Chiropractic & Osteopathy - Most accessed articles

Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report

Gert Bronfort — 2010-02-25T00:00:00Z

Background: The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions. Methods: The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories. The strength/quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs. Results: By September 2009, 26 categories of conditions were located containing RCT evidence for the use of manual therapy: 13 musculoskeletal conditions, four types of chronic headache and nine non-musculoskeletal conditions. We identified 49 recent relevant systematic reviews and 16 evidence-based clinical guidelines plus an additional 46 RCTs not yet included in systematic reviews and guidelines.Additionally, brief references are made to other effective non-pharmacological, non-invasive physical treatments. Conclusions: Spinal manipulation/mobilization is effective in adults for: acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain; migraine and cervicogenic headache; cervicogenic dizziness; manipulation/mobilization is effective for several extremity joint conditions; and thoracic manipulation/mobilization is effective for acute/subacute neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for cervical manipulation/mobilization alone for neck pain of any duration, and for manipulation/mobilization for mid back pain, sciatica, tension-type headache, coccydynia, temporomandibular joint disorders, fibromyalgia, premenstrual syndrome, and pneumonia in older adults. Spinal manipulation is not effective for asthma and dysmenorrhea when compared to sham manipulation, or for Stage 1 hypertension when added to an antihypertensive diet. In children, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the effectiveness for otitis media and enuresis, and it is not effective for infantile colic and asthma when compared to sham manipulation.Massage is effective in adults for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for knee osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain syndrome, migraine headache, and premenstrual syndrome. In children, the evidence is inconclusive for asthma and infantile colic.

Commentary on the United Kingdom evidence report about the effectiveness of manual therapies

Scott Haldeman — 2010-02-25T00:00:00Z

This is an accompanying commentary on the article by Gert Bronfort and colleagues about the effectiveness of manual therapy. The two commentaries were provided independently and combined into this single article by the journal editors.

On the reliability and validity of manual muscle testing: a literature review

Scott Cuthbert — 2007-03-06T00:00:00Z

ABSTRACTIntroductionA body of basic science and clinical research has been generated on the manual muscle test (MMT) since its first peer-reviewed publication in 1915. The aim of this report is to provide an historical overview, literature review, description, synthesis and critique of the reliability and validity of MMT in the evaluation of the musculoskeletal and nervous systems. Methods: Online resources were searched including Pubmed and CINAHL (each from inception to June 2006). The search terms manual muscle testing or manual muscle test were used. Relevant peer-reviewed studies, commentaries, and reviews were selected. The two reviewers assessed data quality independently, with selection standards based on predefined methodologic criteria. Studies of MMT were categorized by research content type: inter- and intra-examiner reliability studies, and construct, content, concurrent and predictive validity studies. Each study was reviewed in terms of its quality and contribution to knowledge regarding MMT, and its findings presented. Results: More than 100 studies related to MMT and the applied kinesiology chiropractic technique (AK) that employs MMT in its methodology were reviewed, including studies on the clinical efficacy of MMT in the diagnosis of patients with symptomatology. With regard to analysis there is evidence for good reliability and validity in the use of MMT for patients with neuromusculoskeletal dysfunction. The observational cohort studies demonstrated good external and internal validity, and the 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were reviewed show that MMT findings were not dependent upon examiner bias. Conclusion: The MMT employed by chiropractors, physical therapists, and neurologists was shown to be a clinically useful tool, but its ultimate scientific validation and application requires testing that employs sophisticated research models in the areas of neurophysiology, biomechanics, RCTs, and statistical analysis.

The relationship between hip abductor muscle strength and iliotibial band tightness in individuals with low back pain

Amir Arab — 2010-01-13T00:00:00Z

Background: Shortening of the iliotibial band (ITB) has been considered to be associated with low back pain (LBP). It is theorized that ITB tightness in individuals with LBP is a compensatory mechanism following hip abductor muscle weakness. However, no study has clinically examined this theory. The purpose of this study was to investigate the muscle imbalance of hip abductor muscle weakness and ITB tightness in subjects with LBP. Methods: A total of 300 subjects with and without LBP between the ages of 20 and 60 participated in this cross-sectional study. Subjects were categorized in three groups: LBP with ITB tightness (n = 100), LBP without ITB tightness (n = 100) and no LBP (n = 100). Hip abductor muscle strength was measured in all subjects. Results: Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with the body mass index (BMI) as the covariate revealed significant difference in hip abductor strength between three groups (P < 0.001). Post hoc analysis showed no significant difference in hip abductor muscle strength between the LBP subjects with and without ITB tightness (P = 0.59). However, subjects with no LBP had significantly stronger hip abductor muscle strength compared to subjects with LBP with ITB tightness (P < 0.001) and those with LBP without ITB tightness (P < 0.001). Conclusion: The relationship between ITB tightness and hip abductor weakness in patients with LBP is not supported as assumed in theory. More clinical studies are needed to assess the theory of muscle imbalance of hip abductor weakness and ITB tightness in LBP.

