Some physiotherapy treatments may relieve menstrual pain in women with primary dysmenorrhea: a systematic review

Question: In women with primary dysmenorrhoea, what is the effect of physiotherapeutic interventions compared to control (either no treatment or placebo/sham) on pain and quality of life? Design: Systematic review of randomised trials with meta-analysis. Participants: Women with primary dysmenorrhea. Intervention: Any form of physiotherapy treatment. Outcome measures: The primary outcome was menstrual pain intensity and the secondary outcome was quality of life. Results: The search yielded 222 citations. Of these, 11 were eligible randomised trials and were included in the review. Meta-analysis revealed statistically significant reductions in pain severity on a 0–10 scale from acupuncture (weighted mean difference 2.3, 95% CI 1.6 to 2.9) and acupressure (weighted mean difference 1.4, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.9), when compared to a control group receiving no treatment. However, these are likely to be placebo effects because when the control groups in acupuncture/acupressure trials received a sham instead of no treatment, pain severity did not significantly differ between the groups. Significant reductions in pain intensity on a 0–10 scale were noted in individual trials of heat (by 1.8, 95% CI 0.9 to 2.7), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (2.3, 95% CI 0.03 to 4.2), and yoga (3.2, 95% CI 2.2 to 4.2). Meta-analysis of two trials of spinal manipulation showed no significant reduction in pain. None of the included studies measured quality of life. Conclusion: Physiotherapists could consider using heat, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and yoga in the management of primary dysmenorrhea. While benefits were also identified for acupuncture and acupressure in no-treatment controlled trials, the absence of significant effects in sham-controlled trials suggests these effects are mainly attributable to placebo effects

Attitudes towards chiropractic: an analysis of written comments from a survey of north american orthopaedic surgeons

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is increasing interest by chiropractors in North America regarding integration into mainstream healthcare; however, there is limited information about attitudes towards the profession among conventional healthcare providers, including orthopaedic surgeons.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We administered a 43-item cross-sectional survey to 1000 Canadian and American orthopaedic surgeons that inquired about demographic variables and their attitudes towards chiropractic. Our survey included an option for respondants to include written comments, and our present analysis is restricted to these comments. Two reviewers, independantly and in duplicate, coded all written comments using thematic analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>487 surgeons completed the survey (response rate 49%), and 174 provided written comments. Our analysis revealed 8 themes and 24 sub-themes represented in surgeons' comments. Reported themes were: variability amongst chiropractors (n = 55); concerns with chiropractic treatment (n = 54); areas where chiropractic is perceived as effective (n = 43); unethical behavior (n = 43); patient interaction (n = 36); the scientific basis of chiropractic (n = 26); personal experiences with chiropractic (n = 21); and chiropractic training (n = 18). Common sub-themes endorsed by surgeon's were diversity within the chiropractic profession as a barrier to increased interprofessional collaboration, endorsement for chiropractic treatment of musculoskeletal complaints, criticism for treatment of non-musculoskeletal complaints, and concern over whether chiropractic care was evidence-based.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our analysis identified a number of issues that will have to be considered by the chiropractic profession as part of its efforts to further integrate chiropractic into mainstream healthcare.</p

Does Manual Therapy Provide Additional Benefit To Breathing Retraining In The Management Of Dysfunctional Breathing? A Randomised Controlled Trial

