Research Priorities of the Australian Chiropractic Profession: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Academics and Practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore the research priorities of Australian practicing chiropractors and academics across a set of research domains to determine the agreement or disagreement based on these domains. METHODS: We conducted a pilot-tested online survey focusing on the following 5 principal research domains: basic science, conditions (disorders chiropractors may encounter), patient subgroups, clinical interventions, and practice and public health/health services. Responses were sought regarding support for funding research scholarships, practice-based research networks, scientific conferences/symposia, journals, and existing research agendas. Data were collected (February 19 to May 24, 2019) from a sample of chiropractic academics (n1 = 33) representing 4 Australian programs and practicing chiropractors (n2 = 340). Collected data were ranked and analyzed to determine agreement across domains and items. RESULTS: There was agreement between the 2 groups across the majority (>90%) of domain items. The closest agreement and highest rankings were achieved for the "clinical interventions and practice" and "conditions" domains. Disagreement was observed within specific domain items, such as patient subgroups (infants), and for 1 intervention (chiropractic-specific techniques). Disagreement also occurred outside of the main domains, including research agenda support and funding. CONCLUSIONS: There was overall agreement between practicing chiropractors and academics across most research area domain items, which should help facilitate consensus-led development of any potential Australian Chiropractic research agenda. Disagreements across specific domain items, such as population subgroups, interventions, and funding require further investigation.

Differential patient responses to spinal manipulative therapy and their relation to spinal degeneration and post-treatment changes in disc diffusion.

PURPOSE: Our prior study revealed that people with non-specific low back pain (LBP) who self-reported a > 30% improvement in disability after SMT demonstrated significant post-treatment improvements in spinal stiffness, dynamic muscle thickness and disc diffusion, while those not having self-reported improvement did not have these objective changes. The mechanism underlying this differential post-SMT response remains unknown. This exploratory secondary analysis aimed to determine whether persons with non-specific LBP who respond to spinal SMT have unique lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings compared to SMT non-responders. METHODS: Thirty-two participants with non-specific LBP received lumbar MRI before and after SMT on Day 1. Resulting images were assessed for facet degeneration, disc degeneration, Modic changes and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). SMT was provided again on Day 4 without imaging. SMT responders were classified as having a ≥ 30% reduction in their modified Oswestry disability index at Day 7. Baseline MRI findings between responders and non-responders were compared. The associations between SMT responder status and the presence/absence of post-SMT increases in ADC values of discs associated with painful/non-painful segments as determined by palpation were calculated. In this secondary analysis, a statistical trend was considered as a P value between 0.05 and 0.10. RESULTS: Although there was no significant between-group difference in all spinal degenerative features (e.g. Modic changes), SMT responders tended to have a lower prevalence of severely degenerated facets (P = 0.05) and higher baseline ADC values at the L4-5 disc when compared to SMT non-responders (P = 0.09). Post hoc analyses revealed that 180 patients per group should have been recruited to find significant between-group differences in the two features. SMT responders were also characterized by significant increases in post-SMT ADC values at discs associated with painful segments identified by palpation (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The current secondary analysis suggests that the spines of SMT responders appear to differ from non-responders with respect to degeneration changes in posterior joints and disc diffusion. Although this analysis was preliminary, it provides a new direction to investigate the mechanisms underlying SMT and the existence of discrete forms of treatment-specific LBP. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Clinicians' Ability to Detect a Palpable Difference in Spinal Stiffness Compared With a Mechanical Device.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to quantify the threshold at which clinicians can detect a difference in spinal stiffness of the thoracic and lumbar spine via palpation and then determine if this detection threshold would affect a clinician's ability to identify changes in spinal stiffness as measured by an objective instrument. METHODS: In this study, the threshold at which a change in spinal stiffness was detected was quantified in 12 experienced clinicians (physical therapists and doctors of chiropractic) by changing the differential stiffness in 2 inflatable targets until the clinician could no longer identify which was stiffer. In the second part of the study, clinicians then were asked to palpate pre-identified pairs of vertebrae in an asymptomatic volunteer and to identify the stiffer of the pair (T7 and L3, T7 and L4, L3 and L4), and the biomechanical stiffness of each vertebral pair was quantified objectively by a validated instrument. RESULTS: The mean stiffness detection threshold for the clinicians was 8%. Objective measurement of the stiffness differential between vertebral pairs was 30% for T7* and L3, 20% for T7* and L4, and 10% for L3* and L4 (*denotes the stiffer of the pair). Ten of 12 clinicians correctly identified T7 as stiffer when compared with L3 and T7 as stiffer than L4. Alternatively, when the differential vertebral pair stiffness was similar to the stiffness detection threshold (~8%), clinicians were less successful in identifying the stiffer vertebra of the pair; 4 of 12 clinicians correctly identified L3 as being stiffer compared with L4. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the physiological limits of human palpation may limit the ability of clinicians to identify small alterations in spine stiffness.

