The perceived barriers and facilitators for chiropractic care in older adults with low back pain; insights from a qualitative exploration in a dutch context.

BACKGROUND: Understanding care seeking behaviour is vital to enabling access to care. In the context of low back pain (LBP), chiropractors offer services to patients of all ages. Currently, geriatric sub-populations tend to be under-investigated, despite the disproportionate effects of LBP on older adults. In the Netherlands, the chiropractic profession is relatively unknown and therefore, generally speaking, is not considered as the first choice for conservative musculoskeletal primary health care. The aim of this paper was to explore the experiences of older adults with LBP, seeking chiropracic care for the first time, in order to identify perceived barriers and facilitators in this process. METHODS: Stage 1: Participants 56 years of age and older with chronic LBP who either sought or did not seek chiropractic care were interviewed to provide detailed information on the factors that promoted or impeded care-seeking behaviour. A purposive sampling strategy was used to recruit participants through a network of researchers, chiropractors and other healthcare professionals offering musculoskeletal health care services. Individuals with underlying pathology, previous surgery for LBP, or insufficient mastery of the Dutch language were excluded. Data were collected until saturation was reached and thematically analysed. Stage 2: To further explore the themes, a focus group interview was conducted with a provider stakeholder group consisting of:two physiotherapists, a nurse practitioner, a geriatrician, and a chiropractor. All interviews were conducted online, voice recorded, and transcribed verbatim. RESULTS: We interviewed 11 older adults with low back pain. During this process four themes emerged that captured their perception and experiences in either seeking or dismissing chiropractic care for their LBP; these being 'generic', 'financial', 'expectation', and 'the image of the chiropractor'. The focus group members largely confirmed the identified themes, highlighting a lack of awarenes and accessibility as key barriers to care. On the other hand, whe chiropractior as an alternative care provider, with a focus on manual interventions, was seen as a facilitator. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of knowledge about chiropractic care was found to be the most important barrier to seeking care. The most important facilitator was insufficient resolution of their symptoms following previous care, making patients look further for a solution for their problem. These barriers and facilitators seem not to differ greatly from barriers and facilitators found among younger patients with neck pain. Age and health condition may therefore be weak determinants of care. This new information may help us optimize accessibility for older adults to the chiropractor.

Diagnostic Imaging in Chiropractic Practice: A Survey of Opinions and Self-Reported Guideline Adherence of Dutch and Belgian Chiropractors.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was (1) to describe diagnostic imaging in Dutch and Belgian chiropractic practice in general, (2) to estimate adherence to the diagnostic imaging guidelines for patients with low back pain (LBP) via vignettes, and (3) to evaluate factors associated with diagnostic imaging and adherence to the guidelines. METHODS: We used a web-based survey to collect sociodemographic data, practice characteristics, amount of imaging, opinions, and indications for requesting imaging from registered Dutch and Belgian chiropractors in 2013. Additionally, adherence to imaging guidelines for LBP was assessed by 6 vignettes in patients with LBP. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted to explore associations between characteristics of chiropractors and the use of imaging. Generalized mixed models were used to explore guidelines adherence and their relationship with chiropractor's characteristics. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 60% (n = 203 out of 340). In total, 83% of chiropractors viewed diagnostic imaging in general as an important part of their practice. It is important to note that Dutch and Belgian chiropractors are not allowed to refer directly for imaging. Chiropractors reported that they would like to have imaging in 42% of their patients. Imaging had already been performed in 37% of patients before the first visit and was ordered by another health care provider (ie, general practitioner or medical specialist). The most common indication for ordering imaging was exclusion of contraindications (73%). The most common reason against imaging was the perceived limited value (45%). Many chiropractors (71%) were familiar with imaging guidelines. Adherence to the imaging guidelines for LBP based upon the vignettes was 66%. Dutch chiropractors and chiropractors with less than 10 years in practice demonstrated better adherence to guidelines and imaging use as compared with Belgian and those with more than 10 years of experience. CONCLUSIONS: Most Dutch and Belgian chiropractors reported that imaging in general was important in chiropractic practice. Self-reported indications for ordering diagnostic imaging were in line with the imaging guidelines in the majority of cases. We found some variances between Belgian and Dutch chiropractors and years of experience related to guideline adherence.

Management of people with low back pain: a survey of opinions and beliefs of Dutch and Belgian chiropractors.

