Benjamin Hidalgo1, Christine Detrembleur1, Toby Hall2, Philippe Mahaudens3, Henri Nielens3. 1. Institute of Neuroscience, Faculty of Motor Sciences, University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. 2. School of Physiotherapy, Curtin Innovation Health Research Institute, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, WA, Australia. 3. Institute of Neuroscience, Faculty of Motor Sciences, University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium ; Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, Saint-Luc Hospital University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to review and update the evidence for different forms of manual therapy (MT) for patients with different stages of non-specific low back pain (LBP). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane-Register-of-Controlled-Trials, PEDro, EMBASE. METHOD: A systematic review of MT with a literature search covering the period of January 2000 to April 2013 was conducted by two independent reviewers according to Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. A total of 360 studies were evaluated using qualitative criteria. Two stages of LBP were categorized; combined acute-subacute and chronic. Further sub-classification was made according to MT intervention: MT1 (manipulation); MT2 (mobilization and soft-tissue-techniques); and MT3 (MT1 combined with MT2). In each sub-category, MT could be combined or not with exercise or usual medical care (UMC). Consequently, quantitative evaluation criteria were applied to 56 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and hence 23 low-risk of bias RCTs were identified for review. Only studies providing new updated information (11/23 RCTs) are presented here. RESULTS: Acute-subacute LBP: STRONG-evidence in favour of MT1 when compared to sham for pain, function and health improvements in the short-term (1-3 months). MODERATE-evidence to support MT1 and MT3 combined with UMC in comparison to UMC alone for pain, function and health improvements in the short-term. Chronic LBP: MODERATE to STRONG-evidence in favour of MT1 in comparison to sham for pain, function and overall-health in the short-term. MODERATE-evidence in favour of MT3 combined with exercise or UMC in comparison to exercise and back-school was established for pain, function and quality-of-life in the short and long-term. LIMITED-evidence in favour of MT2 combined with exercise and UMC in comparison to UMC alone for pain and function from short to long-term. LIMITED-evidence of no effect for MT1 with extension-exercise compared to extension-exercise alone for pain in the short to long-term. CONCLUSION: This systematic review updates the evidence for MT with exercise or UMC for different stages of LBP and provides recommendations for future studies.
OBJECTIVE: to review and update the evidence for different forms of manual therapy (MT) for patients with different stages of non-specific low back pain (LBP). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane-Register-of-Controlled-Trials, PEDro, EMBASE. METHOD: A systematic review of MT with a literature search covering the period of January 2000 to April 2013 was conducted by two independent reviewers according to Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. A total of 360 studies were evaluated using qualitative criteria. Two stages of LBP were categorized; combined acute-subacute and chronic. Further sub-classification was made according to MT intervention: MT1 (manipulation); MT2 (mobilization and soft-tissue-techniques); and MT3 (MT1 combined with MT2). In each sub-category, MT could be combined or not with exercise or usual medical care (UMC). Consequently, quantitative evaluation criteria were applied to 56 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and hence 23 low-risk of bias RCTs were identified for review. Only studies providing new updated information (11/23 RCTs) are presented here. RESULTS: Acute-subacute LBP: STRONG-evidence in favour of MT1 when compared to sham for pain, function and health improvements in the short-term (1-3 months). MODERATE-evidence to support MT1 and MT3 combined with UMC in comparison to UMC alone for pain, function and health improvements in the short-term. Chronic LBP: MODERATE to STRONG-evidence in favour of MT1 in comparison to sham for pain, function and overall-health in the short-term. MODERATE-evidence in favour of MT3 combined with exercise or UMC in comparison to exercise and back-school was established for pain, function and quality-of-life in the short and long-term. LIMITED-evidence in favour of MT2 combined with exercise and UMC in comparison to UMC alone for pain and function from short to long-term. LIMITED-evidence of no effect for MT1 with extension-exercise compared to extension-exercise alone for pain in the short to long-term. CONCLUSION: This systematic review updates the evidence for MT with exercise or UMC for different stages of LBP and provides recommendations for future studies.
Authors: David M Eisenberg; Diana E Post; Roger B Davis; Maureen T Connelly; Anna T R Legedza; Andrea L Hrbek; Lisa A Prosser; Julie E Buring; Thomas S Inui; Daniel C Cherkin Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-01-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: K V Fersum; W Dankaerts; P B O'Sullivan; J Maes; J S Skouen; J M Bjordal; A Kvåle Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2009-12-08 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Maarten van Kleef; Pascal Vanelderen; Steven P Cohen; Arno Lataster; Jan Van Zundert; Nagy Mekhail Journal: Pain Pract Date: 2010 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.183
Authors: Kathryn T Hoiriis; Bruce Pfleger; Frederic C McDuffie; George Cotsonis; Omar Elsangak; Roger Hinson; Gregoria T Verzosa Journal: J Manipulative Physiol Ther Date: 2004 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Daniel Roenz; Jake Broccolo; Steven Brust; Jordan Billings; Alexander Perrott; Jeremy Hagadorn; Chad Cook; Joshua Cleland Journal: J Man Manip Ther Date: 2017-11-20