The chiropractors' dilemma in caring for older patients with musculoskeletal complaints: Collaborate, integrate, coexist, or separate?

The world's elderly population is growing at a rapid pace. This has led to an increase in demand on the health and welfare systems due to age-related disorders, with musculoskeletal complaints driving the need for rehabilitation services. However, there are concerns about health services' ability to meet this demand. While chiropractic care is gaining recognition for its benefits in treating older adults with musculoskeletal disorders, there is limited scientific literature on chiropractors' role and experiences in this area. To bridge this gap, we interviewed 21 chiropractors in Great Britain, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. Inductive qualitative content analysis was used to analyse the interviews, and despite differences in integration and regulation between the countries, several common facilitators and barriers in caring for and managing older patients with musculoskeletal complaints emerged. While participants expressed optimism about future collaborations with other healthcare professionals and the integration of chiropractic into national healthcare systems, they also highlighted significant concerns regarding the existing healthcare infrastructure. The participants also felt that chiropractors, with their non-surgical and holistic approach, were well-positioned to be the primary point of contact for older patients. However, there were some common barriers, such as the affordability of care, limited integration of chiropractic, and the need to prioritise musculoskeletal complaints within public healthcare. Our findings suggest that chiropractors experience their clinical competencies as an underutilised resource in the available healthcare systems and that they could contribute to and potentially reduce the escalating burden of musculoskeletal complaints and associated costs among older patients. Additionally, our findings highlight the desire among the participants to foster collaboration among healthcare professionals and integrate chiropractic into the national public healthcare system. Integrating chiropractors as allied health professionals was also perceived to improve coordinated, patient-centred healthcare for older adults.

Moderators of treatment effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for patients with (sub) acute low back pain: Protocol for a systematic review with individual participant data meta-analysis.

A Cochrane review found that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are slightly more effective than placebo on acute and subacute low back pain (LBP) outcomes (pain intensity, disability, and global improvement). Our objectives are: (1) to assess the overall treatment effect of NSAIDs in adults with acute and subacute LBP; (2) to identify the moderation of baseline patients' characteristics on treatment effect. We will conduct a systematic search of RCTs on effectiveness of NSAIDs compared with placebo in adults with non-chronic LBP in Medline ALL, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials*. We will screen the records after January 2020, and include eligible RCTs before January 2020 screened by the Cochrane review mentioned above. Our primary outcomes are pain intensity, disability, and health-related quality of life, secondary outcomes are adverse events. Our IPD dataset will consist of the information on each eligible trial characteristics and included variables according to a predefined coding scheme. We will assess risk-of-bias of included RCTs with the Cochrane Risk Of Bias (RoB)-2 assessment tool. We will perform power calculations with closed-form solutions and prioritize a one-stage approach for IPD-MA. For reporting the results, we will adhere to the PRISMA-IPD statement.

Care at a distance: Understanding lived experiences of people with MSK disorders receiving non-pharmacological interventions delivered through synchronous telehealth: A systematic rapid review.

Background: Little is known about lived experience of synchronous telehealth in patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders. Objective: We conducted a rapid systematic review to answer: (1) what are the lived experiences and/or perspectives of people with MSK disorders receiving non-pharmacological interventions delivered through synchronous telehealth; and (2) what clinical implications can be inferred from qualitative studies focusing on lived experiences for how telehealth is delivered in the management of MSK disorders? Data sources: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuest, and Google Scholar from June 2010 to July 2023. Eligible qualitative and mixed methods studies capturing lived experiences of adults with MSK disorders receiving non-pharmacological interventions via synchronous telehealth were included. Study methods: Systematic rapid review conducted according to WHO guidelines. Titles and abstracts screened by reviewers independently, eligible studies critically appraised, and data was extracted. Themes summarized using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) used to assess confidence in synthesis findings. Results: We identified 9782 references, screened 8029, and critically appraised 22, and included 17 studies. There is evidence to suggest that the experience of telehealth prior to and during the pandemic was shaped by (1) patient perception of telehealth, (2) existing relationships with practitioners, (3) availability and accessibility of telehealth technologies, and (4) perceptions about the importance of the role of the physical exam in assessing and treating MSK disorders. Conclusion: The five identified implications could be used to inform future research, policy, and strategy development.