Association of lumbar spine stiffness and flexion-relaxation phenomenon with patient-reported outcomes in adults with chronic low back pain - a single-arm clinical trial investigating the effects of thrust spinal manipulation.

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulation (SM) is used commonly for treating low back pain (LBP). Spinal stiffness is routinely assessed by clinicians performing SM. Flexion-relaxation ratio (FRR) was shown to distinguish between LBP and healthy populations. The primary objective of this study was to examine the association of these two physiological variables with patient-reported pain intensity and disability in adults with chronic LBP (>12 weeks) receiving SM. METHODS: A single-arm trial provided 12 sessions of side-lying thrust SM in the lumbosacral region over 6 weeks. Inclusion criteria included 21-65 years old, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score ≥ 6 and numerical pain rating score ≥ 2. Spinal stiffness and FRR were assessed pre-treatment at baseline, after 2 weeks and after 6 weeks of treatment. Lumbar spine global stiffness (GS) were calculated from the force-displacement curves obtained using i) hand palpation, ii) a hand-held device, and iii) an automated indenter device. Lumbar FRR was assessed during trunk flexion-extension using surface electromyography. The primary outcomes were RMDQ and pain intensity measured by visual analog scale (VAS). Mixed-effects regression models were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The mean age of the 82 participants was 45 years; 48% were female; and 84% reported LBP >1 year. The mean (standard deviation) baseline pain intensity and RMDQ were 46.1 (18.1) and 9.5 (4.3), respectively. The mean reduction (95% confidence interval) after 6 weeks in pain intensity and RMDQ were 20.1 mm (14.1 to 26.1) and 4.8 (3.7 to 5.8). There was a small change over time in the palpatory GS but not in the hand-held or automated GS, nor in FRR. The addition of each physiologic variable did not affect the model-estimated changes in VAS or RMDQ over time. There was no association seen between physiological variables and LBP intensity. Higher levels of hand-held GS at L3 and automated GS were significantly associated with higher levels of RMDQ (p = 0.02 and 0.03, respectively) and lower levels of flexion and extension FRR were significantly associated with higher levels of RMDQ (p = 0.02 and 0.008, respectively) across the 3 assessment time points. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in pain and disability observed in study participants with chronic LBP was not associated with the measured GS or FRR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01670292 on clinicaltrials.gov, August 2, 2012.

Procedure Selection and Patient Positioning Influence Spine Kinematics During High-Velocity, Low-Amplitude Spinal Manipulation Applied to the Low Back.

OBJECTIVES: This investigation compared indirect 3-dimensional angular kinematics (position, velocity, and acceleration) of the lumbar spine for 2 different high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) spinal manipulation procedures (lumbar spinous pull or push), and altered initial patient lower limb posture. METHODS: Twenty-four participants underwent 6 HVLA procedures directed toward the presumed L4 vertebra, reflecting each combination of 2 variants of a spinal manipulation application technique (spinous pull and push) and 3 initial hip flexion angles (0°, 45°, and 90°) applied using a right lateral recumbent patient position. All contact forces and moments between the patient and the external environment, as well as 3-dimensional kinematics of the patient's pelvis and thorax, were recorded. Lumbar spine angular positions, velocities, and accelerations were analyzed within the preload and impulse stages of each HVLA trial. RESULTS: Lumbar spine left axial rotation was greater for the pull HVLA. The pull HVLA also generated a greater maximum (leftward) and lower minimum (rightward) axial rotation velocity and deceleration and greater leftward and rightward lateral bend velocities, acceleration, and deceleration components. Not flexing the hip produced the greatest amount of extension, as well as the lowest axial rotation and maximum axial rotation acceleration during the impulse. CONCLUSIONS: This investigation provides basic kinematic information for clinicians to understand the similarities and differences between 2 HVLA side-lying manipulations in the lumbar spine. Use of these findings and novel technology can drive future research initiatives that can both affect clinical decision making and influence teaching environments surrounding spinal manipulative therapy skill acquisition.

