Multisite joint pain in older Australian women is associated with poorer psychosocial health and greater medication use

Background: Musculoskeletal pain frequently occurs in more than one body region, with up to 80% of adults reporting more than one joint pain site in the last 12 months. Older people and females are known to be more susceptible to multiple joint pain sites, however the association of multisite joint pain with physical and psychosocial functions in this population are unknown. Methods: Cross-sectional data from 579 women were analyzed. Women were asked "Which of your joints have been troublesome on most days of the past month?" Pain qualities were measured using the McGill Pain Questionnaire (Short Form) and PainDETECT, and health was assessed using the SF-36 and sociodemographic variables. Statistical analysis using generalized ordinal logistic regression included comparison of three joint pain groups: no joint pain, 1-4 sites of joint pain and ≥ 5 sites of joint pain. Results: Two thirds of respondents had multisite pain (>1 site), and one third had ≥5 joint pain sites. Compared to women with fewer joint pain sites, women with >5 joint pain sites (multisite joint pain) had significantly poorer physical and emotional health-related quality of life, more severe pain, a higher probability of neuropathic pain, and a longer duration of pain. More than half of women in the multisite joint pain group were still employed, statistically significantly more than women with no joint pain. In the final model, pain duration, the number of medications, pain intensity (discomforting and distressing) and the physical component of health-related quality of life were significantly associated with increased number of joint pain sites. Conclusions: Over one-third of older women in our sample had >5 painful joints in the last month. These women demonstrated significantly poorer psychosocial health, and increased medication use, than women with no or fewer sites of joint pain. Many women with multisite joint pain were still in the workforce, even when nearing retirement age. This study has important implications for future research into musculoskeletal pain, particularly in regards to womens health and wellbeing, and for clinical practice where there should be increased awareness of the implications of concurrent, multisite joint pain. © 2019 The Author(s)

A mixed-methods feasibility study of a comorbidity-adapted exercise program for low back pain in older adults (COMEBACK): a protocol

Background: The prevalence of low back pain increases with age and has a profound impact on physical and psychosocial health. With increasing age comes increasing comorbidity, and this also has pronounced health consequences. Whilst exercise is beneficial for a range of health conditions, trials of exercise for low back pain management often exclude older adults. It is currently unknown whether an exercise program for older adults with low back pain, tailored for the presence of comorbidities, is acceptable for participants and primary healthcare providers (PHCPs). Therefore, this mixed-methods study will assess the feasibility of an 8-week comorbidity-adapted exercise program for older people with low back pain and comorbid conditions.  Methods: The 3-phased feasibility study will be performed in a primary healthcare setting. PHCPs will be trained to deliver a comorbidity-adapted exercise program for older people with low back pain and comorbidities. Healthcare-seeking adults > 65 will be screened for eligibility over telephone, with a recruitment target of 24 participants. Eligible participants will attend an initial appointment (diagnostic phase). During this initial appointment, a research assistant will collect patient demographics, self-reported outcome measurement data, and perform a physical and functional examination to determine contraindications and restrictions to an exercise program. During the development phase, PHCPs will adapt the exercise program to the individual and provide patient education. During the intervention phase, there will be two supervised exercise sessions per week, over 8 weeks (total of 16 exercise sessions). Each exercise session will be approximately 60 min in duration. A qualitative evaluation after the last exercise program session will explore the feasibility of the exercise program for participants and PHCPs. Progression criteria will determine the suitability for a fully powered randomised controlled trial.  Discussion: This mixed-methods feasibility study will assess an exercise program for older adults with low back pain and comorbidities. Once assessed for feasibility, the exercise program may be tested for effectiveness in a larger, fully powered randomised controlled trial. This information will add to the sparse evidence base on appropriate options for managing back pain in older adults.  Trial registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry registration number: ACTRN12621000379819p (06/04/2021; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12621000379819p).  Trial sponsor: Macquarie University, Department of Chiropractic, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia.</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

