Does targeting manual therapy and/or exercise improve patient outcomes in nonspecific low back pain? A systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A central element in the current debate about best practice management of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is the efficacy of targeted versus generic (non-targeted) treatment. Many clinicians and researchers believe that tailoring treatment to NSLBP subgroups positively impacts on patient outcomes. Despite this, there are no systematic reviews comparing the efficacy of targeted versus non-targeted manual therapy and/or exercise. This systematic review was undertaken in order to determine the efficacy of such targeted treatment in adults with NSLBP.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, AMED and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were electronically searched, reference lists were examined and citation tracking performed. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials of targeted manual therapy and/or exercise for NSLPB that used trial designs capable of providing robust information on targeted treatment (treatment effect modification) for the outcomes of activity limitation and pain. Included trials needed to be hypothesis-testing studies published in English, Danish or Norwegian. Method quality was assessed using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Four high-quality randomized controlled trials of targeted manual therapy and/or exercise for NSLBP met the inclusion criteria. One study showed statistically significant effects for short-term outcomes using McKenzie directional preference-based exercise. Research into subgroups requires much larger sample sizes than traditional two-group trials and other included studies showed effects that might be clinically important in size but were not statistically significant with their samples sizes.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The clinical implications of these results are that they provide very cautious evidence supporting the notion that treatment targeted to subgroups of patients with NSLBP may improve patient outcomes. The results of the studies included in this review are too patchy, inconsistent and the samples investigated are too small for any recommendation of any treatment in routine clinical practice to be based on these findings. The research shows that adequately powered controlled trials using designs capable of providing robust information on treatment effect modification are uncommon. Considering how central the notion of targeted treatment is to manual therapy principles, further studies using this research method should be a priority for the clinical and research communities.</p

Comparison of the effectiveness of three manual physical therapy techniques in a subgroup of patients with low back pain who satisfy a clinical prediction rule: Study protocol of a randomized clinical trial [NCT00257998]

BACKGROUND: Recently a clinical prediction rule (CPR) has been developed and validated that accurately identifies patients with low back pain (LBP) that are likely to benefit from a lumbo-pelvic thrust manipulation. The studies that developed and validated the rule used the identical manipulation procedure. However, recent evidence suggests that different manual therapy techniques may result similar outcomes. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of three different manual therapy techniques in a subgroup of patient with low back pain that satisfy the CPR. METHODS/DESIGN: Consecutive patients with LBP referred to physical therapy clinics in one of four geographical locations who satisfy the CPR will be invited to participate in this randomized clinical trial. Subjects who agree to participate will undergo a standard evaluation and complete a number of patient self-report questionnaires including the Oswestry Disability Index (OSW), which will serve as the primary outcome measure. Following the baseline examination patients will be randomly assigned to receive the lumbopelvic manipulation used in the development of the CPR, an alternative lumbar manipulation technique, or non-thrust lumbar mobilization technique for the first 2 visits. Beginning on visit 3, all 3 groups will receive an identical standard exercise program for 3 visits (visits 3,4,5). Outcomes of interest will be captured by a therapist blind to group assignment at 1 week (3(rd )visit), 4 weeks (6(th )visit) and at a 6-month follow-up. The primary aim of the study will be tested with analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the change in OSW score from baseline to 4-weeks (OSW(Baseline )– OSW(4-weeks)) as the dependent variable. The independent variable will be treatment with three levels (lumbo-pelvic manipulation, alternative lumbar manipulation, lumbar mobilization). DISCUSSION: This trial will be the first to investigate the effectiveness of various manual therapy techniques for patients with LBP who satisfy a CPR

An investigation of the reproducibility of ultrasound measures of abdominal muscle activation in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain

Ultrasound (US) measures are used by clinicians and researchers to evaluate improvements in activity of the abdominal muscles in patients with low back pain. Studies evaluating the reproducibility of these US measures provide some information; however, little is known about the reproducibility of these US measures over time in patients with low back pain. The objectives of this study were to estimate the reproducibility of ultrasound measurements of automatic activation of the lateral abdominal wall muscles using a leg force task in patients with chronic low back pain. Thirty-five participants from an existing randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial participated in the study. A reproducibility analysis was undertaken from all patients using data collected at baseline and after treatment. The reproducibility of measurements of thickness, muscle activation (thickness changes) and muscle improvement/deterioration after intervention (differences in thickness changes from single images made before and after treatment) was analysed. The reproducibility of static images (thickness) was excellent (ICC2,1 = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.96–0.97, standard error of the measurement (SEM) = 0.04 cm, smallest detectable change (SDC) = 0.11 cm), the reproducibility of thickness changes was moderate (ICC2,1 = 0.72, 95% CI 0.65–0.76, SEM = 15%, SDC 41%), while the reproducibility of differences in thickness changes from single images with statistical adjustment for duplicate measures was poor (ICC2,1 = 0.44, 95% CI 0.33–0.58, SEM = 21%, SDC = 66.5%). Improvements in the testing protocol must be performed in order to enhance reproducibility of US as an outcome measure for abdominal muscle activation