Study protocol for patient response to spinal manipulation - a prospective observational clinical trial on physiological and patient-centered outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a major health issue due to its high prevalence rate and socioeconomic cost. While spinal manipulation (SM) is recommended for LBP treatment by recently published clinical guidelines, the underlying therapeutic mechanisms remain unclear. Spinal stiffness is routinely examined and used in clinical decisions for SM delivery. It has also been explored as a predictor for clinical improvement. Flexion-relaxation phenomenon has been demonstrated to distinguish between LBP and healthy populations. The primary objective of the current study is to collect preliminary estimates of variability and effect size for the associations of these two physiological measures with patient-centered outcomes in chronic LBP patients. Additionally biomechanical characteristics of SM delivery are collected with the intention to explore the potential dose-response relationship between SM and LBP improvement. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective, observational study applying side-lying, high velocity, low amplitude SM as treatment for patients with LBP over a course of 6 weeks. Approximately 80 participants will be enrolled if they present with chronic LBP of 1, 2 or 3 in Quebec Task Force Classification for spinal disorders, a Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score ≥ 6, and persistent LBP ≥ 2 with a maximum ≥ 4 using numerical rating scale. Patient-centered outcomes include LBP using visual analog scale, RMDQ, and PROMIS-29. Lumbar spine stiffness is assessed using palpation, a hand-held instrumented device, and an automated device. Flexion-relaxation is assessed using surface electromyography at the third level of the lumbar spine. Biomechanical characteristics of SM are assessed using a self-reported, itemized description system, as well as advanced kinetic measures that will be applied to estimate forces and moments at the lumbar segment level targeted by SM. DISCUSSION: Beside alterations in material properties of the passive components of the spine, increased neuromuscular activity may also contribute to a stiffened spine. Examining changes in both spinal stiffness and flexion-relaxation along the course of the treatment provides an opportunity to understand if the therapeutic effect of SM is associated with its action on active and/or passive components of the spine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01670292 on clinicaltrials.gov.

Neural responses to the mechanical parameters of a high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation: effect of preload parameters.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine how the preload that precedes a high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation (HVLA-SM) affects muscle spindle input from lumbar paraspinal muscles both during and after the HVLA-SM. METHODS: Primary afferent activity from muscle spindles in lumbar paraspinal muscles were recorded from the L6 dorsal root in anesthetized cats. High-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation of the L6 vertebra was preceded either by no preload or systematic changes in the preload magnitude, duration, and the presence or absence of a downward incisural point. Immediate effects of preload on muscle spindle responses to the HVLA-SM were determined by comparing mean instantaneous discharge frequencies (MIF) during the HVLA-SM's thrust phase with baseline. Longer lasting effects of preload on spindle responses to the HVLA-SM were determined by comparing MIF during slow ramp and hold movement of the L6 vertebra before and after the HVLA-SM. RESULTS: The smaller compared with the larger preload magnitude and the longer compared with the shorter preload duration significantly increased (P = .02 and P = .04, respectively) muscle spindle responses during the HVLA-SM thrust. The absence of preload had the greatest effect on the change in MIF. Interactions between preload magnitude, duration, and downward incisural point often produced statistically significant but arguably physiologically modest changes in the passive signaling properties of the muscle spindle after the manipulation. CONCLUSION: Because preload parameters in this animal model were shown to affect neural responses to an HVLA-SM, preload characteristics should be taken into consideration when judging this intervention's therapeutic benefit in both clinical efficacy studies and in clinical practice.

Effects of thrust amplitude and duration of high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation on lumbar muscle spindle responses to vertebral position and movement.