Patient and provider characteristics associated with therapeutic intervention selection in a chiropractic clinical encounter: A cross-sectional analysis of the COAST and O-COAST study data

Background: Chiropractors use a variety of therapeutic interventions in clinical practice. How the selection of interventions differs across musculoskeletal regions or with different patient and provider characteristics is currently unclear. This study aimed to describe how frequently different interventions are used for patients presenting for chiropractic care, and patient and provider characteristics associated with intervention selection. Methods: Data were obtained from the Chiropractic Observation and Analysis STudy (COAST) and Ontario (O-COAST) studies: practice-based, cross-sectional studies in Victoria, Australia (2010–2012) and Ontario, Canada (2014–2015). Chiropractors recorded data on patient diagnosis and intervention selection from up to 100 consecutive patient visits. The frequency of interventions selected overall and for each diagnostic category (e.g., different musculoskeletal regions) were descriptively analysed. Univariable multi-level logistic regression (provider and patient as grouping factors), stratified by diagnostic category, was used to assess the association between patient/provider variables and intervention selection. Results: Ninety-four chiropractors, representative of chiropractors in Victoria and Ontario for age, sex, and years in practice, participated. Data were collected on 7,966 patient visits (6419 unique patients), including 10,731 individual diagnoses (mean age: 43.7 (SD: 20.7), 57.8% female). Differences in patient characteristics and intervention selection were observed between chiropractors practicing in Australia and Canada. Overall, manipulation was the most common intervention, selected in 63% (95%CI:62–63) of encounters. However, for musculoskeletal conditions presenting in the extremities only, soft tissue therapies were more commonly used (65%, 95%CI:62–68). Manipulation was less likely to be performed if the patient was female (OR:0.74, 95%CI:0.65–0.84), older (OR:0.79, 95%CI:0.77–0.82), presenting for an initial visit (OR:0.73, 95%CI:0.56–0.95) or new complaint (OR:0.82, 95%CI:0.71–0.95), had one or more comorbidities (OR:0.63, 95%CI:0.54–0.72), or was underweight (OR:0.47, 95%CI:0.35–0.63), or obese (OR:0.69, 95%CI:0.58–0.81). Chiropractors with more than five years clinical experience were less likely to provide advice/education (OR:0.37, 95%CI:0.16–0.87) and exercises (OR:0.17, 95%CI:0.06–0.44). Conclusion: In more than 10,000 diagnostic encounters, manipulation was the most common therapeutic intervention for spine-related problems, whereas soft tissue therapies were more common for extremity problems. Different patient and provider characteristics were associated with intervention selection. These data may be used to support further research on appropriate selection of interventions for common musculoskeletal complaints

Back complaints in the elders - Chiropractic (BACE-C): Protocol of an international cohort study of older adults with low back pain seeking chiropractic care

Background: Low back pain is a common condition among older adults that significantly influences physical function and participation. Compared to their younger counterparts, there is limited information available about the clinical course of low back pain in older people, in particularly those presenting for chiropractic care. Improving our understanding of this patient population and the course of their low back pain may provide input for studies researching safer and more effective care than is currently provided. Objectives: The primary objectives are to examine the clinical course over one year of pain intensity, healthcare costs and pain, functional status and recovery rates of low back pain in people 55 years and older who visit a chiropractor for a new episode of low back pain. Methods: An international prospective, multi-center cohort study with one-year follow-up. Chiropractic practices are to be recruited in the Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom and Australia. Treatment will be left to the discretion of the chiropractor. Inclusion/Exclusion criteria: Patients aged 55 and older who consult a chiropractor for a new episode of low back pain, meaning low back pain for the first time or those patients who have not been to a chiropractor in the previous six months. This is independent of whether they have seen another type of health care provider for the current episode. Patients who are unable to complete the web-based questionnaires because of language restrictions or those with computer literacy restrictions will be excluded as well as those with cognitive disorders. In addition, those with a suspected tumor, fracture, infection or any other potential red flag or condition considered to be a contraindication for chiropractic care will be excluded. Data will be collected using online questionnaires at baseline, and at 2 and 6 weeks and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Discussion: This study, to our knowledge, is the first large-scale, prospective, multicenter, international cohort study to be conducted in a chiropractic setting to focus on older adults with low back pain consulting a chiropractor. By understanding the clinical course, satisfaction and safety of chiropractic treatment of this common debilitating condition in the aged population, this study will provide input for informing future clinical trials. Trial registration: Nederlandse Trial Registrar NL7507