Purpose: Dysfunctional breathing (DB) is associated with an abnormal breathing pattern, unexplained breathlessness and significant patient morbidity. Treatment involves breathing retraining through respiratory physiotherapy. Recently, manual therapy (MT) has also been used, but no evidence exists to validate its use. This study sought to investigate whether MT produces additional benefit when compared with breathing retraining alone in patients with DB. Methods: Sixty subjects with primary DB were randomised into either breathing retraining (standard treatment; n¼30) or breathing retraining plus MT (intervention; n¼30) group. Both the groups received standardised respiratory physiotherapy, which included: DB education, breathing retraining, home regimen, and audio disc. Intervention group subjects additionally received MT following further assessment. Data from 57 subjects were analysed. Results: At baseline, standard treatment group subjects were statistically younger (41.7 + 13.5 versus 50.8 + 13.0 years; p¼0.001) with higher Nijmegen scores (38.6 + 9.5 versus 31.5 + 6.9; p¼0.001). However, no significant difference was found between the groups for primary outcome Nijmegen score (95% CI ( 1.1, 6.6) p¼0.162), or any secondary outcomes (Hospital Anxiety & Depression Score, spirometry or exercise tolerance). Conclusion: Breathing retraining is currently the mainstay of treatment for patients with DB. The results of this study suggest MT provides no additional benefit in this patient group.Juliana Burgess, Dr Robert Wilson, Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, and Dr Andy Jones fo

Chiropractic and self-care for back-related leg pain: design of a randomized clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Back-related leg pain (BRLP) is a common variation of low back pain (LBP), with lifetime prevalence estimates as high as 40%. Often disabling, BRLP accounts for greater work loss, recurrences, and higher costs than uncomplicated LBP and more often leads to surgery with a lifetime incidence of 10% for those with severe BRLP, compared to 1-2% for those with LBP.</p> <p>In the US, half of those with back-related conditions seek CAM treatments, the most common of which is chiropractic care. While there is preliminary evidence suggesting chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy is beneficial for patients with BRLP, there is insufficient evidence currently available to assess the effectiveness of this care.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This study is a two-site, prospective, parallel group, observer-blinded randomized clinical trial (RCT). A total of 192 study patients will be recruited from the Twin Cities, MN (n = 122) and Quad Cities area in Iowa and Illinois (n = 70) to the research clinics at WHCCS and PCCR, respectively.</p> <p>It compares two interventions: chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) plus home exercise program (HEP) to HEP alone (minimal intervention comparison) for patients with subacute or chronic back-related leg pain.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Back-related leg pain (BRLP) is a costly and often disabling variation of the ubiquitous back pain conditions. As health care costs continue to climb, the search for effective treatments with few side-effects is critical. While SMT is the most commonly sought CAM treatment for LBP sufferers, there is only a small, albeit promising, body of research to support its use for patients with BRLP.</p> <p>This study seeks to fill a critical gap in the LBP literature by performing the first full scale RCT assessing chiropractic SMT for patients with sub-acute or chronic BRLP using important <b>patient-oriented </b>and <b>objective biomechanical </b>outcome measures.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00494065">NCT00494065</a></p

Complementary therapy use by patients and parents of children with asthma and the implications for NHS care: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Patients are increasingly using complementary therapies, often for chronic conditions. Asthma is the most common chronic condition in the UK. Previous research indicates that some asthma patients experience gaps in their NHS care. However, little attention has been given to how and why patients and parents of children with asthma use complementary therapies and the implications for NHS care. METHODS: Qualitative study, comprising 50 semi-structured interviews with a purposeful sample of 22 adults and 28 children with asthma (plus a parent), recruited from a range of NHS and non-NHS settings in Bristol, England. Data analysis was thematic, drawing on the principles of constant comparison. RESULTS: A range of complementary therapies were being used for asthma, most commonly Buteyko breathing and homeopathy. Most use took place outside of the NHS, comprising either self-treatment or consultation with private complementary therapists. Complementary therapies were usually used alongside not instead of conventional asthma treatment. A spectrum of complementary therapy users emerged, including "committed", "pragmatic" and "last resort" users. Motivating factors for complementary therapy use included concerns about conventional NHS care ("push factors") and attractive aspects of complementary therapies ("pull factors"). While participants were often uncertain whether therapies had directly helped their asthma, breathing techniques such as the Buteyko Method were most notably reported to enhance symptom control and enable reduction in medication. Across the range of therapies, the process of seeking and using complementary therapies seemed to help patients in two broad ways: it empowered them to take greater personal control over their condition rather than feel dependant on medication, and enabled exploration of a broader range of possible causes of their asthma than commonly discussed within NHS settings. CONCLUSION: Complementary therapy use reflects patients' and parents' underlying desire for greater self-care and need of opportunities to address some of their concerns regarding NHS asthma care. Self-management of chronic conditions is increasingly promoted within the NHS but with little attention to complementary therapy use as one strategy being used by patients and parents. With their desire for self-help, complementary therapy users are in many ways adopting the healthcare personas that current policies aim to encourage

