Waste not, want not: call to action for spinal manipulative therapy researchers.

BACKGROUND: Research waste is defined as research outcomes with no or minimal societal benefits. It is a widespread problem in the healthcare field. Four primary sources of research waste have been defined: (1) irrelevant or low priority research questions, (2) poor design or methodology, (3) lack of publication, and (4) biased or inadequate reporting. This commentary, which was developed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) research expertise, discusses waste in SMT research and provides suggestions to improve future research. MAIN TEXT: This commentary examines common sources of waste in SMT research, focusing on design and methodological issues, by drawing on prior research and examples from clinical and mechanistic SMT studies. Clinical research is dominated by small studies and studies with a high risk of bias. This problem is compounded by systematic reviews that pool heterogenous data from varying populations, settings, and application of SMT. Research focusing on the mechanisms of SMT often fails to address the clinical relevance of mechanisms, relies on very short follow-up periods, and has inadequate control for contextual factors. CONCLUSIONS: This call to action is directed to researchers in the field of SMT. It is critical that the SMT research community act to improve the way research is designed, conducted, and disseminated. We present specific key action points and resources, which should enhance the quality and usefulness of future SMT research.

Data-driven identification of distinct pain drawing patterns and their association with clinical and psychological factors: a study of 21,123 patients with spinal pain.

ABSTRACT: The variability in pain drawing styles and analysis methods has raised concerns about the reliability of pain drawings as a screening tool for nonpain symptoms. In this study, a data-driven approach to pain drawing analysis has been used to enhance the reliability. The aim was to identify distinct clusters of pain patterns by using latent class analysis (LCA) on 46 predefined anatomical areas of a freehand digital pain drawing. Clusters were described in the clinical domains of activity limitation, pain intensity, and psychological factors. A total of 21,123 individuals were included from 2 subgroups by primary pain complaint (low back pain (LBP) [n = 15,465]) or midback/neck pain (MBPNP) [n = 5658]). Five clusters were identified for the LBP subgroup: LBP and radiating pain (19.9%), radiating pain (25.8%), local LBP (24.8%), LBP and whole leg pain (18.7%), and widespread pain (10.8%). Four clusters were identified for the MBPNP subgroup: MBPNP bilateral posterior (19.9%), MBPNP unilateral posterior + anterior (23.6%), MBPNP unilateral posterior (45.4%), and widespread pain (11.1%). The clusters derived by LCA corresponded to common, specific, and recognizable clinical presentations. Statistically significant differences were found between these clusters in every self-reported health domain. Similarly, for both LBP and MBPNP, pain drawings involving more extensive pain areas were associated with higher activity limitation, more intense pain, and more psychological distress. This study presents a versatile data-driven approach for analyzing pain drawings to assist in managing spinal pain.

Association of back pain with all-cause and cause-specific mortality among older men: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether more severe back pain phenotypes-persistent, frequent or disabling back pain-are associated with higher mortality among older men. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of a prospective cohort, the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study, we evaluated mortality rates by back pain phenotype among 5215 older community-dwelling men (mean age, 73 years, SD = 5.6) from six U.S. sites. The primary back pain measure used baseline and year five back pain questionnaire data to characterize participants as having: no back pain; non-persistent back pain; infrequent persistent back pain; or frequent persistent back pain. Secondary measures of back pain from year five questionnaire included disabling back pain phenotypes. The main outcomes measured were all-cause and cause-specific mortality. RESULTS: After the year five exam, during up to 18 years of follow-up (mean follow-up=10.3 years), there were 3513 deaths (1218 cardiovascular, 764 cancer, 1531 other). A higher proportion of men with frequent persistent back pain versus no back pain died (78% versus 69%; sociodemographic-adjusted HR = 1.27, 95%CI=1.11-1.45). No association was evident after further adjusting for health-related factors such as self-reported general health and comorbid chronic health conditions (fully-adjusted HR = 1.00; 95%CI=0.86-1.15). Results were similar for cardiovascular mortality and other mortality, but we observed no association of back pain with cancer mortality. Secondary back pain measures including back-related disability were associated with increased mortality risk that remained statistically significant in fully-adjusted models. CONCLUSION: While frequent persistent back pain was not independently associated with mortality in older men, additional secondary disabling back pain phenotypes were independently associated with increased mortality. Future investigations should evaluate whether improvements in disabling back pain effect general health and well-being or mortality.

