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.

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.

A cross-sectional analysis of persistent low back pain, using correlations between lumbar stiffness, pressure pain threshold, and heat pain threshold.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the underlying biomechanical cause of low back pain (LBP). Recently, technological advances have made it possible to quantify biomechanical and neurophysiological measurements, potentially relevant factors in understanding LBP etiology. However, few studies have explored the relation between these factors. This study aims to quantify the correlation between biomechanical and neurophysiological outcomes in non-specific LBP and examine whether these correlations differ when considered regionally vs. segmentally. METHODS: This is a secondary cross-sectional analysis of 132 participants with persistent non-specific LBP. Biomechanical data included spinal stiffness (global stiffness) measured by a rolling indenter. Neurophysiological data included pain sensitivity (pressure pain threshold and heat pain threshold) measured by a pressure algometer and a thermode. Correlations were tested using Pearson's product-moment correlation or Spearman's rank correlation as appropriate. The association between these outcomes and the segmental level was tested using ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey corrected comparisons. RESULTS: A moderate positive correlation was found between spinal stiffness and pressure pain threshold, i.e., high degrees of stiffness were associated with high pressure pain thresholds. The correlation between spinal stiffness and heat pain threshold was poor and not statistically significant. Aside from a statistically significant minor association between the lower and the upper lumbar segments and stiffness, no other segmental relation was shown. CONCLUSIONS: The moderate correlation between spinal stiffness and mechanical pain sensitivity was the opposite of expected, meaning higher degrees of stiffness was associated with higher pressure pain thresholds. No clinically relevant segmental association existed.

Changes in pain sensitivity and spinal stiffness in relation to responder status following spinal manipulative therapy in chronic low Back pain: a secondary explorative analysis of a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: In a prior randomized trial, we demonstrated that participants receiving spinal manipulative therapy at a pain-sensitive segment instead of a stiff segment experienced increased mechanical pressure pain thresholds. We hypothesized that the targeted segment mediated this increase through a segment-dependent neurophysiological reflective pathway. Presently, it is not known if this decrease in pain sensitivity is associated with clinical improvement. Therefore, we performed an explorative analysis to examine if changes in experimental pain sensitivity (mechanical and thermal) and lumbar stiffness were further dependent on clinical improvement in disability and patient-reported low back pain. METHODS: This study is a secondary explorative analysis of data from the randomized trial that compared 132 participants with chronic low back pain who received lumbar spinal manipulative therapy applied at either i) the stiffest segment or ii) the segment having the lowest pain threshold (i.e., the most pain-sensitive segment). We collected data at baseline, after the fourth session of spinal manipulation, and at 14-days follow-up. Participants were dichotomized into responders/non-responders using different clinical variables (disability and patient-reported low back pain) with varying threshold values (0, 30, and 50% improvement). Mixed models were used to assess changes in experimental outcomes (stiffness and pain sensitivity). The fixed interaction terms were time, segment allocation, and responder status. RESULTS: We observed a significant increase in mechanical pressure pain thresholds for the group, which received spinal manipulative therapy at the most pain-sensitive segment independent of whether they improved clinically or not. Those who received spinal manipulation at the stiffest segment also demonstrated increased mechanical pain sensitivity, but only in the subgroup with clinical improvement. We did not observe any changes in lumbar stiffness. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest the existence of two different mechanistic pathways associated with the spinal manipulation target. i) A decrease of mechanical pain sensitivity independent of clinical outcome (neurophysiological) and ii) a decrease as a reflection of the clinical outcome. Together, these observations may provide a novel framework that improves our understanding of why some respond to spinal manipulative therapy while others do not. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04086667 registered retrospectively September 11th 2019.

Predicting who responds to spinal manipulative therapy using a short-time frame methodology: Results from a 238-participant study.