OBJECTIVE: Mechanical characteristics of high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulations (HVLA-SMs) can vary. Sustained changes in peripheral neuronal signaling due to altered load transmission to a sensory receptor's local mechanical environment are often considered a mechanism contributing to the therapeutic effects of spinal manipulation. The purpose of this study was to determine whether variation in an HVLA-SM's thrust amplitude and duration alters the neural responsiveness of lumbar muscle spindles to either vertebral movement or position. METHODS: Anesthetized cats (n = 112) received L6 HVLA-SMs delivered to the spinous process. Cats were divided into 6 cohorts depending upon the peak thrust force (25%, 55%, 85% body weight) or thrust displacement (1, 2, 3 mm) they received. Cats in each cohort received 8 thrust durations (0-250 milliseconds). Afferent discharge from 112 spindles was recorded in response to ramp and hold vertebral movement before and after the manipulation. Changes in mean instantaneous frequency (∆MIF) during the baseline period preceding the ramps (∆MIFresting), during ramp movement (∆MIFmovement), and with the vertebra held in the new position (∆MIFposition) were compared. RESULTS: Thrust duration had a small but statistically significant effect on ∆MIFresting at all 6 thrust amplitudes compared with control (0-millisecond thrust duration). The lowest amplitude thrust displacement (1 mm) increased ∆MIFresting at all thrust durations. For all the other thrust displacements and forces, the direction of change in ∆MIFresting was not consistent, and the pattern of change was not systematically related to thrust duration. Regardless of thrust force, displacement, or duration, ∆MIFmovement and ∆MIFposition were not significantly different from control. CONCLUSION: Relatively low-amplitude thrust displacements applied during an HVLA-SM produced sustained increases in the resting discharge of paraspinal muscle spindles regardless of the duration over which the thrust was applied. However, regardless of the HVLA-SM's thrust amplitude or duration, the responsiveness of paraspinal muscle spindles to vertebral movement and to a new vertebral position was not affected.

Algorithm for Schroth-Curve-Type Classification of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: An Intra- and Inter-Rater Reliability Study.

Schroth exercises for scoliosis are prescribed based on curve types. This study aimed to determine the reliability of an algorithm for classifying Schroth curve types. Forty-four consecutive volunteers with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, 10 to 18 years old, with curves 10° to 50°, were recruited from a scoliosis clinic. Their standing posture and Adam's bending test were videotaped. Ten consecutive Schroth therapist volunteers from an international registry independently classified the curve types using the proposed classification algorithm. Videos were rated twice at least seven days apart. Reliability was calculated using the Gwet's AC1 agreement coefficient for all the raters and for subgroups reporting full understanding (well-trained) and with prior algorithm experience. The intra-rater and weighted agreement coefficients for all the raters were 0.64 (95% CI: 0.53-0.73) and 0.75 (0.63-0.84), respectively. For the well-trained raters, they were 0.70 (0.60-0.78) and 0.82 (0.73-0.88), respectively; for the experienced raters, they were 0.81 (0.77-0.85) and 0.89 (0.80-0.94), respectively. The inter-rater versus weighted agreement coefficients for all the raters were 0.43 (0.28-0.58) versus 0.48 (0.29-0.67). For the well-trained raters, they were 0.50 (0.38-0.61) versus 0.61 (0.49-0.72), and for the experienced raters, they were 0.67 (0.50-0.85) versus 0.79 (0.64-0.94). Full understanding and experience led to higher reliability. Use of the algorithm can help standardize Schroth exercise treatment.

Trends of Low Back Pain Research in Older and Working-Age Adults from 1993 to 2023: A Bibliometric Analysis.