Patient satisfaction with clinical services provided by chiropractic students under supervision compared to licensed chiropractors: An observational study.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated patient satisfaction with care provided by chiropractic students under supervision vs supervisors in a Danish hospital setting. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study of patient satisfaction was conducted at the Spine Center of Southern Denmark, where chiropractic students from the University of Southern Denmark complete an 8-week internship in their final year of pregraduate training. Patients were assigned to students or supervisors based on administrative convenience (ie, natural allocation). Blinded from the aim of the study, all patients seen by a chiropractor (with or without a student) were invited to answer a questionnaire rating satisfaction with the clinical encounter. Results were analyzed using ordinal logistic regression with group allocation blinded by the investigators. RESULTS: Results from 438 participants (response rate = 88%) showed no significant difference in patient satisfaction between the student and supervisor groups. Although a small difference favored the supervisor group, the student group had a higher proportion of high and very high satisfaction combined. CONCLUSION: Satisfaction differed minimally whether patient care was administered by students under the supervision of a licensed chiropractor or by licensed chiropractors alone. Our findings suggest that patients do not negatively view student involvement in clinical consultations at a Danish hospital.

Static palpation ain't easy: Evaluating palpation precision using a topographical map of the lumbar spine as a reference.

INTRODUCTION: Clinicians commonly use manual therapy to treat low back pain by palpating the spine to identify the spinous processes. This study aims to evaluate the ability of experienced clinicians to consistently locate the spinous processes from S1 to T12 through palpation. The results will be compared to topographical data representing the lumbar lordosis at baseline and four follow-up time points. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prior prospective randomized trial, experienced clinicians used palpation to locate the lumbar spinous processes (S1-T12) and then digitized these locations in three-dimensional space. The same digitizing equipment was then used to continuously collect three-dimensional position data of a wheel that rolled along the back's surface through a trajectory that connected the previously digitized locations of the spinous processes. This process was repeated at 4 days, 1, 4, and 12 weeks. The resulting lordosis trajectories were plotted and aligned using the most anterior point in the lordosis to compare the locations of the spinous processes identified in different trials. This way, spinous palpation points could be compared to surface topography over time. Intra- and interrater reliability and agreement were estimated using intraclass correlations of agreement and Bland-Altman limits of agreement. RESULTS: Five clinicians palpated a total of 119 participants. The results showed a large degree of variation in precision estimates, with a mean total value of 13 mm (95%CI = 11;15). This precision error was consistent across all time points. The smallest precision error was found at L5, followed by S1 File, after which the error increased superiorly. Intra- and interrater reliability was poor to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of palpation results to a topographic standard representing the lumbar lordosis is a new approach for evaluating palpation. Our results confirm the results of prior studies that find palpation of lumbar spinous processes imprecise, even for experienced clinicians.

Prospective Back Pain Trajectories or Retrospective Recall-Which Tells Us Most About the Patient?

In patients with low back pain (LBP), a visually identified retrospective pain trajectory often mismatches with a trajectory derived from prospective repeated measures. To gain insight into the clinical relevance of the 2 trajectory types, we investigated which showed a higher association with clinical outcomes. Participants were 724 adults seeking care for LBP in Danish chiropractic primary care. They answered weekly short-message-services on pain intensity and frequency over 52 weeks, which we translated into 8 trajectory classes. After 52 weeks, participants selected a retrospective visual pain trajectory from the same 8 trajectory classes. Clinical outcomes included disability, back/leg pain intensity, back beliefs, and work ability. The patient-selected pain trajectory classes were more strongly associated with clinical outcomes than the short-message-service trajectory classes at baseline, at follow-up, and with outcome changes between baseline and follow-up. This held across all 5 clinical outcomes, with the strongest associations observed at week 52 and the weakest at baseline. Patients' retrospective assessment of their LBP is more strongly associated with their clinical status than their prospective assessments translated into trajectory classes. This suggests that retrospective assessments of pain trajectories may provide valuable information not captured by prospective assessments. Researchers collecting prospective pain data should know that the captured pain trajectories are not strongly reflected in patients' perceptions of clinical status. Patients' retrospective assessments seem to offer an interpretation of their pain course that is likely more clinically relevant in understanding the perceived impact of their condition than trajectories based on repeated measures. PERSPECTIVE: Prospective pain data inadequately reflect patients' clinical status. Retrospective assessments provide a more clinically valuable understanding of the impact of their condition.

