The association of biomarkers with pain and function in acute and subacute low back pain: a secondary analysis of an RCT.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common musculoskeletal condition and a major cause of disability worldwide. Previous studies have found associations of biomarkers with pain and pain-related disability in LBP patients. This study aimed to explore the association between serum biomarkers and pain and disability in patients with acute or subacute axial LBP. METHODS: This study was ancillary to a parent randomized controlled trial. Enrolled participants were randomized into three intervention groups: one of two types of spinal manipulation or medical care. In the parent study, 107 adults who experienced a new episode of LBP within 3 months prior to enrollment were recruited. For this study, 90 of these 107 participants consented to have blood samples obtained, which were drawn immediately before the beginning of treatment. Seven biomarkers were chosen based on previous literature and analyzed. Clinical outcomes were pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) evaluated at baseline and 4 weeks. Spearman's |r| was used to study the association of initial levels of each biomarker with pain and ODI scores at baseline and with changes in outcome scores from baseline to 4 weeks (end of treatment) within each intervention group. RESULTS: At baseline, 4 of 7 biomarkers had an association with pain that was |r| ≥ .20: neuropeptide Y (NPY) (r = 0.23, p = .028), E-Selectin (r = 0.22, p = .043), vitamin D ((r = - 0.32, p = .002), and c-reactive protein (CRP) (r = 0.37, p = .001). No baseline biomarker had an association with disability that was |r| ≥ 0.20. For the correlations of baseline biomarkers with 4-week change in outcomes, vitamin D showed a correlation with change in disability and/or pain (|r| ≥ 0.20, p > .05) in manipulation-related groups, while CRP, NPY, and E-selectin along with TNFα, Substance P and RANTES showed at least one correlation with change in pain or disability (|r| ≥ 0.20, p > .05) in at least one of the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In 90 LBP patients, the analyzed biomarkers, especially vitamin D, represent a small set of potential candidates for further research aimed at individualizing patient care. Overall, the associations investigated in the current study are an initial step in identifying the direct mechanisms of LBP and predicting outcomes of manipulation-related treatments or medical care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01211613, Date of Registration: September 29, 2010, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01211613?term=schneider&cond=Low+Back+Pain&cntry=US&state=US%3APA&draw=2&rank=1.

Comparative Effectiveness of Usual Care With or Without Chiropractic Care in Patients with Recurrent Musculoskeletal Back and Neck Pain.

BACKGROUND: Chiropractic care is a popular alternative for back and neck pain, with efficacy comparable to usual care in randomized trials. However, the effectiveness of chiropractic care as delivered through conventional care settings remains largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of usual care with or without chiropractic care for patients with chronic recurrent musculoskeletal back and neck pain. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study using propensity score-matched controls. PARTICIPANTS: Using retrospective electronic health record data, we developed a propensity score model predicting likelihood of chiropractic referral. Eligible patients with back or neck pain were then contacted upon referral for chiropractic care and enrolled in a prospective study. For each referred patient, two propensity score-matched non-referred patients were contacted and enrolled. We followed the participants prospectively for 6 months. MAIN MEASURES: Main outcomes included pain severity, interference, and symptom bothersomeness. Secondary outcomes included expenditures for pain-related health care. KEY RESULTS: Both groups' (N = 70 referred, 139 non-referred) pain scores improved significantly over the first 3 months, with less change between months 3 and 6. No significant between-group difference was observed. (severity - 0.10 (95% CI - 0.30, 0.10), interference - 0.07 (- 0.31, 0.16), bothersomeness - 0.1 (- 0.39, 0.19)). After controlling for variances in baseline costs, total costs during the 6-month post-enrollment follow-up were significantly higher on average in the non-referred versus referred group ($1996 [SD = 3874] vs $1086 [SD = 1212], p = .034). Adjusting for differences in age, gender, and Charlson comorbidity index attenuated this finding, which was no longer statistically significant (p = .072). CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant difference between the two groups in either patient-reported or economic outcomes. As clinical outcomes were similar, and the provision of chiropractic care did not increase costs, making chiropractic services available provided an additional viable option for patients who prefer this type of care, at no additional expense.

