-
JAMA Apr 2017Acute low back pain is common and spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a treatment option. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have reported different... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Humans; Low Back Pain; Manipulation, Spinal; Observational Studies as Topic; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function
PubMed: 28399251
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.3086 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Dec 2019To systematically assess the evidence of Craniosacral Therapy (CST) for the treatment of chronic pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To systematically assess the evidence of Craniosacral Therapy (CST) for the treatment of chronic pain.
METHODS
PubMed, Central, Scopus, PsycInfo and Cinahl were searched up to August 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of CST in chronic pain patients were eligible. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for pain intensity and functional disability (primary outcomes) using Hedges' correction for small samples. Secondary outcomes included physical/mental quality of life, global improvement, and safety. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool.
RESULTS
Ten RCTs of 681 patients with neck and back pain, migraine, headache, fibromyalgia, epicondylitis, and pelvic girdle pain were included. CST showed greater post intervention effects on: pain intensity (SMD = -0.32, 95%CI = [- 0.61,-0.02]) and disability (SMD = -0.58, 95%CI = [- 0.92,-0.24]) compared to treatment as usual; on pain intensity (SMD = -0.63, 95%CI = [- 0.90,-0.37]) and disability (SMD = -0.54, 95%CI = [- 0.81,-0.28]) compared to manual/non-manual sham; and on pain intensity (SMD = -0.53, 95%CI = [- 0.89,-0.16]) and disability (SMD = -0.58, 95%CI = [- 0.95,-0.21]) compared to active manual treatments. At six months, CST showed greater effects on pain intensity (SMD = -0.59, 95%CI = [- 0.99,-0.19]) and disability (SMD = -0.53, 95%CI = [- 0.87,-0.19]) versus sham. Secondary outcomes were all significantly more improved in CST patients than in other groups, except for six-month mental quality of life versus sham. Sensitivity analyses revealed robust effects of CST against most risk of bias domains. Five of the 10 RCTs reported safety data. No serious adverse events occurred. Minor adverse events were equally distributed between the groups.
DISCUSSION
In patients with chronic pain, this meta-analysis suggests significant and robust effects of CST on pain and function lasting up to six months. More RCTs strictly following CONSORT are needed to further corroborate the effects and safety of CST on chronic pain.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION AT PROSPERO
CRD42018111975.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Humans; Manipulation, Osteopathic; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31892357
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-019-3017-y -
The Journal of Manual & Manipulative... Oct 2023Adhesive capsulitis (AC) affects approximately 1% of the general population. Current research lacks clear guidance on the dosage of manual therapy and exercise... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Adhesive capsulitis (AC) affects approximately 1% of the general population. Current research lacks clear guidance on the dosage of manual therapy and exercise interventions.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of manual therapy and exercise in the management of AC, with a secondary aim of describing the available literature present on the dosage of interventions.
METHODS
Eligible studies were randomized clinical/quasi-experimental trials with complete data analysis and no limits on date of publication, published in English, recruited participants >18 years of age with primary adhesive capsulitis, that had at least two groups with one group receiving manual therapy (MT) alone, exercise alone, or MT and exercise, that included at least one outcome measure of pain, disability, or external rotation range of motion, and that had dosage of visits clearly defined. An electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Pedro, and clinicaltrials.gov. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias 2 Tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to provide an overall assessment of the quality of evidence. Meta-analyses were conducted when possible, and dosage was discussed in narrative form.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included. All meta-analyses revealed non-significant effects of pain, disability, and external rotation range of motion at short- and long-term follow-up, with an overall level of evidence ranging from very low to low.
CONCLUSION
Non-significant findings with low-to-very-low-quality of evidence were found across meta-analyses, preventing seamless transition of research evidence to clinical practice. Lack of consistency in study designs, manual therapy techniques, dosing parameters, and duration of care impedes the ability to make strong recommendations regarding optimal dosage of physical therapy for individuals with AC.
Topics: Humans; Exercise; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Physical Therapy Modalities; Shoulder Pain; Bursitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36861780
DOI: 10.1080/10669817.2023.2180702 -
The Journal of Manual & Manipulative... Oct 2022Patients with cervicogenic dizziness (CGD) present with dizziness, cervical spine dysfunctions, and postural imbalance, symptoms that can significantly impact their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients with cervicogenic dizziness (CGD) present with dizziness, cervical spine dysfunctions, and postural imbalance, symptoms that can significantly impact their daily functioning.
OBJECTIVES
To provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of patients with CGD.
METHODS
Three databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (last search 15 May 2021). Outcome measures included dizziness, cervical spine, and balance parameters. Cochrane standard methodological procedures were used and included the RoB 2.0 and GRADE. Where possible, RCTs were pooled for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs (n = 898 patients) of high (two RCTs), moderate (five RCTs), and low (six RCTs) methodological quality were analyzed. Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Only three RCTs specified the cause of CGD. They showed inconsistent findings for the effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with traumatic CGD. Manual therapy and manual therapy combined with exercise therapy may reduce CGD, cervical spine, and balance dysfunctions.
