OBJECTIVE:Chiropractic care is used by many older patients for low back pain (LBP), but there are no published results of randomized trials examining spinal manipulation (SM) for older adults. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 2 biomechanically distinct forms of SM and minimal conservative medical care (MCMC) for participants at least 55 years old with subacute or chronic nonradicular LBP. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome variable was low back-related disability assessed with the 24-item Roland Morris Disability questionnaire at 3, 6, 12, and 24 weeks. Participants were randomly allocated to 6 weeks of care including 12 visits of either high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA)-SM, low-velocity, variable-amplitude (LVVA)-SM, or 3 visits of MCMC. RESULTS:Two hundred forty participants (105 women and 135 men) ages 63.1 +/- 6.7 years without significant comorbidities. Adjusted mean Roland Morris Disability change scores (95% confidence intervals) from baseline to the end of active care were 2.9 (2.2, 3.6) and 2.7 (2.0, 3.3) in the LVVA-SM and HVLA-SM groups, respectively, and 1.6 (0.5, 2.8) in the MCMC group. There were no significant differences between LVVA-SM and HVLA-SM at any of the end points. The LVVA-SM group had significant improvements in mean functional status ranging from 1.3 to 2.2 points over the MCMC group. There were no serious adverse events associated with any of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Biomechanically distinct forms of SM did not lead to different outcomes in older LBP patients and both SM procedures were associated with small yet clinically important changes in functional status by the end of treatment for this relatively healthy older population. Participants who received either form of SM had improvements on average in functional status ranging from 1 to 2.2 over those who received MCMC. From an evidence-based care perspective, patient preference and clinical experience should drive how clinicians and patients make the SM procedure decision for this patient population.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Chiropractic care is used by many older patients for low back pain (LBP), but there are no published results of randomized trials examining spinal manipulation (SM) for older adults. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 2 biomechanically distinct forms of SM and minimal conservative medical care (MCMC) for participants at least 55 years old with subacute or chronic nonradicular LBP. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome variable was low back-related disability assessed with the 24-item Roland Morris Disability questionnaire at 3, 6, 12, and 24 weeks. Participants were randomly allocated to 6 weeks of care including 12 visits of either high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA)-SM, low-velocity, variable-amplitude (LVVA)-SM, or 3 visits of MCMC. RESULTS: Two hundred forty participants (105 women and 135 men) ages 63.1 +/- 6.7 years without significant comorbidities. Adjusted mean Roland Morris Disability change scores (95% confidence intervals) from baseline to the end of active care were 2.9 (2.2, 3.6) and 2.7 (2.0, 3.3) in the LVVA-SM and HVLA-SM groups, respectively, and 1.6 (0.5, 2.8) in the MCMC group. There were no significant differences between LVVA-SM and HVLA-SM at any of the end points. The LVVA-SM group had significant improvements in mean functional status ranging from 1.3 to 2.2 points over the MCMC group. There were no serious adverse events associated with any of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Biomechanically distinct forms of SM did not lead to different outcomes in older LBP patients and both SM procedures were associated with small yet clinically important changes in functional status by the end of treatment for this relatively healthy older population. Participants who received either form of SM had improvements on average in functional status ranging from 1 to 2.2 over those who received MCMC. From an evidence-based care perspective, patient preference and clinical experience should drive how clinicians and patients make the SM procedure decision for this patient population.
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
Authors: Brian C Clark; David W Russ; Masato Nakazawa; Christopher R France; Stevan Walkowski; Timothy D Law; Megan Applegate; Niladri Mahato; Samuel Lietkam; James Odenthal; Daniel Corcos; Simeon Hain; Betty Sindelar; Robert J Ploutz-Snyder; James S Thomas Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Paula A Weigel; Jason Hockenberry; Suzanne E Bentler; Fredric D Wolinsky Journal: J Manipulative Physiol Ther Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Paula A M Weigel; Jason M Hockenberry; Suzanne E Bentler; Brian Kaskie; Fredric D Wolinsky Journal: J Manipulative Physiol Ther Date: 2012-03-02 Impact factor: 1.437