Relationship Between Radiographic Lumbosacral Spine Mensuration and Chronic Low Back Pain Intensity: A Cross-sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate correlative factors affecting chronic low back pain (CLBP), with special emphasis on the radiographic postural findings in the sagittal lumbosacral spine. METHODS: A cross-sectional study alongside a randomized trial was conducted. Standing lateral lumbar spine radiographs from 352 patients with CLBP enrolled in a randomized trial were analyzed and radiographic mensuration of lumbar lordosis, lumbosacral disc angle, and sacral inclination performed. These angles were correlated with baseline variables, including CLBP intensity, age, and sex. Multiple polynomial regressions were performed in which CLBP intensity was regressed on linear and quadratic terms of lumbar lordosis to investigate the possibility of greater pain with hypo- and/or hyperlordosis. RESULTS: There was no significant correlation of the angles with pain and age (r ≤ 0.09, P > .05). Weak but statistically significant correlation was identified between all 3 measurements and sex (r = -0.12 to 0.21, P < .05). Greater pain was not noted for hypo- and hyperlordosis; regression coefficients for the linear and quadratic effects were approximately 0 (P > .05). CONCLUSION: This study determined that there was no correlation between lumbar lordosis and pain levels for people with CLBP; thus, use of lumbar spine radiographic mensuration in the management of pain for people with CLBP is not recommended.

A Preliminary Study of Chiropractors' Beliefs About Biomedical and Biopsychosocial Pain: A Survey of University of Western States Alumni.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this preliminary study was to investigate differences between doctors of chiropractic with respect to their preference for the biomedical or biopsychosocial attitude and belief models. METHODS: Alumni of the University of Western States doctor of chiropractic program were asked to complete an online survey that included the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists. This scale yields a biomedical score (10-60 scale) and a biopsychosocial score (9-54 scale). These scores are reported for 5 participant characteristics: sex, country of residence (USA vs other), chiropractic program completed (University of Western States vs other), decade of graduation, and years in practice. Secondarily, multiple linear regression was performed to evaluate the independent effects of participant characteristics on the 2 Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists scales. RESULTS: Of 3877 surveys, 233 were included in the analysis (response rate = 4.7%-7.4%). The mean biomedical scale score was 33.9 (standard deviation = 6.5), and the mean biopsychosocial scale score was 32.4 (standard deviation = 4.1). There was little variation in scores across the 5 participant characteristics (P > .05). Cronbach's α for the biomedical scale reached an acceptable level of internal consistency (0.74). In contrast, Cronbach's α for the biopsychosocial scale was 0.40. CONCLUSION: This preliminary study found that in a sample of chiropractic program alumni of the University of Western States, there were no differences with respect to preference for the biomedical or biopsychosocial attitude and belief models. A better understanding requires a larger study comparing attitudes/beliefs with behavior in practice.

Spinal manipulation and exercise for low back pain in adolescents: a randomized trial.

Low back pain (LBP) is common in adolescence, but there is a paucity of high-quality research to inform care. We conducted a multicenter randomized trial comparing 12 weeks of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) combined with exercise therapy (ET) to ET alone. Participants were 185 adolescents aged 12 to 18 years with chronic LBP. The primary outcome was LBP severity at 12, 26, and 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes included disability, quality of life, medication use, patient- and caregiver-rated improvement, and satisfaction. Outcomes were analyzed using longitudinal linear mixed effect models. An omnibus test assessing differences in individual outcomes over the entire year controlled for multiplicity. Of the 185 enrolled patients, 179 (97%) provided data at 12 weeks and 174 (94%) at 26 and 52 weeks. Adding SMT to ET resulted in a larger reduction in LBP severity over the course of 1 year (P = 0.007). The group difference in LBP severity (0-10 scale) was small at the end of treatment (mean difference = 0.5; P = 0.08) but was larger at weeks 26 (mean difference = 1.1; P = 0.001) and 52 (mean difference = 0.8; P = 0.009). At 26 weeks, SMT with ET performed better than ET alone for disability (P = 0.04) and improvement (P = 0.02). The SMT with ET group reported significantly greater satisfaction with care at all time points (P ≤ 0.02). There were no serious treatment-related adverse events. For adolescents with chronic LBP, spinal manipulation combined with exercise was more effective than exercise alone over a 1-year period, with the largest differences occurring at 6 months. These findings warrant replication and evaluation of cost effectiveness.