BACKGROUND: Chiropractors commonly provide care to people with low-back pain (LBP). The aim of this survey was to determine the opinions and beliefs of chiropractors regarding the support and management of LBP. We also investigated whether their management is in accordance with the three most commonly recommended approaches to LBP based upon international guidelines (i.e. advice regarding return-to-work, limit bedrest, and stay active). METHODS: A web-based survey was sent out in 2013 to collect data from registered Dutch and Belgian chiropractors. In addition to providing a description of their sociodemographic and practice characteristics, chiropractors were asked to complete six patient vignettes representing people with LBP who typically present to a chiropractor. The respondents indicated which intervention(s) they would recommend or undertake. Based upon these vignettes, we were able to determine whether their management approach adhered to clinical guidelines. Generalized mixed models were used to explore guidelines adherence and their relationship to chiropractors' characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 60% (n = 203/340) of the chiropractors who were invited, chose to participate. Chiropractors reported applying a chiropractic adjustment in 90% of all vignettes, while the advice to exercise varied from one-third in the chronic cases to approximately half of those with acute LBP. More than 75% of the chiropractors would initially treat LBP 1-2 times a week. More than 90% of the chiropractors advised against bedrest. Overall, self-reported adherence to clinical guidelines for all six vignettes was [64.5% (CI 58.7-70.0)]. Adherence in the chronic vignettes [73.4% (CI 66.7-79.2)] was better than in the acute vignettes [55.9% (CI 50.5-61.1)]. Importantly, regarding recommended approaches to LBP, chiropractors more consistently followed guidelines regarding advice to limit bedrest [98.5% (CI 97.3-99.1)] than advice to stay active [77.5% (CI 72.3-81.9)] or return-to-work [59.4% (CI 55.2-63.4)]. Finally, Dutch chiropractors were more likely to adhere to the guidelines than Belgian chiropractors. CONCLUSIONS: Chiropractic adjustments were the most common self-reported treatment modalities supplemented by exercise in the management of LBP patients. Two-thirds of the chiropractors reported adhering to the guidelines regarding management and advice for LBP patients. Practitioners should improve guideline adherence, particularly for acute LBP cases, and when advising on return-to-work.

Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Which Has Superior Measurement Properties in Older Adults With Low Back Pain?

OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of 3 commonly used questionnaires for assessing physical function (ie, Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale [QBPDS], and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ]) in older patients undergoing chiropractic care for low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Head-to-head clinimetric comparison. METHODS: Patients completed the ODI, QBPDS, and RMDQ at baseline and after 2 weeks of treatment. Reliability was evaluated for internal consistency (Cronbach α), test-retest reliability (interclass correlation coefficient [ICC]), and measurement error (standard error of measurement and smallest detectable change [SDC]). Structural validity was evaluated through unidimensional confirmatory factor analysis, and construct validity was investigated by a priori hypotheses with other measures. Responsiveness was evaluated by testing a priori hypotheses using data at baseline and at 2-week follow-up. RESULTS: Two hundred fourteen patients (53% males and 47% females) with a mean age of 66.2 years (standard deviation = 7.8 years) were included, of which 193 patients completed the 2-week follow-up for our responsiveness analysis. The RMDQ, ODI, and QBPDS showed sufficient internal consistency (Cronbach α of .89, .86, and .94, respectively) and test-retest reliability (ICC[2,1] of 0.85, 0.89, and 0.84, respectively). The SDC for the RMDQ was 6.9, for the ODI was 19.1, and for the QBPDS was 23.6, which are values larger than the minimal important change. None of the measures met all criteria for sufficient structural validity, but the RMDQ and ODI exhibited a partial unidimensional fit. The questionnaires had sufficient construct validity and responsiveness. CONCLUSION: The ODI, QBPDS, and RMDQ have similar measurement properties in older adults with LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(7):457-469. Epub: 18 May 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10802.