Exercise therapy for treatment of acute non-specific low back pain: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of exercise for acute non-specific low back pain (LBP) versus our main comparisons: 1) sham treatment, and 2) no treatment at short-term (main follow-up time). DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: A comprehensive search up till November 2021 was conducted in numerous databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of exercise in adults with acute LBP (< 6 weeks). Studies examining LBP with a specific aetiology were excluded. The primary outcomes were back pain, back-specific functional status and recovery. DATA EXTRACTION: Two review authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. GRADE was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 23 RCTs (2674 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain (mean difference (MD) -0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.79 to 4.19; 1 study, 299 participants) and on functional status (MD 2.00, 95% CI -2.20 to 6.20; 1 study, 299 participants) in the short term. There is very low-quality evidence which suggests no difference in effect on pain and functional status for exercise vs. no treatment (2 studies; n=157, not pooled due to heterogeneity) at short-term follow-up. Similar results were found for the other follow-up moments. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded because many RCTs had a high risk of bias, were small in size and/or there was substantial heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Exercise therapy compared to sham/placebo and no treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. Owing to insufficient reporting of adverse events, we were unable to reach any conclusions on the safety or harms related to exercise therapy.

Is the use of diagnostic imaging and the self-reported clinical management of low back pain patients influenced by the attitudes and beliefs of chiropractors? A survey of chiropractors in the Netherlands and Belgium.

BACKGROUND: No previous studies have examined the association between attitudes and beliefs of chiropractors and their adherence to low back pain (LBP) guidelines. The aim of this study is: (1) to assess the attitudes and beliefs towards the management of LBP of Dutch and Belgian chiropractors; and (2) to investigate the association of these attitudes and beliefs on the use of diagnostic imaging and on the adherence to diagnostic guidelines and guidelines in the management of patients with LBP. METHODS: STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using a web-based questionnaire in chiropractic private practices in the Netherlands and Belgium. The survey included sociodemographic characteristics, use of diagnostic imaging, the Pain Attitude and Beliefs Scale-Physiotherapists (PABS.PT) and 6 vignettes (3 acute and 3 chronic LBP patients). We used Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) to categorise the chiropractors into clusters depending on their PABS.PT outcome, whereby the classes differed primarily on the biomedical score. We used linear, logistic, and mixed models to examine the associations between these clusters, and adherence to the recommendations of guidelines on: (1) diagnostic imaging use, and (2) management of LBP (i.e. advice on activity, treatment, return-to-work, and bedrest). RESULTS: The response rate of the Dutch and Belgian chiropractors was 61% (n = 149/245) and 57% (n = 54/95), respectively. The majority of chiropractors scored midrange of the biomedical scale of the PABS.PT. Three clusters were identified using LPA: (1) high biomedical class (n = 18), (2) mid biomedical class (n = 117) and (3) low biomedical class (n = 23). Results from the vignettes suggest that chiropractors in the high biomedical class better adhere to diagnostic imaging guidelines and to LBP guidelines when it concerns advice on return-to-work and activity compared to the other two classes. However, no differences were identified between the classes for treatment of LBP. All chiropractors adhered to the guidelines' recommendation on bedrest. CONCLUSION: The high biomedical class demonstrated better overall adherence to the practice guidelines for the management of LBP and diagnostic imaging than the other classes. Due to the small numbers for the high and low biomedical classes, these results should be interpreted with caution.