Dose-response and efficacy of spinal manipulation for care of cervicogenic headache: a dual-center randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The optimal number of visits for the care of cervicogenic headache (CGH) with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is unknown. PURPOSE: The present study aimed to identify the dose-response relationship between visits for SMT and chronic CGH outcomes and to evaluate the efficacy of SMT by comparison with a light-massage control. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This is a two-site, open-label randomized controlled trial. PATIENT SAMPLE: Participants were 256 adults with chronic CGH. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was days with CGH in the previous 4 weeks evaluated at the 12- and 24-week primary end points. Secondary outcomes included CGH days at remaining end points, pain intensity, disability, perceived improvement, medication use, and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Participants were randomized to four dose levels of chiropractic SMT: 0, 6, 12, or 18 sessions. They were treated three times per week for 6 weeks and received a focused light-massage control at sessions when SMT was not assigned. Linear dose effects and comparisons with the no-manipulation control group were evaluated at 6, 12, 24, 39, and 52 weeks. The present study was funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (R01AT006330) and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01530321). The authors declare no conflicts of interest. RESULTS: A linear dose-response was observed for all follow-ups, a reduction of approximately 1 CGH day/4 weeks per additional 6 SMT visits (p<.05); a maximal effective dose could not be determined. Cervicogenic headache days/4 weeks were reduced from about 16 to 8 for the highest and most effective dose of 18 SMT visits. Mean differences in CGH days/4 weeks between 18 SMT visits and control were -3.3 (p=.004) and -2.9 (p=.017) at the primary end points, and were similar in magnitude at the remaining end points (p<.05). Differences between other SMT doses and control were smaller in magnitude (p>.05). Cervicogenic headache intensity showed no important improvement nor differed by dose. Other secondary outcomes were generally supportive of the primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: There was a linear dose-response relationship between SMT visits and days with CGH. For the highest and most effective dose of 18 SMT visits, CGH days were reduced by half and about 3 more days per month than for the light-massage control.

Accelerometer-Determined Physical Activity and Clinical Low Back Pain Measures in Adolescents With Chronic or Subacute Recurrent Low Back Pain.

Study Design Cross-sectional. Background Although low back pain (LBP) occurs commonly in adolescence, little is known about the relationship between objectively measured physical activity and chronic LBP. Objectives To assess the relationship between an objective physical activity measure (accelerometer) and standard clinical measures (pain intensity, disability, and quality of life) in a sample of adolescents with recurrent or chronic LBP. Methods The study included a subsample of 143 adolescents, 12 to 18 years of age, from a randomized clinical trial. Pearson correlations (r) and bivariate linear regression were used to assess the relationship between baseline measures of sedentary, light, and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity using accelerometers and clinical measures of LBP (pain intensity, disability, and quality of life). Results Participants spent an average of 610.5 minutes in sedentary activity, 97.6 minutes in light physical activity, and 35.6 minutes in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per day. Physical activity was very weakly associated with clinical measures of LBP (r<0.13). None of the assessed correlations were statistically significant, and bivariate regression models showed that physical activity measures explained very little of the variability for clinical measures of LBP (R2<0.02). Conclusion We found no important relationship between objectively measured physical activity and self-reported LBP intensity, disability, or quality of life in adolescents with recurrent or chronic LBP. The parent randomized clinical trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01096628). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(10):769-774. Epub 12 Sep 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7345.

Best Practices for Chiropractic Care for Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Consensus Update.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to update evidence-based recommendations on the best practices for chiropractic care of older adults. METHODS: The project consisted of a systematic literature review and a consensus process. The following were searched from October 2009 through January 2016: MEDLINE, Index to Chiropractic Literature, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), Alt HealthWatch, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials. Search terms were: (manipulation, spinal OR manipulation, chiropractic OR chiropract*) AND (geriatric OR "older adult*"). Two reviewers independently screened articles and abstracts using inclusion and exclusion criteria. The systematic review informed the project steering committee, which revised the previous recommendations. A multidisciplinary panel of experts representing expertise in practice, research, and teaching in a variety of health professions serving older adults rated the revised recommendations. The RAND Corporation/University of California, Los Angeles methodology for a modified Delphi consensus process was used. RESULTS: A total of 199 articles were found; after exclusion criteria were applied, 6 articles about effectiveness or efficacy and 6 on safety were added. The Delphi process was conducted from April to June 2016. Of the 37 Delphi panelists, 31 were DCs and 6 were other health care professionals. Three Delphi rounds were conducted to reach consensus on all 45 statements. As a result, statements regarding the safety of manipulation were strengthened and additional statements were added recommending that DCs advise patients on exercise and that manipulation and mobilization contribute to general positive outcomes beyond pain reduction only. CONCLUSIONS: This document provides a summary of evidence-informed best practices for doctors of chiropractic for the evaluation, management, and manual treatment of older adult patients.

