Twenty-five years with the biopsychosocial model of low back pain-is it time to celebrate?:A report from the twelfth international forum for primary care research on low back pain

Study Design: An integrated review of current knowledge about the biopsychosocial model of back pain for understanding etiology, prognosis, and interventions, as presented at the plenary sessions of the XII International Forum on LBP Research in Primary Care (Denmark; October 17–19, 2012). Objective: To evaluate the utility of the model in reference to rising rates of back pain-related disability, by identifying (a) the most promising avenues for future research in biological, psychological, and social approaches, (b) promising combinations of all 3 approaches, and (c) obstacles to effective implementation of biopsychosocial-based research and clinical practice. Summary of Background Data: The biopsychosocial model of back pain has become a dominant model in the conceptualization of the etiology and prognosis of back pain, and has led to the development and testing of many interventions. Despite this back pain remains a leading source of disability worldwide. Methods: The review is a synthesis based on the plenary sessions and discussions at the XII International Forum on LBP Research in Primary Care. The presentations included evidence-based reviews of the current state of knowledge in each of the 3 areas (biological, psychological, and social), identification of obstacles to effective implementation and missed opportunities, and identification of the most promising paths for future research. Results: Although there is good evidence for the role of biological, psychological, and social factors in the etiology and prognosis of back pain, synthesis of the 3 in research and clinical practice has been suboptimal. Conclusion: The utility of the biopsychosocial framework cannot be fully assessed until we truly adopt and apply it in research and clinical practice

Review conclusions by Ernst and Canter regarding spinal manipulation refuted

In the April 2006 issue of the Journal of Royal Society of Medicine, Ernst and Canter authored a review of the most recent systematic reviews on the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for any condition. The authors concluded that, except for back pain, spinal manipulation is not an effective intervention for any condition and, because of potential side effects, cannot be recommended for use at all in clinical practice. Based on a critical appraisal of their review, the authors of this commentary seriously challenge the conclusions by Ernst and Canter, who did not adhere to standard systematic review methodology, thus threatening the validity of their conclusions. There was no systematic assessment of the literature pertaining to the hazards of manipulation, including comparison to other therapies. Hence, their claim that the risks of manipulation outweigh the benefits, and thus spinal manipulation cannot be recommended as treatment for any condition, was not supported by the data analyzed. Their conclusions are misleading and not based on evidence that allow discrediting of a large body of professionals using spinal manipulation

Causally-interpretable meta-analysis: clearly-defined causal effects and two case studies

Meta-analysis is commonly used to combine results from multiple clinical trials, but traditional meta-analysis methods do not refer explicitly to a population of individuals to whom the results apply and it is not clear how to use their results to assess a treatment's effect for a population of interest. We describe recently-introduced causally-interpretable meta-analysis methods and apply their treatment effect estimators to two individual-participant data sets. These estimators transport estimated treatment effects from studies in the meta-analysis to a specified target population using individuals' potentially effect-modifying covariates. We consider different regression and weighting methods within this approach and compare the results to traditional aggregated-data meta-analysis methods. In our applications, certain versions of the causally-interpretable methods performed somewhat better than the traditional methods, but the latter generally did well. The causally-interpretable methods offer the most promise when covariates modify treatment effects and our results suggest that traditional methods work well when there is little effect heterogeneity. The causally-interpretable approach gives meta-analysis an appealing theoretical framework by relating an estimator directly to a specific population and lays a solid foundation for future developments.Comment: 31 pages, 2 figures Submitted to Research Synthesis Method

Chiropractic as spine care: a model for the profession

BACKGROUND: More than 100 years after its inception the chiropractic profession has failed to define itself in a way that is understandable, credible and scientifically coherent. This failure has prevented the profession from establishing its cultural authority over any specific domain of health care. OBJECTIVE: To present a model for the chiropractic profession to establish cultural authority and increase market share of the public seeking chiropractic care. DISCUSSION: The continued failure by the chiropractic profession to remedy this state of affairs will pose a distinct threat to the future viability of the profession. Three specific characteristics of the profession are identified as impediments to the creation of a credible definition of chiropractic: Departures from accepted standards of professional ethics; reliance upon obsolete principles of chiropractic philosophy; and the promotion of chiropractors as primary care providers. A chiropractic professional identity should be based on spinal care as the defining clinical purpose of chiropractic, chiropractic as an integrated part of the healthcare mainstream, the rigorous implementation of accepted standards of professional ethics, chiropractors as portal-of-entry providers, the acceptance and promotion of evidence-based health care, and a conservative clinical approach. CONCLUSION: This paper presents the spine care model as a means of developing chiropractic cultural authority and relevancy. The model is based on principles that would help integrate chiropractic care into the mainstream delivery system while still retaining self-identity for the profession

Individualized chiropractic and integrative care for low back pain: the design of a randomized clinical trial using a mixed-methods approach

