Literature DB >> 15883577

Supplemental care with medication-assisted manipulation versus spinal manipulation therapy alone for patients with chronic low back pain.

Frank J Kohlbeck1, Scott Haldeman, Eric L Hurwitz, Simon Dagenais.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To measure changes in pain and disability for chronic low-back pain patients receiving treatment with medication-assisted manipulation (MAM) and to compare these to changes in a group only receiving spinal manipulation. STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of 68 chronic low-back pain patients.
METHODS: Outcomes were measured using the 1998 Version 2.0 American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons/Council of Musculoskeletal Specialty Societies/Council of Spine Societies Outcomes Data Collection Instruments. The primary outcome variable was change in pain and disability. All patients received an initial 4- to 6-week trial of spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), after which 42 patients received supplemental intervention with MAM and the remaining 26 patients continued with SMT.
RESULTS: Low back pain and disability measures favored the MAM group over the SMT-only group at 3 months (adjusted mean difference of 4.4 points on a 100-point scale, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.2 to 11.0). This difference attenuated at 1 year (adjusted mean difference of 0.3 points, 95% CI -8.6 to 9.2). The relative odds of experiencing a 10-point improvement in pain and disability favored the MAM group at 3 months (odds ratio 4.1, 95% CI 1.3-13.6) and at 1 year (odds ratio 1.9, 95% CI 0.6-6.5).
CONCLUSION: Medication-assisted manipulation appears to offer some patients increased improvement in low back pain and disability. Further investigation of these apparent benefits in a randomized clinical trial is warranted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15883577     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.03.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther        ISSN: 0161-4754            Impact factor:   1.437


  7 in total

1.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and safety of selected complementary and alternative medicine for neck and low-back pain.

Authors:  Andrea D Furlan; Fatemeh Yazdi; Alexander Tsertsvadze; Anita Gross; Maurits Van Tulder; Lina Santaguida; Joel Gagnier; Carlo Ammendolia; Trish Dryden; Steve Doucette; Becky Skidmore; Raymond Daniel; Thomas Ostermann; Sophia Tsouros
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2011-11-24       Impact factor: 2.629

2.  Adverse effects produced by different drugs used in the treatment of Parkinson's disease: A mixed treatment comparison.

Authors:  Bao-Dong Li; Zhen-Yun Bi; Jing-Feng Liu; Wei-Jun Si; Qian-Qian Shi; Li-Peng Xue; Jing Bai
Journal:  CNS Neurosci Ther       Date:  2017-09-04       Impact factor: 5.243

3.  A Case Study Examining the Effectiveness of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy in a Patient who Met the Clinical Prediction Rule for Spinal Manipulation.

Authors:  Judy Chen; Amy Phillips; Melissa Ramsey; Ron Schenk
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2009

4.  Effectiveness of mechanical diagnosis and therapy in patients with back pain who meet a clinical prediction rule for spinal manipulation.

Authors:  Ron Schenk; Carol Dionne; Corey Simon; Robert Johnson
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2012-02

5.  Spinal manipulation under anesthesia: a narrative review of the literature and commentary.

Authors:  Dennis Digiorgi
Journal:  Chiropr Man Therap       Date:  2013-05-14

6.  Guidelines for the practice and performance of manipulation under anesthesia.

Authors:  Robert Gordon; Edward Cremata; Cheryl Hawk
Journal:  Chiropr Man Therap       Date:  2014-02-03

Review 7.  Outcomes indicators and a risk classification system for spinal manipulation under anesthesia: a narrative review and proposal.

Authors:  Dennis DiGiorgi; John L Cerf; Daniel S Bowerman
Journal:  Chiropr Man Therap       Date:  2018-03-08
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.