Effects of Diaphragmatic Breathing Patterns on Balance: A Preliminary Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of performing a larger study to determine if training in diaphragmatic breathing influences static and dynamic balance. METHODS: A group of 13 healthy persons (8 men, 5 women), who were staff, faculty, or students at the University of Western States participated in an 8-week breathing and balance study using an uncontrolled clinical trial design. Participants were given a series of breathing exercises to perform weekly in the clinic and at home. Balance and breathing were assessed at the weekly clinic sessions. Breathing was evaluated with Liebenson's breathing assessment, static balance with the Modified Balance Error Scoring System, and dynamic balance with OptoGait's March in Place protocol. RESULTS: Improvement was noted in mean diaphragmatic breathing scores (1.3 to 2.6, P < .001), number of single-leg stance balance errors (7.1 to 3.8, P = .001), and tandem stance balance errors (3.2 to 0.9, P = .039). A decreasing error rate in single-leg stance was associated with improvement in breathing score within participants over the 8 weeks of the study (-1.4 errors/unit breathing score change, P < .001). Tandem stance performance did not reach statistical significance (-0.5 error/unit change, P = .118). Dynamic balance was insensitive to balance change, being error free for all participants throughout the study. CONCLUSION: This proof-of-concept study indicated that promotion of a costal-diaphragmatic breathing pattern may be associated with improvement in balance and suggests that a study of this phenomenon using an experimental design is feasible.

Does case misclassification threaten the validity of studies investigating the relationship between neck manipulation and vertebral artery dissection stroke? No.

BACKGROUND: The purported relationship between cervical manipulative therapy (CMT) and stroke related to vertebral artery dissection (VAD) has been debated for several decades. A large number of publications, from case reports to case-control studies, have investigated this relationship. A recent article suggested that case misclassification in the case-control studies on this topic resulted in biased odds ratios in those studies. DISCUSSION: Given its rarity, the best epidemiologic research design for investigating the relationship between CMT and VAD is the case-control study. The addition of a case-crossover aspect further strengthens the scientific rigor of such studies by reducing bias. The most recent studies investigating the relationship between CMT and VAD indicate that the relationship is not causal. In fact, a comparable relationship between vertebral artery-related stroke and visits to a primary care physician has been observed. The statistical association between visits to chiropractors and VAD can best be explained as resulting from a patient with early manifestation of VAD (neck pain with or without headache) seeking the services of a chiropractor for relief of this pain. Sometime after the visit the patient experiences VAD-related stroke that would have occurred regardless of the care received. This explanation has been challenged by a recent article putting forth the argument that case misclassification is likely to have biased the odds ratios of the case-control studies that have investigated the association between CMT and vertebral artery related stroke. The challenge particularly focused on one of the case-control studies, which had concluded that the association between CMT and vertebral artery related stroke was not causal. It was suggested by the authors of the recent article that misclassification led to an underestimation of risk. We argue that the information presented in that article does not support the authors' claim for a variety of reasons, including the fact that the assumptions upon which their analysis is based lack substantiation and the fact that any possible misclassification would not have changed the conclusion of the study in question. CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not support the notion that misclassification threatens the validity of recent case-control studies investigating the relationship between CMT and VAD. Hence, the recent re-analysis cannot refute the conclusion from previous studies that CMT is not a cause of VAD.

The effectiveness and feasibility of an online educational program for improving evidence-based practice literacy: an exploratory randomized study of US chiropractors.