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is among the nonpharmacologic interventions that has been recommended in clinical guidelines for patients with low back pain, however, some patients appear to benefit substantially more from SMT than others. Several investigations have examined potential factors to modify patients' responses prior to SMT application. The objective of this study was to determine if the baseline prediction of SMT responders can be improved through the use of a restricted, non-pragmatic methodology, established variables of responder status, and newly developed physical measures observed to change with SMT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a prior study that provided two applications of standardized SMT over a period of 1 week. After initial exploratory analysis, principal component analysis and optimal scaling analysis were used to reduce multicollinearity among predictors. A multiple logistic regression model was built using a forward Wald procedure to explore those baseline variables that could predict response status at 1-week reassessment. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-eight participants completed the 1-week reassessment (age 40.0± 11.8 years; 59.7% female). Response to treatment was predicted by a model containing the following 8 variables: height, gender, neck or upper back pain, pain frequency in the past 6 months, the STarT Back Tool, patients' expectations about medication and strengthening exercises, and extension status. Our model had a sensitivity of 72.2% (95% CI, 58.1-83.1), specificity of 84.2% (95% CI, 78.0-89.0), a positive likelihood ratio of 4.6 (CI, 3.2-6.7), a negative likelihood ratio of 0.3 (CI, 0.2-0.5), and area under ROC curve, 0.79. CONCLUSION: It is possible to predict response to treatment before application of SMT in low back pain patients. Our model may benefit both patients and clinicians by reducing the time needed to re-evaluate an initial trial of care.

The effect on clinical outcomes when targeting spinal manipulation at stiffness or pain sensitivity: a randomized trial.

The mechanisms underlying pain relief following spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) are not understood fully although biomechanical and neurophysiological processes have been proposed. As such, we designed this randomized trial to elucidate the contributions of biomechanical and neurophysiological processes. A total of 132 participants with low back pain were randomly assigned to receive SMT at either the lumbar segment measured as the stiffest or the segment measured as having the lowest pain threshold. The primary outcome was patient reported low back pain intensity following treatment. Secondary outcomes were biomechanical stiffness and neurophysiological pressure pain threshold. All outcomes were measured at baseline, after the fourth and final session and at 2-weeks follow-up. Data were analyzed using linear mixed models, and demonstrated that the SMT application site did not influence patient reported low back pain intensity or stiffness. However, a large and significant difference in pressure pain threshold was observed between groups. This study provides support that SMT impacts neurophysiological parameters through a segment-dependent neurological reflex pathway, although this do not seem to be a proxy for improvement. This study was limited by the assumption that the applied treatment was sufficient to impact the primary outcome.

Chiropractic, one big unhappy family: better together or apart?

Background: The chiropractic profession has a long history of internal conflict. Today, the division is between the 'evidence-friendly' faction that focuses on musculoskeletal problems based on a contemporary and evidence-based paradigm, and the 'traditional' group that subscribes to concepts such as 'subluxation' and the spine as the centre of good health. This difference is becoming increasingly obvious and problematic from both within and outside of the profession in light of the general acceptance of evidence-based practice as the basis for health care.Because this is an issue with many factors to consider, we decided to illustrate it with an analogy. We aimed to examine the chiropractic profession from the perspective of an unhappy marriage by defining key elements in happy and unhappy marriages and by identifying factors that may determine why couples stay together or spilt up. Main body: We argue here that the situation within the chiropractic profession corresponds very much to that of an unhappy couple that stays together for reasons that are unconnected with love or even mutual respect. We also contend that the profession could be conceptualised as existing on a spectrum with the 'evidence-friendly' and the 'traditional' groups inhabiting the end points, with the majority of chiropractors in the middle. This middle group does not appear to be greatly concerned with either faction and seems comfortable taking an approach of 'you never know who and what will respond to spinal manipulation'. We believe that this 'silent majority' makes it possible for groups of chiropractors to practice outside the logical framework of today's scientific concepts. Conclusion: There is a need to pause and consider if the many reasons for disharmony within the chiropractic profession are, in fact, irreconcilable. It is time to openly debate the issue of a professional split by engaging in formal and courageous discussions. This item should be prioritised on the agendas of national associations, conferences, teaching institutions, and licensing/registration as well as accreditation bodies. However, for this to happen, the middle group of chiropractors will have to become engaged and consider the benefits and risks of respectively staying together or breaking up.

The McAndrews Leadership Lecture: February 2016, by Dr Greg Kawchuk. Putting the "Act" Back in Chiropractic.

The McAndrews Leadership Lecture was developed by the American Chiropractic Association to honor the legacy of Jerome F. McAndrews, DC, and George P. McAndrews, JD, and their contributions to the chiropractic profession. This article is an edited and truncated version of the McAndrews Leadership Lecture given by Dr Greg Kawchuk on February 27, 2016, in Washington, DC, at the National Chiropractic Leadership Conference. This was the second McAndrews lecture in this annual series.