Exercise therapy for treatment of acute non-specific low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability globally. It generates considerable direct costs (healthcare) and indirect costs (lost productivity). The many available treatments for LBP include exercise therapy, which is practised extensively worldwide. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of exercise therapy for acute non-specific low back pain in adults compared to sham/placebo treatment or no treatment at short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term follow-up. SEARCH METHODS: This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005. We conducted an updated search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, and two trial registers. We screened the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews published since 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that examined the effects of exercise therapy on non-specific LBP lasting six weeks or less in adults. Major outcomes for this review were pain, functional status, and perceived recovery. Minor outcomes were return to work, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. Our main comparisons were exercise therapy versus sham/placebo treatment and exercise therapy versus no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We evaluated outcomes at short-term follow-up (time point within three months and closest to six weeks after randomisation; main follow-up), intermediate-term follow-up (between nine months and closest to six months), and long-term follow-up (after nine months and closest to 12 months); and we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 studies (13 from the previous review, 10 new studies) that involved 2674 participants and provided data for 2637 participants. Three small studies are awaiting classification, and four eligible studies are ongoing. Included studies were conducted in Europe (N = 9), the Asia-Pacific region (N = 9), and North America (N = 5); and most took place in a primary care setting (N = 12), secondary care setting (N = 6), or both (N = 1). In most studies, the population was middle-aged and included men and women. We judged 10 studies (43%) at low risk of bias with regard to sequence generation and allocation concealment. Blinding is not feasible in exercise therapy, introducing performance and detection bias. There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain scores in the short term (mean difference (MD) -0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.79 to 4.19; 1 study, 299 participants). The absolute difference was 1% less pain (95% CI 4% more to 6% less), and the relative difference was 4% less pain (95% CI 20% more to 28% less). The mean pain score was 20.1 (standard deviation (SD) 21) for the intervention group and 20.9 (SD 23) for the control group. There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on functional status scores in the short term (MD 2.00, 95% CI -2.20 to 6.20; 1 study, 299 participants). The absolute difference was 2% worse functional status (95% CI 2% better to 6% worse), and the relative difference was 15% worse (95% CI 17% better to 47% worse). The mean functional status score was 15.3 (SD 19) for the intervention group and 13.3 (SD 18) for the control group. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for pain and functional status by one level for risk of bias and by two levels for imprecision (only one study with fewer than 400 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with no treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term (2 studies, 157 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by two levels for imprecision and by one level for inconsistency. One study associated exercise with small benefits and the other found no differences. The first study was conducted in an occupational healthcare centre, where participants received one exercise therapy session. The other study was conducted in secondary and tertiary care settings, where participants received treatment three times per week for six weeks. We did not pool data from these studies owing to considerable clinical heterogeneity. In two studies, there were no reported adverse events. One study reported adverse events unrelated to exercise therapy. The remaining studies did not report whether any adverse events had occurred. Owing to insufficient reporting of adverse events, we were unable to reach any conclusions on the safety or harms related to exercise therapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exercise therapy compared to sham/placebo treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. Exercise therapy compared to no treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to very low for inconsistency, risk of bias concerns, and imprecision (few participants).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spinal manipulative therapy in older adults with chronic low back pain: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Many systematic reviews have reported on the effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for low back pain (LBP) in adults. Much less is known about the older population regarding the effects of SMT. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of SMT on pain and function in older adults with chronic LBP in an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. SETTING: Electronic databases from 2000 until June 2020, and reference lists of eligible trials and related reviews. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the effects of SMT in adults with chronic LBP compared to interventions recommended in international LBP guidelines. METHODS: Authors of trials eligible for our IPD meta-analysis were contacted to share data. Two review authors conducted a risk of bias assessment. Primary results were examined in a one-stage mixed model, and a two-stage analysis was conducted in order to confirm findings. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Pain and functional status examined at 4, 13, 26, and 52 weeks. RESULTS: 10 studies were retrieved, including 786 individuals, of which 261 were between 65 and 91 years of age. There is moderate-quality evidence that SMT results in similar outcomes at 4 weeks (pain: mean difference [MD] - 2.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 5.78 to 0.66; functional status: standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.18, 95% CI - 0.41 to 0.05). Second-stage and sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: SMT provides similar outcomes to recommended interventions for pain and functional status in the older adult with chronic LBP. SMT should be considered a treatment for this patient population.