Neck pain and anxiety do not always go together

Corrie Myburgh — 2010-03-11T00:00:00Z

Chronic pain and psychosocial distress are generally thought to be associated in chronic musculoskeletal disorders such as non-specific neck and back pain. However, it is unclear whether a raised level of anxiety is necessarily a feature of longstanding, intense pain amongst patient and general population sub-groups. In a cohort of 70 self-selected female, non-specific neck pain sufferers, we observed relatively high levels of self-reported pain of 4.46 (measured on the 11 point numerical pain rating scale (NRS-101)) and a longstanding duration of symptoms (156 days/year). However, the mean anxiety scores observed (5.49), fell well below the clinically relevant threshold of 21 required by the Beck Anxiety Inventory. The cohort was stratified to further distinguish individuals with higher pain intensity (NRS>6) and longer symptom duration (>90 days). A highly statistically significant difference (p=0.000) was observed with respect to pain intensity. However, no significant differences were noted in the sub-groups with respect to anxiety levels. Our results indicate that chronic, intense pain and anxiety do not always appear to be related. Explanations for these findings may include that anxiety is not triggered in socially functional individuals, that individual coping strategies have come into play or in some instances that a psychological disorder like alexithymia could be a confounder. More studies are needed to clarify the specific role of anxiety in chronic non-specific musculoskeletal pain before general evidence-driven clinical extrapolations can be made.

Non-surgical spinal decompression therapy: does the scientific literature support efficacy claims made in the advertising media?

Dwain Daniel — 2007-05-18T00:00:00Z

Background: Traction therapy has been utilized in the treatment of low back pain for decades. The most recent incarnation of traction therapy is non-surgical spinal decompression therapy which can cost over $100,000. This form of therapy has been heavily marketed to manual therapy professions and subsequently to the consumer. The purpose of this paper is to initiate a debate pertaining to the relationship between marketing claims and the scientific literature on non-surgical spinal decompression.DiscussionOnly one small randomized controlled trial and several lower level efficacy studies have been performed on spinal decompression therapy. In general the quality of these studies is questionable. Many of the studies were performed using the VAX-D® unit which places the patient in a prone position. Often companies utilize this research for their marketing although their units place the patient in the supine position.SummaryOnly limited evidence is available to warrant the routine use of non-surgical spinal decompression, particularly when many other well investigated, less expensive alternatives are available.

The Nordic Maintenance Care Program - Time intervals between treatments of patients with low back pain: how close and who decides?

Kjerstin Sandnes — 2010-03-08T00:00:00Z

Background: The management of chiropractic patients with acute and chronic/persistent conditions probably differs. However, little is known on this subject. There is, for example, a dearth of information on maintenance care (MC). Thus it is not known if patients on MC are coerced to partake in a program of frequent treatments over a long period of time, or if they are actively involved in designing their own individualized treatment program.Objectives: It was the purpose of this study to investigate how chiropractic patients with low back pain were scheduled for treatment, with special emphasis on MC. The specific research questions were: 1. How many patients are on maintenance care? 2) Are there specific patterns of intervals between treatments for patients and, if so, do they differ between MC patients and non-MC patients? 3. Who decides on the next treatment, the patient, the chiropractor or both, and are there any differences between MC patients and non-MC patients?MethodChiropractic students, who during their summer holidays were observers in chiropractic clinics in Norway and Denmark, recorded whether patients were classified by the treating chiropractor as a MC-patient or not, dates for last and subsequent visits, and made a judgement on whether the patient or the chiropractor decided on the next appointment. Results: Observers in the study were 16 out of 30 available students. They collected data on 868 patients from 15 Danish and 13 Norwegian chiropractors. Twenty-two percent and 26%, respectively, were classified as MC patients. Non-MC patients were most frequently seen within 1 week. For MC patients, the previous visit was most often 2-4 weeks prior to the actual visit, and the next appointment between 1 and 3 months. This indicates a gradual increase in intervals. The decision of the next visit was mainly made by the chiropractor, also for MC patients. However, the study samples of chiropractors appear not to be representative of the general Danish and Norwegian chiropractic profession and the patients may also have been non-representative. Conclusion: There were two distinctly different patterns for the time period between visits for MC patients and non-MC patients. For non-MC patients, the most frequent interval between visits was one week and for MC patients, the period was typically between two weeks and three months. It was primarily the chiropractor who made the next visit-decision. However, these results can perhaps not be extrapolated to other groups of patients and chiropractors.