A new role for spinal manual therapy and for chiropractic? Part I: weaknesses and threats.

Spinal manual therapy is central to chiropractic history, clinical practice, and professional identity. That chiropractors have developed an expertise in this domain has provided some considerable advantages. However, we contend it is also at the crux of the ideological schism that fractures the chiropractic profession. In this article, which is the first in a series of two, we discuss chiropractors' understanding and use of spinal manual therapy and do so with particular emphasis on what we see as weaknesses it creates and threats it gives rise to. These are of particular importance, as we believe they have limited the chiropractic profession's development. As we shall argue, we believe that these threats have become existential in nature, and we are convinced that they call for a resolute and unified response by the profession. Subsequently, in part II, we discuss various strengths that the chiropractic profession possesses and the opportunities that await, provided that the profession is ready to rise to the challenge.

A new role for spinal manual therapy and for chiropractic? Part II: strengths and opportunities.

In a previous paper, we presented some important weaknesses of and threats to the chiropractic profession as we see them. We further argued that the chiropractic profession's relationship with its principal clinical tool (spinal manual therapy) is at the core of the ideological divide that fractures the profession and prevents professional development towards greater integration in the healthcare landscape. In this manuscript, we shall argue that the historical predilection for spinal manipulation also gifts the profession with some obvious strengths and opportunities, and that these are inextricably linked to the management of musculoskeletal disorders. The onus is now on the chiropractic profession itself to redefine its raison d'être in a way that plays to those strengths and delivers in terms of the needs of patients and the wider healthcare system/market. We suggest chiropractors embrace and cultivate a role as coordinators of long-term and broad-focused management of musculoskeletal disorders. We make specific recommendations about how the profession, from individual clinicians to political organizations, can promote such a development.

Validation of a spring loaded probe for single and repeat pressure pain testing, including public domain specifications for design and manufacture.

Temporal summation of pressure pain is technically more challenging than simple pressure pain thresholds. The current study describes the design, manufacture and validation of a simple mechanical test apparatus to assess the temporal summation of deep pressure pain. We release design details into the public domain with the intention of providing free access for researchers especially in low income countries. Utility and validity of the probes were assessed by pressure application in three different experimental setups: A. Identifying potential issues which needed to be addressed to ensure a reliable test procedure (189 tests with 24 testers using four different probes). B. Selecting the most reliable target force curve (one tester conducted 20 tests). C. Estimating classic inter and intra-examiner reliability and comparing probe measures to other QST measures (repeated measures study with counterbalancing). We make recommendations on best use of the probes. Pressure pain thresholds assessed using probes were affected by anatomical test site and testing tool, but not by tester, day or session. Temporal summation of pressure pain was significantly greater than that of a single pressure application. We found no correlation between temporal summation using the probes on the Infra-Spinatus muscle and temporal summation using a pneumatic cuff on the lower leg. The probe was a useful tool for assessing pain intensity and temporal summation of pressure pain intensity, but not for pain thresholds. A number of caveats need to be considered when using the probe, including but not limited to audio cues and target ideal wave function.

Testing walking performance in patients with low back pain: will two minutes do instead of six minutes?

PURPOSE: The six-minute walk test (6MWT) can assess walking function but is time-consuming. We investigate the correlation of performance over the first two minutes of the 6MWT (2MWT#) and the 6MWT. We also evaluate the 2MWT#'s ability to predict 6MWT results, assess correlations to secondary explanatory outcomes, and assess the ability to discriminate between clinical subgroups. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 124 participants with LBP. Correlations between the 2MWT# and 6MWT and secondary outcomes were evaluated using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. The predictive ability of the 2MWT# was defined as the residual distance between the observed 6MWT and three times the 2MWT#. Differences between clinical subgroups were evaluated using the Wilcoxon rank test. RESULTS: The 2MWT# and 6MWT correlated highly (r = 83, 95% CI 0.76 - 0.87). The 2MWT# overestimated 6MWT results with 46.8 meters (SD 67.0). Both tests correlated with secondary outcomes and discriminated similarly between clinical subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The 2MWT# correlates highly with 6MWT but overestimates the observed 6MWT by 9%. Because it is shorter, possibly less burdensome, and with little or no loss of discriminatory ability, we consider it a legitimate alternative to the 6MWT in patients with LBP.Implications for rehabilitationWalking function is often affected in patients with low back pain (LBP).The six-minute walk test (6MWT) is frequently used to assess walking function but is time-consuming.A shorter two-minute walk test is a legitimate alternative in patients with LBP as it correlates highly with the 6MWT and has little or no loss of discriminatory ability between clinical subgroups.