Full endoscopic versus open discectomy for sciatica: randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) is non-inferior to conventional open microdiscectomy in reduction of leg pain caused by lumbar disc herniation. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial with non-inferiority design. SETTING: Four hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 613 patients aged 18-70 years with at least six weeks of radiating leg pain caused by lumbar disc herniation. The trial included a predetermined set of 125 patients receiving PTED who were the learning curve cases performed by surgeons who did not do PTED before the trial. INTERVENTIONS: PTED (n=179) compared with open microdiscectomy (n=309). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-reported leg pain measured by a 0-100 visual analogue scale at 12 months, assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5.0. Secondary outcomes included complications, reoperations, self-reported functional status as measured with the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale for back pain, health related quality of life, and self-perceived recovery. Outcomes were measured until one year after surgery and were longitudinally analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Patients belonging to the PTED learning curve were omitted from the primary analyses. RESULTS: At 12 months, patients who were randomised to PTED had a statistically significantly lower visual analogue scale score for leg pain (median 7.0, interquartile range 1.0-30.0) compared with patients randomised to open microdiscectomy (16.0, 2.0-53.5) (between group difference of 7.1, 95% confidence interval 2.8 to 11.3). Blood loss was less, length of hospital admission was shorter, and timing of postoperative mobilisation was earlier in the PTED group than in the open microdiscectomy group. Secondary patient reported outcomes such as the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale for back pain, health related quality of life, and self-perceived recovery, were similarly in favour of PTED. Within one year, nine (5%) in the PTED group compared with 14 (6%) in the open microdiscectomy group had repeated surgery. Per protocol analysis and sensitivity analyses including the patients of the learning curve resulted in similar outcomes to the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: PTED was non-inferior to open microdiscectomy in reduction of leg pain. PTED resulted in more favourable results for self-reported leg pain, back pain, functional status, quality of life, and recovery. These differences, however, were small and may not reach clinical relevance. PTED can be considered as an effective alternative to open microdiscectomy in treating sciatica. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02602093ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02602093.

Predictors of low back disability in chiropractic and physical therapy settings.

BACKGROUND: Predicting ongoing disability for chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP) is important to avoid prolonged disability. OBJECTIVE: Determine predictors of disability at 6 month follow-up in patients with LBP at medium risk of ongoing disability. METHODS: Baseline data was collected from 108 patients with medium-risk chronic non-specific LBP (mean age 50.4 years, SD 13.6) from six private chiropractic and physiotherapy clinics in Australia who took part in a randomised control trial. All patients received a pragmatic course of multimodal physical treatments [e.g., manual therapy (spinal manipulation or mobilization and/or soft tissue massage)] combined with advice, education and exercise. Baseline prognostic variables included sociodemographic, physical and psychological characteristics. Primary outcome was disability (Roland Morris Disability) at 6 month follow-up. Multivariable linear regression analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Variables remaining in the final multivariable model: lower work ability (ß = - 1.05, 95% CI - 1.40 to - 0.70; p < 0.0001) and consultation with a medical specialist for back pain in the preceding 3 months (ß = 3.35, 95% CI 1.14 to 5.55; p < 0.003), which significantly predicted higher disability at 6 months (unadjusted R 2 = 0.31). Those with a lower work ability (scale 1 to 10) and who had seen a medical specialist for their back pain were more likely to report greater LBP-related disability at 6 months. CONCLUSION: Patients with chronic LBP presenting to primary care with lower work ability and recent consultation with a medical specialist for LBP are more likely to have a worse prognosis; these are indicators to clinicians that standard conservative care may not adequately manage the patients' needs.

BAck complaints in the elders - chiropractic (BACE-C): protocol of an international cohort study of older adults with low back pain seeking chiropractic care.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common condition among older adults that significantly influences physical function and participation. Compared to their younger counterparts, there is limited information available about the clinical course of low back pain in older people, in particularly those presenting for chiropractic care. Improving our understanding of this patient population and the course of their low back pain may provide input for studies researching safer and more effective care than is currently provided. OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives are to examine the clinical course over one year of pain intensity, healthcare costs and pain, functional status and recovery rates of low back pain in people 55 years and older who visit a chiropractor for a new episode of low back pain. METHODS: An international prospective, multi-center cohort study with one-year follow-up. Chiropractic practices are to be recruited in the Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom and Australia. Treatment will be left to the discretion of the chiropractor. Inclusion/Exclusion criteria: Patients aged 55 and older who consult a chiropractor for a new episode of low back pain, meaning low back pain for the first time or those patients who have not been to a chiropractor in the previous six months. This is independent of whether they have seen another type of health care provider for the current episode. Patients who are unable to complete the web-based questionnaires because of language restrictions or those with computer literacy restrictions will be excluded as well as those with cognitive disorders. In addition, those with a suspected tumor, fracture, infection or any other potential red flag or condition considered to be a contraindication for chiropractic care will be excluded. Data will be collected using online questionnaires at baseline, and at 2 and 6 weeks and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. DISCUSSION: This study, to our knowledge, is the first large-scale, prospective, multicenter, international cohort study to be conducted in a chiropractic setting to focus on older adults with low back pain consulting a chiropractor. By understanding the clinical course, satisfaction and safety of chiropractic treatment of this common debilitating condition in the aged population, this study will provide input for informing future clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlandse Trial Registrar NL7507.

