A pilot study of the effect of force feedback training on students learning flexion-distraction chiropractic technique.

OBJECTIVE: We compared traditional training alone and with the addition of force feedback training for learning flexion-distraction chiropractic technique. METHODS: Participants were randomly allocated to two groups (traditional or traditional plus force feedback training). Students' forces were measured before training and after force feedback training. Students rated the helpfulness of the training and the comfort of the force transducer. RESULTS: Thirty-one students were enrolled. Both groups delivered similar forces at baseline. Group 1 students' subsequent force measurements were higher after force feedback training. Group 2 students' forces were unchanged. Group 2 students were trained with force feedback for week 2 of the class, and forces were higher after feedback and similar to those in group 1. Students rated the training as very or somewhat helpful. Students also experienced discomfort as a patient and a student-doctor due to the force transducer that was used. Students who received force feedback training learned to deliver higher forces, which were closer to the forces delivered by experienced doctors of chiropractic. Students who did not receive force feedback continued to deliver lower forces. CONCLUSION: Force feedback helped students deliver forces closer to the desired force level and to learn this delivery faster than students who were not trained with force feedback.

Similar Effects of Thrust and Nonthrust Spinal Manipulation Found in Adults With Subacute and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Controlled Trial With Adaptive Allocation.

STUDY DESIGN: A three-arm controlled trial with adaptive allocation. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare short-term effects of a side-lying, thrust spinal manipulation (SM) procedure and a nonthrust, flexion-distraction SM procedure in adults with subacute or chronic low back pain (LBP) over 2 weeks. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: SM has been recommended in recently published clinical guidelines for LBP management. Previous studies suggest that thrust and nonthrust SM procedures, though distinctly different in joint loading characteristics, have similar effects on patients with LBP. METHODS: Participants were eligible if they were 21 to 54 years old, had LBP for at least 4 weeks, scored 6 or above on the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire, and met the diagnostic classification of 1, 2, or 3 according to the Quebec Task Force Classification for Spinal Disorders. Participants were allocated in a 3:3:2 ratio to four sessions of thrust or nonthrust SM procedures directed at the lower lumbar and pelvic regions, or to a 2-week wait list control. The primary outcome was LBP-related disability using Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the secondary outcomes were LBP intensity using visual analog scale, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. The study was conducted at the Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research with care provided by experienced doctors of chiropractic. Clinicians and patients were not blinded to treatment group. RESULTS: Of 192 participants enrolled, the mean age was 40 years and 54% were male. Improvement in disability, LBP intensity, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire-work subscale, and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey-physical health summary measure for the two SM groups were significantly greater than the control group. No difference in any outcomes was observed between the two SM groups. CONCLUSION: Thrust and nonthrust SM procedures with distinctly different joint loading characteristics demonstrated similar effects in short-term LBP improvement and both were superior to a wait list control. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Low-back pain, leg pain, and chronic idiopathic testicular pain treated with chiropractic care.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this article is to report the case of a patient who had low-back pain, leg pain, and idiopathic chronic testicular pain and who sought chiropractic care for his low-back and leg pain and received pain relief including his testicular pain. SUBJECT: A 36-year-old male patient had low-back pain, right leg pain, and testicular pain that was worsening. All had been present for 5 years. He had been seen by several medical physicians and had lumbar magnetic resonance imaging and x-rays performed. All were read as normal. Examination revealed tenderness of the testicles bilaterally with no masses or other abnormality of the testicles or scrotum. Orthopedic and neurological testing was unremarkable. Tenderness rated 8 out of 10 was noted at the L4 spinous process. INTERVENTION: The patient was treated with Cox Technic (flexion-distraction) of the lumbar spine, receiving a total of 19 treatments over an 8-week time period. RESULTS: After 4 weeks, the patient's low-back pain was decreased and his leg pain was gone. The testicular pain was improved after the first treatment and gone after 3 weeks of care. The patient was followed up by telephone at 3 and 6 months after discharge to find out if the testicle pain had returned, which it had not. CONCLUSIONS: This case was one of chronic idiopathic testicular pain. The patient was treated with the Cox Technic, and his low-back pain improved with complete remission of his leg and testicular pain. The testicular pain had not returned 6 months following his discharge from care.