BACKGROUND: Online education programs are becoming a popular means to disseminate knowledge about evidence-based practice (EBP) among healthcare practitioners. This mode of delivery also offers a viable and potentially sustainable solution for teaching consistent EBP content to learners over time and across multiple geographical locations. We conducted a study with 3 main aims: 1) develop an online distance-learning program about the principles of evidence-based practice (EBP) for chiropractic providers; 2) test the effectiveness of the online program on the attitudes, skills, and use of EBP in a sample of chiropractors; and 3) determine the feasibility of expanding the program for broader-scale implementation. This study was conducted from January 2013 to September 2014. METHODS: This was an exploratory randomized trial in which 293 chiropractors were allocated to either an online EBP education intervention or a waitlist control. The online EBP program consisted of 3 courses and 4 booster lessons, and was developed using educational resources created in previous EBP educational programs at 4 chiropractic institutions. Participants were surveyed using a validated EBP instrument (EBASE) with 3 rescaled (0 to 100) subscores: Attitudes, Skills, and Use of EBP. Multiple regression was used to compare groups, adjusting for personal and practice characteristics. Satisfaction and compliance with the program was evaluated to assess feasibility. RESULTS: The Training Group showed modest improvement compared to the Waitlist Group in attitudes (Δ =6.2, p < .001) and skills (Δ =10.0, p < .001) subscores, but not the use subscore (Δ = -2.3, p = .470). The majority of participants agreed that the educational program was 'relevant to their profession' (84 %) and 'was worthwhile' (82 %). Overall, engagement in the online program was less than optimal, with 48 % of the Training Group, and 42 % of the Waitlist Group completing all 3 of the program courses. CONCLUSIONS: Online EBP training leads to modest improvements in chiropractors' EBP attitudes and skill, but not their use of EBP. This online program can be delivered to a wide national audience, but requires modification to enable greater individualization and peer-to-peer interaction. Our results indicate that it is feasible to deliver an online EBP education on a broad scale, but that this mode of education alone is not sufficient for making large changes in chiropractors' use of EBP.

Dose-response of spinal manipulation for cervicogenic headache: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervicogenic headache is a prevalent and costly pain condition commonly treated by chiropractors. There is evidence to support the effectiveness for spinal manipulation, but the dose of treatment required to achieve maximal relief remains unknown. The purpose of this paper is to describe the methodology for a randomized controlled trial evaluating the dose-response of spinal manipulation for chronic cervicogenic headache in an adult population. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a mixed-methods, two-site, prospective, parallel groups, observer-blind, randomized controlled trial conducted at university-affiliated research clinics in the Portland, OR and Minneapolis, MN areas. The primary outcome is patient reported headache frequency. Other outcomes include self-reported headache intensity, disability, quality of life, improvement, neck pain intensity and frequency, satisfaction, medication use, outside care, cervical motion, pain pressure thresholds, health care utilization, health care costs, and lost productivity. Qualitative interviews are also conducted to evaluate patients' expectations of treatment. DISCUSSION: With growing concerns regarding the costs and side effects of commonly used conventional treatments, greater numbers of headache sufferers are seeking other approaches to care. This is the first full-scale randomized controlled trial assessing the dose-response of spinal manipulation therapy on outcomes for cervicogenic headache. The results of this study will provide important evidence for the management of cervicogenic headache in adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01530321).

Spinal rehabilitative exercise or manual treatment for the prevention of cervicogenic headache in adults.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To quantify and compare the short- and long-term effects of manual treatment and spinal rehabilitative exercise for cervicogenic headache, classified according to the International Headache Society's (IHS) diagnostic criteria, with an active or placebo/sham comparison or wait-list control.

Spinal rehabilitative exercise or manual treatment for the prevention of tension-type headache in adults.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess the short- and long-term effects of manual treatment and spinal rehabilitative exercise for the prevention of tension-type headache in adults.

Prediction of pain outcomes in a randomized controlled trial of dose-response of spinal manipulation for the care of chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: No previous studies have created and validated prediction models for outcomes in patients receiving spinal manipulation for care of chronic low back pain (cLBP). We therefore conducted a secondary analysis alongside a dose-response, randomized controlled trial of spinal manipulation. METHODS: We investigated dose, pain and disability, sociodemographics, general health, psychosocial measures, and objective exam findings as potential predictors of pain outcomes utilizing 400 participants from a randomized controlled trial. Participants received 18 sessions of treatment over 6-weeks and were followed for a year. Spinal manipulation was performed by a chiropractor at 0, 6, 12, or 18 visits (dose), with a light-massage control at all remaining visits. Pain intensity was evaluated with the modified von Korff pain scale (0-100). Predictor variables evaluated came from several domains: condition-specific pain and disability, sociodemographics, general health status, psychosocial, and objective physical measures. Three-quarters of cases (training-set) were used to develop 4 longitudinal models with forward selection to predict individual "responders" (≥50% improvement from baseline) and future pain intensity using either pretreatment characteristics or post-treatment variables collected shortly after completion of care. The internal validity of the predictor models were then evaluated on the remaining 25% of cases (test-set) using area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), R(2), and root mean squared error (RMSE). RESULTS: The pretreatment responder model performed no better than chance in identifying participants who became responders (AUC = 0.479). Similarly, the pretreatment pain intensity model predicted future pain intensity poorly with low proportion of variance explained (R(2) = .065). The post-treatment predictor models performed better with AUC = 0.665 for the responder model and R(2) = 0.261 for the future pain model. Post-treatment pain alone actually predicted future pain better than the full post-treatment predictor model (R(2) = 0.350). The prediction errors (RMSE) were large (19.4 and 17.5 for the pre- and post-treatment predictor models, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Internal validation of prediction models showed that participant characteristics preceding the start of care were poor predictors of at least 50% improvement and the individual's future pain intensity. Pain collected shortly after completion of 6 weeks of study intervention predicted future pain the best.