Addition of MoodGYM to physical treatments for chronic low back pain: A randomized controlled trial.

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is prevalent, costly and disabling. A biopsychosocial treatment approach involving physical and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is recommended for those with chronic LBP. It is not known if online psychological coaching tools might have a role in the secondary prevention of LBP related disability. To assess the effectiveness of an internet-delivered psychological program (MoodGYM) in addition to standard physical treatment in patients with chronic non-specific LBP at medium risk of ongoing disability. Methods: A multisite randomized controlled trial was conducted with 108 participants (aged mean 50.4 ± 13.6 years) with chronic LBP attending one of six private physiotherapy or chiropractic clinics. Disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) and self-efficacy (Patient Self-Efficacy Questionnaire), were assessed at baseline, post-treatment (8-weeks) with follow-up at six- and twelve-months. Participants were randomized into either the intervention group, MoodGYM plus physical treatments, or the control group which received physical treatments alone. Results: No statistically significant between group differences were observed for either disability at post-treatment (Effect size (standardised mean difference) 95% CI) RMD - 0.06 (- 0.45,0.31), 6-months RMD 0.01 (- 0.38,0.39) and 12-months - 0.20 (- 0.62,0.17) or self-efficacy at post-treatment PSEQ 0.06 (- 0.31,0.45), 6-months 0.02 (- 0.36,0.41) and 12-months 0.21 (- 0.16,0.63). Conclusion: There was no additional benefit of an internet-delivered CBT program (MoodGYM) to physical treatments in those with chronic non-specific LBP at medium risk of ongoing disability measured at post-treatment, or at 6 and 12 months. Trial registration: This trial was prospectively registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number (ACTRN) 12615000269538.

Benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy for the treatment of chronic low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for the treatment of chronic low back pain. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Index to Chiropractic Literature, and trial registries up to 4 May 2018, including reference lists of eligible trials and related reviews. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials examining the effect of spinal manipulation or mobilisation in adults (≥18 years) with chronic low back pain with or without referred pain. Studies that exclusively examined sciatica were excluded, as was grey literature. No restrictions were applied to language or setting. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The effect of SMT was compared with recommended therapies, non-recommended therapies, sham (placebo) SMT, and SMT as an adjuvant therapy. Main outcomes were pain and back specific functional status, examined as mean differences and standardised mean differences (SMD), respectively. Outcomes were examined at 1, 6, and 12 months. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. A random effects model was used and statistical heterogeneity explored. RESULTS: 47 randomised controlled trials including a total of 9211 participants were identified, who were on average middle aged (35-60 years). Most trials compared SMT with recommended therapies. Moderate quality evidence suggested that SMT has similar effects to other recommended therapies for short term pain relief (mean difference -3.17, 95% confidence interval -7.85 to 1.51) and a small, clinically better improvement in function (SMD -0.25, 95% confidence interval -0.41 to -0.09). High quality evidence suggested that compared with non-recommended therapies SMT results in small, not clinically better effects for short term pain relief (mean difference -7.48, -11.50 to -3.47) and small to moderate clinically better improvement in function (SMD -0.41, -0.67 to -0.15). In general, these results were similar for the intermediate and long term outcomes as were the effects of SMT as an adjuvant therapy. Evidence for sham SMT was low to very low quality; therefore these effects should be considered uncertain. Statistical heterogeneity could not be explained. About half of the studies examined adverse and serious adverse events, but in most of these it was unclear how and whether these events were registered systematically. Most of the observed adverse events were musculoskeletal related, transient in nature, and of mild to moderate severity. One study with a low risk of selection bias and powered to examine risk (n=183) found no increased risk of an adverse event (relative risk 1.24, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.81) or duration of the event (1.13, 0.59 to 2.18) compared with sham SMT. In one study, the Data Safety Monitoring Board judged one serious adverse event to be possibly related to SMT. CONCLUSION: SMT produces similar effects to recommended therapies for chronic low back pain, whereas SMT seems to be better than non-recommended interventions for improvement in function in the short term. Clinicians should inform their patients of the potential risks of adverse events associated with SMT.