The Accuracy of Locating Lumbar Vertebrae When Using Palpation Versus Ultrasonography.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of locating lumbar vertebrae using palpation vs ultrasonography. METHODS: In this study, ultrasonic imaging was used by 2 experienced clinicians to identify the third lumbar spinous process (target) of a female participant. The target was then located by 16 undergraduate chiropractic students using clinical palpation techniques learned in their academic program (with participant seated and prone) and ultrasonic imaging learned through a 5-minute training video. Presumed target locations identified by students were recorded by infrared motion capture equipment. The coordinates of the presumed target site were then compared statistically. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the presumed target position identified by the students using sitting and prone palpation (P = .346). These positions were significantly different from the target location identified by expert clinicians using ultrasonic imaging (P < .0001 in both cases). The vertebra identified by ultrasonic imaging by the students was the same vertebra identified by the expert clinicians using ultrasound. This position error in the vertebra identified by palpation resulted in the students mistakenly identifying the L4 spinous process as the target vertebra. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that ultrasonography provided more accurate identification of a lumbar spinal landmark when compared with palpation. In addition, our data suggest that ultrasonic imaging to identify spinal landmarks can be learned easily and can improve accuracy of landmark detection. Although the time to use ultrasonic imaging was greater than with palpation, these results suggest that this procedure could potentially be used in clinical practice to identify spinal landmarks.

A non-randomized clinical trial to assess the impact of nonrigid, inelastic corsets on spine function in low back pain participants and asymptomatic controls.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Although previous studies suggest braces/corsets can reduce acute pain, no prior study has assessed back function after bracing with both self-reported and objective measures. Use of both self-reported and objective measures of spine function together may be important given evidence they assess unique aspects of function. PURPOSE: The aim was to assess both self-reported and objective measures of spinal function before, and after, use of a nonrigid, inelastic lumbar brace. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This was a non-randomized clinical trial. PATIENT SAMPLE: The sample included acute low back pain (LBP) participants and asymptomatic controls. OUTCOME MEASURES: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), spinal stiffness, and muscle endurance were the outcome measures. METHODS: Three groups were studied: -LBP/-Brace (n=19), -LBP/+Brace (n=18), and +LBP/+Brace (n=17). Both groups of braced participants were instructed to wear the brace continually for 2 weeks with the exception of bedroom and bathroom activities. Before and after the 2-week period, three measures of spinal function were performed: spinal stiffness via motorized indentation of the L3 spinous process, a modified Sorensen test (timed lumbar extension against gravity), and the ODI. Repeated measures analyses of variance were conducted for all three outcomes. RESULTS: Among the groups, ODI scores decreased significantly for the +LBP/+Brace group (p<.001) compared with the other two groups. The +LBP/+Brace mean ODI score decreased 3.71 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.01-5.40) compared with the -LBP/-Brace group and decreased 3.48 points (95% CI 1.77-5.20) compared with the -LBP/+Brace group. Change scores for the Sorensen test were significantly increased in the +LBP/+Brace group (p=.037) compared with the -LBP/-Brace group (22.47s 95% CI 8.14-36.80). Spinal stiffness did not change significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that lumbar function assessed by self-reported and objective measures does not worsen when nonrigid, inelastic bracing is used for short periods of time for those with, or without, back pain. These data add to the existing literature that suggests short-term use of nonrigid, inelastic bracing for acute LBP does not decrease spinal function when measured separately with subjective or objective tools.

Structural health monitoring to detect the presence, location and magnitude of structural damage in cadaveric porcine spines.

Structural health monitoring has been used successfully to identify defects in civil infrastructure and aerospace applications. Given that the majority of low back pain is thought to be mechanical in nature, our objective was to determine if structural health monitoring techniques could be employed successfully to identify the presence, location and magnitude of structural alterations within the spine. In six eviscerated cadaveric pigs, bone screws were drilled into the anterior bodies of L1-L5 and tri-axial accelerometers fixed to each spinous process. Vibration was then applied to the L3 spinous and frequency response functions obtained from each sensor axis before and after specific alterations of spinal structure. These alterations were produced at four unique locations and included (1) use of a cable tie to link anterior bone pins together and (2) progressive disc sectioning. Eighty percent of all data were used to train a neural network while the remaining data were used to test the network's ability to distinguish between structural states. The presence, location and magnitude of structural change within the spine was identified correctly in 5030/5040 possible neural network decisions. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of this technique ranged from 0.994 to 1.000. These results indicate that there is sufficient information embedded in frequency response data to identify the presence, location and magnitude of specific structural changes in the spine. If these techniques can be evolved for human use, structural health monitoring may provide a new approach toward understanding the underlying relations between spinal structure and function.