Literature DB >> 26656041

Similar Effects of Thrust and Nonthrust Spinal Manipulation Found in Adults With Subacute and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Controlled Trial With Adaptive Allocation.

Ting Xia1, Cynthia R Long1, Maruti R Gudavalli1, David G Wilder2, Robert D Vining1, Robert M Rowell3, William R Reed1, James W DeVocht1, Christine M Goertz1, Edward F Owens4, William C Meeker5.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A three-arm controlled trial with adaptive allocation.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare short-term effects of a side-lying, thrust spinal manipulation (SM) procedure and a nonthrust, flexion-distraction SM procedure in adults with subacute or chronic low back pain (LBP) over 2 weeks. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: SM has been recommended in recently published clinical guidelines for LBP management. Previous studies suggest that thrust and nonthrust SM procedures, though distinctly different in joint loading characteristics, have similar effects on patients with LBP.
METHODS: Participants were eligible if they were 21 to 54 years old, had LBP for at least 4 weeks, scored 6 or above on the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire, and met the diagnostic classification of 1, 2, or 3 according to the Quebec Task Force Classification for Spinal Disorders. Participants were allocated in a 3:3:2 ratio to four sessions of thrust or nonthrust SM procedures directed at the lower lumbar and pelvic regions, or to a 2-week wait list control. The primary outcome was LBP-related disability using Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the secondary outcomes were LBP intensity using visual analog scale, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. The study was conducted at the Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research with care provided by experienced doctors of chiropractic. Clinicians and patients were not blinded to treatment group.
RESULTS: Of 192 participants enrolled, the mean age was 40 years and 54% were male. Improvement in disability, LBP intensity, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire-work subscale, and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey-physical health summary measure for the two SM groups were significantly greater than the control group. No difference in any outcomes was observed between the two SM groups.
CONCLUSION: Thrust and nonthrust SM procedures with distinctly different joint loading characteristics demonstrated similar effects in short-term LBP improvement and both were superior to a wait list control. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26656041      PMCID: PMC4902754          DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001373

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.241


  43 in total

Review 1.  A theoretical framework for the role of fascia in manual therapy.

Authors:  Nigel Simmonds; Peter Miller; Hugh Gemmell
Journal:  J Bodyw Mov Ther       Date:  2010-09-27

Review 2.  An updated overview of clinical guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care.

Authors:  Bart W Koes; Maurits van Tulder; Chung-Wei Christine Lin; Luciana G Macedo; James McAuley; Chris Maher
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-07-03       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go?

Authors:  Anne F Mannion; Achim Elfering; Ralph Staerkle; Astrid Junge; Dieter Grob; Norbert K Semmer; Nicola Jacobshagen; Jiri Dvorak; Norbert Boos
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-06-04       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use.

Authors:  R A Deyo; M Battie; A J Beurskens; C Bombardier; P Croft; B Koes; A Malmivaara; M Roland; M Von Korff; G Waddell
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1998-09-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project.

Authors:  J E Ware; B Gandek
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Distribution of cavitations as identified with accelerometry during lumbar spinal manipulation.

Authors:  Gregory D Cramer; J Kim Ross; P K Raju; Jerrilyn A Cambron; Jennifer M Dexheimer; Preetam Bora; Ray McKinnis; Scott Selby; Adam R Habeck
Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther       Date:  2011-07-18       Impact factor: 1.437

7.  Back pain prevalence and visit rates: estimates from U.S. national surveys, 2002.

Authors:  Richard A Deyo; Sohail K Mirza; Brook I Martin
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Patterns and perceptions of care for treatment of back and neck pain: results of a national survey.

Authors:  Peter M Wolsko; David M Eisenberg; Roger B Davis; Ronald Kessler; Russell S Phillips
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 9.  Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP).

Authors:  Gillian A Hawker; Samra Mian; Tetyana Kendzerska; Melissa French
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 4.794

10.  Review of methods used by chiropractors to determine the site for applying manipulation.

Authors:  John J Triano; Brian Budgell; Angela Bagnulo; Benjamin Roffey; Thomas Bergmann; Robert Cooperstein; Brian Gleberzon; Christopher Good; Jacquelyn Perron; Rodger Tepe
Journal:  Chiropr Man Therap       Date:  2013-10-21
View more
  12 in total

1.  A randomized clinical trial comparing non-thrust manipulation with segmental and distal dry needling on pain, disability, and rate of recovery for patients with non-specific low back pain.

Authors:  D Griswold; F Gargano; K E Learman
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2019-02-09

2.  A randomized control trial to determine the effectiveness and physiological effects of spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization compared to each other and a sham condition in patients with chronic low back pain: Study protocol for The RELIEF Study.

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

3.  Comparison between high-velocity low-amplitude manipulation and muscle energy technique on pain and trunk neuromuscular postural control in male workers with chronic low back pain: A randomised crossover trial.

Authors:  Leandro A Sturion; Alexandre H Nowotny; Fabrice Barillec; Gilles Barette; Gabriela K Santos; Fellipe A Teixeira; Karen P Fernandes; Rubens da Silva
Journal:  S Afr J Physiother       Date:  2020-10-26

4.  Spinal manipulative therapy reduces peripheral neuropathic pain in the rat.

Authors:  Stephen M Onifer; Randall S Sozio; Danielle M DiCarlo; Qian Li; Renee R Donahue; Bradley K Taylor; Cynthia R Long
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2018-02-07       Impact factor: 1.837

5.  Development of a Clinical Decision Aid for Chiropractic Management of Common Conditions Causing Low Back Pain in Veterans: Results of a Consensus Process.

Authors:  Robert D Vining; Zacariah K Shannon; Stacie A Salsbury; Lance Corber; Amy L Minkalis; Christine M Goertz
Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 1.437

6.  Association of lumbar spine stiffness and flexion-relaxation phenomenon with patient-reported outcomes in adults with chronic low back pain - a single-arm clinical trial investigating the effects of thrust spinal manipulation.

Authors:  Ting Xia; Cynthia R Long; Robert D Vining; Maruti R Gudavalli; James W DeVocht; Gregory N Kawchuk; David G Wilder; Christine M Goertz
Journal:  BMC Complement Altern Med       Date:  2017-06-09       Impact factor: 3.659

7.  Benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy for the treatment of chronic low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Sidney M Rubinstein; Annemarie de Zoete; Marienke van Middelkoop; Willem J J Assendelft; Michiel R de Boer; Maurits W van Tulder
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2019-03-13

8.  Physiological Responses Induced by Manual Therapy in Animal Models: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Carla Rigo Lima; Daniel Fernandes Martins; William Ray Reed
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2020-05-08       Impact factor: 4.677

9.  Spinal manipulation and therapeutic exercises in treating post-surgical resurgent lumbar radiculopathy.

Authors:  Vinicius Tieppo Francio; Chris Towery; Saeid Davani; Tony Brown
Journal:  Oxf Med Case Reports       Date:  2017-10-13

10.  Effect of Spinal Manipulative and Mobilization Therapies in Young Adults With Mild to Moderate Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  James S Thomas; Brian C Clark; David W Russ; Christopher R France; Robert Ploutz-Snyder; Daniel M Corcos
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-08-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.