Guideline for Reporting Interventions on Spinal Manipulative Therapy: Consensus on Interventions Reporting Criteria List for Spinal Manipulative Therapy (CIRCLe SMT).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the Consensus on Interventions Reporting Criteria List for Spinal Manipulative Therapy (CIRCLe SMT) study was to develop a criteria list for reporting spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). METHODS: A Delphi procedure was conducted from September 2011 to April 2013 and consisted of international experts in the field of SMT. The authors formed a steering committee and invited participants, selected initial items, structured the comments of the participants after each Delphi round, and formulated the feedback. To ensure content validity, a large number of international experts from different SMT-related disciplines were invited to participate. A workshop was organized following the consensus phase, and it was used to discuss and refine the wording of the items. RESULTS: In total, 123 experts from 18 countries participated. These experts included clinicians (70%), researchers (93%), and academics working in the area of SMT (27%), as well as journal editors (14%). (Note: The total is more than 100% because most participants reported 2 jobs.) Three Delphi rounds were necessary to reach a consensus. The criteria list comprised 24 items under 5 domains, including (1) rationale of the therapy, (2) description of the intervention, (3) SMT techniques, (4) additional intervention/techniques, and (5) quantitative data. CONCLUSIONS: A valid criteria list was constructed with the aim of promoting consistency in reporting SMT intervention in scientific publications.

Adding Psychosocial Factors Does Not Improve Predictive Models for People With Spinal Pain Enough to Warrant Extensive Screening for Them at Baseline.

BACKGROUND: Chiropractors throughout the world by and large focus on patients with musculoskeletal complaints who are generally in good health. Currently, it is widely accepted that neck pain and low back pain are best understood as biopsychosocial phenomena. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether certain psychosocial factors provide added value for predicting recovery. DESIGN: This was a prospective, multicenter, chiropractic, practice-based cohort study in Belgium and the Netherlands. METHODS: A total of 917 participants, 326 with neck pain and 591 with low back pain, completed self-administered questionnaires at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months. They provided information on several demographic, biomedical, and psychosocial variables. Lasting perceived recovery was used as the outcome measure, that is, recovery at all follow-up assessments from 3 months on. Twenty-seven potential predictors of outcome were used to build the predictive model. Stepwise, backward generalized estimating equation regression models were used to take into account the clustering of participants within practices. For assessment of the added value of psychosocial variables, 2 model fit indexes were compared. RESULTS: After the addition of psychosocial variables, predictors in the final model for neck pain included occupational status, body mass index, duration of complaints, previous treatment, and participant expectations (the model fit was marginally improved from 0.684 to 0.695 for the area under the curve and from 65.0% to 66.1% for the percentage correctly predicted). In the final model for low back pain, the selected predictors included country of treatment, age, duration of complaints, previous imaging, and somatization (the area under the curve changed from 0.669 to 0.715, and the percentage correctly predicted changed from 68.6% to 69.5%). Only a minority of participants had high scores on psychological variables. LIMITATIONS: The reliability and validity of lasting recovery as an outcome measure have not been tested. The cohort needs to be seen as a convenience sample. Selection bias, therefore, not be ruled out. There are no indications, however, that patients with complex psychosocial profiles were excluded from this study. CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial variables provided little added value for predicting outcome in people who had neck pain or low back pain and sought chiropractic care. Therefore, chiropractors should not screen extensively for them at baseline. With regard to the identification of the small subgroup of people with high scores on psychosocial variables and a high risk for chronic pain, further investigation is needed.

Does an online psychological intervention improve self-efficacy and disability in people also receiving Multimodal Manual Therapy for chronic low back pain compared to Multimodal Manual Therapy alone? Design of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Various interventions are available for the treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP), including Manual Therapy and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether the addition of an internet-based CBT program leads to better outcomes in patients who are treated with multimodal manual therapy for chronic LBP. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial comparing a combined intervention, consisting of internet-based CBT utilising MoodGYM plus multimodal manual therapy, to multimodal manual therapy alone for patients with chronic LBP. Multimodal manual therapy will be delivered by experienced chiropractors and physiotherapists. Treatment sessions will consist of a combination of joint and soft tissue mobilisation; spinal manipulation as well as muscle and fascia massage; education and reassurance; and rehabilitative exercise prescription. In total, 108 adult participants will be recruited from multiple chiropractic and physiotherapy private practices in Australia. Participants older than 18 years of age and diagnosed with chronic non-specific LBP will be included in the trial, where chronic LBP is defined as continuous or fluctuating pain for a minimum of three months. The Keele STarT Back screening tool will be used to screen for potential participants who are in the medium risk category. The primary outcomes are self efficacy and disability measured by the Patient Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) respectively. Secondary outcome measures will assess pain, catastrophising, depression, anxiety, stress and work ability. Participants will be randomly allocated into one of two groups. Both groups will receive an upper limit of 12 multimodal manual therapy sessions over a period of 8 weeks. The intervention group will also receive five weeks of MoodGYM covering five modules in total. Assessment will be conducted at pre-treatment, post-treatment 8- and follow-up at 26- and 52 weeks. In addition, a verbal pain measure will be completed by the treating practitioner at time of treatments on an 11-point VAS. The primary data analysis will be by intention to treat using a linear mixed model for each outcome. DISCUSSION: This paper outlines the design of a randomised controlled trial that investigates the potential benefits of adding a widely available and inexpensive internet-based psychological intervention to standard multimodal manual therapy for the management of chronic low back pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12615000269538.

