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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-reports vs. physical measures of spinal stiffness.

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

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

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

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

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

X-ray vision: the accuracy and repeatability of a technology that allows clinicians to see spinal X-rays superimposed on a person's back.

OBJECTIVE: Since the discovery of ionizing radiation, clinicians have evaluated X-ray images separately from the patient. The objective of this study was to investigate the accuracy and repeatability of a new technology which seeks to resolve this historic limitation by projecting anatomically correct X-ray images on to a person's skin. METHODS: A total of 13 participants enrolled in the study, each having a pre-existing anteroposterior lumbar X-ray. Each participant's image was uploaded into the Hololens Mixed reality system which when worn, allowed a single examiner to view a participant's own X-ray superimposed on the participant's back. The projected image was topographically corrected using depth information obtained by the Hololens system then aligned via existing anatomic landmarks. Using this superimposed image, vertebral levels were identified and validated against spinous process locations obtained by ultrasound. This process was repeated 1-5 days later. The projection of each vertebra was deemed to be "on-target" if it fell within the known morphological dimensions of the spinous process for that specific vertebral level. RESULTS: The projection system created on-target projections with respect to individual vertebral levels 73% of the time with no significant difference seen between testing sessions. The average repeatability for all vertebral levels between testing sessions was 77%. CONCLUSION: These accuracy and repeatability data suggest that the accuracy and repeatability of projecting X-rays directly on to the skin is feasible for identifying underlying anatomy and as such, has potential to place radiological evaluation within the patient context. Future opportunities to improve this procedure will focus on mitigating potential sources of error.

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

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

Does the application site of spinal manipulative therapy alter spinal tissues loading?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Previous studies found that the intervertebral disc (IVD) experiences the greatest loads during spinal manipulation therapy (SMT). PURPOSE: Based on that, this study aimed to determine if loads experienced by spinal tissues are significantly altered when the application site of SMT is changed. STUDY DESIGN: A biomechanical robotic serial dissection study. SAMPLE: Thirteen porcine cadaveric motion segments. OUTCOME MEASURES: Forces experienced by lumbar spinal tissues. METHODS: A servo-controlled linear actuator provided standardized 300 N SMT simulations to six different cutaneous locations of the porcine lumbar spine: L2-L3 and L3-L4 facet joints (FJ), L3 and L4 transverse processes (TVP), and the space between the FJs and the TVPs (BTW). Vertebral kinematics were tracked optically using indwelling bone pins; the motion segment was removed and mounted in a parallel robot equipped with a six-axis load cell. Movements of each SMT application at each site were replayed by the robot with the intact specimen and following the sequential removal of spinal ligaments, FJs and IVD. Forces induced by SMT were recorded, and specific axes were analyzed using linear mixed models. RESULTS: Analyses yielded a significant difference (p<.05) in spinal structures loads as a function of the application site. Spinal manipulative therapy application at the L3 vertebra caused vertebral movements and forces between L3 and L4 spinal segment in the opposite direction to when SMT was applied at L4 vertebra. Additionally, SMT applications over the soft tissue between adjacent vertebrae significantly decreased spinal structure loads. CONCLUSION: Applying SMT with a constant force at different spinal levels creates different relative kinetics of the spinal segments and load spinal tissues in significantly different magnitudes.

SafetyNET Community-based patient safety initiatives: development and application of a Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To: 1) develop/adapt and validate an instrument to measure patient safety attitudes and opinions of community-based spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) providers; 2) implement the instrument; and 3) compare results among healthcare professions. METHODS: A review of the literature and content validation were used for the survey development. Community-based chiropractors and physiotherapists in 4 Canadian provinces were invited. RESULTS: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture was the preferred instrument. The survey was modified and validated, measuring 14 patient safety dimensions. 276 SMT providers volunteered to respond to the survey. Generally, SMT providers had similar or better patient safety dimension scores compared to the AHRQ 2016 medical offices database. DISCUSSION: We developed the first instrument measuring patient safety attitudes and opinions of community-based SMT providers. This instrument provides understanding of SMT providers' opinions and attitudes on patient safety and identifies potential areas for improvement.

OBJECTIFS: 1) Élaborer/adapter et valider un instrument servant à évaluer les attitudes à l'égard de la sécurité du patient et les opinions des praticiens effectuant des manipulations vertébrales (MV); 2) adopter cet instrument; et 3) comparer les résultats obtenus entre les professionnels de la santé. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Pour élaborer le sondage, on a revu la littérature, on a validé le contenu et on a invité des chiropraticiens et des physiothérapeutes de quatre provinces canadiennes à participer. RÉSULTATS: Le Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture de l'Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) était l'instrument préféré. Le sondage a été modifié et validé et a servi à mesurer 14 aspects de la sécurité du patient. 276 professionnels effectuant des MV ont accepté de répondre au sondage. En règle générale, les cotes obtenues chez les professionnels effectuant des MV pour ce qui des aspects de la sécurité étaient comparables ou meilleurs que celles des professionnels de la santé enregistrés dans la base de données de 2016 de l'AHRQ. DISCUSSION: On a élaboré le premier instrument servant à évaluer les attitudes à l'égard de la sécurité et les opinions des praticiens effectuant des MV dans une collectivité. Cet instrument permet de comprendre les opinions et les attitudes à l'égard de la sécurité du patient des professionnels effectuant des MV et de cerner les aspects qui pourraient être améliorés.

Neural Responses to Physical Characteristics of a High-velocity, Low-amplitude Spinal Manipulation: Effect of Thrust Direction.

STUDY DESIGN: Electrophysiological recordings were obtained from proprioceptors in deep lumbar paraspinal muscles of anesthetized cats during high-velocity low-amplitude spinal manipulation (HVLA-SM). OBJECTIVE: To determine how thrust direction of an HVLA-SM affects neural input from back musculature. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A clinician's ability to apply the thrust of an HVLA-SM in a specified direction is considered an important component of its optimal delivery. However, previous biomechanical studies indicate that the shear force component of the thrust vector is not actually transmitted to paraspinal tissues deep to the thoracolumbar fascia because the skin-fascia interface is frictionless. METHODS: Neural activity from muscle spindles in the multifidus and longissimus muscles was recorded from L6 dorsal rootlets in 18 anesthetized cats. After preload to the spinal tissues, HVLA-SMs (100-ms thrust duration) were applied through the intact skin overlying the L6 lamina. Thrusts were applied at angles oriented perpendicularly to the back and obliquely at 15° and 30° medialward or cranialward using a 6 × 6 Latin square design with three replicates. The normal force component was kept constant at 21.3 N. HVLA-SMs were preceded and followed by simulated spinal movement applied to the L6 vertebra. Changes in mean instantaneous discharge frequency (ΔMIF) of muscle spindles were determined both during the thrust and spinal movement. RESULTS: ΔMIFs during the HVLA-SM thrust were significantly greater in response to all thrust directions compared with the preload alone, but there was no difference in ΔMIF for any of the thrust directions during the HVLA-SM. HVLA-SM decreased some of the responses to simulated spinal movement but thrust direction had no effect on these changes. CONCLUSION: The shear force component of an HVLA-SM's thrust vector is not transmitted to the underlying vertebra sufficient to activate muscle spindles of the attached muscles. Implications for clinical practice and clinical research are discussed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.