An international consensus on gaps in mechanisms of forced-based manipulation research: findings from a nominal group technique.

Force-Based Manipulation (FBM) including light touch, pressure, massage, mobilization, thrust manipulation, and needling techniques are utilized across several disciplines to provide clinical analgesia. These commonly used techniques demonstrate the ability to improve pain-related outcomes; however, mechanisms behind why analgesia occurs with these hands-on interventions has been understudied. Neurological, neuroimmune, biomechanical, neurovascular, neurotransmitter, and contextual factor interactions have been proposed to influence response; however, the specific relationships to clinical pain outcomes has not been well established. The purpose of this study was to identify gaps present within mechanism-based research as it relates to FBM. An international multidisciplinary nominal group technique (NGT) was performed and identified 37 proposed gaps across eight domains. Twenty-three of these gaps met consensus across domains supporting the complex multisystem mechanistic response to FBM. The strength of support for gaps within the biomechanical domain had less overall support than the others. Gaps assessing the influence of contextual factors had strong support as did those associating mechanisms with clinical outcomes (translational studies). The importance of literature investigating how FBM differs with individuals of different pain phenotypes (pain mechanism phenotypes and clinical phenotypes) was also presented aligning with other analgesic techniques trending toward patient-specific pain management (precision medicine) through the use of pain phenotyping.

Patient and provider characteristics associated with therapeutic intervention selection in a chiropractic clinical encounter: a cross-sectional analysis of the COAST and O-COAST study data.

BACKGROUND: Chiropractors use a variety of therapeutic interventions in clinical practice. How the selection of interventions differs across musculoskeletal regions or with different patient and provider characteristics is currently unclear. This study aimed to describe how frequently different interventions are used for patients presenting for chiropractic care, and patient and provider characteristics associated with intervention selection. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Chiropractic Observation and Analysis STudy (COAST) and Ontario (O-COAST) studies: practice-based, cross-sectional studies in Victoria, Australia (2010-2012) and Ontario, Canada (2014-2015). Chiropractors recorded data on patient diagnosis and intervention selection from up to 100 consecutive patient visits. The frequency of interventions selected overall and for each diagnostic category (e.g., different musculoskeletal regions) were descriptively analysed. Univariable multi-level logistic regression (provider and patient as grouping factors), stratified by diagnostic category, was used to assess the association between patient/provider variables and intervention selection. RESULTS: Ninety-four chiropractors, representative of chiropractors in Victoria and Ontario for age, sex, and years in practice, participated. Data were collected on 7,966 patient visits (6419 unique patients), including 10,731 individual diagnoses (mean age: 43.7 (SD: 20.7), 57.8% female). Differences in patient characteristics and intervention selection were observed between chiropractors practicing in Australia and Canada. Overall, manipulation was the most common intervention, selected in 63% (95%CI:62-63) of encounters. However, for musculoskeletal conditions presenting in the extremities only, soft tissue therapies were more commonly used (65%, 95%CI:62-68). Manipulation was less likely to be performed if the patient was female (OR:0.74, 95%CI:0.65-0.84), older (OR:0.79, 95%CI:0.77-0.82), presenting for an initial visit (OR:0.73, 95%CI:0.56-0.95) or new complaint (OR:0.82, 95%CI:0.71-0.95), had one or more comorbidities (OR:0.63, 95%CI:0.54-0.72), or was underweight (OR:0.47, 95%CI:0.35-0.63), or obese (OR:0.69, 95%CI:0.58-0.81). Chiropractors with more than five years clinical experience were less likely to provide advice/education (OR:0.37, 95%CI:0.16-0.87) and exercises (OR:0.17, 95%CI:0.06-0.44). CONCLUSION: In more than 10,000 diagnostic encounters, manipulation was the most common therapeutic intervention for spine-related problems, whereas soft tissue therapies were more common for extremity problems. Different patient and provider characteristics were associated with intervention selection. These data may be used to support further research on appropriate selection of interventions for common musculoskeletal complaints.