Serious Adverse Events and Spinal Manipulative Therapy of the Low Back Region: A Systematic Review of Cases.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to systematically search the literature for studies reporting serious adverse events following lumbopelvic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and to describe the case details. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library up to January 12, 2012, by an experienced reference librarian. Study selection was performed by 2 independent reviewers using predefined criteria. We included cases involving individuals 18 years or older who experienced a serious adverse event following SMT applied to the lumbar spine or pelvis by any type of provider (eg, chiropractic, medical, physical therapy, osteopathic, layperson). A serious adverse event was defined as an untoward occurrence that results in death or is life threatening, requires hospital admission, or results in significant or permanent disability. We included studies published in English, German, Dutch, and Swedish. RESULTS: A total of 2046 studies were screened, and 41 studies reporting on 77 cases were included. Important case details were frequently unreported, such as descriptions of SMT technique, the pre-SMT presentation of the patient, the specific details of the adverse event, time from SMT to the adverse event, factors contributing to the adverse event, and clinical outcome. Adverse events consisted of cauda equina syndrome (29 cases, 38% of total); lumbar disk herniation (23 cases, 30%); fracture (7 cases, 9%); hematoma or hemorrhagic cyst (6 cases, 8%); or other serious adverse events (12 cases, 16%) such as neurologic or vascular compromise, soft tissue trauma, muscle abscess formation, disrupted fracture healing, and esophageal rupture. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review describes case details from published articles that describe serious adverse events that have been reported to occur following SMT of the lumbopelvic region. The anecdotal nature of these cases does not allow for causal inferences between SMT and the events identified in this review. Recommendations regarding future case reporting and research aimed at furthering the understanding of the safety profile of SMT are discussed.

The risk of bias and sample size of trials of spinal manipulative therapy for low back and neck pain: analysis and recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate changes in methodological quality and sample size in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for neck and low back pain over a specified period. A secondary purpose was to make recommendations for improvement for future SMT trials based upon our findings. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials that examined the effect of SMT in adults with neck and/or low back pain and reported at least 1 patient-reported outcome measure were included. Studies were identified from recent Cochrane reviews of SMT, and an update of the literature was conducted (March 2013). Risk of bias was assessed using the 12-item criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. In addition, sample size was examined. The relationship between the overall risk of bias and sample size over time was evaluated using regression analyses, and RCTs were grouped into periods (epochs) of approximately 5 years. RESULTS: In total, 105 RCTs were included, of which 41 (39%) were considered to have a low risk of bias. There is significant improvement in the mean risk of bias over time (P < .05), which is the most profound for items related to selection bias and, to a lesser extent, attrition and selective outcome reporting bias. Furthermore, although there is no significant increase in sample size over time (overall P = .8), the proportion of studies that performed an a priori sample size calculation is increasing statistically (odds ratio, 2.1; confidence interval, 1.5-3.0). Sensitivity analyses suggest no appreciable difference between studies for neck or low back pain for risk of bias or sample size. CONCLUSION: Methodological quality of RCTs of SMT for neck and low back pain is improving, whereas overall sample size has shown only small and nonsignificant increases. There is an increasing trend among studies to conduct sample size calculations, which relate to statistical power. Based upon these findings, 7 areas of improvement for future SMT trials are suggested.

