Alan Jenks1, Annemarie de Zoete2, Maurits van Tulder3,4, Sidney M Rubinstein2. 1. Faculty of Science, Department of Health Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, Gebouw MF, Flexruimte, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. a.d.jenks@vu.nl. 2. Faculty of Science, Department of Health Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, Gebouw MF, Flexruimte, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Faculty of Movement and Behavioral Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Many systematic reviews have reported on the effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for low back pain (LBP) in adults. Much less is known about the older population regarding the effects of SMT. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of SMT on pain and function in older adults with chronic LBP in an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. SETTING: Electronic databases from 2000 until June 2020, and reference lists of eligible trials and related reviews. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the effects of SMT in adults with chronic LBP compared to interventions recommended in international LBP guidelines. METHODS: Authors of trials eligible for our IPD meta-analysis were contacted to share data. Two review authors conducted a risk of bias assessment. Primary results were examined in a one-stage mixed model, and a two-stage analysis was conducted in order to confirm findings. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Pain and functional status examined at 4, 13, 26, and 52 weeks. RESULTS: 10 studies were retrieved, including 786 individuals, of which 261 were between 65 and 91 years of age. There is moderate-quality evidence that SMT results in similar outcomes at 4 weeks (pain: mean difference [MD] - 2.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 5.78 to 0.66; functional status: standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.18, 95% CI - 0.41 to 0.05). Second-stage and sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: SMT provides similar outcomes to recommended interventions for pain and functional status in the older adult with chronic LBP. SMT should be considered a treatment for this patient population.
PURPOSE: Many systematic reviews have reported on the effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for low back pain (LBP) in adults. Much less is known about the older population regarding the effects of SMT. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of SMT on pain and function in older adults with chronic LBP in an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. SETTING: Electronic databases from 2000 until June 2020, and reference lists of eligible trials and related reviews. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the effects of SMT in adults with chronic LBP compared to interventions recommended in international LBP guidelines. METHODS: Authors of trials eligible for our IPD meta-analysis were contacted to share data. Two review authors conducted a risk of bias assessment. Primary results were examined in a one-stage mixed model, and a two-stage analysis was conducted in order to confirm findings. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Pain and functional status examined at 4, 13, 26, and 52 weeks. RESULTS: 10 studies were retrieved, including 786 individuals, of which 261 were between 65 and 91 years of age. There is moderate-quality evidence that SMT results in similar outcomes at 4 weeks (pain: mean difference [MD] - 2.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 5.78 to 0.66; functional status: standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.18, 95% CI - 0.41 to 0.05). Second-stage and sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: SMT provides similar outcomes to recommended interventions for pain and functional status in the older adult with chronic LBP. SMT should be considered a treatment for this patient population.
Authors: Alessandro Chiarotto; Richard A Deyo; Caroline B Terwee; Maarten Boers; Rachelle Buchbinder; Terry P Corbin; Leonardo O P Costa; Nadine E Foster; Margreth Grotle; Bart W Koes; Francisco M Kovacs; Chung-Wei Christine Lin; Chris G Maher; Adam M Pearson; Wilco C Peul; Mark L Schoene; Dennis C Turk; Maurits W van Tulder; Raymond W Ostelo Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2015-04-05 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Paulo R C do Nascimento; Leonardo O P Costa; Amanda C Araujo; Stéphane Poitras; Martin Bilodeau Journal: Physiotherapy Date: 2018-11-15 Impact factor: 3.358
Authors: Jennifer L St Sauver; David O Warner; Barbara P Yawn; Debra J Jacobson; Michaela E McGree; Joshua J Pankratz; L Joseph Melton; Véronique L Roger; Jon O Ebbert; Walter A Rocca Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Jennifer Stewart Williams; Nawi Ng; Karl Peltzer; Alfred Yawson; Richard Biritwum; Tamara Maximova; Fan Wu; Perianayagam Arokiasamy; Paul Kowal; Somnath Chatterji Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-04 Impact factor: 3.240
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