Randomized Clinical-Trial of Manipulative Therapy and Physiotherapy for Persistent Back and Neck Complaints - Results of One Year Follow-Up

Objective - To compare the effectiveness of manipulative therapy, physiotherapy, treatment by the general practitioner, and placebo therapy in patients with persistent non-specific back and neck complaints. Design - Randomised clinical trial. Setting-Primary health care in the Netherlands. Patients-256 patients with non-specific back and neck complaints of at least six weeks' duration who had not received physiotherapy or manipulative therapy in the past two years. Interventions - At the discretion of the manipulative therapists, physiotherapists, and general practitioners. Physiotherapy consisted of exercises, massage, and physical therapy (heat, electrotherapy, ultrasound, shortwave diathermy). Manipulative therapy consisted of manipulation and mobilisation of the spine. Treatment by general practitioners consisted of drugs (for example, analgesics), advice about posture, home exercises, and (bed)rest. Placebo treatment consisted of detuned shortwave diathermy (10 minutes) and detuned ultrasound (10 minutes). Main outcome measures - Changes in severity of the main complaint and limitation of physical functioning measured on 10 point scales by a blinded research assistant and global perceived effect measured on a 6 point scale by the patients. Results - Many patients in the general practitioner and placebo groups received other treatment during follow up. Improvement in the main complaint was larger with manipulative therapy (4·5) than with physiotherapy (3·8) after 12 months' follow up (difference 0·9; 95% confidence interval 0·1 to 1·7). Manipulative therapy also gave larger improvements in physical functioning (difference 0·6; -0·1 to 1·3). The global perceived effect after six and 12 months' follow up was similar for both treatments. Conclusions - Manipulative therapy and physiotherapy are better than general practitioner and placebo treatment. Furthermore, manipulative therapy is slightly better than physiotherapy after 12 months

Associations of occupational standing with musculoskeletal symptoms: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Objective Given the high exposure to occupational standing in specific occupations, and recent initiatives to encourage intermittent standing among white-collar workers, a better understanding of the potential health consequences of occupational standing is required. We aimed to review and quantify the epidemiological evidence on associations of occupational standing with musculoskeletal symptoms. Design A systematic review was performed. Data from included articles were extracted and described, and meta-analyses conducted when data were sufficiently homogeneous. Data sources Electronic databases were systematically searched. Eligibility criteria Peer-reviewed articles on occupational standing and musculoskeletal symptoms from epidemiological studies were identified. Results Of the 11 750 articles screened, 50 articles reporting 49 studies were included (45 cross-sectional and 5 longitudinal; n=88 158 participants) describing the associations of occupational standing with musculoskeletal symptoms, including low-back (39 articles), lower extremity (14 articles) and upper extremity (18 articles) symptoms. In the meta-analysis, 'substantial' (>4 hours/workday) occupational standing was associated with the occurrence of low-back symptoms (pooled OR (95% CI) 1.31 (1.10 to 1.56)). Evidence on lower and upper extremity symptoms was too heterogeneous for meta-analyses. The majority of included studies reported statistically significant detrimental associations of occupational standing with lower extremity, but not with upper extremity symptoms. Conclusions The evidence suggests that substantial occupational standing is associated with the occurrence of low-back and (inconclusively) lower extremity symptoms, but there may not be such an association with upper extremity symptoms. However, these conclusions are tentative as only limited evidence was found from high-quality, longitudinal studies with fully adjusted models using objective measures of standing