The first research agenda for the chiropractic profession in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Research involving chiropractors is evolving and expanding in Europe while resources are limited. Therefore, we considered it timely to initiate a research agenda for the chiropractic profession in Europe. The aim was to identify and suggest priorities for future research in order to best channel the available resources and facilitate advancement of the profession. METHODS: In total, 60 academics and clinicians working in a chiropractic setting, and who had attended any of the annual European Chiropractors' Union/European Academy of Chiropractic (ECU/EAC) Researchers' Day meetings since their inception in 2008, were invited to participate. Data collection consisted of the following phases: phase 1 identification of themes; phase 2 consensus, which employed a Delphi process and allowed us to distill the list of research priorities; and phase 3 presentation of the results during both the Researchers' Day and a plenary session of the annual ECU Convention in May 2013. In addition, results were distributed to all ECU member countries. RESULTS: The response rate was 42% from phase 1 and 68% from phase 2. In general, participants were middle-aged, male and had been awarded a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) as well as chiropractic degree. Approximately equal numbers of participants had obtained their chiropractic degree from the UK/Europe and North America. The majority of participants worked primarily in an academic/research environment and approximately half worked in an independent institution. In total, 58% of the participants were from the UK and Denmark, collectively representing 44% of the chiropractors working in Europe. In total, 70 research priorities were identified, of which 19 reached consensus as priorities for future research. The following three items were thought to be most important: 1) cost-effectiveness/economic evaluations, 2) identification of subgroups likely to respond to treatment, and 3) initiation and promotion of collaborative research activities. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first formal and systematic attempt to develop a research agenda for the chiropractic profession in Europe. Future discussion and study is necessary to determine whether the themes identified in this survey should be broadly implemented.

Chiropractic care and public health: answering difficult questions about safety, care through the lifespan, and community action.

The purpose of this collaborative summary is to document current chiropractic involvement in the public health movement, reflect on social ecological levels of influence as a profession, and summarize the relationship of chiropractic to the current public health topics of: safety, health issues through the lifespan, and effective participation in community health issues. The questions that are addressed include: Is spinal manipulative therapy for neck and low-back pain a public health problem? What is the role of chiropractic care in prevention or reduction of musculoskeletal injuries in children? What ways can doctors of chiropractic stay updated on evidence-based information about vaccines and immunization throughout the lifespan? Can smoking cessation be a prevention strategy for back pain? Does chiropractic have relevance within the VA Health Care System for chronic pain and comorbid disorders? How can chiropractic use cognitive behavioral therapy to address chronic low back pain as a public health problem? What opportunities exist for doctors of chiropractic to more effectively serve the aging population? What is the role of ethics and the contribution of the chiropractic profession to public health? What public health roles can chiropractic interns perform for underserved communities in a collaborative environment? Can the chiropractic profession contribute to community health? What opportunities do doctors of chiropractic have to be involved in health care reform in the areas of prevention and public health? What role do citizen-doctors of chiropractic have in organizing community action on health-related matters? How can our future chiropractic graduates become socially responsible agents of change?

Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low-back pain.

BACKGROUND: Many therapies exist for the treatment of low-back pain including spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), which is a worldwide, extensively practised intervention. This report is an update of the earlier Cochrane review, first published in January 2004 with the last search for studies up to January 2000. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of SMT for acute low-back pain, which is defined as pain of less than six weeks duration. SEARCH METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted on 31 March 2011 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature. Other search strategies were employed for completeness. No limitations were placed on language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilization in adults with acute low-back pain were included. In addition, studies were included if the pain was predominantly in the lower back but the study allowed mixed populations, including participants with radiation of pain into the buttocks and legs. Studies which exclusively evaluated sciatica were excluded. No other restrictions were placed on the setting nor the type of pain. The primary outcomes were back pain, back-pain specific functional status, and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life. SMT was defined as any hands-on therapy directed towards the spine, which includes both manipulation and mobilization, and includes studies from chiropractors, manual therapists, and osteopaths. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted the study selection and risk of bias (RoB) assessment. Data extraction was checked by the second review author. The effects were examined in the following comparisons: SMT versus 1) inert interventions, 2) sham SMT, 3) other interventions, and 4) SMT as an additional therapy. In addition, we examined the effects of different SMT techniques compared to one another. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. Authors were contacted, where possible, for missing or unclear data. Outcomes were evaluated at the following time intervals: short-term (one week and one month), intermediate (three to six months), and long-term (12 months or longer). Clinical relevance was defined as: 1) small, mean difference (MD) < 10% of the scale or standardized mean difference (SMD) < 0.4; 2) medium, MD = 10% to 20% of the scale or SMD = 0.41 to 0.7; and 3) large, MD > 20% of the scale or SMD > 0.7. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 20 RCTs (total number of participants = 2674), 12 (60%) of which were not included in the previous review. Sample sizes ranged from 36 to 323 (median (IQR) = 108 (61 to 189)). In total, six trials (30% of all included studies) had a low RoB. At most, three RCTs could be identified per comparison, outcome, and time interval; therefore, the amount of data should not be considered robust. In general, for the primary outcomes, there is low to very low quality evidence suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared to inert interventions, sham SMT, or when added to another intervention. There was varying quality of evidence (from very low to moderate) suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared with other interventions, with the exception of low quality evidence from one trial demonstrating a significant and moderately clinically relevant short-term effect of SMT on pain relief when compared to inert interventions, as well as low quality evidence demonstrating a significant short-term and moderately clinically relevant effect of SMT on functional status when added to another intervention. In general, side-lying and supine thrust SMT techniques demonstrate a short-term significant difference when compared to non-thrust SMT techniques for the outcomes of pain, functional status, and recovery. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: SMT is no more effective in participants with acute low-back pain than inert interventions, sham SMT, or when added to another intervention. SMT also appears to be no better than other recommended therapies. Our evaluation is limited by the small number of studies per comparison, outcome, and time interval. Therefore, future research is likely to have an important impact on these estimates. The decision to refer patients for SMT should be based upon costs, preferences of the patients and providers, and relative safety of SMT compared to other treatment options. Future RCTs should examine specific subgroups and include an economic evaluation.

