Efficacy Of Spinal Manipulative Therapy Research Articles

Spinal manipulative therapy, Graston technique® and placebo for non-specific thoracic spine pain: a randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundFew controlled trials have assessed the efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for thoracic spine pain. No high quality trials have been performed to test the efficacy and effectiveness of Graston Technique® (GT), an instrument-assisted soft tissue therapy. The objective of this trial was to determine the efficacy of SMT and GT compared to sham therapy for the treatment of non-specific thoracic spine pain.MethodsPeople with non-specific thoracic pain were randomly allocated to one of three groups: SMT, GT, or a placebo (de-tuned ultrasound). Each participant received up to 10 supervised treatment sessions at Murdoch University chiropractic student clinic over a 4 week period. The participants and treatment providers were not blinded to the treatment allocation as it was clear which therapy they were receiving, however outcome assessors were blinded and we attempted to blind the participants allocated to the placebo group. Treatment outcomes were measured at baseline, 1 week, and at one, three, six and 12 months. Primary outcome measures included a modified Oswestry Disability Index, and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Treatment effects were estimated with intention to treat analysis and linear mixed models.ResultsOne hundred and forty three participants were randomly allocated to the three groups (SMT = 36, GT = 63 and Placebo = 44). Baseline data for the three groups did not show any meaningful differences. Results of the intention to treat analyses revealed no time by group interactions, indicating no statistically significant between-group differences in pain or disability at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, or 12 months. There were significant main effects of time (p < 0.01) indicating improvements in pain and disability from baseline among all participants regardless of intervention. No significant adverse events were reported.ConclusionThis study indicates that there is no difference in outcome at any time point for pain or disability when comparing SMT, Graston Technique® or sham therapy for thoracic spine pain, however all groups improved with time. These results constitute the first from a fully powered randomised controlled trial comparing SMT, Graston technique® and a placebo.Trial RegistrationThis trial was registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on the 7th February, 2008. Trial number: ACTRN12608000070336

Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain: A systematic review

Objectives: Gather and analyse relevant literature on spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain through systematic review to present a balanced and impartial summary of the findings. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy in patients with low back pain.Methods: Databases searched included COCHRANE, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, PUBMED, WEB OF KNOWLEDGE, INGENTA CONNECT and GOOGLE SCHOLAR between January 2000 and January 2008. Sixteen articles were retrieved. Standardised inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to select articles relevant to the review question. Seven studies were excluded and nine studies were included. In the next step, the methodological quality of the included studies was assessed with the PEDro scale, which rated the studies from 0 to 10.Results: Methodological quality scores ranged from 4 to 8 out of a possible 10. Spinal manipulative therapy can be preferred for short-term relief of low back pain when compared with general exercise and dynamic strengthening exercises, which is revealed by a high quality study, moderate quality studies and a low quality study. Spinal manipulative therapy combined with exercise is more effective than exercise alone, which is revealed by a high quality study.Conclusions: Further studies are needed to improve the quality of the evidence. There is evidence that spinal manipulative therapy combined with exercise is more effective than other procedures like spinal manipulative therapy, exercise or physician consultation alone.

Spinal manipulative therapy versus Graston Technique in the treatment of non-specific thoracic spine pain: Design of a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundThe one year prevalence of thoracic back pain has been estimated as 17% compared to 64% for neck pain and 67% for low back pain. At present only one randomised controlled trial has been performed assessing the efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for thoracic spine pain. In addition no high quality trials have been performed to test the efficacy and effectiveness of Graston Technique® (GT), a soft tissue massage therapy using hand-held stainless steel instruments. The objective of this trial is to determine the efficacy of SMT and GT compared to a placebo for the treatment of non specific thoracic spine pain.MethodsEighty four eligible people with non specific thoracic pain mid back pain of six weeks or more will be randomised to one of three groups, either SMT, GT, or a placebo (de-tuned ultrasound). Each group will receive up to 10 supervised treatment sessions at the Murdoch University Chiropractic student clinic over a 4-week period. Treatment outcomes will be measured at baseline, one week after their first treatment, upon completion of the 4-week intervention period and at three, six and twelve months post randomisation. Outcome measures will include the Oswestry Back Pain Disability Index and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Intention to treat analysis will be utilised in the statistical analysis of any group treatment effects.Trial RegistrationThis trial was registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on the 7th February 2008. Trial number: ACTRN12608000070336

Independent evaluation of a clinical prediction rule for spinal manipulative therapy: a randomised controlled trial

A clinical prediction rule to identify patients most likely to respond to spinal manipulation has been published and widely cited but requires further testing for external validity. We performed a pre-planned secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial investigating the efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy in 239 patients presenting to general practice clinics for acute, non-specific, low back pain. Patients were randomised to receive spinal manipulative therapy or placebo 2 to 3 times per week for up to 4 weeks. All patients received general practitioner care (advice and paracetamol). Outcomes were pain and disability measured at 1, 2, 4 and 12 weeks. Status on the clinical prediction rule was measured at baseline. The clinical prediction rule performed no better than chance in identifying patients with acute, non-specific low back pain most likely to respond to spinal manipulative therapy (pain P = 0.805, disability P = 0.600). At 1-week follow-up, the mean difference in effect of spinal manipulative therapy compared to placebo in patients who were rule positive rather than rule negative was 0.3 points less on a 10-point pain scale (95% CI -0.8 to 1.4). The clinical prediction rule proposed by Childs et al. did not generalise to patients presenting to primary care with acute low back pain who received a course of spinal manipulative therapy.

Effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy in the treatment of mechanical thoracic spine pain: A pilot randomized clinical trial

Background: To date, no substantiated studies have been performed to investigate the efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy on thoracic spinal syndromes. Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy in the treatment of mechanical thoracic spine pain. Study Design: A single-blind, randomized, comparative, controlled pilot study. Setting: Technikon Natal Chiropractic Clinic in Durban, South Africa. Participants: Thirty subjects selected from the general population (from 16 to 60 years old) were randomly divided into two different treatment groups of 15 each. Methods: The objective measurements collected were the thoracic spine ranges of motion with the BROM II goniometer and pain threshold with an algometer. The subjective information required completion of the Oswestry Back Pain Disability Index, short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, and Numerical Pain Rating Scale-101 Questionnaire by the patient. These 3 forms and objective measurements were collected before the first and final treatment and again at the 1-month follow-up consultation. The data gathered were then statistically analyzed with use of a 95% confidence level. The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to compare intergroup and intragroup data, respectively. This was conducted at the α =.05 level of confidence. Further assessment of the data was conducted by use of power analysis. Interventions: The treatment group received thoracic spinal manipulation. The placebo group received nonfunctional ultrasound application only. The research project was carried out so that both groups received 6 treatments over a period of 2 to 3 weeks. A 1-month follow-up appointment was scheduled after the final treatment to assess the relative long-term benefits of the two different treatments. Results: Statistically significant results (P ≤.025) were noted for the percentage of pain experienced (Numerical Pain Rating Scale) and for right and left lateral flexion during intergroup comparison after the final treatment. The final treatment results were maintained at the 1-month follow-up consultation; however, there were no further statistically significant results. It was noted that the power was weak, so the probability of committing type II error (falsely accepting the null hypothesis) for the other measurements was high. The intragroup analysis showed statistically significant improvements in the group that received spinal manipulative therapy in both subjective and objective measurements between the first to final treatment and the first treatment to the 1-month follow-up consultation. The placebo group analysis showed a statistically significant improvement in sensory pain only (subjective measurement) between the first treatment and the final treatment. Conclusions: This pilot study suggests that spinal manipulative therapy has greater benefits than placebo treatment. The sample size was small, therefore the findings of this trial study should not be considered conclusive but rather should be used as a foundation for planning future studies. In further studies a larger sample size will be necessary to identify subtle changes in measurement parameters and to add to the validity of the results. (J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2001;24:394-401)

Spinal manipulative therapy versus a low force mimic maneuver for women with primary dysmenorrhea: a randomized, observer-blinded, clinical trial

Non-drug therapies for women with primary dysmenorrhea are primarily based on anecdotal evidence and small-scale clinical studies. This randomized, observer-blinded, clinical trial evaluated the efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in the treatment of women with primary dysmenorrhea. Women were recruited from the Chicago metropolitan area and evaluated for inclusion through four screening levels. One hundred thirty eight women, ages 18–45, with primary dysmenorrhea diagnosed by participating gynecologists, were randomly assigned to either SMT or a low-force mimic (LFM) maneuver. No treatment occurred at menstrual cycle 1. Treatment for both groups took place on day 1 of cycles 2, 3 and 4, and prophylactic treatment of three visits took place during the 7 days before cycles 3 and 4. Main outcome measures were the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and plasma concentration of the prostaglandin F 2 α metabolite, 15-keto-13,14-dihydro-prostaglandin F 2 α (KDPGF 2 α ), measured 15 min before treatment and 60 min after treatment on day 1 of four consecutive menstrual cycles. The Moos' Menstrual Distress Questionnaire (MDQ) was also administered after treatment on day 1 of each cycle. At cycle 2, the post-treatment VAS scores decreased for both groups, with no statistically significant difference in pre- to post-treatment scores between the two groups ( P=0.44). The changes in pre- to post-treatment KDPGF 2 α levels were not statistically different between the SMT and LFM groups ( P=0.15). No treatment effects were detected over the three cycles for VAS, KDPGF 2 α or MDQ ( P=0.65, P=0.61 and P=0.78, respectively). However, there were statistically significant linear time effects for VAS ( P=0.008), MDQ ( P<0.001), and borderline significance for KDPGF 2 α ( P=0.054); these decreases were not considered clinically meaningful. The LFM maneuver used in this study was designed to act as a `placebo-like' control treatment in comparison with SMT. Although it is possible that the trial did not continue long enough for any placebo effect of the LFM to wash out, it seems more likely that this maneuver was indistinguishable from SMT. Therefore, the postulated superior benefit of high-velocity, short-lever, low-amplitude, high-force spinal manipulation to a low-force maneuver is not supported by the results of this study.