CONCLUSION
There is moderate quality of evidence that manual therapy reduces CGD, cervical spine, and balance symptoms. When manual therapy is combined with exercise therapy, the positive effect on CGD, cervical spine, and balance symptoms is even stronger. However, the quality of the evidence here is very low.
Topics: Cervical Vertebrae; Dizziness; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Vertigo
PubMed: 35383538
DOI: 10.1080/10669817.2022.2033044 -
International Orthopaedics Jun 2022There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal treatment for stiffness following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). With the increased utilization of value-based... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal treatment for stiffness following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). With the increased utilization of value-based models, it is important to determine the most effective treatments that will reduce the need for further intervention and additional expenditure. A systematic review was performed to compare the outcomes of manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA), arthroscopic lysis of adhesions (aLOA), and revision TKA (rTKA) for arthrofibrosis and stiffness following TKA.
METHODS
PubMed and MEDLINE databases were reviewed for articles published through October 2020. Studies were included if they reported patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following MUA, aLOA, or rTKA. The primary endpoint was PROMs, while secondary outcomes included range of motion and the percentage of patients who pursued further treatment for stiffness.
RESULTS
A total of 40 studies were included: 21 on rTKA, 7 on aLOA, and 14 on MUA. The mean or median post-operative arc ROM was > 90° in 6/20 (30%) rTKA, 5/7 (71%) aLOA, and 7/10 (70%) MUA studies. Post-operative Knee Society (KSS) clinical and functional scores were the greatest in patients who underwent MUA and aLOA. As many as 43% of rTKA patients required further care compared to 25% of aLOA and 17% of MUA patients.
CONCLUSION
Stiffness following TKA remains a challenging condition to treat. Nonetheless, current evidence suggests that patients who undergo rTKA have poorer clinical outcomes and a greater need for further treatment compared to patients who undergo MUA or aLOA.
Topics: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Humans; Joint Diseases; Knee Joint; Range of Motion, Articular; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35301559
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-022-05344-x -
Journal of Bodywork and Movement... Jan 2019Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is a common orthopedic condition with a prevalence of 2%-3% in children aged 10-16 years. Conservative interventions remain...
BACKGROUND
Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is a common orthopedic condition with a prevalence of 2%-3% in children aged 10-16 years. Conservative interventions remain controversial and are usually based on physical therapy exercises and treatments. Manual therapy techniques may also serve as adequate treatments for AIS due to their ability to improve range of motion and decrease muscle tone and pain.
OBJECTIVE
To critically assess the current literature on the effectiveness of manual therapy methods used to treat AIS.
METHODS
PubMed, PEDro, BioMed Central, and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception until December 2016 using keywords associated with scoliosis and manual therapy. Criteria for inclusion were studies investigating the effect of manual therapy methods on AIS treatment. We analyzed all published material with an emphasis on randomized controlled trials (RCT). Trials of any methodological quality written in English were included in the review.
MAJOR FINDINGS
Fourteen papers were reviewed, all presenting manual therapy treatments such as manipulation, mobilization, and soft tissue techniques used to treat AIS. All case studies showed a significant improvement, post-treatment, in most measured parameters. Observational studies showed mixed results. Only one RCT concluded manual therapy techniques were ineffective in improving trunk morphology and spine flexibility in AIS patients.
CONCLUSION
Case reports and small-scale clinical trials of poor methodological quality presented in this review did not allow us to draw a clear conclusion about the effectiveness of manual therapy in the treatment of AIS. On the other hand, they provide us a basis to assume that manual therapy techniques such as myofascial release and spinal manipulative techniques may potentially be effective in treating AIS in conjunction with other conservative treatments. Further high-quality studies are essential to determine the effectiveness of the different manual therapy techniques.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Humans; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Scoliosis; Therapy, Soft Tissue
PubMed: 30691751
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2018.01.005 -
Palliative Medicine Feb 2020Aromatherapy, massage and reflexology are widely used in palliative care. Despite this, there are questions about their suitability for inclusion in clinical guidelines....
BACKGROUND
Aromatherapy, massage and reflexology are widely used in palliative care. Despite this, there are questions about their suitability for inclusion in clinical guidelines. The need to understand their benefits is a public priority, especially in light of funding pressures.
AIM
To synthesise current evidence on the effectiveness of aromatherapy, massage and reflexology in people with palliative care needs.
DESIGN
A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (PROSPERO CRD42017081409) was undertaken following international standards including Cochrane guidelines. The quality of trials and their pooled evidence were appraised. Primary outcomes on effect were anxiety, pain and quality-of-life.
DATA SOURCES
Eight citation databases and three trial registries were searched to June 2018.
RESULTS
Twenty-two trials, involving 1956 participants were identified. Compared with a control, four evaluated aromatherapy, eight massage and six reflexology. A further four evaluated massage compared with aromatherapy. Trials were at an unclear risk of bias. Many had small samples. Heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. In comparison with usual care, another therapy or an active control, evidence on the effectiveness of massage and aromatherapy in reducing anxiety, pain and improving quality-of-life was inconclusive. There was some evidence (low quality) that compared to an active control, reflexology reduced pain.