Although the number of publications focusing on low back pain in older adults (LBP-O) and working-age adults (LBP-W) has been growing for decades, comparative research trends in these two populations, which may help to guide future investigation, have not been rigorously explored. This analysis aimed to describe publication patterns and trends of research targeting LBP-O and LBP-W over the last three decades. Peer-reviewed LBP-O and LBP-W articles published between 1993 and 2023 were retrieved from the Web of Science, which provided the details of annual publication volume, and prominent journals/countries/institutions. The relationship between the annual publication volumes and years was analyzed by Spearman correlation analysis. The hot topics and emerging trends were analyzed by VOSviewer and CiteSpace, respectively. A total of 4217 LBP-O-related and 50,559 LBP-W-related documents were included. The annual publication volumes of LBP-O and LBP-W articles increased over the years (r=0.995 to 0.998, p<0.001). The United States had the highest number of prominent institutions publishing relevant articles. The most prolific journal for LBP-O (5.4%) and LBP-W-related (6.1%) papers is the journal "Spine". Cognitive behavioral therapy, intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration, physiotherapy, physical activity, and walking were the recent hot topics and physical activity was an emerging trend in LBP-O, while surgery and IVD degeneration (also a hot topic) were emerging trends in LBP-W. This study highlights the paucity of LBP-O-related research in the past. The United States and the journal Spine stand out in LBP research. The research trend of physical activity in LBP-O is consistent with the recognized importance of physical activity for older adults in general, and for managing LBP-O in particular. Conversely, the emerging trends of surgery and intervertebral disc degeneration in LBP-W research highlight a focus on the biomedical model of LBP despite LBP being a biopsychosocial condition.

An exploratory study to understand how people use Twitter to share experiences or information about spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Spinal stenosis is a narrowing of the spinal canal that may compress neurological tissues resulting in pain and disability. Although previous qualitative studies have solicited data regarding the life experience of patients with spinal stenosis or their opinions on relevant non-surgical treatments, their data was collected from participants in a controlled setting. Therefore, it remains unclear whether patients' or caregivers' concerns/opinions about spinal stenosis would be different in a non-experimental environment. Since Twitter is a popular online platform for people to share information and interact, it may reveal people's thoughts and attitudes about spinal stenosis. This study aimed to identify tweets that are related to spinal stenosis on Twitter, and to categorize them into common themes. METHODS: A social media monitoring and analysis software program (TalkWalker) was used to search relevant tweets using the keywords 'spinal stenosis' and 'stenosis' between 29 May 2019 and 24 June 2020. Two independent reviewers screened and conducted content analysis of the tweets and classified the tweets into different themes. RESULTS: Of 510 identified tweets, 362 tweets met the selection criteria. Five themes were identified: (1) compromised physical, psychological, and social wellbeing (n = 173); (2) diverse treatment options (n = 69); (3) coping strategies (n = 30); (4) dissemination of scientific information (n = 86); and (5) health policy (n = 4). Most of the tweets revealed negative impacts of spinal stenosis on patients' physical and psychosocial wellbeing. People with spinal stenosis shared their experiences and sought helps from others, while some people used Twitter to disseminate relevant information and research findings. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study exploring Twitter using an online analytical tool to identify themes related to spinal stenosis. The approach not only helps understand people's concerns about spinal stenosis in an uncontrolled environment, but also can be adopted to monitor influences of diseases or public health education on Twitter users.

A prospective study of patients with low back pain attending a Canadian emergency department: Why they came and what happened?

Low back pain is a common presentation to emergency departments, but the reasons why people choose to attend the emergency department have not been explored. We aimed to fill this gap with this study to understand why persons with low back pain choose to attend the emergency department. Between July 4, 2017 and October 1, 2018, consecutive patients with a complaint of low back pain presenting to the University of Alberta Hospital emergency department were screened. Those enrolled completed a 13-item questionnaire to assess reasons and expectations related to their presentation. Demographics, acuity and disposition were obtained electronically. Factors associated with admission were examined in a logistic regression model. After screening 812 patients, 209 participants met the study criteria. The most common Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale score was 3 (73.2%). Overall, 37 (17.7%) received at least one consultation, 89.0% of participants were discharged home, 9.6% were admitted and 1.4% were transferred. Participants had a median pain intensity of 8/10 and a median daily functioning of 3/10. When asked, 64.6% attended for pain control while 44.5% stated ease of access. Most participants expected to obtain pain medication (67%) and advice (56%). Few attended because of cost savings (3.8%). After adjustment, only advanced age and ambulance arrival were significantly associated with admission. In conclusion, most low back pain patients came to the emergency department for pain control yet few were admitted and the majority did not receive a consultation. Timely alternatives for management of low back pain in the emergency department appear needed, yet are lacking.

Repetitive in vivo manual loading of the spine elicits cellular responses in porcine annuli fibrosi.