US chiropractors' attitudes, skills and use of evidence-based practice: A cross-sectional national survey.

BACKGROUND: Evidence based practice (EBP) is being increasingly utilized by health care professionals as a means of improving the quality of health care. The introduction of EBP principles into the chiropractic profession is a relatively recent phenomenon. There is currently a lack of information about the EBP literacy level of US chiropractors and the barriers/facilitators to the use of EBP in the chiropractic profession. METHODS: A nationwide EBP survey of US chiropractors was administered online (Nov 2012-Mar 2013) utilizing a validated self-report instrument (EBASE) in which three sub-scores are reported: attitudes, skills and use. Means, medians, and frequency distributions for each of the sub-scores were generated. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the demographic characteristics of the sample. Means and proportions were calculated for all of the responses to each of the questions in the survey. RESULTS: A total of 1,314 US chiropractors completed the EBASE survey; the sample appeared to be representative of the US chiropractic profession. Respondents were predominantly white (94.3%), male (75%), 47 (+/- 11.6) years of age, and in practice for more than 10 years (60%). EBASE sub-score means (possible ranges) were: attitudes, 31.4 (8-40); skills, 44.3 (13-65); and use, 10.3 (0-24). Survey participants generally held favorable attitudes toward EBP, but reported less use of EBP. A minority of participants indicated that EBP coursework (17%) and critical thinking (29%) were a major part of their chiropractic education. The most commonly reported barrier to the use of EBP was "lack of time". Almost 90% of the sample indicated that they were interested in improving their EBP skills. CONCLUSION: American chiropractors appear similar to chiropractors in other countries, and other health professionals regarding their favorable attitudes towards EBP, while expressing barriers related to EBP skills such as research relevance and lack of time. This suggests that the design of future EBP educational interventions should capitalize on the growing body of EBP implementation research developing in other health disciplines. This will likely include broadening the approach beyond a sole focus on EBP education, and taking a multilevel approach that also targets professional, organizational and health policy domains.

Comparison of spinal manipulation methods and usual medical care for acute and subacute low back pain: a randomized clinical trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with follow-up to 6 months. OBJECTIVE: This was a comparative effectiveness trial of manual-thrust manipulation (MTM) versus mechanical-assisted manipulation (MAM); and manipulation versus usual medical care (UMC). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common conditions seen in primary care and physical medicine practice. MTM is a common treatment for LBP. Claims that MAM is an effective alternative to MTM have yet to be substantiated. There is also question about the effectiveness of manipulation in acute and subacute LBP compared with UMC. METHODS: A total of 107 adults with onset of LBP within the past 12 weeks were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: MTM, MAM, or UMC. Outcome measures included the Oswestry LBP Disability Index (0-100 scale) and numeric pain rating (0-10 scale). Participants in the manipulation groups were treated twice weekly during 4 weeks; subjects in UMC were seen for 3 visits during this time. Outcome measures were captured at baseline, 4 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. RESULTS: Linear regression showed a statistically significant advantage of MTM at 4 weeks compared with MAM (disability = -8.1, P = 0.009; pain = -1.4, P = 0.002) and UMC (disability = -6.5, P = 0.032; pain = -1.7, P < 0.001). Responder analysis, defined as 30% and 50% reductions in Oswestry LBP Disability Index scores revealed a significantly greater proportion of responders at 4 weeks in MTM (76%; 50%) compared with MAM (50%; 16%) and UMC (48%; 39%). Similar between-group results were found for pain: MTM (94%; 76%); MAM (69%; 47%); and UMC (56%; 41%). No statistically significant group differences were found between MAM and UMC, and for any comparison at 3 or 6 months. CONCLUSION: MTM provides greater short-term reductions in self-reported disability and pain scores compared with UMC or MAM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.