CONCLUSIONS
This review identified a relatively large number of trials, but with poor and heterogeneous evidence. New clinical recommendations cannot be made based on current evidence. To help provide more definitive trial findings, it may be useful first to understand more about the best way to measure the effectiveness of these therapies in palliative care.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Aromatherapy; Female; Hospice and Palliative Care Nursing; Humans; Male; Massage; Middle Aged; Mind-Body Therapies; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Palliative Care; Quality of Life
PubMed: 31659939
DOI: 10.1177/0269216319884198 -
PloS One 2019To investigate the role of thoracic spine manipulation (TSM) on pain and disability in the management of mechanical neck pain (MNP). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the role of thoracic spine manipulation (TSM) on pain and disability in the management of mechanical neck pain (MNP).
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, Pedro, Embase, AMED, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched in January 2018.
STUDY SELECTION
Eligible studies were completed RCTs, written in English, had at least 2 groups with one group receiving TSM, had at least one measure of pain or disability, and included patients with MNP of any duration. The search identified 1717 potential articles, with 14 studies meeting inclusion criteria.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
Methodological quality was evaluated independently by two authors using the guidelines published by the Cochrane Collaboration. Pooled analyses were analyzed using a random-effects model with inverse variance methods to calculate mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals for pain (VAS 0-100mm, NPRS 0-10pts; 0 = no pain) and disability (NDI and NPQ 0-100%; 0 = no disability).
RESULTS
Across the included studies, there was increased risk of bias for inadequate provider and participant blinding. The GRADE approach demonstrated an overall level of evidence ranging from very low to moderate. Meta-analysis that compared TSM to thoracic or cervical mobilization revealed a significant effect favoring the TSM group for pain (MD -13.63; 95% CI: -21.79, -5.46) and disability (MD -9.93; 95% CI: -14.38, -5.48). Meta-analysis that compared TSM to standard care revealed a significant effect favoring the TSM group for pain (MD -13.21; 95% CI: -21.87, -4.55) and disability (MD -11.36; 95% CI: -18.93, -3.78) at short-term follow-up, and a significant effect for disability (MD -4.75; 95% CI: -6.54, -2.95) at long-term follow-up. Meta-analysis that compared TSM to cervical spine manipulation revealed a non-significant effect (MD 3.43; 95% CI: -7.26, 14.11) for pain without a distinction between immediate and short-term follow-up.
LIMITATIONS
The greatest limitation in this systematic review was the heterogeneity among the studies making it difficult to assess the true clinical benefit, as well as the overall level of quality of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
TSM has been shown to be more beneficial than thoracic mobilization, cervical mobilization, and standard care in the short-term, but no better than cervical manipulation or placebo thoracic spine manipulation to improve pain and disability.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42017068287.
Topics: Adult; Disabled Persons; Female; Humans; Low Back Pain; Male; Manipulation, Spinal; Middle Aged; Neck; Neck Pain; Spine; Stress, Mechanical
PubMed: 30759118
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211877 -
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies Feb 2021A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders....
The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature.
BACKGROUND
A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial.
OBJECTIVES
We convened a Global Summit of international scientists to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of non-musculoskeletal disorders.
GLOBAL SUMMIT
The Global Summit took place on September 14-15, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. It was attended by 50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations. At the summit, participants critically appraised the literature and synthesized the evidence.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 15, 2019 using subject headings specific to each database and free text words relevant to manipulation/manual therapy, effectiveness, prevention, treatment, and non-musculoskeletal disorders. Eligible for review were randomized controlled trials published in English. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria for randomized controlled trials. We synthesized the evidence from articles with high or acceptable methodological quality according to the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) Guideline. The final risk of bias and evidence tables were reviewed by researchers who attended the Global Summit and 75% (38/50) had to approve the content to reach consensus.
RESULTS
We retrieved 4997 citations, removed 1123 duplicates and screened 3874 citations. Of those, the eligibility of 32 articles was evaluated at the Global Summit and 16 articles were included in our systematic review. Our synthesis included six randomized controlled trials with acceptable or high methodological quality (reported in seven articles). These trials investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the management of infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. None of the trials evaluated the effectiveness of SMT in preventing the occurrence of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Consensus was reached on the content of all risk of bias and evidence tables. All randomized controlled trials with high or acceptable quality found that SMT was not superior to sham interventions for the treatment of these non-musculoskeletal disorders. Six of 50 participants (12%) in the Global Summit did not approve the final report.
CONCLUSION
Our systematic review included six randomized clinical trials (534 participants) of acceptable or high quality investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function. Governments, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should consider this evidence when developing policies about the use and reimbursement of SMT for non-musculoskeletal disorders.
Topics: Asthma; Colic; Dysmenorrhea; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Manipulation, Spinal; Noncommunicable Diseases
PubMed: 33596925
DOI: 10.1186/s12998-021-00362-9