Presenters at chiropractic research conferences 2010-2019: is there a gender equity problem?

BACKGROUND: Presenting at professional and scientific conferences can be an important part of an individual's career advancement, especially for researchers communicating scientific findings, and can signal expertise and leadership. Generally, women presenting at conferences are underrepresented in various science disciplines. We aimed to evaluate the gender of presenters at research-oriented chiropractic conferences from 2010 to 2019. METHODS: We investigated the gender of presenters at conferences hosted by chiropractic organisations from 2010 to 2019 that utilised an abstract submission process. Gender classification was performed by two independent reviewers. The gender distribution of presenters over the ten-year period was analysed with linear regression. The association of conference factors with the gender distribution of presenters was also assessed with linear regression, including the gender of organising committees and abstract peer reviewers, and the geographic region where the conference was hosted. RESULTS: From 39 conferences, we identified 4,340 unique presentations. Women gave 1,528 (35%) of the presentations. No presenters were classified as gender diverse. Overall, the proportion of women presenters was 30% in 2010 and 42% in 2019, with linear regression demonstrating a 1% increase in women presenting per year (95% CI = 0.4-1.6%). Invited/keynote speakers had the lowest proportion of women (21%) and the most stagnant trajectory over time. The gender of conference organisers and abstract peer reviewers were not significantly associated with the gender of presenters. Oceanic conferences had a lower proportion of women presenting compared to North America (27% vs. 36%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, women gave approximately one-third of presentations at the included conferences, which gradually increased from 2010 to 2019. However, the disparity widens for the most prestigious class of keynote/invited presenters. We make several recommendations to support the goal of gender equity, including monitoring and reporting on gender diversity at future conferences.

Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Does Targeting a Specific Vertebral Level Make a Difference?: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine whether targeting spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), by applying the intervention to a specific vertebral level, produces superior clinical outcomes than a nontargeted approach in patients with nonspecific low back pain. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, PEDro, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were searched up to May 31, 2023. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing targeted SMT (mobilization or manipulation) to a nontargeted approach in patients with nonspecific low back pain, and measuring the effects on pain intensity and patient-reported disability. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data extraction, risk of bias, and evaluation of the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach were performed by 2 authors independently. Meta-analyses were performed using the restricted maximum likelihood method. RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials (n = 931 patients) were included. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference between targeted SMT and a nontargeted approach for pain intensity at postintervention (weighted mean difference = -0.20 [95% CI: -0.51, 0.10]) and at follow-up (weighted mean difference = 0.05 [95% CI: -0.26, 0.36]). For patient-reported disability, there was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference at postintervention (standardized mean difference = -0.04 [95% CI: -0.36, 0.29]) and at follow-up (standardized mean difference = -0.05 [95% CI: -0.24, 0.13]). Adverse events were reported in 4 trials, and were minor and evenly distributed between groups. CONCLUSION: Targeting a specific vertebral level when administering SMT for patients with nonspecific low back pain did not result in improved outcomes on pain intensity and patient-reported disability compared to a nontargeted approach. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(9):1-11. Epub: 28 July 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11962.

The effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy procedures for spine pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a guideline-recommended treatment option for spinal pain. The recommendation is based on multiple systematic reviews. However, these reviews fail to consider that clinical effects may depend on SMT "application procedures" (i.e., how and where SMT is applied). Using network meta-analyses, we aim to investigate which SMT "application procedures" have the greatest magnitude of clinical effectiveness for reducing pain and disability, for any spinal complaint, at short-term and long-term follow-up. We will compare application procedural parameters by classifying the thrust application technique and the application site (patient positioning, assisted, vertebral target, region target, Technique name, forces, and vectors, application site selection approach and rationale) against: 1. Waiting list/no treatment; 2. Sham interventions not resembling SMT (e.g., detuned ultrasound); 3. Sham interventions resembling SMT; 4. Other therapies not recommended in clinical practice guidelines; and 5. Other therapies recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Secondly, we will examine how contextual elements, including procedural fidelity (whether the SMT was delivered as planned) and clinical applicability (whether the SMT is similar to clinical practice) of the SMT. METHODS: We will include randomized controlled trials (RCT) found through three search strategies, (i) exploratory, (ii) systematic, and (iii) other known sources. We define SMT as a high-velocity low-amplitude thrust or grade V mobilization. Eligibility is any RCT assessing SMT against any other type of SMT, any other active or sham intervention, or no treatment control on adult patients with pain in any spinal region. The RCTs must report on continuous pain intensity and/or disability outcomes. Two authors will independently review title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. Spinal manipulative therapy techniques will be classified according to the technique application and choice of application sites. We will conduct a network-meta analysis using a frequentist approach and multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses. DISCUSSION: This will be the most extensive review of thrust SMT to date, and will allow us to estimate the importance of different SMT application procedures used in clinical practice and taught across educational settings. Thus, the results are applicable to clinical practice, educational settings, and research studies. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022375836.