Association of exposures to seated postures with immediate increases in back pain: A systematic review of studies with objectively measured sitting time

Objective: The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of studies to determine whether sitting time measured objectively (by laboratory controlled time trial, direct observation, or wearable sensor) is associated with the immediate increase in low back pain (LBP) (determined by pain scale rating) in people >18 years of age. Methods: Four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) were searched from inception to September 1, 2018. Randomized controlled trials and cohort and cross-sectional studies, where objectively measured sitting time was temporally matched with a measure of LBP in adults, were included. Studies without a control session conducted on a separate day were excluded. Screening, full-text review, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment (Quality In Prognosis Studies) of included papers were performed independently by 2 reviewers, with a third available to resolve disagreements. Results: In total, 609 articles were identified, 361 titles/abstracts were screened,75 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 10 met the inclusion criteria. All but 1 reported sitting time to be associated with an immediate increase in LBP. Six of these reported clinically relevant pain levels (n = 330). Half of the included studies were rated as having a low risk of bias and the remaining were rated as having a moderate risk of bias. Conclusion: Prolonged sitting increases immediate reporting of LBP in adults; however, no conclusion between sitting and clinical episodes of LBP can be made. Based upon these findings, we recommend that future prospective studies should match objectively measured sitting with temporally related pain measurements to determine whether prolonged sitting can trigger a clinical episode of LBP

An international, multi-disciplinary Delphi study regarding statements for the definition of spinal osteoarthritis

Purpose: To obtain consensus among an international, multidisciplinary group of subject matter experts regarding statements for structural changes and symptoms, as well as general statements on spinal osteoarthritis, for research and clinical purposes

The effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy procedures for spine pain: Protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a guideline-recommended treatment option for spinal pain. The recommendation is based on multiple systematic reviews. However, these reviews fail to consider that clinical effects may depend on SMT “application procedures” (i.e., how and where SMT is applied). Using network meta-analyses, we aim to investigate which SMT “application procedures” have the greatest magnitude of clinical effectiveness for reducing pain and disability, for any spinal complaint, at short-term and long-term follow-up. We will compare application procedural parameters by classifying the thrust application technique and the application site (patient positioning, assisted, vertebral target, region target, Technique name, forces, and vectors, application site selection approach and rationale) against: 1. Waiting list/no treatment; 2. Sham interventions not resembling SMT (e.g., detuned ultrasound); 3. Sham interventions resembling SMT; 4. Other therapies not recommended in clinical practice guidelines; and 5. Other therapies recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Secondly, we will examine how contextual elements, including procedural fidelity (whether the SMT was delivered as planned) and clinical applicability (whether the SMT is similar to clinical practice) of the SMT. Methods: We will include randomized controlled trials (RCT) found through three search strategies, (i) exploratory, (ii) systematic, and (iii) other known sources. We define SMT as a high-velocity low-amplitude thrust or grade V mobilization. Eligibility is any RCT assessing SMT against any other type of SMT, any other active or sham intervention, or no treatment control on adult patients with pain in any spinal region. The RCTs must report on continuous pain intensity and/or disability outcomes. Two authors will independently review title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. Spinal manipulative therapy techniques will be classified according to the technique application and choice of application sites. We will conduct a network-meta analysis using a frequentist approach and multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Discussion: This will be the most extensive review of thrust SMT to date, and will allow us to estimate the importance of different SMT application procedures used in clinical practice and taught across educational settings. Thus, the results are applicable to clinical practice, educational settings, and research studies. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022375836