Back pain and intervertebral disc degeneration are prevalent, costly, and widely treated by manual therapies, yet the underlying causes of these diseases are indeterminate as are the scientific bases for such treatments. The present studies characterize the effects of repetitive in vivo manual loads on porcine intervertebral disc cell metabolism using RNA deep sequencing. A single session of repetitive manual loading applied to the lumbar spine induced both up- and down-regulation of a variety of genes transcribed by cells in the ventral annuli fibrosi. The effect of manual therapy at the level of loading was greater than at a level distant to the applied load. Gene ontology and molecular pathway analyses categorized biological, molecular, and cellular functions influenced by repetitive manual loading, with over-representation of membrane, transmembrane, and pericellular activities. Weighted Gene Co-expression Network Analysis discerned enrichment in genes in pathways of inflammation and skeletogenesis. The present studies support previous findings of intervertebral disc cell mechanotransduction, and are the first to report comprehensively on the repertoire of gene targets influenced by mechanical loads associated with manual therapy interventions. The present study defines the cellular response of repeated, low-amplitude loads on normal healthy annuli fibrosi and lays the foundation for future work defining how healthy and diseased intervertebral discs respond to single or low-frequency manual loads typical of those applied clinically.

Posterior to anterior spinal stiffness measured in a sample of 127 secondary care low back pain patients.

BACKGROUND: The sensation of spinal stiffness is a commonly reported symptom among back pain patients, with the clinical assessment of spinal stiffness usually being part of the decision-making process when deciding on providing manual treatment of low back pain. While any relationship between spinal stiffness and low back pain is likely to be multifactorial, prior exploration of this relationship has been overly simplistic (e.g., univariate regression analyses). The purpose of this study was to address this gap by taking a broader approach to compare instrumented measures of spinal stiffness to demographic characteristics, pain phenotypes, psychometrics, and spine-related disability in a sample of secondary care low back pain patients using multivariate regression analysis. METHODS: Instrumented spinal stiffness measures from 127 patients in secondary care were used to calculate terminal and global spinal stiffness scores. A best subset analysis was used to find the subsets of 14 independent variables that most accurately predicted stiffness based on the evaluation of the adjusted R-square, Akaike Information Criteria, and the Bayesian Information Criteria. FINDINGS: In the resulting multivariate models, sex (p < 0.001) and age (p < 0.001) were the primary determinants of terminal stiffness, while global stiffness was primarily determined by age (p = 0.003) and disability (p = 0.024). INTERPRETATION: Instrumented measures of spinal stiffness are multifactorial in nature, and future research into this area should make use of multivariate analyses.

The importance of selecting the correct site to apply spinal manipulation when treating spinal pain: Myth or reality? A systematic review.

The concept that spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) outcomes are optimized when the treatment is aimed at a clinically relevant joint is commonly assumed and central to teaching and clinical use (candidate sites). This systematic review investigated whether clinical effects are superior when this is the case compared to SMT applied elsewhere (non-candidate sites). Eligible study designs were randomized controlled trials that investigated the effect of spinal manipulation applied to candidate versus non-candidate sites for spinal pain. We obtained data from four different databases. Risk of bias was assessed using an adjusted Cochrane risk of bias tool, adding four items for study quality. We extracted between-group differences for any reported outcome or, when not reported, calculated effect sizes from the within-group changes. We compared outcomes for SMT applied at a 'relevant' site to SMT applied elsewhere. We prioritized methodologically robust studies when interpreting results. Ten studies, all of acceptable quality, were included that reported 33 between-group differences-five compared treatments within the same spinal region and five at different spinal regions. None of the nine studies with low or moderate risk of bias reported statistically significant between-group differences for any outcome. The tenth study reported a small effect on pain (1.2/10, 95%CI - 1.9 to - 0.5) but had a high risk of bias. None of the nine articles of low or moderate risk of bias and acceptable quality reported that "clinically-relevant" SMT has a superior outcome on any outcome compared to "not clinically-relevant" SMT. This finding contrasts with ideas held in educational programs and clinical practice that emphasize the importance of joint-specific application of SMT.