A randomized controlled trial comparing 2 types of spinal manipulation and minimal conservative medical care for adults 55 years and older with subacute or chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: Chiropractic care is used by many older patients for low back pain (LBP), but there are no published results of randomized trials examining spinal manipulation (SM) for older adults. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 2 biomechanically distinct forms of SM and minimal conservative medical care (MCMC) for participants at least 55 years old with subacute or chronic nonradicular LBP. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome variable was low back-related disability assessed with the 24-item Roland Morris Disability questionnaire at 3, 6, 12, and 24 weeks. Participants were randomly allocated to 6 weeks of care including 12 visits of either high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA)-SM, low-velocity, variable-amplitude (LVVA)-SM, or 3 visits of MCMC. RESULTS: Two hundred forty participants (105 women and 135 men) ages 63.1 +/- 6.7 years without significant comorbidities. Adjusted mean Roland Morris Disability change scores (95% confidence intervals) from baseline to the end of active care were 2.9 (2.2, 3.6) and 2.7 (2.0, 3.3) in the LVVA-SM and HVLA-SM groups, respectively, and 1.6 (0.5, 2.8) in the MCMC group. There were no significant differences between LVVA-SM and HVLA-SM at any of the end points. The LVVA-SM group had significant improvements in mean functional status ranging from 1.3 to 2.2 points over the MCMC group. There were no serious adverse events associated with any of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Biomechanically distinct forms of SM did not lead to different outcomes in older LBP patients and both SM procedures were associated with small yet clinically important changes in functional status by the end of treatment for this relatively healthy older population. Participants who received either form of SM had improvements on average in functional status ranging from 1 to 2.2 over those who received MCMC. From an evidence-based care perspective, patient preference and clinical experience should drive how clinicians and patients make the SM procedure decision for this patient population.

A pilot mixed methods study of patient satisfaction with chiropractic care for back pain.

OBJECTIVE: Patient satisfaction is important to payers, clinicians, and patients. The concept of satisfaction is multifactorial and measurement is challenging. Our objective was to explore the use of a mixed-methods design to examine patient satisfaction with chiropractic care for low back pain. METHODS: Patients were treated 3 times per week for 3 weeks. Outcomes were collected at week 3 and week 4. Qualitative interviews were conducted by the treating clinician and a nontreating staff member. Outcome measures were the Roland Morris Back Pain Disability Questionnaire, the visual analog scale for pain, and the Patient Satisfaction Scale. Interviews were recorded and transcribed and analyzed for themes and constructs of satisfaction. We compared qualitative interview data with quantitative outcomes, and qualitative data from 2 different interviewers. RESULTS: All patients reported high levels of satisfaction. Clinical outcomes were unremarkable with little change noted on visual analog scale and Roland Morris Back Pain Disability Questionnaire scores. We categorized patient comments into the same constructs of satisfaction as those identified for the Patient Satisfaction Scale: Information, Effectiveness, and Caring. An additional construct (Quality of Care) and additional subcategories were identified. Satisfaction with care is not explained by outcome alone. The qualitative data collected from 2 different interviewers had few differences. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that it is feasible to use a mixed-methods design to examine patient satisfaction. We were able to refine data collection and analysis procedures for the outcome measures and qualitative interview data. We identified limitations and offer recommendations for the next step: the implementation of a larger study.

Process development for ethical recruitment of patients into simultaneous clinical studies in a chiropractic research clinic.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a process at one institution that creates an ethical means to bring other research projects to the attention of an individual who was excluded from the project for which they originally expressed interest, and to discuss the ethical issues surrounding patient recruitment and enrollment. METHOD: General consensus process via meetings of investigators involved in the ongoing trials at one institution. RESULTS: A process and flow sheet for offering new study information to individuals who did not meet the criteria for participation was developed. Once rejected, an individual can be asked if they wish to learn about other studies, are sent home with information, and are instructed to call back if they wish to volunteer. Consent can be used to take baseline information from the first study and apply it to the second. CONCLUSION: This process was developed and implemented for use in this research center.

A case report of an unstable cervical spine fracture: parallels to the thoracolumbar chance fracture.

