Low Back Pain

A Comparison of Chiropractic Manipulation Methods and Usual Medical Care for Low Back Pain

By Frank M. Painter|February 22, 2017|Chiropractic Care, Low Back Pain|

A Comparison of Chiropractic Manipulation Methods and Usual Medical Care for Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

SOURCE: J Altern Complement Med. 2014 (May); 20 (5): A22–23

Michael Schneider, Mitchell Haas, Joel Stevans,
Ronald Glick, Doug Landsittel

University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Purpose: The primary aim of this study was to compare manual and mechanical methods of spinal manipulation (Activator) for patients with acute and sub-acute low back pain. These are the two most common methods of spinal manipulation used by chiropractors, but there is insufficient evidence regarding their comparative effectiveness against each other. Our secondary aim was to compare both methods with usual medical care.

Methods: In a randomized comparative effectiveness trial, we randomized 107 participants with acute and sub-acute low back pain to: 1) usual medical care; 2) manual side-posture manipulation; and 3) mechanical manipulation (Activator). The primary outcome was self-reported disability (Oswestry) at four weeks. Pain was rated on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale. Pain and disability scores were regressed on grouping variables adjusted for baseline covariates.

Results: Manual manipulation demonstrated a clinically important and statistically significant reduction of disability and pain compared to Activator (adjusted mean difference=7.9 and 1.3 points respectively, P<.05) and compared to usual medical care (7.0 and 1.8 points respectively, P<.05). There were no significant adjusted mean differences between Activator and usual medical care in disability and pain (0.9 and 0.5 points respectively, P>.05).

There are more articles like this @ our:

Low Back Pain and Chiropractic

(more…)

0

Noninvasive Treatments for Acute, Subacute, and Chronic Low Back Pain

By Frank M. Painter|February 15, 2017|Guidelines, Low Back Pain|

Noninvasive Treatments for Acute, Subacute, and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE: Annals of Internal Medicine 2017 (Apr 4); 166 (7): 514–530 ~ FULL TEXT

Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA; Timothy J. Wilt, MD, MPH;
Robert M. McLean, MD; Mary Ann Forciea, MD;
for the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians (*)

From the American College of Physicians
and Penn Health System,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center,
Minneapolis, Minnesota; and
Yale School of Medicine,
New Haven, Connecticut.

The American College of Physicians (ACP) released updated guidelines this week that recommend the use of noninvasive, non-drug treatments for low back pain before resorting to drug therapies, which were found to have limited benefits. One of the non-drug options cited by ACP is spinal manipulation.

Chiropractors, who diagnose and treat musculoskeletal disorders, are experts in spinal manipulation.

This is just one article from a series of 5:

The Non-pharmacologic Therapies Low Back Pain

On May 1, 2017, the New York Times published an editorial by Aaron E. Carroll, M.D., that mentions the new guideline in a generally positive light. The article appeared in a major, mainstream publication read by millions of people. “Spinal manipulation — along with other less traditional therapies like heat, meditation and acupuncture — seems to be as effective as many other more medical therapies we prescribe, and as safe, if not safer,” he wrote.

Talking points on new ACP guideline:

The chiropractic profession has advocated for decades that conservative care choices such as chiropractic be the first line of treatment for low-back pain. Now, with this new guideline, the medical profession is recognizing the benefits of conservative care for this common problem.
Thanks to this guideline, it’s possible more medical doctors will choose to refer their patients with low-back pain to chiropractors.
The ACP guideline was adopted by the American Chiropractic Association, which also adopted the Clinical Compass guidelines on chiropractic for LBP at its HOD meeting in March.

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on noninvasive treatment of low back pain.

METHODS: Using the ACP grading system, the committee based these recommendations on a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials and systematic reviews published through April 2015 on noninvasive pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for low back pain. Updated searches were performed through November 2016. Clinical outcomes evaluated included reduction or elimination of low back pain, improvement in back-specific and overall function, improvement in health-related quality of life, reduction in work disability and return to work, global improvement, number of back pain episodes or time between episodes, patient satisfaction, and adverse effects.

TARGET AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION: The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with acute, subacute, or chronic low back pain.