Force Distribution Within Spinal Tissues During Posterior to Anterior Spinal Manipulative Therapy: A Secondary Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies observed that the intervertebral disc experiences the greatest forces during spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and that the distribution of forces among spinal tissues changes as a function of the SMT parameters. However, contextualized SMT forces, relative to the ones applied to and experienced by the whole functional spinal unit, is needed to understand SMT's underlying mechanisms. AIM: To describe the percentage force distribution between spinal tissues relative to the applied SMT forces and total force experienced by the functional unit. METHODS: This secondary analysis combined data from 35 fresh porcine cadavers exposed to a simulated 300N SMT to the skin overlying the L3/L4 facet joint via servo-controlled linear motor actuator. Vertebral kinematics were tracked optically using indwelling bone pins. The functional spinal unit was then removed and mounted on a parallel robotic platform equipped with a 6-axis load cell. The kinematics of the spine during SMT were replayed by the robotic platform. By using serial dissection, peak and mean forces induced by the simulated SMT experienced by spinal structures in all three axes of motion were recorded. Forces experienced by spinal structures were analyzed descriptively and the resultant force magnitude was calculated. RESULTS: During SMT, the functional spinal unit experienced a median peak resultant force of 36.4N (IQR: 14.1N) and a mean resultant force of 25.4N (IQR: 11.9N). Peak resultant force experienced by the spinal segment corresponded to 12.1% of the total applied SMT force (300N). When the resultant force experienced by the functional spinal unit was considered to be 100%, the supra and interspinous ligaments experienced 0.3% of the peak forces and 0.5% of the mean forces. Facet joints and ligamentum flavum experienced 0.7% of the peak forces and 3% of the mean forces. Intervertebral disc and longitudinal ligaments experienced 99% of the peak and 96.5% of the mean forces. CONCLUSION: In this animal model, a small percentage of the forces applied during a posterior-to-anterior SMT reached spinal structures in the lumbar spine. Most SMT forces (over 96%) are experienced by the intervertebral disc. This study provides a novel perspective on SMT force distribution within spinal tissues.

The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial. OBJECTIVES: We convened a Global Summit of international scientists to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of non-musculoskeletal disorders. GLOBAL SUMMIT: The Global Summit took place on September 14-15, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. It was attended by 50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations. At the summit, participants critically appraised the literature and synthesized the evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 15, 2019 using subject headings specific to each database and free text words relevant to manipulation/manual therapy, effectiveness, prevention, treatment, and non-musculoskeletal disorders. Eligible for review were randomized controlled trials published in English. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria for randomized controlled trials. We synthesized the evidence from articles with high or acceptable methodological quality according to the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) Guideline. The final risk of bias and evidence tables were reviewed by researchers who attended the Global Summit and 75% (38/50) had to approve the content to reach consensus. RESULTS: We retrieved 4997 citations, removed 1123 duplicates and screened 3874 citations. Of those, the eligibility of 32 articles was evaluated at the Global Summit and 16 articles were included in our systematic review. Our synthesis included six randomized controlled trials with acceptable or high methodological quality (reported in seven articles). These trials investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the management of infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. None of the trials evaluated the effectiveness of SMT in preventing the occurrence of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Consensus was reached on the content of all risk of bias and evidence tables. All randomized controlled trials with high or acceptable quality found that SMT was not superior to sham interventions for the treatment of these non-musculoskeletal disorders. Six of 50 participants (12%) in the Global Summit did not approve the final report. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review included six randomized clinical trials (534 participants) of acceptable or high quality investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function. Governments, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should consider this evidence when developing policies about the use and reimbursement of SMT for non-musculoskeletal disorders.

Performance and reliability of a variable rate, force/displacement application system.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), an intervention used to treat low back pain, has been demonstrated to affect the stiffness of the spine. To adequately quantify the effects of SMT on stiffness, a device capable of applying specific parameters of manipulation in addition to measuring force-displacement values has been developed previously. Previously developed indentation techniques that quantify stiffness have been modified for novel use in evaluating SMT parameters. The reliability of stiffness measurements performed by the newly adapted device was assessed in this study. METHODS: Seven springs of varying stiffness were each indented 10 times by a variable rate force/displacement (VRFD) device. Indentations were performed at a rate of 0.5 mm/s to a maximal displacement of 4 mm. The stiffness coefficients for a middle portion of the resulting force-displacement graph and the terminal instantaneous stiffness (stiffness at end displacement) were calculated. The intraclass correlation and confidence interval were calculated for these stiffness measurements to assess device reliability. RESULTS: Repeated spring stiffness measures yielded an intraclass correlation coefficient value of 1.0. The mean stiffness values had narrow 95% confidence intervals ranging from 0.01 N/mm to 0.06 N/mm and small coefficients of variation. CONCLUSION: This VRFD device provides highly reliable stiffness measurements in controlled conditions. Although in vivo reliability remains to be established, the results of this study support the use of the VRFD device in future trials investigating the impact of various SMT parameters on spinal stiffness.

