Is manipulative therapy more effective than sham manipulation in adults?: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Manipulative therapy is widely used in the treatment of spinal disorders. Manipulative techniques are under debate because of the possibility of adverse events. To date, the efficacy of manipulations compared to sham manipulations is unclear. The purpose of the study is: to assess the efficacy of manipulative therapy compared to sham in adults with a variety of complaints.Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods: Bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, Central) along with a hand search of selected bibliographies were searched from inception up to April 2012.Two reviewers independently selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated manipulative therapy compared to sham manipulative therapy in adults, assessed risk of bias and extracted data concerning participants, intervention, kind of sham, outcome measures, duration of follow-up, profession, data on efficacy and adverse events. Pooled (standardized) mean differences or risk differences were calculated were possible using a random effects model. The primary outcomes were pain, disability, and perceived recovery. The overall quality of the body of evidence was evaluated using GRADE.Results: In total 965 references were screened for eligibility and 19 RCTs (n = 1080) met the selection criteria. Eight studies were considered of low risk of bias. There is moderate level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief immediately after treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.68, 95% confidence interval (-1.06 to -0.31). There is low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief (SMD - 0.37, -0.69 to -0.04) at short- term follow-up. In patients with musculoskeletal disorders, we found moderate level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.73, -1.21 to -0.25) immediate after treatment and low level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.52, -0.87 to -0.17) at short term-follow-up. We found very low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has no statistically significant effect on disability and perceived (asthma) recovery. Sensitivity analyses did not change the main findings. No serious adverse events were reported in the manipulative therapy or sham group.Conclusions: Manipulative therapy has a clinical relevant effect on pain, but not on disability or perceived (asthma) recovery. Clinicians can refer patients for manipulative therapy to reduce pain

Homeless adults’ recovery experiences in housing first and traditional services programs in seven european countries

Across Europe, as governments turn to housing-led strategies in attempts to reverse rising rates of homelessness, increasing numbers of Housing First (HF) programs are being implemented. As HF programs become more widespread, it is important to understand how service users experience them compared to the more prevalent traditional treatment-first approach to addressing long-term homelessness. Although there is a large body of research on service users' experiences of Housing First compared to treatment-first in North American contexts, comparatively less is known about how these two categories of homeless services are experienced in the European context. In a correlational and cross-sectional study, part of a larger examination of homelessness in Europe, participants (n = 520) engaged with either HF (n = 245) or traditional services (TS; n = 275) programs in seven countries completed measures of their experiences of services (consumer choice, housing quality, and service satisfaction) and recovery (time in independent housing, psychiatric symptoms, and community integration). Across the seven countries, participants engaged with HF programs reported experiencing more consumer choice, better perceived housing quality, and more satisfaction with services than participants engaged in TS programs. Participants in HF programs also reported a greater proportion of time in independent accommodation, fewer psychiatric symptoms, and more community integration. Varying patterns of association between experiences of services and recovery outcomes were observed. Findings indicate HF consistently predicts greater recovery than TS across diverse sociopolitical and economic contexts. Implications of findings for configurations of homeless services and homeless services policy are discussed.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio