Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories. The strength/quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>By September 2009, 26 categories of conditions were located containing RCT evidence for the use of manual therapy: 13 musculoskeletal conditions, four types of chronic headache and nine non-musculoskeletal conditions. We identified 49 recent relevant systematic reviews and 16 evidence-based clinical guidelines plus an additional 46 RCTs not yet included in systematic reviews and guidelines.</p> <p>Additionally, brief references are made to other effective non-pharmacological, non-invasive physical treatments.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Spinal manipulation/mobilization is effective in adults for: acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain; migraine and cervicogenic headache; cervicogenic dizziness; manipulation/mobilization is effective for several extremity joint conditions; and thoracic manipulation/mobilization is effective for acute/subacute neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for cervical manipulation/mobilization alone for neck pain of any duration, and for manipulation/mobilization for mid back pain, sciatica, tension-type headache, coccydynia, temporomandibular joint disorders, fibromyalgia, premenstrual syndrome, and pneumonia in older adults. Spinal manipulation is not effective for asthma and dysmenorrhea when compared to sham manipulation, or for Stage 1 hypertension when added to an antihypertensive diet. In children, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the effectiveness for otitis media and enuresis, and it is not effective for infantile colic and asthma when compared to sham manipulation.</p> <p>Massage is effective in adults for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for knee osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain syndrome, migraine headache, and premenstrual syndrome. In children, the evidence is inconclusive for asthma and infantile colic.</p

Value of risk scores in the decision to palliate patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

Background: The aim of this study was to develop a 48-h mortality risk score, which included morphology data, for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm presenting to an emergency department, and to assess its predictive accuracy and clinical effectiveness in triaging patients to immediate aneurysm repair, transfer or palliative care. Methods: Data from patients in the IMPROVE (Immediate Management of the Patient With Ruptured Aneurysm: Open Versus Endovascular Repair) randomized trial were used to develop the risk score. Variables considered included age, sex, haemodynamic markers and aortic morphology. Backwards selection was used to identify relevant predictors. Predictive performance was assessed using calibration plots and the C-statistic. Validation of the newly developed and other previously published scores was conducted in four external populations. The net benefit of treating patients based on a risk threshold compared with treating none was quantified. Results: Data from 536 patients in the IMPROVE trial were included. The final variables retained were age, sex, haemoglobin level, serum creatinine level, systolic BP, aortic neck length and angle, and acute myocardial ischaemia. The discrimination of the score for 48-h mortality in the IMPROVE data was reasonable (C-statistic 0·710, 95 per cent c.i. 0·659 to 0·760), but varied in external populations (from 0·652 to 0·761). The new score outperformed other published risk scores in some, but not all, populations. An 8 (95 per cent c.i. 5 to 11) per cent improvement in the C-statistic was estimated compared with using age alone. Conclusion: The assessed risk scores did not have sufficient accuracy to enable potentially life-saving decisions to be made regarding intervention. Focus should therefore shift to offering repair to more patients and reducing non-intervention rates, while respecting the wishes of the patient and family