The majority of clinical trials assessing mobilization and manipulation for neck pain lack a pragmatic approach: a systematic review of 174 trials.

BACKGROUND: Disorders of the cervical spine are some of the costliest musculoskeletal conditions to manage globally. Joint mobilization and manipulation have been shown to be an effective treatment for neck pain. However, the generalizability and clinical translation depends on the nature of the trial designs that inform its use. The extent to which randomized control trials (RCTs) assessing manual therapy treatments for cervical spine disorders fall on the efficacy (explanatory) -effectiveness (pragmatic) spectrum often informs how the findings are translated into clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to determine where RCTs of manual therapy for neck disorders fall on the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum. METHODS: A search of three electronic databases including PubMed, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were completed for trials published from inception to May 2023. RCTs in which joint mobilization or manipulation were used to treat cervical spine disorders were assessed on the effectiveness-efficacy spectrum using the Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool and risk of bias using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: A total of 174 trials met eligibility. RITES domain two trial setting (71.3% vs 16.1%), domain three flexibility of intervention(s) (62.1% vs 23%), and domain four clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention(s) (51.7% vs 29.3%) all favored efficacy over effectiveness. Domain one participant characteristic(s) had a slightly greater emphasis on effectiveness compared to efficacy (36.8% vs 44.8%). Most studies (96%) had at least some risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Over half of the RCTs assessing the treatment effect of joint mobilization and manipulation for neck pain favor efficacy (explanatory) over effectiveness (pragmatic) designs. Future RCTs on this topic should consider a greater emphasis on pragmatic trial design components in order to better reflect real-world translation to clinical practice.

Exploring the immediate and short-term effect of lumbar spinal manipulation on pressure pain threshold: a randomized controlled trial of healthy participants.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a common intervention used to treat low back pain (LBP); however, the exact neurophysiological mechanisms of SMT reducing pain measured through pain pressure threshold (PPT) have not been fully explored beyond an immediate timeframe (e.g., immediately or five-minutes following) referencing a control group. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the neurophysiological effects of lumbar SMT compared to deactivated ultrasound using PPT immediately following and 30-minutes following SMT. METHODS: A longitudinal, randomized controlled trial design was conducted between September to October 2023. Fifty-five participants were randomized into a control group of deactivated ultrasound (n = 29) or treatment group of right sidelying lumbar SMT (n = 26). PPT, recorded at the right posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS), was documented for each participant in each group prior to intervention, immediately, and 30-minutes after. A repeated measures ANOVA, with a post-hoc Bonferroni adjustment, was used to assess within-group and between-group differences in PPT. The significance level was set at a < 0.05 a priori. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found between the deactivated ultrasound and lumbar SMT groups immediately (p = .05) and 30-minutes (p = .02) following intervention. A significant difference in the lumbar SMT group was identified from baseline to immediately following (p < .001) and 30-minutes following (p < .001), but no differences between immediately following and 30-minutes following intervention (p = .10). The deactivated ultrasound group demonstrated a difference between baseline and immediately after intervention with a reduced PPT (p = .003), but no significant difference was found from baseline to 30-minutes (p = .11) or immediately after intervention to 30-minutes (p = 1.0). CONCLUSION: A right sidelying lumbar manipulation increased PPT at the right PSIS immediately after that lasted to 30-minutes when compared to a deactivated ultrasound control group. Future studies should further explore beyond the immediate and short-term neurophysiological effects of lumbar SMT to validate these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was retrospectively registered on 4 December 2023 in ClinicalTrials (database registration number NCT06156605).

Identifying physical therapists' attitudes, beliefs, and barriers toward diagnostic imaging referral: a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVE: Ten states, including the District of Columbia, have laws that currently permit physical therapists (PTs) to directly order diagnostic imaging (DI) in the United States. Military and civilian PTs order DI judiciously and appropriately demonstrating optimal patient outcomes and satisfaction when compared to other medical professionals. However, no studies have explored perceived attitudes, beliefs, and barriers to PT DI referral specific to North Dakota (ND). Therefore, the purpose of this mixed-methods study was to identify ND PTs' attitudes, beliefs, and barriers toward DI referral. METHODS: A total of 147 participants completed an online survey with a subset of 17 participants agreeing to an interview. Frequency counts of demographic data and perceived barriers were completed. A binary logistic regression was run on demographic data. One-on-one interviews were conducted with a thematic coding process completed within a qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Seventy-four percent of PTs reported not currently referring for DI, although 71% felt that it would improve their patient outcomes. PTs with post-professional training (OR = 4.59), a doctorate degree (OR = 3.84), practicing in an orthopaedic or sports setting (OR = 3.55), and practicing within an urban setting of ND (OR = 3.01) were more likely to refer for DI. The main barriers identified in the survey included: (1) the logistics of performing a DI referral, (2) DI referrals only privileged to other medical providers, (3) provider/work relationship dynamics, (4) the cost of continuing education (CE), (5) and the inability to identify CE. One-on-one interviews further identified five main themes related to DI referral. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Several barriers identified resulted in 74.1% of PTs not directly referring for DI, although certain characteristics (post-professional training, doctorate degree, orthopaedic/sports setting, practicing in an urban area in ND) were more likely to refer for DI. This study may help improve future adoption and implementation of DI referral in current and future states.

Dermatology precautions and slower titration yield low incidence of lamotrigine treatment-emergent rash.

OBJECTIVE: To assess treatment-emergent rash incidence when using dermatology precautions (limited antigen exposure) and slower titration during lamotrigine initiation. METHOD: We assessed rash incidence in 100 patients with DSM-IV bipolar disorder instructed, for their first 3 months taking lamotrigine, to avoid other new medicines and new foods, cosmetics, conditioners, deodorants, detergents, and fabric softeners, as well as sunburn and exposure to poison ivy/oak. Lamotrigine was not started within 2 weeks of a rash, viral syndrome, or vaccination. In addition, lamotrigine was titrated more slowly than in the prescribing information. Patients were monitored for rash and clinical phenomena using the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder Clinical Monitoring Form. Descriptive statistics were compiled. RESULTS: No patient had serious rash. Benign rash occurred in 5 patients (5%) and resolved uneventfully in 3 patients discontinuing and 2 patients continuing lamotrigine. Two patients with rash were found to be not adherent to dermatology precautions. Therefore, among the remaining patients, only 3/98 (3.1%) had benign rashes. CONCLUSION: The observed rate of benign rash was lower than the 10% incidence in other clinical studies. The design of this study confounds efforts to determine the relative contributions of slower titration versus dermatology precautions to the low rate of rash. Systematic studies are needed to confirm these preliminary findings, which suggest that adhering to dermatology precautions with slower titration may yield a low incidence of rash with lamotrigine.