of change scale were measured before and after each SMT application. Feasibility was quantitatively assessed for participant recruitment, data collection and data quality. Qualitative data assessed participants' perceptions on the impact of data collection on patient management and clinical flow. RESULTS: Twelve providers (58% female, 27.3 ± 5.0 years old) and twelve patients (58% female, 37.2 ± 14.0 years old) participated in the study. Enrolment rate was greater than 40%, data collection rate was 49% and erroneous data was less than 5%. Participant acceptance was good with both providers and patients reporting positive experience with the study. CONCLUSIONS: Recording SMT force-time characteristics and self-reported clinical outcome measures during a clinical encounter may be feasible with specific modification to the current protocol. The study protocol did not negatively impact patient management. Specific strategies to optimize the data collection protocol for the development of a large clinical database are being developed.