Neil M Paige1, Isomi M Miake-Lye1,2, Marika Suttorp Booth3, Jessica M Beroes1, Aram S Mardian4, Paul Dougherty5, Richard Branson6, Baron Tang7, Sally C Morton8, Paul G Shekelle1,3. 1. West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 2. University of California, Los Angeles Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles. 3. RAND Corporation, Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center, Santa Monica. 4. Phoenix Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Phoenix, Arizona. 5. Canandaigua Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Rochester, New York. 6. Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 7. White River Junction Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont. 8. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Acute low back pain is common and spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a treatment option. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have reported different conclusions about the effectiveness of SMT. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review studies of the effectiveness and harms of SMT for acute (≤6 weeks) low back pain. DATA SOURCES: Search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and Current Nursing and Allied Health Literature from January 1, 2011, through February 6, 2017, as well as identified systematic reviews and RCTs, for RCTs of adults with low back pain treated in ambulatory settings with SMT compared with sham or alternative treatments, and that measured pain or function outcomes for up to 6 weeks. Observational studies were included to assess harms. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction was done in duplicate. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Risk of Bias tool. This tool has 11 items in the following domains: randomization, concealment, baseline differences, blinding (patient), blinding (care provider [care provider is a specific quality metric used by the CBN Risk of Bias tool]), blinding (outcome), co-interventions, compliance, dropouts, timing, and intention to treat. Prior research has shown the CBN Risk of Bias tool identifies studies at an increased risk of bias using a threshold of 5 or 6 as a summary score. The evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Pain (measured by either the 100-mm visual analog scale, 11-point numeric rating scale, or other numeric pain scale), function (measured by the 24-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire or Oswestry Disability Index [range, 0-100]), or any harms measured within 6 weeks. FINDINGS: Of 26 eligible RCTs identified, 15 RCTs (1711 patients) provided moderate-quality evidence that SMT has a statistically significant association with improvements in pain (pooled mean improvement in the 100-mm visual analog pain scale, -9.95 [95% CI, -15.6 to -4.3]). Twelve RCTs (1381 patients) produced moderate-quality evidence that SMT has a statistically significant association with improvements in function (pooled mean effect size, -0.39 [95% CI, -0.71 to -0.07]). Heterogeneity was not explained by type of clinician performing SMT, type of manipulation, study quality, or whether SMT was given alone or as part of a package of therapies. No RCT reported any serious adverse event. Minor transient adverse events such as increased pain, muscle stiffness, and headache were reported 50% to 67% of the time in large case series of patients treated with SMT. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with acute low back pain, spinal manipulative therapy was associated with modest improvements in pain and function at up to 6 weeks, with transient minor musculoskeletal harms. However, heterogeneity in study results was large.
IMPORTANCE: Acute low back pain is common and spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a treatment option. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have reported different conclusions about the effectiveness of SMT. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review studies of the effectiveness and harms of SMT for acute (≤6 weeks) low back pain. DATA SOURCES: Search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and Current Nursing and Allied Health Literature from January 1, 2011, through February 6, 2017, as well as identified systematic reviews and RCTs, for RCTs of adults with low back pain treated in ambulatory settings with SMT compared with sham or alternative treatments, and that measured pain or function outcomes for up to 6 weeks. Observational studies were included to assess harms. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction was done in duplicate. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Risk of Bias tool. This tool has 11 items in the following domains: randomization, concealment, baseline differences, blinding (patient), blinding (care provider [care provider is a specific quality metric used by the CBN Risk of Bias tool]), blinding (outcome), co-interventions, compliance, dropouts, timing, and intention to treat. Prior research has shown the CBN Risk of Bias tool identifies studies at an increased risk of bias using a threshold of 5 or 6 as a summary score. The evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Pain (measured by either the 100-mm visual analog scale, 11-point numeric rating scale, or other numeric pain scale), function (measured by the 24-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire or Oswestry Disability Index [range, 0-100]), or any harms measured within 6 weeks. FINDINGS: Of 26 eligible RCTs identified, 15 RCTs (1711 patients) provided moderate-quality evidence that SMT has a statistically significant association with improvements in pain (pooled mean improvement in the 100-mm visual analog pain scale, -9.95 [95% CI, -15.6 to -4.3]). Twelve RCTs (1381 patients) produced moderate-quality evidence that SMT has a statistically significant association with improvements in function (pooled mean effect size, -0.39 [95% CI, -0.71 to -0.07]). Heterogeneity was not explained by type of clinician performing SMT, type of manipulation, study quality, or whether SMT was given alone or as part of a package of therapies. No RCT reported any serious adverse event. Minor transient adverse events such as increased pain, muscle stiffness, and headache were reported 50% to 67% of the time in large case series of patients treated with SMT. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with acute low back pain, spinal manipulative therapy was associated with modest improvements in pain and function at up to 6 weeks, with transient minor musculoskeletal harms. However, heterogeneity in study results was large.
Authors: Julie M Fritz; John S Magel; Molly McFadden; Carl Asche; Anne Thackeray; Whitney Meier; Gerard Brennan Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-10-13 Impact factor: 56.272
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: 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: Charles Elder; Lynn DeBar; Cheryl Ritenbaugh; John Dickerson; William M Vollmer; Richard A Deyo; Eric S Johnson; Mitchell Haas Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 5.128