Trends over time in the size and quality of randomised controlled trials of interventions for chronic low-back pain.

PURPOSE: Previous reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for low-back pain (LBP) have failed to identify any positive trend in study quality with more recent years of publication. This study aimed to identify and describe trends over time in the study design characteristics and risk of bias in chronic LBP trials performed over the past 30 years. METHODS: One fifty-seven randomised trials of interventions for chronic LBP were extracted from recently published systematic reviews. The reviews included RCTs on physical and rehabilitation interventions, injection therapy and denervation procedures, complementary and alternative therapies and pharmacological interventions for chronic LBP. Study level data were extracted and analysed for trends associated with year of publication. RESULTS: Overall, the mean sample size in the RCTs was 141 (median 70; range 17-3093). There was a slight increase in the median number of risk of bias criteria fulfilled from trials published prior to 1995 to those published after 1996. The analysis showed that in more recent years RCTs of medical interventions were more likely to be successfully blinded than RCTs of non-medical interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The continuing uncertainty regarding the efficacy of many interventions for chronic LBP again stresses the need for large RCTs with low risk of bias. Further research is needed into specific risks of bias within the RCTs for chronic LBP and the effect they have on the plausibility of the results.

Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain.

BACKGROUND: Many therapies exist for the treatment of low-back pain including spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), which is a worldwide, extensively practiced intervention. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of SMT for chronic low-back pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: An updated search was conducted by an experienced librarian to June 2009 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature.   SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs which examined the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilisation in adults with chronic low-back pain were included. No restrictions were placed on the setting or type of pain; studies which exclusively examined sciatica were excluded. The primary outcomes were pain, functional status and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. Sensitivity analyses and investigation of heterogeneity were performed, where possible, for the meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 RCTs (total participants = 6070), nine of which had a low risk of bias. Approximately two-thirds of the included studies (N = 18) were not evaluated in the previous review. In general, there is high quality evidence that SMT has a small, statistically significant but not clinically relevant, short-term effect on pain relief (MD: -4.16, 95% CI -6.97 to -1.36) and functional status (SMD: -0.22, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.07) compared to other interventions. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. There is varying quality of evidence (ranging from low to high) that SMT has a statistically significant short-term effect on pain relief and functional status when added to another intervention. There is very low quality evidence that SMT is not statistically significantly more effective than inert interventions or sham SMT for short-term pain relief or functional status. Data were particularly sparse for recovery, return-to-work, quality of life, and costs of care. No serious complications were observed with SMT. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High quality evidence suggests that there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low-back pain. Determining cost-effectiveness of care has high priority. Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect in relation to inert interventions and sham SMT, and data related to recovery.

The journal 'chiropractic & osteopathy' changes its title to 'chiropractic & manual therapies'. a new name, a new era.

Chiropractic & Osteopathy changes its title to Chiropractic & Manual Therapies in January 2011. This change reflects the expanding base of submissions from clinical scientists interested in the discipline of manual therapy. It is also in accord with the findings of a review of the journal content and a joint venture between the original parent organisation the Chiropractic and Osteopathic College of Australasia and a new partner the European Academy of Chiropractic, which is a subsidiary body of the European Chiropractors' Union. The title change should encourage submissions from all professionals interested in manual therapy including chiropractors, osteopaths, physiotherapists, medical doctors and scientists interested in this field.