An epidemiological examination of the subluxation construct using Hill's criteria of causation

Timothy Mirtz — 2009-12-02T00:00:00Z

Background: Chiropractors claim to locate, analyze and diagnose a putative spinal lesion known as subluxation and apply the mode of spinal manipulation (adjustment) for the correction of this lesion.AimThe purpose of this examination is to review the current evidence on the epidemiology of the subluxation construct and to evaluate the subluxation by applying epidemiologic criteria for it's significance as a causal factor. Methods: The databases of PubMed, Cinahl, and Mantis were searched for studies using the keywords subluxation, epidemiology, manipulation, dose-response, temporality, odds ratio, relative risk, biological plausibility, coherence, and analogy. Results: The criteria for causation in epidemiology are strength (strength of association), consistency, specificity, temporality (temporal sequence), dose response, experimental evidence, biological plausibility, coherence, and analogy. Applied to the subluxation all of these criteria remain for the most part unfulfilled. Conclusion: There is a significant lack of evidence to fulfill the basic criteria of causation. This lack of crucial supportive epidemiologic evidence prohibits the accurate promulgation of the chiropractic subluxation.

Scoliosis treatment using spinal manipulation and the Pettibon Weighting SystemTM: a summary of 3 atypical presentations

Mark Morningstar — 2006-01-12T00:00:00Z

Background: Given the relative lack of treatment options for mild to moderate scoliosis, when the Cobb angle measurements fall below the 25–30° range, conservative manual therapies for scoliosis treatment have been increasingly investigated in recent years. In this case series, we present 3 specific cases of scoliosis.Case presentationPatient presentation, examination, intervention and outcomes are detailed for each case. The types of scoliosis presented here are left thoracic, idiopathic scoliosis after Harrington rod instrumentation, and a left thoracic scoliosis secondary to Scheuermann's Kyphosis.Each case carries its own clinical significance, in relation to clinical presentation. The first patient presented for chiropractic treatment with a 35° thoracic dextroscoliosis 18 years following Harrington Rod instrumentation and fusion. The second patient presented with a 22° thoracic levoscoliosis and concomitant Scheuermann's Disease. Finally, the third case summarizes the treatment of a patient with a primary 37° idiopathic thoracic levoscoliosis. Each patient was treated with a novel active rehabilitation program for varying lengths of time, including spinal manipulation and a patented external head and body weighting system. Following a course of treatment, consisting of clinic and home care treatments, post-treatment radiographs and examinations were conducted. Improvement in symptoms and daily function was obtained in all 3 cases. Concerning Cobb angle measurements, there was an apparent reduction in Cobb angle of 13°, 8°, and 16° over a maximum of 12 weeks of treatment. Conclusion: Although mild to moderate reductions in Cobb angle measurements were achieved in these cases, these improvements may not be related to the symptomatic and functional improvements. The lack of a control also includes the possibility of a placebo effect. However, this study adds to the growing body of literature investigating methods by which mild to moderate cases of scoliosis can be treated conservatively. Further investigation is necessary to determine whether curve reduction and/or manipulation and/or placebo was responsible for the symptomatic and functional improvements noted in these cases.

The appropriate use of radiography in clinical practice: a report of two cases of biomechanical versus malignant spine pain

R Pringle — 2006-05-30T00:00:00Z

Background: To describe the evaluation, treatment, management and referral of two patients with back pain with an eventual malignant etiology, who were first thought to have a non-organic biomechanical disorder.Clinical featuresThe study was a retrospective review of the clinical course of two patients seen by a chiropractor in a multi-disciplinary outpatient facility, who presented with what was thought to be non-organic biomechanical spine pain. Clinical examination by both medical and chiropractic physicians did not indicate the need for radiography in the early course of management of either patient. Upon subsequent re-evaluation, it was decided that certain clinical factors required investigation with advanced imaging.In one instance, the patient responded to conservative care of low back pain for nine weeks, after which she developed severe pain in the pelvis. In the second case, the patient presented with signs and symptoms consistent with uncomplicated musculoskeletal pain that failed to respond to a course of conservative care. He was referred for medical therapy which also failed to relieve his pain. In both patients, malignancy was eventually discovered with magnetic resonance imaging and both patients are now deceased, resulting in an inability to obtain informed consent for the publication of this manuscript. Conclusion: In these two cases, the prudent use of diagnostic plain film radiography did not significantly alter the appropriate long-term management of patients with neuromusculoskeletal signs and symptoms. The judicious use of magnetic resonance imaging was an effective procedure when investigating recalcitrant neuromusculoskeletal pain in these two patients.