Do Visual Pain Trajectories Reflect the Actual Course of Low Back Pain? A Longitudinal Cohort Study.

Different trajectories of low back pain (LBP) have been identified prospectively using repeated measures. For these trajectories to inform clinical practice, they must be available in the clinical consultation. Therefore, identified LBP trajectories have been translated into visual pain trajectories (VPTs) that allow people with LBP, at the time of consult, to reflect upon their pain experience and identify the VPT that best categorizes their pain course. We have limited knowledge regarding the extent to which a chosen VPT reflects the prospectively experienced trajectory. Thus, we explored the distribution of pain intensity and pain pattern characteristics (from prospective pain trajectory data) within the retrospectively chosen VPT classes. We enrolled patients with LBP from Danish chiropractic practice. Using SMS, participants (n = 719) scored their pain weekly on an 11-point numerical rating scale for 52 weeks. At week 52, participants identified 1 of 8 VPTs that reflected their perceived back pain trajectory during the preceding year. We found that the chosen VPTs reflected pain intensity, but that pain patterns (episodic, fluctuating, and persistent) were not systematically recognized, and the experienced course varied substantially amongst participants within the same VPT. The VPTs are related to some aspects of the experienced LBP course but are not a proxy for the SMS-measured trajectories. Reasons for apparent mismatches between the experienced course of LBP and VPT recall warrant further investigation. PERSPECTIVE: Self-reported back pain trajectories reflected pain intensities obtained through weekly SMS tracking over a year, but participants' recall did not reflect the pain patterns (episodes and fluctuations) discovered prospectively. Clinicians can use self-reported pain trajectories to facilitate a dialog about pain experience, but not as a proxy for prospective measures.

Multidisciplinary team-based management approach for secondary-care patients with severe and persistent low back pain: A mixed-method feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Persistent and severe low back pain is challenging to treat. Multidisciplinary care with systematic follow-up may be more effective than usual care. However, such a model has yet to be developed and tested. OBJECTIVE: Our objectives were to develop and test the feasibility of a three-month multidisciplinary intervention with systematic follow-up in a specialized hospital spine center for patients with severe and persistent low back pain. METHODS: Using the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health and Care Research framework for the development and testing of complex interventions, we developed a multidisciplinary intervention with systematic follow-up and tested its feasibility, using a-priori-determined outcomes during three months for 24 patients seen at a regional diagnostic spine center unit. As part of the evaluation, we conducted semi-structured interviews with participants and a focus-group interview with clinicians. RESULTS: Of the 24 patients included, only 17 completed the course of care and provided complete data for feasibility assessment. We failed to reach our a-priori feasibility outcomes, had difficulty with inclusion, and participants did not find the intervention effective or satisfactory. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was not feasible as barriers existed on multiple levels (e.g., clinical, administrative, and patient). Excessive study moderations must be made before the intervention is feasible in a randomized trial.

No effect of social interaction on experimental pain sensitivity: a randomized experimental study.

ABSTRACT: Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is a commonly applied paradigm to investigate pain, which is a subjective experience influenced by a myriad of social and contextual factors. Therefore, it is important to consider the potential sensitivity of QST to the test setting and the social interaction that naturally is a part of it. This may particularly be the case in clinical settings where patients have something at stake. Therefore, we investigated differences in pain responses using QST in different test setups with varying degrees of human interaction. In a parallel three-armed randomized experimental study, we included 92 participants with low back pain and 87 healthy volunteers allocated to 1 of the 3 QST setups: 1 setup with manual tests performed by a human tester, 1 setup with automated tests performed by a robot and orally guided by a human tester, and 1 setup with automated tests performed solely by a robot without social interaction with a human tester. All 3 setups consisted of the same pain tests in the same order, including pressure pain threshold and cold pressor tests. We found no statistically significant differences between setups on the primary outcome of conditioned pain modulation nor any secondary QST outcomes. While this study is not without limitations, the results indicate that QST procedures are robust enough not to be influenced by social interaction to an appreciable degree.