The effect of spinal manipulative therapy on pain relief and function in patients with chronic low back pain: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A 2019 review concluded that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) results in similar benefit compared to other interventions for chronic low back pain (LBP). Compared to traditional aggregate analyses individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses allows for a more precise estimate of the treatment effect. PURPOSE: To assess the effect of SMT on pain and function for chronic LBP in a IPD meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases from 2000 until April 2016, and reference lists of eligible trials and related reviews. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) examining the effect of SMT in adults with chronic LBP compared to any comparator. DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: We contacted authors from eligible trials. Two review authors independently conducted the study selection and risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. A one-stage mixed model analysis was conducted. Negative point estimates of the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) favors SMT. RESULTS: Of the 42 RCTs fulfilling the inclusion criteria, we obtained IPD from 21 (n=4223). Most trials (s=12, n=2249) compared SMT to recommended interventions. There is moderate quality evidence that SMT vs recommended interventions resulted in similar outcomes on pain (MD -3.0, 95%CI: -6.9 to 0.9, 10 trials, 1922 participants) and functional status at one month (SMD: -0.2, 95% CI -0.4 to 0.0, 10 trials, 1939 participants). Effects at other follow-up measurements were similar. Results for other comparisons (SMT vs non-recommended interventions; SMT as adjuvant therapy; mobilization vs manipulation) showed similar findings. SMT vs sham SMT analysis was not performed, because we only had data from one study. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. LIMITATIONS: Only 50% of the eligible trials were included. CONCLUSIONS: Sufficient evidence suggest that SMT provides similar outcomes to recommended interventions, for pain relief and improvement of functional status. SMT would appear to be a good option for the treatment of chronic LBP. Systematic Review Registration Number PROSPERO CRD42015025714.

Moderators of the Effect of Spinal Manipulative Therapy on Pain Relief and Function in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify which participant characteristics moderate the effect of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) on pain and functioning in chronic LBP. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND: The effects of SMT are comparable to other interventions recommended in guidelines for chronic low back pain (LBP); however, it is unclear which patients are more likely to benefit from SMT compared to other therapies. METHODS: IPD were requested from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of SMT in adults with chronic LBP for pain and function compared to various other therapies (stratified by comparison). Potential patient moderators (n = 23) were a priori based on their clinical relevance. We investigated each moderator using a one-stage approach with IPD and investigated this interaction with the intervention for each time point (1, 3, 6, and 12 months). RESULTS: We received IPD from 21 of 46 RCTs (n = 4223). The majority (12 RCTs, n = 2249) compared SMT to recommended interventions. The duration of LBP, baseline pain (confirmatory), smoking, and previous exposure to SMT (exploratory) had a small moderating effect across outcomes and follow-up points; these estimates did not represent minimally relevant differences in effects; for example, patients with <1 year of LBP demonstrated more positive point estimates for SMT versus recommended therapy for the outcome pain (mean differences ranged from 4.97 (95% confidence interval, CI: -3.20 to 13.13) at 3 months, 10.76 (95% CI: 1.06 to 20.47) at 6 months to 5.26 (95% CI: -2.92 to 13.44) at 12 months in patients with over a year LBP. No other moderators demonstrated a consistent pattern across time and outcomes. Few moderator analyses were conducted for the other comparisons because of too few data. CONCLUSION: We did not identify any moderators that enable clinicians to identify which patients are likely to benefit more from SMT compared to other treatments.Level of Evidence: 2.

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

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

Combining independent decisions increases diagnostic accuracy of reading lumbosacral radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging.