The bench-top accuracy of the VerteTrack spinal stiffness assessment device.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of spinal stiffness by manual palpation in clinical settings has demonstrated both poor accuracy and reliability. More recently, mechanical methods for assessment of spinal stiffness have demonstrated superior accuracy and reliability. However, mechanical methods of spinal stiffness assessment can be expensive, time consuming and/or unsuited to clinical practice. While a new device has been designed to address these issues (VerteTrack), its benchtop performance remains unknown. AIM: To measure the bench-top performance of VerteTrack. METHODS: A series of laboratory-based experiments were conducted in February 2018 to investigate the accuracy (precision and bias) of load and displacement measurements obtained by VerteTrack and then were compared against an appropriate reference standard. Measurements of both multiple-level continuous assessment (multiple spinal levels measured), and single-level assessment (single spinal level measured) were performed on a viscoelastic foam medium (AIREX® balance beam, Switzerland) and the resulting stiffness calculated. RESULTS: VerteTrack demonstrated high precision at all loads and displacements. There was minimal systematic measurement bias identified for applied versus reference load (mean bias = - 0.123 N; 95%CI - 0.182 to 0.428 N, p < .001), and no systematic measurement bias for measured versus reference displacement (mean difference = 0.02 mm; 95%CI - 0.09 to 0.14 mm, p < .001). The magnitude of stiffness obtained during multiple-level continuous assessment was on average 0.25 N/mm (2.79%) less than that for single-level assessment (95%CI - 0.67 to 0.17 N/mm, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: VerteTrack demonstrated high accuracy (high precision, low bias) under bench-top conditions. The difference in stiffness found between multiple versus single spinal levels should be considered in the research context, but is unlikely to be clinically relevant. The results of this study demonstrate that VerteTrack may be suitable for both single and multi-level spinal stiffness measurements in-vivo.

Self-reports vs. physical measures of spinal stiffness.

BACKGROUND: Objectively measured reduction in lumbar posterior-to-anterior (PA) stiffness is associated with pain relief in some, but not all persons with low back pain. Unfortunately, these measurements can be time consuming to perform. In comparison, the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ) is intended to measure spinal instability and the Lumbar Spine Disability Index (LSDI) is created for self-reporting functional disability due to increased spinal stiffness. Given the above, the aim of this study is to compare measures of the LSIQ and LSDI with objective measures of lumbar PA stiffness as measured by a mechanical device, Vertetrack (VT), in patients with persistent non-specific low back pain (nsLBP). METHODS: Twenty-nine patients with nsLBP completed the LSIQ and LSDI at baseline and after two weeks. On these same occasions, PA spinal stiffness was measured using the VT. Between measurements, patients received four sessions of spinal manipulation. The resulting data was analyzed to determine the correlation between the self-report and objective measures of stiffness at both time points. Further, the patients were categorized into responders and non-responders based on pre-established cut points depending on values from the VT and compared those to self-report measures in order to determine whether the LSIQ and the LSDI were sensitive to change. RESULTS: Twenty-nine participants completed the study. Measures from the LSIQ and LSDI correlated poorly with objectively measured lumbar PA stiffness at baseline and also with the change scores. The change in objectively measured lumbar PA stiffness following spinal manipulation did not differ between those who improved, and those who did not improve according to the pre-specified cut-points. Finally, a reduction in lumbar PA stiffness following intervention was not associated with improvement in LSIQ and LSDI outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The current data indicate that the LSIQ and LSDI questionnaires do not correlate with measures obtained objectively by VT. Our results suggest that these objective and self- reported measures represent different domains and as such, cannot stand in place of one another.