RECOMMENDATION 1: Given that most patients with acute or subacute low back pain improve over time regardless of treatment, clinicians and patients should select nonpharmacologic treatment with superficial heat (moderate-quality evidence), massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation (low-quality evidence). If pharmacologic treatment is desired, clinicians and patients should select nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or skeletal muscle relaxants (moderate-quality evidence). (Grade: strong recommendation).

WARNING: Before following Recommendation #1,
please review the Contra-indications to NSAIDS use.

There are more articles like this @ our:

Guidelines Section

(more…)

0

Individual Courses of Low Back Pain in Adult Danes

By Frank M. Painter|February 7, 2017|Low Back Pain|

Individual Courses of Low Back Pain in Adult Danes: A Cohort Study with 4-Year and 8-Year Follow-up

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE: BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017 (Jan 21); 18 (1): 28

Per Kjaer, Lars Korsholm, Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde, Lise Hestbaek and Tom Bendix

Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics,
University of Southern Denmark,
Campusvej 55, DK-5230,
Odense M, Denmark.

BACKGROUND: Few longitudinal studies have described the variation in LBP and its impact over time at an individual level. The aims of this study were to:

1) determine the prevalence of LBP in three surveys over a 9-year period in the Danish general population, using five different definitions of LBP,

2) study their individual long-term courses, and

3) determine the odds of reporting subsequent LBP when having reported previous LBP.

METHODS: A cohort of 625 men and women aged 40 was sampled from the general population. Questions about LBP were asked at ages 41, 45 and 49, enabling individual courses to be tracked across five different definitions of LBP. Results were reported as percentages and the prognostic influence on future LBP was reported as odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by 412 (66%), 348 (56%) and 293 (47%) persons respectively at each survey. Of these, 293 (47%) completed all three surveys. The prevalence of LBP did not change significantly over time for any LBP past year: 69, 68, 70%; any LBP past month: 42, 48, 41%; >30 days LBP past year: 25, 27, 24%; seeking care for LBP past year: 28, 30, 36%; and non-trivial LBP, i.e. LBP >30 days past year including consequences: 18, 20, 20%. For LBP past year, 2/3 remained in this category, whereas four out of ten remained over the three time-points for the other definitions of LBP. Reporting LBP defined in any of these ways significantly increased the odds for the same type of LBP 4 years later. For those with the same definition of LBP at both 41 and 45 years, the risk of also reporting the same at 49 years was even higher, regardless of definition, and most strongly for seeking care and non-trivial LBP (OR 17.6 and 18.4) but less than 11% were in these groups.

There are more articles like this @ our:

Low Back Pain and Chiropractic

(more…)

0

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Noninvasive Management of Low Back Pain

By Frank M. Painter|December 2, 2016|Chiropractic Care, Guidelines, Low Back Pain|

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Noninvasive Management of Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration

The Chiro.Org Blog

Eur J Pain. 2016 (Oct 6) ~ FULL TEXT

J.J. Wong, P. Côté, D.A. Sutton, K. Randhawa, H. Yu, S. Varatharajan, R. Goldgrub, M. Nordin, D.P.

UOIT-CMCC Centre for the Study of
Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation,
University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT)
Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC),
Oshawa, ON, Canada.

BACKGROUND: &nbsp Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem, having a substantial effect on peoples’ quality of life and placing a significant economic burden on healthcare systems and, more broadly, societies. Many interventions to alleviate LBP are available but their cost effectiveness is unclear.

We conducted a systematic review of guidelines on the management of low back pain (LBP) to assess their methodological quality and guide care. We synthesized guidelines on the management of LBP published from 2005 to 2014 following best evidence synthesis principles. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane, DARE, National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database, Index to Chiropractic Literature and grey literature. Independent reviewers critically appraised eligible guidelines using AGREE II criteria. We screened 2504 citations; 13 guidelines were eligible for critical appraisal, and 10 had a low risk of bias.

According to high-quality guidelines:

(1) all patients with acute or chronic LBP should receive education, reassurance and instruction on self-management options;

(2) patients with acute LBP should be encouraged to return to activity and may benefit from paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or spinal manipulation;

(3) the management of chronic LBP may include exercise, paracetamol or NSAIDs, manual therapy, acupuncture, and multimodal rehabilitation (combined physical and psychological treatment); and

(4) patients with lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy may benefit from spinal manipulation.

