Abstract

BackgroundReports vary considerably concerning characteristics of patients who will respond to mobilizing exercises or manipulation. The objective of this prospective cohort study was to identify characteristics of patients with a changeable lumbar condition, i.e. presenting with centralization or peripheralization, that were likely to benefit the most from either the McKenzie method or spinal manipulation.Methods350 patients with chronic low back pain were randomized to either the McKenzie method or manipulation. The possible effect modifiers were age, severity of leg pain, pain-distribution, nerve root involvement, duration of symptoms, and centralization of symptoms. The primary outcome was the number of patients reporting success at two months follow-up. The values of the dichotomized predictors were tested according to the prespecified analysis plan.ResultsNo predictors were found to produce a statistically significant interaction effect. The McKenzie method was superior to manipulation across all subgroups, thus the probability of success was consistently in favor of this treatment independent of predictor observed. When the two strongest predictors, nerve root involvement and peripheralization, were combined, the chance of success was relative risk 10.5 (95% CI 0.71-155.43) for the McKenzie method and 1.23 (95% CI 1.03-1.46) for manipulation (P = 0.11 for interaction effect).ConclusionsWe did not find any baseline variables which were statistically significant effect modifiers in predicting different response to either McKenzie treatment or spinal manipulation when compared to each other. However, we did identify nerve root involvement and peripheralization to produce differences in response to McKenzie treatment compared to manipulation that appear to be clinically important. These findings need testing in larger studies.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov: NCT00939107Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-015-0526-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

  • Reports vary considerably concerning characteristics of patients who will respond to mobilizing exercises or manipulation

  • Previous studies have compared the effect of the McKenzie-method, known as Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT), with that of spinal manipulation (SM) in heterogeneous populations of patients with acute and subacute non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) and found no difference in outcome [3,4]

  • The predictors with a clinically important potential effect in favor of MDT compared to SM were nerve root involvement (28% higher proportion of patients with success when nerve root involvement was present than when absent) and peripheralization of symptoms (17% higher proportion of patients with success in case of peripheralization than in case of centralization)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Reports vary considerably concerning characteristics of patients who will respond to mobilizing exercises or manipulation The objective of this prospective cohort study was to identify characteristics of patients with a changeable lumbar condition, i.e. presenting with centralization or peripheralization, that were likely to benefit the most from either the McKenzie method or spinal manipulation. The most recent published guidelines for the treatment of patients with persistent non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) recommend a program focusing on self-management after initial advice and information. These patients should be offered structured exercises tailored to the individual patient and other modalities such as spinal manipulation [1,2]. The conclusions drawn from these studies were not in concurrence and the usefulness was limited by a low methodological quality

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call