Diagnosing the causes of low back pain is a challenging task, prone to errors. A novel approach to increase diagnostic accuracy in medical decision making is collective intelligence, which refers to the ability of groups to outperform individual decision makers in solving problems. We investigated whether combining the independent ratings of chiropractors, chiropractic radiologists and medical radiologists can improve diagnostic accuracy when interpreting diagnostic images of the lumbosacral spine. Evaluations were obtained from two previously published studies: study 1 consisted of 13 raters independently rating 300 lumbosacral radiographs; study 2 consisted of 14 raters independently rating 100 lumbosacral magnetic resonance images. In both studies, raters evaluated the presence of "abnormalities", which are indicators of a serious health risk and warrant immediate further examination. We combined independent decisions of raters using a majority rule which takes as final diagnosis the decision of the majority of the group. We compared the performance of the majority rule to the performance of single raters. Our results show that with increasing group size (i.e., increasing the number of independent decisions) both sensitivity and specificity increased in both data-sets, with groups consistently outperforming single raters. These results were found for radiographs and MR image reading alike. Our findings suggest that combining independent ratings can improve the accuracy of lumbosacral diagnostic image reading.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Lumbosacral Spine Magnetic Resonance Image Reading by Chiropractors, Chiropractic Radiologists, and Medical Radiologists.

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study was conducted in 2 sessions. OBJECTIVE: It is important to know whether it is possible to accurately detect "specific findings" on lumbosacral magnetic resonance (MR) images and whether the results of different observers are comparable. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Health care providers frequently use magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnostic process of patients with low back pain. The use of MR scans is increasing. This leads to an increase in costs and to an increase in risk of inaccurately labeling patients with an anatomical diagnosis that might not be the actual cause of symptoms. METHODS: A set of 300 blinded MR images was read by medical radiologists, chiropractors, and chiropractic radiologists in 2 sessions. Each assessor read 100 scans in round 1 and 50 scans in round 2. The reference test was an expert panel.For all analyses, the magnetic resonance imaging findings were dichotomized into "specific findings" or "no specific findings." For the agreement, percentage agreement and κ values were calculated and for validity, sensitivity, and specificity. Sensitivity analysis was done for classifications A and B (prevalence of 31% and 57%, respectively). RESULTS: The intraobserver κ values for chiropractors, chiropractic radiologists, and medical radiologists were 0.46, 0.49, and 0.69 for A and 0.55, 0.75, and 0.64 for B, respectively.The interobserver κ values were lowest for chiropractors (0.28 for A, 0.37 for B) and highest for chiropractic radiologists (0.50 for A, 0.49 for B).The sensitivities of the medical radiologists, chiropractors, and chiropractic radiologists were 0.62, 0.71, and 0.75 for A and 0.70, 0.74, 0.84 for B, respectively.The specificities of medical radiologists, chiropractic radiologists, and chiropractors were 0.82, 0.77, and 0.70 for A and 0.74, 0.52, and 0.61 for B, respectively. CONCLUSION: Agreement and validity of MR image readings of chiropractors and chiropractic and medical radiologists is modest at best. This study supports recommendations in clinical guidelines against routine use of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with low back pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Clinical detection of abdominal aortic aneurysm in a 74-year-old man in chiropractic practice.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to present a case of abdominal aortic aneurysm to illustrate its clinical detection through history and physical examination and the importance of this condition to the chiropractic clinical setting. CLINICAL FEATURES: A 74-year-old retired man consulted a doctor of chiropractic for chronic low back pain. The history and physical examination confirmed chronic sacroiliac and a lumbar facet dysfunction. After 5 weeks, the patient stated he had stomach cramps. After this, a more thorough abdominal examination was done. The doctor of chiropractic detected an enlarged pulsatile mass upon abdominal palpation. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME: The patient was sent to the cardiologist and had successful surgery within weeks. CONCLUSION: An abdominal aortic aneurysm has specific symptoms and associated risk factors. If known risk factors are present, a clinical examination needs to be carried out, even though sensitivity of the clinical examination may be low. It should be a differential diagnosis in every male patient older than 50 years with low back pain. In case of suspicion, the patient should be referred for advanced imaging.