Neurophysiologic effects of spinal manipulation in patients with chronic low back pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>While there is growing evidence for the efficacy of SM to treat LBP, little is known on the mechanisms and physiologic effects of these treatments. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to determine whether SM alters the amplitude of the motor evoked potential (MEP) or the short-latency stretch reflex of the erector spinae muscles, and whether these physiologic responses depend on whether SM causes an audible joint sound.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used transcranial magnetic stimulation to elicit MEPs and electromechanical tapping to elicit short-latency stretch reflexes in 10 patients with chronic LBP and 10 asymptomatic controls. Neurophysiologic outcomes were measured before and after SM. Changes in MEP and stretch reflex amplitude were examined based on patient grouping (LBP vs. controls), and whether SM caused an audible joint sound.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>SM did not alter the erector spinae MEP amplitude in patients with LBP (0.80 ± 0.33 vs. 0.80 ± 0.30 μV) or in asymptomatic controls (0.56 ± 0.09 vs. 0.57 ± 0.06 μV). Similarly, SM did not alter the erector spinae stretch reflex amplitude in patients with LBP (0.66 ± 0.12 vs. 0.66 ± 0.15 μV) or in asymptomatic controls (0.60 ± 0.09 vs. 0.55 ± 0.08 μV). Interestingly, study participants exhibiting an audible response exhibited a 20% decrease in the stretch reflex (p < 0.05).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These findings suggest that a single SM treatment does not systematically alter corticospinal or stretch reflex excitability of the erector spinae muscles (when assessed ~ 10-minutes following SM); however, they do indicate that the stretch reflex is attenuated when SM causes an audible response. This finding provides insight into the mechanisms of SM, and suggests that SM that produces an audible response may mechanistically act to decrease the sensitivity of the muscle spindles and/or the various segmental sites of the Ia reflex pathway.</p

Non-surgical treatment of hip osteoarthritis. Hip school, with or without the addition of manual therapy, in comparison to a minimal control intervention: Protocol for a three-armed randomized clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Hip osteoarthritis is a common and chronic condition resulting in pain, functional disability and reduced quality of life. In the early stages of the disease, a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment is recommended. There is evidence from several trials that exercise therapy is effective. In addition, single trials suggest that patient education in the form of a hip school is a promising intervention and that manual therapy is superior to exercise.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This is a randomized clinical trial. Patients with clinical and radiological hip osteoarthritis, 40-80 years of age, and without indication for hip surgery were randomized into 3 groups. The active intervention groups A and B received six weeks of hip school, taught by a physiotherapist, for a total of 5 sessions. In addition, group B received manual therapy consisting of joint manipulation and soft-tissue therapy twice a week for six weeks. Group C received a self-care information leaflet containing advice on "live as usual" and stretching exercises from the hip school. The primary time point for assessing relative effectiveness is at the end of the six weeks intervention period with follow-ups after three and 12 months.</p> <p>Primary outcome measure is pain measured on an eleven-point numeric rating scale. Secondary outcome measures are the hip dysfunction and osteoarthritis outcome score, patient's global perceived effect, patient specific functional scale, general quality of life and hip range of motion.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>To our knowledge this is the first randomized clinical trial comparing a patient education program with or without the addition of manual therapy to a minimal intervention for patients with hip osteoarthritis.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01039337">NCT01039337</a></p

