Search

Background: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a guideline-recommended treatment option for spinal pain. The recommendation is based on multiple systematic reviews. However, these reviews fail to consider that clinical effects may depend on SMT "application procedures" (i.e., how and where SMT is applied). Using network meta-analyses, we aim to investigate which SMT "application procedures" have the greatest magnitude of clinical effectiveness for reducing pain and disability, for any spinal complaint, at short-term and long-term follow-up. We will compare application procedural parameters by classifying the thrust application technique and the application site (patient positioning, assisted, vertebral target, region target, Technique name, forces, and vectors, application site selection approach and rationale) against: 1. Waiting list/no treatment; 2. Sham interventions not resembling SMT (e.g., detuned ultrasound); 3. Sham interventions resembling SMT; 4. Other therapies not recommended in clinical practice guidelines; and 5. Other therapies recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Secondly, we will examine how contextual elements, including procedural fidelity (whether the SMT was delivered as planned) and clinical applicability (whether the SMT is similar to clinical practice) of the SMT. Methods: We will include randomized controlled trials (RCT) found through three search strategies, (i) exploratory, (ii) systematic, and (iii) other known sources. We define SMT as a high-velocity low-amplitude thrust or grade V mobilization. Eligibility is any RCT assessing SMT against any other type of SMT, any other active or sham intervention, or no treatment control on adult patients with pain in any spinal region. The RCTs must report on continuous pain intensity and/or disability outcomes. Two authors will independently review title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. Spinal manipulative therapy techniques will be classified according to the technique application and choice of application sites. We will conduct a network-meta analysis using a frequentist approach and multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Discussion: This will be the most extensive review of thrust SMT to date, and will allow us to estimate the importance of different SMT application procedures used in clinical practice and taught across educational settings. Thus, the results are applicable to clinical practice, educational settings, and research studies. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022375836. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept that spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) outcomes are optimized when the treatment is aimed at a clinically relevant joint is commonly assumed and central to teaching and clinical use (candidate sites). This systematic review investigated whether clinical effects are superior when this is the case compared to SMT applied elsewhere (non-candidate sites). Eligible study designs were randomized controlled trials that investigated the effect of spinal manipulation applied to candidate versus non-candidate sites for spinal pain. We obtained data from four different databases. Risk of bias was assessed using an adjusted Cochrane risk of bias tool, adding four items for study quality. We extracted between-group differences for any reported outcome or, when not reported, calculated effect sizes from the within-group changes. We compared outcomes for SMT applied at a 'relevant' site to SMT applied elsewhere. We prioritized methodologically robust studies when interpreting results. Ten studies, all of acceptable quality, were included that reported 33 between-group differences—five compared treatments within the same spinal region and five at different spinal regions. None of the nine studies with low or moderate risk of bias reported statistically significant between-group differences for any outcome. The tenth study reported a small effect on pain (1.2/10, 95%CI − 1.9 to − 0.5) but had a high risk of bias. None of the nine articles of low or moderate risk of bias and acceptable quality reported that "clinically-relevant" SMT has a superior outcome on any outcome compared to "not clinically-relevant" SMT. This finding contrasts with ideas held in educational programs and clinical practice that emphasize the importance of joint-specific application of SMT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purported relationship between cervical manipulative therapy (CMT) and stroke related to vertebral artery dissection (VAD) has been debated for several decades. A large number of publications, from case reports to case-control studies, have investigated this relationship. A recent article suggested that case misclassification in the case-control studies on this topic resulted in biased odds ratios in those studies. Discussion: Given its rarity, the best epidemiologic research design for investigating the relationship between CMT and VAD is the case-control study. The addition of a case-crossover aspect further strengthens the scientific rigor of such studies by reducing bias. The most recent studies investigating the relationship between CMT and VAD indicate that the relationship is not causal. In fact, a comparable relationship between vertebral artery-related stroke and visits to a primary care physician has been