A congenital anomaly of the atlas as a diagnostic dilemma: a case report.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this case report is to draw attention to the differences between a Jefferson fracture and a congenital anomaly of the anterior and/or the posterior arch of the atlas. CLINICAL FEATURES: A 42-year-old woman visited the chiropractic practice complaining of headache, neck pain, dizziness, and numbness in both of her arms after she fell vertically and directly on her head twice on a playground. Before this fall, she had no such complaints. After taking x-rays of the cervical spine, a Jefferson fracture was suspected. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME: After computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scanning, the patient was diagnosed with a congenital anomaly that looked very similar to a Jefferson fracture. After instability of the cervical spine was excluded by the neurosurgeon, chiropractic treatment was delivered. After 6 treatments, the complaints were significantly reduced. CONCLUSION: It is important to be familiar with the differences between a congenital anomaly of the atlas and a Jefferson fracture and to exclude instability of the upper cervical spine before treatment is started.

Variance in manual treatment of nonspecific low back pain between orthomanual physicians, manual therapists, and chiropractors.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to identify differences in the diagnosis and treatment of nonspecific low back pain among 3 professional groups in the Netherlands: orthomanual physicians, manual therapists, and chiropractors. METHODS: Information was obtained from training materials from professional groups, literature searches, and observation of selected practitioners at work. RESULTS: In The Netherlands, there are differences in education between the 3 professional groups. The focus of orthomanual medicine is on abnormal positions of components of the skeleton and symmetry in the spine. Manual therapy focuses on functional disorders of the musculoskeletal system. Chiropractic focuses on the musculoskeletal and nervous systems in relation to patients' health in general. Orthomanual medicine considers inspection and palpation the most important diagnostic tools. Manual therapists and chiropractors additionally perform tests to determine functional disorders and manual therapists evaluate psychosocial influences. Chiropractors take radiographs if necessary. Orthomanual physicians apply mobilization techniques using fixed protocols. Manual therapists and chiropractors use various manipulation and mobilization techniques and their manipulation techniques differ in amplitude and velocity. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic techniques and treatment methods of the 3 professional groups differ considerably. For more accurate reporting of the efficacy of manipulative and mobilizing therapies, the characteristics of treatments should be described in more detail when reported in studies such as randomized clinical trials.

Reliability and validity of lumbosacral spine radiograph reading by chiropractors, chiropractic radiologists, and medical radiologists.

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional diagnostic study was conducted in two sessions. OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the reliability and validity of contraindications to chiropractic treatment (infections, malignancies, inflammatory spondylitis, and spondylolysis-listhesis) detected by chiropractors, chiropractic radiologists, and medical radiologists on plain lumbosacral radiographs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Plain radiography of the spine is an established part of chiropractic practice. Few studies have assessed the ability of chiropractors to read plain radiographs. METHODS: Five chiropractors, three chiropractic radiologists and five medical radiologists read a set of 300 blinded lumbosacral radiographs, 50 of which showed an abnormality (prevalence, 16.7%), in two sessions. The results were expressed in terms of reliability (percentage and kappa) and validity (sensitivity and specificity). RESULTS: The interobserver agreement in the first session showed generalized kappas of 0.44 for the chiropractors, 0.55 for the chiropractic radiologists, and 0.60 for the medical radiologists. The intraobserver agreement showed mean kappas of 0.58, 0.68, and 0.72, respectively. The difference between the chiropractic radiologists and medical radiologists was not significant. However, there was a difference between the chiropractors and the other professional groups. The mean sensitivity and specificity of the first round, respectively was 0.86 and 0.88 for the chiropractors, 0.90 and 0.84 for the chiropractic radiologists, and 0.84 and 0.92 for the medical radiologists. No differences in the sensitivities were found between the professional groups. The medical radiologists were more specific than the others. CONCLUSIONS: Small differences with little clinical relevance were found. All the professional groups could adequately detect contraindications to chiropractic treatment on radiographs. For this indication, there is no reason to restrict interpretation of radiographs to medical radiologists. Good professional relationships between the professions are recommended to facilitate interprofessional consultation in case of doubt by the chiropractors.