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

Acupuncture and chiropractic care for chronic pain in an integrated health plan: a mixed methods study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Substantial recent research examines the efficacy of many types of complementary and alternative (CAM) therapies. However, outcomes associated with the "real-world" use of CAM has been largely overlooked, despite calls for CAM therapies to be studied in the manner in which they are practiced. Americans seek CAM treatments far more often for chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) than for any other condition. Among CAM treatments for CMP, acupuncture and chiropractic (A/C) care are among those with the highest acceptance by physician groups and the best evidence to support their use. Further, recent alarming increases in delivery of opioid treatment and surgical interventions for chronic pain--despite their high costs, potential adverse effects, and modest efficacy--suggests the need to evaluate real world outcomes associated with promising non-pharmacological/non-surgical CAM treatments for CMP, which are often well accepted by patients and increasingly used in the community.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This multi-phase, mixed methods study will: (1) conduct a retrospective study using information from electronic medical records (EMRs) of a large HMO to identify unique clusters of patients with CMP (e.g., those with differing demographics, histories of pain condition, use of allopathic and CAM health services, and comorbidity profiles) that may be associated with different propensities for A/C utilization and/or differential outcomes associated with such care; (2) use qualitative interviews to explore allopathic providers' recommendations for A/C and patients' decisions to pursue and retain CAM care; and (3) prospectively evaluate health services/costs and broader clinical and functional outcomes associated with the receipt of A/C relative to carefully matched comparison participants receiving traditional CMP services. Sensitivity analyses will compare methods relying solely on EMR-derived data versus analyses supplementing EMR data with conventionally collected patient and clinician data.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Successful completion of these aggregate aims will provide an evaluation of outcomes associated with the real-world use of A/C services. The trio of retrospective, qualitative, and prospective study will also provide a clearer understanding of the decision-making processes behind the use of A/C for CMP and a transportable methodology that can be applied to other health care settings, CAM treatments, and clinical populations.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01345409">NCT01345409</a></p

Effect of spinal manipulation on sensorimotor functions in back pain patients: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Low back pain (LBP) is a recognized public health problem, impacting up to 80% of US adults at some point in their lives. Patients with LBP are utilizing integrative health care such as spinal manipulation (SM). SM is the therapeutic application of a load to specific body tissues or structures and can be divided into two broad categories: SM with a high-velocity low-amplitude load, or an impulse "thrust", (HVLA-SM) and SM with a low-velocity variable-amplitude load (LVVA-SM). There is evidence that sensorimotor function in people with LBP is altered. This study evaluates the sensorimotor function in the lumbopelvic region, as measured by postural sway, response to sudden load and repositioning accuracy, following SM to the lumbar and pelvic region when compared to a sham treatment.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A total of 219 participants with acute, subacute or chronic low back pain are being recruited from the Quad Cities area located in Iowa and Illinois. They are allocated through a minimization algorithm in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either 13 HVLA-SM treatments over 6 weeks, 13 LVVA-SM treatments over 6 weeks or 2 weeks of a sham treatment followed by 4 weeks of full spine "doctor's choice" SM. Sensorimotor function tests are performed before and immediately after treatment at baseline, week 2 and week 6. Self-report outcome assessments are also collected. The primary aims of this study are to 1) determine immediate pre to post changes in sensorimotor function as measured by postural sway following delivery of a single HVLA-SM or LVVA-SM treatment when compared to a sham treatment and 2) to determine changes from baseline to 2 weeks (4 treatments) of HVLA-SM or LVVA-SM compared to a sham treatment. Secondary aims include changes in response to sudden loads and lumbar repositioning accuracy at these endpoints, estimating sensorimotor function in the SM groups after 6 weeks of treatment, and exploring if changes in sensorimotor function are associated with changes in self-report outcome assessments.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study may provide clues to the sensorimotor mechanisms that explain observed functional deficits associated with LBP, as well as the mechanism of action of SM.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, with the ID number of <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00830596">NCT00830596</a>, registered on January 27, 2009. The first participant was allocated on 30 January 2009 and the final participant was allocated on 17 March 2011.</p