A two-year follow-up: Twitter activity regarding misinformation about spinal manipulation, chiropractic care and boosting immunity during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is offered by many health professions, most often by chiropractors. While SMT can be effective for some musculoskeletal disorders, there is no evidence that SMT improves human immunity in a clinically meaningful way. Despite this, we showed previously that Twitter misinformation about chiropractic/SMT  improving immunity increased sharply at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we perform a two-year follow-up. METHODS: We previously employed specialized software (i.e. Talkwalker) to search the entirety of Twitter activity in the  months before and after the COVID-19 pandemic was declared (March 11, 2020). In this paper, we conducted follow-up searches over two successive 12 month periods using terms related to SMT, immunity and chiropractic. The resulting tweets were then coded into those promoting/refuting a relation between SMT and immunity (tone) and messaging about chiropractic/interventions (content). Further analyses were performed to subcategorize tweet content, tally likes, retweets and followers, and evaluate refuting tweets and the country of origin. Finally, we created a chronology of Twitter activity superimposed with dates of promoting or refuting activities undertaken by chiropractic organizations. RESULTS: Over the 27 month study period, Twitter activity peaked on March 31, 2020 then declined continuously. As in our first paper, our follow-up data showed that (1) the ratio of refuting/promoting tweets remained constant and (2) tweets that refuted a relationship between SMT and immunity were substantially more liked, retweeted and followed than those promoting. We also observed that promoting tweets suggesting that SMT improves immunity decreased more rapidly. Overwhelmingly, promoting tweets originated in the USA while refuting tweets originated in Canada, Europe and Australia. The timing of the decline in peak Twitter activity, together with a parallel decline in tweets claiming that SMT improves immunity, was coincident with initiatives by chiropractic organizations and regulators targeting misinformation. CONCLUSION: Overwhelmingly, Twitter activity during the COVID-19 pandemic focussed on refuting a relation between chiropractic/SMT and immunity. A decline in Twitter activity promoting a relation between SMT and immunity was observed to coincide with initiatives from chiropractic organizations and regulators to refute these claims. The majority of misinformation about this topic is generated in the United States.

Database coverage and their use in systematic reviews regarding spinal manipulative therapy: an exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered one of the most reliable study types. Through a systematic and thorough literature search, researchers aim to collect all research relevant to their purpose. The selection of databases can be challenging and depend on the topic of interest. The Cochrane Handbook suggests searching at least the following three databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. However, this is not always sufficient for reviews on the musculoskeletal field in general. This study aimed to examine the frequency and choice of databases used by researchers in SRs of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). Secondly, to analyze the RCTs included in the SRs to determine the optimal combination of databases needed to conduct efficient literature searches for SRs of SMT. METHODS: SRs investigating the effect of SMT on any patient-reported outcome measure were identified through searches in PubMed and Epistemonikos (all entries till date of search February 25, 2022). For each SR, databases searched and included RCTs were collected. RCTs were searched individually in nine databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Web of Science, Index to Chiropractic Literature, PEDro, and AMED). Coverage rates were calculated using the number of retrieved RCTs by the database or combinations of databases divided by the total number of RCTs. RESULTS: Eighty-five SRs published met the inclusion criteria, and 442 unique RCTs were retrieved. The most frequently searched database was MEDLINE/PubMed. Cochrane Library had the highest overall coverage rate and contained the third most unique RCTs. While a 100% retrieval was not possible, as 18 RCTs could not be retrieved in any of the nine databases, the combination of Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and PEDro retrieved all possible RCTs with a combined coverage rate of 95.9%. CONCLUSIONS: For SRs on SMT, we recommend using the combination suggested by the Cochrane Handbook of Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and in addition, PEDro and Index to Chiropractic Literature. Google Scholar might be used additionally as a tool for searching gray literature and quality assurance.