Physical therapy for acute and sub-acute low back pain: A systematic review and expert consensus.

OBJECTIVE: To review the effectiveness of different physical therapies for acute and sub-acute low back pain supported by evidence, and create clinical recommendations and expert consensus for physiotherapists on clinical prescriptions. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and the Cochrane Library for studies published within the previous 15 years. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials assessing patients with acute and sub-acute low back pain were included. Two reviewers independently screened relevant studies using the same inclusion criteria. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool were used to grade the quality assessment of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews, respectively. The final recommendation grades were based on the consensus discussion results of the Delphi of 22 international experts. RESULTS: Twenty-one systematic reviews and 21 randomized controlled trials were included. Spinal manipulative therapy and low-level laser therapy are recommended for acute low back pain. Core stability exercise/motor control, spinal manipulative therapy, and massage can be used to treat sub-acute low back pain. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus statements provided medical staff with appliable recommendations of physical therapy for acute and sub-acute low back pain. This consensus statement will require regular updates after 5-10 years.

Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment.

BACKGROUND: Manipulation and mobilisation are commonly used to treat neck pain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of manipulation or mobilisation alone compared wiith those of an inactive control or another active treatment on pain, function, disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults experiencing neck pain with or without radicular symptoms and cervicogenic headache (CGH) at immediate- to long-term follow-up. When appropriate, to assess the influence of treatment characteristics (i.e. technique, dosage), methodological quality, symptom duration and subtypes of neck disorder on treatment outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: Review authors searched the following computerised databases to November 2014 to identify additional studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to find relevant studies. We updated this search in June 2015, but these results have not yet been incorporated. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken to assess whether manipulation or mobilisation improves clinical outcomes for adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and applied Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods (very low, low, moderate, high quality). We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 trials (2920 participants, 18 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus control; 34 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus another treatment, 1 trial had two comparisons). Cervical manipulation versus inactive control: For subacute and chronic neck pain, a single manipulation (three trials, no meta-analysis, 154 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) relieved pain at immediate- but not short-term follow-up. Cervical manipulation versus another active treatment: For acute and chronic neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 446 participants, ranged from moderate to high quality) produced similar changes in pain, function, quality of life (QoL), global perceived effect (GPE) and patient satisfaction when compared with multiple sessions of cervical mobilisation at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. For acute and subacute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation were more effective than certain medications in improving pain and function at immediate- (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality) and long-term follow-up (one trial, 181 participants, moderate quality). These findings are consistent for function at intermediate-term follow-up (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality). For chronic CGH, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 125 participants, low quality) may be more effective than massage in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 65 participants, very low quality) may be favoured over transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain reduction at short-term follow-up. For acute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 20 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than thoracic manipulation in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Thoracic manipulation versus inactive control: Three trials (150 participants) using a single session were assessed at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. At short-term follow-up, manipulation improved pain in participants with acute and subacute neck pain (five trials, 346 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.86 to -0.66) and improved function (four trials, 258 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.40, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.55) in participants with acute and chronic neck pain. A funnel plot of these data suggests publication bias. These findings were consistent at intermediate follow-up for pain/function/quality of life (one trial, 111 participants, low quality). Thoracic manipulation versus another active treatment: No studies provided sufficient data for statistical analyses. A single session of thoracic manipulation (one trial, 100 participants, moderate quality) was comparable with thoracic mobilisation for pain relief at immediate-term follow-up for chronic neck pain. Mobilisation versus inactive control: Mobilisation as a stand-alone intervention (two trials, 57 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) may not reduce pain more than an inactive control. Mobilisation versus another active treatment: For acute and subacute neck pain, anterior-posterior mobilisation (one trial, 95 participants, very low quality) may favour pain reduction over rotatory or transverse mobilisations at immediate-term follow-up. For chronic CGH with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, multiple sessions of TMJ manual therapy (one trial, 38 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than cervical mobilisation in improving pain/function at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. For subacute and chronic neck pain, cervical mobilisation alone (four trials, 165 participants, ranged from low to very low quality) may not be different from ultrasound, TENS, acupuncture and massage in improving pain, function, QoL and participant satisfaction at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. Additionally, combining laser with manipulation may be superior to using manipulation or laser alone (one trial, 56 participants, very low quality). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although support can be found for use of thoracic manipulation versus control for neck pain, function and QoL, results for cervical manipulation and mobilisation versus control are few and diverse. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Research designed to protect against various biases is needed. Findings suggest that manipulation and mobilisation present similar results for every outcome at immediate/short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple cervical manipulation sessions may provide better pain relief and functional improvement than certain medications at immediate/intermediate/long-term follow-up. Since the risk of rare but serious adverse events for manipulation exists, further high-quality research focusing on mobilisation and comparing mobilisation or manipulation versus other treatment options is needed to guide clinicians in their optimal treatment choices.

A narrative analysis of spiritual distress in geriatric physical rehabilitation.

Drawing upon narrative data generated in a semi-structured interview with an 82-year-old female patient in geriatric physical rehabilitation, this clinical case study provides a detailed example of recognizing, assessing, and addressing spiritual distress as a symptom of physical pain. Data analysis focused on narrative content as well as on the interactive and performative aspects of narrating spiritual health issues in a close reading of two "attachment narratives." Results support the "narrative turn" in healthcare, including the therapeutic benefits of empathic listening as "narrative care" in geriatric rehabilitation and in healthcare in general.

Music provided through a portable media player (iPod) blunts pain during physical therapy.

This research studied, 25 adult patients who underwent physical therapy to assess the analgesic effect of distraction with the use of music during physical therapy. Patients randomly underwent physical therapy once with music provided by an iPod and once without music. In both sessions patients underwent identical physical procedures. At end of both sessions patients filled in 5-item questionnaire where they scored pain and other parameters, such as stress, enjoyment, interaction, and satisfaction, on 10-cm visual analog scale. The mean scores (range, 0-10) of the two sessions were statistically compared. Mean pain scores were significantly lower (p = .031) during the session in which patients received music (4.8 ± 2.5) than during the session without music (5.8 ± 2.3). The other items of the questionnaire did not disclose any statistically significant difference when the sessions with versus without music were compared. Enjoyment (8.5 ± 1.6), interaction (8.3 ± 1.9), and satisfaction (8.6 ± 1.7) scores with music did not significantly differ in the sessions without music (8.5 ± 2.1, 8.5 ± 1.9, and, 8.5 ± 1.5, respectively); mean stress score was, 3.9 in both sessions. The conclusion of the study is that music provided through a portable media player has an analgesic effect. This can be an effective analgesic strategy during painful physical therapy.