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the case of a 40-year-old woman who had a cervical spine fracture similar in appearance to a Chance fracture and to discuss its radiographic appearance. CLINICAL FEATURES: A 40-year-old woman sought chiropractic care for neck pain and weakness in both arms after a motor vehicle accident. Neck flexion worsened the weakness in her upper extremities, her radiating neck pain, and upper extremity pain. A transverse fracture through the spinous process of C6 and narrowed C6 disk space was noted on plain film radiographs. Magnetic resonance imaging findings were consistent with a large midline extruded disk herniation at the C6-7 level with marked extrinsic compression on the cervical cord in addition to the fracture. These findings were similar to a lumbar spine Chance fracture. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME: The patient was referred for surgical consultation, and discectomy with fusion of C6-7 was performed. After the surgery, the upper extremity pain and weakness subsided. Postsurgical care included chiropractic adjustments with a handheld spring-loaded adjusting instrument and physiotherapy. CONCLUSION: The radiographic features of an unusual cervical spine fracture with the characteristics of a Chance-type fracture are discussed.

Management of chest pain: exploring the views and experiences of chiropractors and medical practitioners in a focus group interview.

BACKGROUND: We report on a multidisciplinary focus group project related to the appropriate care of chiropractic patients who present with chest pain. The prevalence and clinical management, both diagnosis and treatment, of musculoskeletal chest pain in ambulatory medical settings, was explored as the second dimension of the focus group project reported here. METHODS: This project collected observational data from a multidisciplinary focus group composed of both chiropractic and medical professionals. The goals of the focus group were to explore the attitudes and experiences of medical and chiropractic clinicians regarding their patients with chest pain who receive care from both medical and chiropractic providers, to identify important clinical or research questions that may inform the development of 'best practices' for coordinating or managing care of chest pain patients between medical and chiropractic providers, to identify important clinical or research questions regarding the diagnosis and treatment of chest pain of musculoskeletal origin, to explore various methods that might be used to answer those questions, and to discuss the feasibility of conducting or coordinating a multidisciplinary research effort along this line of inquiry. The convenience-sample of five focus group participants included two chiropractors, two medical cardiologists, and one dual-degreed chiropractor/medical physician. The focus group was audiotaped and transcripts were prepared of the focus group interaction. Content analysis of the focus group transcripts were performed to identify key themes and concepts, using categories of narratives. RESULTS: Six key themes emerged from the analysis of the focus group interaction, including issues surrounding (1) Diagnosis; (2) Treatment and prognosis; (3) Chest pain as a chronic, multifactorial, or comorbid condition; (4) Inter-professional coordination of care; (5) Best practices and standardization of care; and (6) Training and education. CONCLUSION: This study carries implications for chiropractic clinical training relative to enhancing diagnostic competencies in chest pain, as well as the need to ascertain and improve those skills, competencies, and standards for referrals and sharing of clinical information that may improve cross-disciplinary coordination of care for chest pain patients.

A randomized trial investigating a chiropractic manual placebo: a novel design using standardized forces in the delivery of active and control treatments.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the proposed manual placebo in terms of success in blinding patients to treatment group assignment and outcomes between the treatment groups. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: A chiropractic college research clinic in the midwestern United States. SUBJECTS: One hundred and eleven (111) individuals aged 18 years and over with subacute or chronic lowback pain. INTERVENTIONS: The active treatment consisted of flexion-distraction chiropractic manipulation and trigger point therapy and the control treatment of sham manipulation and effleurage; both groups received eight treatments over a 3-week period. The application of prescribed ranges of biomechanical forces for each treatment was standardized using specialized computerized equipment. "Nontreatment" aspects of the clinical encounter were to be standardized across groups. A primary clinician blinded to treatment assignment provided interpersonal interactions and treating clinicians delivered treatments with a minimum of interaction. OUTCOME MEASURES: The accuracy of the patient's perception of group assignment at visit 4 and the mean change in the Pain Disability Index (PDI) over the treatment period were the primary outcome variables. RESULTS: Patients in the control group were more likely to perceive their treatment assignment accurately than those in the active group (78% versus 54%, respectively). Patients in both treatment groups improved on the PDI and the Roland-Morris Questionnaire; there were no significant differences in improvement between the groups. Age, gender, prior chiropractic experience and expectation of treatment at baseline had no effect on outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the control group were not successfully blinded; however, patients' perceptions of treatment group assignment did not significantly affect outcomes. The clinically significant improvement in both groups, independent of patient or clinician expectations, suggests the presence of therapeutic factors common to both groups, other than biomechanical force. Further studies examining other aspects of the clinical encounter, considered separately from biomechanical force, are warranted before arbitrarily designating any intervention as a "placebo."