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and costly condition in the United States. Evidence suggests there is no one treatment which is best for all patients, but instead several viable treatment options. Additionally, multidisciplinary management of LBP may be more effective than monodisciplinary care. An integrative model that includes both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and conventional therapies, while also incorporating patient choice, has yet to be tested for chronic LBP.</p> <p>The primary aim of this study is to determine the relative clinical effectiveness of 1) monodisciplinary chiropractic care and 2) multidisciplinary integrative care in 200 adults with non-acute LBP, in both the short-term (after 12 weeks) and long-term (after 52 weeks). The primary outcome measure is patient-rated back pain. Secondary aims compare the treatment approaches in terms of frequency of symptoms, low back disability, fear avoidance, self-efficacy, general health status, improvement, satisfaction, work loss, medication use, lumbar dynamic motion, and torso muscle endurance. Patients' and providers' perceptions of treatment will be described using qualitative methods, and cost-effectiveness and cost utility will be assessed.</p> <p>Methods and Design</p> <p>This paper describes the design of a randomized clinical trial (RCT), with cost-effectiveness and qualitative studies conducted alongside the RCT. Two hundred participants ages 18 and older are being recruited and randomized to one of two 12-week treatment interventions. Patient-rated outcome measures are collected via self-report questionnaires at baseline, and at 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post-randomization. Objective outcome measures are assessed at baseline and 12 weeks by examiners blinded to treatment assignment. Health care cost data is collected by self-report questionnaires and treatment records during the intervention phase and by monthly phone interviews thereafter. Qualitative interviews, using a semi-structured format, are conducted with patients at the end of the 12-week treatment period and also with providers at the end of the trial.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This mixed-methods randomized clinical trial assesses clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and patients' and providers' perceptions of care, in treating non-acute LBP through evidence-based individualized care delivered by monodisciplinary or multidisciplinary care teams.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00567333</p

Integrative care for the management of low back pain: use of a clinical care pathway

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>For the treatment of chronic back pain, it has been theorized that integrative care plans can lead to better outcomes than those achieved by monodisciplinary care alone, especially when using a collaborative, interdisciplinary, and non-hierarchical team approach. This paper describes the use of a care pathway designed to guide treatment by an integrative group of providers within a randomized controlled trial.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A clinical care pathway was used by a multidisciplinary group of providers, which included acupuncturists, chiropractors, cognitive behavioral therapists, exercise therapists, massage therapists and primary care physicians. Treatment recommendations were based on an evidence-informed practice model, and reached by group consensus. Research study participants were empowered to select one of the treatment recommendations proposed by the integrative group. Common principles and benchmarks were established to guide treatment management throughout the study.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Thirteen providers representing 5 healthcare professions collaborated to provide integrative care to study participants. On average, 3 to 4 treatment plans, each consisting of 2 to 3 modalities, were recommended to study participants. Exercise, massage, and acupuncture were both most commonly recommended by the team and selected by study participants. Changes to care commonly incorporated cognitive behavioral therapy into treatment plans.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This clinical care pathway was a useful tool for the consistent application of evidence-based care for low back pain in the context of an integrative setting.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00567333</p

Learning to Apply Mindfulness to Pain (LAMP): Design for a Pragmatic Clinical Trial of Two Mindfulness-Based Interventions for Chronic Pain

Background: Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are evidence-based nonpharmacological treatments for treating chronic pain. However, the predominant MBI, mindfulness-based stress reduction, has features that pose significant implementation barriers. Objectives: This study will test two approaches to delivering MBIs for improving Veterans' chronic pain and mental health comorbidities. These two approaches address key implementation barriers. Methods: We will conduct a four-site, three-arm pragmatic randomized controlled trial, Learning to Apply Mindfulness to Pain (LAMP), to test the effectiveness of two MBIs at improving pain and mental health comorbidities. Mobile+Group LAMP consists of prerecorded modules presented by a mindfulness instructor that are viewed in an online group setting and interspersed with discussions led by a facilitator. Mobile LAMP consists of the same prerecorded modules but does not include a group component. We will test whether either of these MBIs will be more effective than usual care at improving chronic pain and whether the Mobile+Group LAMP will be more effective than Mobile LAMP at improving chronic pain. Comparisons for the primary hypotheses will be conducted with continuous outcomes (Brief Pain Inventory interference score) repeated at 10 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. The secondary hypotheses are that Mobile+Group LAMP and Mobile LAMP will be more effective than usual care at improving secondary outcomes (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder, depression). We will also confirm the comparisons for the primary and secondary hypotheses in gender-specific strata. Implications: This trial is expected to result in two approaches for delivering MBIs that will optimize engagement, adherence, and sustainability and be able to reach large numbers of Veterans

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

A united statement of the global chiropractic research community against the pseudoscientific claim that chiropractic care boosts immunity.

BACKGROUND: In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the International Chiropractors Association (ICA) posted reports claiming that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. These claims clash with recommendations from the World Health Organization and World Federation of Chiropractic. We discuss the scientific validity of the claims made in these ICA reports. MAIN BODY: We reviewed the two reports posted by the ICA on their website on March 20 and March 28, 2020. We explored the method used to develop the claim that chiropractic adjustments impact the immune system and discuss the scientific merit of that claim. We provide a response to the ICA reports and explain why this claim lacks scientific credibility and is dangerous to the public. More than 150 researchers from 11 countries reviewed and endorsed our response. CONCLUSION: In their reports, the ICA provided no valid clinical scientific evidence that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. We call on regulatory authorities and professional leaders to take robust political and regulatory action against those claiming that chiropractic adjustments have a clinical impact on the immune system