Knowledge Transfer within the Canadian Chiropractic Community. Part 1: Understanding Evidence-Practice Gaps

The article presents an overview of the concept of knowledge transfer (KT) and discusses the process of KT and its role in optimizing health care delivery and integrating available and new knowledge into practice and policy. A discussion of several barriers to KT, including those that are common to most health care disciplines, and of those that are of relevance to the chiropractic profession, is presented

Effectiveness of dry needling on reducing pain intensity in patients with myofascial pain syndrome: a Meta-analysis

AbstractObjectiveTo summarize the literature about the effectiveness of dry needling (DN) on relieving pain and increasing range of motion (ROM) in individuals with myofascial pain syndrome (MPS).MethodsPapers published from January 2000 to January 2013 were identified through an electronic search in the databases MEDLINE, Dialnet, Cochrane Library Plus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and Spanish Superior Council of Scientific Research (CSIC). The studies included were randomized controlled trials written in English and/or Spanish about the effectiveness of DN on pain and ROM in individuals with MPS.ResultsOut of 19 clinical trials that were potentially relevant, a total of 10 were included in the Meta-analysis. Regarding pain intensity reduction when measured before and immediately after the intervention, DN achieved improvement compared with the placebo treatment [d = − 0.49; 95% CI (− 3.21, 0.42)] and with the control group [d = − 9.13; 95% CI (− 14.70, − 3.56)]. However, other treatments achieved better results on the same variable compared with DN, considering the measurements for pre-treatment and immediately after [d = 2.54; 95% CI (− 0.40, 5.48)], as well as the pre-treatment and after 3-4 weeks [d = 4.23; 95% CI (0.78, 7.68)]. DN showed a significantly increased ROM when measured before the intervention and immediately after, in comparison with the placebo [d = 2.00; 95% CI (1.60, 2.41)]. However, other treatments achieved a significant better result regarding ROM when it was measured before the intervention and immediately after, as compared with DN [d = −1.42; 95% CI (− 1.84, − 0.99)].ConclusionDN was less effective on decreasing pain comparing to the placebo group. Other treatments were more effective than DN on reducing pain after 3-4 weeks. However, on increasing ROM, DN was more effective comparing to that of placebo group, but less than other treatments

Discrepancy between prevalence and perceived effectiveness of treatment methods in myofascial pain syndrome: Results of a cross-sectional, nationwide survey

Background: Myofascial pain is a common dysfunction with a lifetime prevalence affecting up to 85% of the general population. Current guidelines for the management of myofascial pain are not available. In this study we investigated how physicians on the basis of prescription behaviour evaluate the effectiveness of treatment options in their management of myofascial pain. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, nationwide survey with a standardized questionnaire among 332 physicians (79.8% male, 25.6% female, 47.5 +/- 9.6 years) experienced in treating patients with myofascial pain. Recruitment of physicians took place at three German meetings of pain therapists, rheumatologists and orthopaedists, respectively. Physicians estimated the prevalence of myofascial pain amongst patients in their practices, stated what treatments they used routinely and then rated the perceived treatment effectiveness on a six-point scale (with 1 being excellent). Data are expressed as mean +/- standard deviation. Results: The estimated overall prevalence of active myofascial trigger points is 46.1 +/- 27.4%. Frequently prescribed treatments are analgesics, mainly metamizol/paracetamol (91.6%), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs/coxibs (87.0%) or weak opioids (81.8%), and physical therapies, mainly manual therapy (81.1%), TENS (72.9%) or acupuncture (60.2%). Overall effectiveness ratings for analgesics (2.9 +/- 0.7) and physical therapies were moderate (2.5 +/- 0.8). Effectiveness ratings of the various treatment options between specialities were widely variant. 54.3% of all physicians characterized the available treatment options as insufficient. Conclusions: Myofascial pain was estimated a prevalent condition. Despite a variety of commonly prescribed treatments, the moderate effectiveness ratings and the frequent characterizations of the available treatments as insufficient suggest an urgent need for clinical research to establish evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of myofascial pain syndrome

Response to Lawrence DJ: The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review of the literature

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Letter to the Editor by Dana J. Lawrence. In his letter, Lawrence states that the results of our systematic review may be due to bias. However, he does not adequately substantiate his claims..

Dry Needling for Spine Related Disorders: a Scoping Review

Introduction/Background: The depth and breadth of research on dry needling (DN) has not been evaluated specifically for symptomatic spine related disorders (SRD) from myofascial trigger points (TrP), disc, nerve and articular structures not due to serious pathologies. Current literature appears to support DN for treatment of TrP. Goals of this review include identifying research published on DN treatment for SRD, sites of treatment and outcomes studied. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following Levac et al.’s five part methodological framework to determine the current state of the literature regarding DN for patients with SRD. Results: Initial and secondary search strategies yielded 55 studies in the cervical (C) region (71.43%) and 22 in the thoracolumbar-pelvic (TLP) region (28.57%). Most were randomized controlled trials (60% in C, 45.45% in TLP) and clinical trials (18.18% in C, 22.78% in TLP). The most commonly treated condition was TrP for both the C and TLP regions. In the C region, DN was provided to 23 different muscles, with the trapezius as treatment site in 41.88% of studies. DN was applied to 31 different structures in the TLP region. In the C region, there was one treatment session in 23 studies (41.82%) and 2–6 treatments in 25 (45.45%%). For the TLP region, one DN treatment was provided in 8 of the 22 total studies (36.36%) and 2–6 in 9 (40.9%). The majority of experimental designs had DN as the sole intervention. For both C and TLP regions, visual analogue scale, pressure pain threshold and range of motion were the most common outcomes. Conclusion: For SRD, DN was primarily applied to myofascial structures for pain or TrP diagnoses. Many outcomes were improved regardless of diagnosis or treatment parameters. Most studies applied just one treatment which may not reflect common clinical practice. Further research is warranted to determine optimal treatment duration and frequency. Most studies looked at DN as the sole intervention. It is unclear whether DN alone or in addition to other treatment procedures would provide superior outcomes. Functional outcome tools best suited to tracking the outcomes of DN for SRD should be explored.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-020-00310-

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