There are more articles like this @ our:

Low Back Pain and Chiropractic Page

and the:

Low Back Pain Guidelines Section

(more…)

0

Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain: A Joint Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society

By Frank M. Painter|November 2, 2016|Guidelines, Low Back Pain|

Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain: A Joint Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE: Annals of Internal Medicine 2007 (Oct 2); 147 (7): 478–491

Roger Chou, MD; Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA; Vincenza Snow, MD; Donald Casey, MD, MPH, MBA; J. Thomas Cross, Jr, MD, MPH; Paul Shekelle, MD, PhD; Douglas K. Owens, MD, MS

Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee
of the American College of Physicians
and the American College of Physicians/
American Pain Society Low Back Pain Guidelines Panel*

Review the complete Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Low Back Pain: Evidence Review
(482 page Adobe Acrobat file)

From the FULL TEXT Article:

The Abstract

Recommendation 1: Clinicians should conduct a focused history and physical examination to help place patients with low back pain into 1 of 3 broad categories: nonspecific low back pain, back pain potentially associated with radiculopathy or spinal stenosis, or back pain potentially associated with another specific spinal cause. The history should include assessment of psychosocial risk factors, which predict risk for chronic disabling back pain (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

Recommendation 2: Clinicians should not routinely obtain imaging or other diagnostic tests in patients with nonspecific low back pain (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

Recommendation 3: Clinicians should perform diagnostic imaging and testing for patients with low back pain when severe or progressive neurologic deficits are present or when serious underlying conditions are suspected on the basis of history and physical examination (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

Recommendation 4: Clinicians should evaluate patients with persistent low back pain and signs or symptoms of radiculopathy or spinal stenosis with magnetic resonance imaging (preferred) or computed tomography only if they are potential candidates for surgery or epidural steroid injection (for suspected radiculopathy) (strong recommendation, moderate–quality evidence).

Recommendation 5: Clinicians should provide patients with evidence–based information on low back pain with regard to their expected course, advise patients to remain active, and provide information about effective self–care options (strong recommendation, moderate–quality evidence).

WARNING: Before following Recommendation #6,
please review the Contra-indications to NSAIDS use.

There are more articles like this @ our:

Low Back Pain and Chiropractic Page

(more…)

0

Clinical Decision Rule for Primary Care Patient with Acute Low Back Pain at Risk of Developing Chronic Pain

By Frank M. Painter|November 1, 2016|Clinical Decision Rule, Low Back Pain|

Clinical Decision Rule for Primary Care Patient with Acute Low Back Pain at Risk of Developing Chronic Pain

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE: Spine J. 2015 (Jul 1); 15 (7): 1577–1586

Wolf E. Mehling, MD, Mark H. Ebell, MD, MS, Andrew L. Avins, MD, MPH, Frederick M. Hecht, MD

Department of Family Medicine,
University of California-San Francisco,
1545 Divisadero St,
San Francisco, CA 94115, USA

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Primary care clinicians need to identify candidates for early interventions to prevent patients with acute pain from developing chronic pain.

PURPOSE: We conducted a 2-year prospective cohort study of risk factors for the progression to chronic pain and developed and internally validated a clinical decision rule (CDR) that stratifies patients into low-, medium-, and high-risk groups for chronic pain.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This is a prospective cohort study in primary care.

PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients with acute low back pain (LBP, ≤30 days duration) were included.

OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures were self-reported perceived nonrecovery and chronic pain.

METHODS: Patients were surveyed at baseline, 6 months, and 2 years. We conducted bivariate and multivariate regression analyses of demographic, clinical, and psychosocial variables for chronic pain outcomes, developed a CDR, and assessed its performance by calculating the bootstrapped areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) and likelihood ratios.

RESULTS: Six hundred five patients enrolled: 13% had chronic pain at 6 months and 19% at 2 years. An eight-item CDR was most parsimonious for classifying patients into three risk levels. Bootstrapped AUC was 0.76 (0.70-0.82) for the 6-month CDR. Each 10-point score increase (60-point range) was associated with an odds ratio of 11.1 (10.8-11.4) for developing chronic pain. Using a less than 5% probability of chronic pain as the cutoff for low risk and a greater than 40% probability for high risk, likelihood ratios were 0.26 (0.14-0.48) and 4.4 (3.0-6.3) for these groups, respectively.

There are more articles like this @ our:

Clinical Prediction Rule Page and the:

Low Back Pain and Chiropractic Page

(more…)

0