observed. The statistical association between visits to chiropractors and VAD can best be explained as resulting from a patient with early manifestation of VAD (neck pain with or without headache) seeking the services of a chiropractor for relief of this pain. Sometime after the visit the patient experiences VAD-related stroke that would have occurred regardless of the care received. This explanation has been challenged by a recent article putting forth the argument that case misclassification is likely to have biased the odds ratios of the case-control studies that have investigated the association between CMT and vertebral artery related stroke. The challenge particularly focused on one of the case-control studies, which had concluded that the association between CMT and vertebral artery related stroke was not causal. It was suggested by the authors of the recent article that misclassification led to an underestimation of risk. We argue that the information presented in that article does not support the authors' claim for a variety of reasons, including the fact that the assumptions upon which their analysis is based lack substantiation and the fact that any possible misclassification would not have changed the conclusion of the study in question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: The purpose of this study is to update a systematic review on manipulative therapy (MT) for lower extremity conditions. Methods: A review of literature was conducted using MEDLINE, MANTIS, Science Direct, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and PEDro from March 2008 to May 2011. Inclusion criteria required peripheral diagnosis and MT with or without adjunctive care. Clinical trials were assessed for quality using a modified Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) ranking system. Results: In addition to the citations used in a 2009 systematic review, an additional 399 new citations were accessed: 175 citations in Medline, 30 citations in MANTIS, 98 through Science Direct, 54 from Index to Chiropractic Literature, and 42 from the PEDro database. Forty-eight clinical trials were assessed for quality. Conclusions: Regarding MT for common lower extremity disorders, there is a level of B (fair evidence) for short-term and C (limited evidence) for long-term treatment of hip osteoarthritis. There is a level of B for short-term and C for long-term treatment of knee osteoarthritis, patellofemoral pain syndrome, and ankle inversion sprain. There is a level of B for short-term treatment of plantar fasciitis but C for short-term treatment of metatarsalgia and hallux limitus/rigidus and for loss of foot and/or ankle proprioception and balance. Finally, there is a level of I (insufficient evidence) for treatment of hallux abducto valgus. Further research is needed on MT as a treatment of lower extremity conditions, specifically larger trials with improved methodology. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background Context: The role of the variation in the application manipulation itself is largely unknown. A greater understanding of its input parameters is necessary to better understand spinal manipulation outcomes. Purpose: The objective of this study is to determine if pressures generated during manipulation are altered by hand configuration. Design/Setting: Paired comparison of 2 different variable groups. Methods: Sixteen chiropractors provided 2 manipulations to a rigid surface using 2 hand configurations used commonly in clinical practice: arched and flat. Interposed between the hand and the rigid surface was a pressure sensor array and radiographic cassette. For each manipulation, pressures were recorded and a radiographic image was captured. Two radiologists then located the osseous features of the hand with respect to the sensor array. Results: In 15 of 16 cases, arched configurations produced peak pressures that corresponded to the radiographic location of the pisiform bone. In flat configurations, peak pressure migrated about the location of the hamate bone. Radiologists’ agreement for bone position was high (j = 0.96). Measures of peak pressure, total pressure, and pressure distribution were statistically different between hand configurations. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that hand configuration influences the magnitude, location, and distribution of pressure generated by the hand during manipulation. This knowledge may have importance in understanding the relation among application parameters of manipulation, therapeutic benefit, and patient safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chiropractic & Osteopathy changes its title to Chiropractic & Manual Therapies in January 2011. This change reflects the expanding base of submissions from clinical scientists interested in the discipline of manual therapy. It is also in accord with the findings of a review of the journal content and a joint venture between the original parent organisation the Chiropractic and Osteopathic College of Australasia and a new partner the European Academy of Chiropractic, which is a subsidiary body of the European Chiropractors' Union. The title change should encourage submissions from all professionals interested in manual therapy including chiropractors, osteopaths, physiotherapists, medical doctors and scientists interested in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]