Chiropractic & Osteopathy - Latest Articles

Neck pain and anxiety do not always go together

Corrie Myburgh — 2010-03-11T00:00:00Z

Chronic pain and psychosocial distress are generally thought to be associated in chronic musculoskeletal disorders such as non-specific neck and back pain. However, it is unclear whether a raised level of anxiety is necessarily a feature of longstanding, intense pain amongst patient and general population sub-groups. In a cohort of 70 self-selected female, non-specific neck pain sufferers, we observed relatively high levels of self-reported pain of 4.46 (measured on the 11 point numerical pain rating scale (NRS-101)) and a longstanding duration of symptoms (156 days/year). However, the mean anxiety scores observed (5.49), fell well below the clinically relevant threshold of 21 required by the Beck Anxiety Inventory. The cohort was stratified to further distinguish individuals with higher pain intensity (NRS>6) and longer symptom duration (>90 days). A highly statistically significant difference (p=0.000) was observed with respect to pain intensity. However, no significant differences were noted in the sub-groups with respect to anxiety levels. Our results indicate that chronic, intense pain and anxiety do not always appear to be related. Explanations for these findings may include that anxiety is not triggered in socially functional individuals, that individual coping strategies have come into play or in some instances that a psychological disorder like alexithymia could be a confounder. More studies are needed to clarify the specific role of anxiety in chronic non-specific musculoskeletal pain before general evidence-driven clinical extrapolations can be made.

The Nordic Maintenance Care Program - Time intervals between treatments of patients with low back pain: how close and who decides?

Kjerstin Sandnes — 2010-03-08T00:00:00Z

Background: The management of chiropractic patients with acute and chronic/persistent conditions probably differs. However, little is known on this subject. There is, for example, a dearth of information on maintenance care (MC). Thus it is not known if patients on MC are coerced to partake in a program of frequent treatments over a long period of time, or if they are actively involved in designing their own individualized treatment program.Objectives: It was the purpose of this study to investigate how chiropractic patients with low back pain were scheduled for treatment, with special emphasis on MC. The specific research questions were: 1. How many patients are on maintenance care? 2) Are there specific patterns of intervals between treatments for patients and, if so, do they differ between MC patients and non-MC patients? 3. Who decides on the next treatment, the patient, the chiropractor or both, and are there any differences between MC patients and non-MC patients?MethodChiropractic students, who during their summer holidays were observers in chiropractic clinics in Norway and Denmark, recorded whether patients were classified by the treating chiropractor as a MC-patient or not, dates for last and subsequent visits, and made a judgement on whether the patient or the chiropractor decided on the next appointment. Results: Observers in the study were 16 out of 30 available students. They collected data on 868 patients from 15 Danish and 13 Norwegian chiropractors. Twenty-two percent and 26%, respectively, were classified as MC patients. Non-MC patients were most frequently seen within 1 week. For MC patients, the previous visit was most often 2-4 weeks prior to the actual visit, and the next appointment between 1 and 3 months. This indicates a gradual increase in intervals. The decision of the next visit was mainly made by the chiropractor, also for MC patients. However, the study samples of chiropractors appear not to be representative of the general Danish and Norwegian chiropractic profession and the patients may also have been non-representative. Conclusion: There were two distinctly different patterns for the time period between visits for MC patients and non-MC patients. For non-MC patients, the most frequent interval between visits was one week and for MC patients, the period was typically between two weeks and three months. It was primarily the chiropractor who made the next visit-decision. However, these results can perhaps not be extrapolated to other groups of patients and chiropractors.

Commentary on the United Kingdom evidence report about the effectiveness of manual therapies

Scott Haldeman — 2010-02-25T00:00:00Z

This is an accompanying commentary on the article by Gert Bronfort and colleagues about the effectiveness of manual therapy. The two commentaries were provided independently and combined into this single article by the journal editors.

Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report

Gert Bronfort — 2010-02-25T00:00:00Z

Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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.Additionally, brief references are made to other effective non-pharmacological, non-invasive physical treatments. Conclusions: 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.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.

The Nordic back pain subpopulation program: Course patterns established through weekly follow-ups in patients treated for low back pain

Alice Kongsted — 2010-01-15T00:00:00Z

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is known to have a fluctuating course. In clinical studies, when deciding on duration of treatment and time for follow-up, it is important to know at what point in time a definite pattern of recovery becomes apparent and at what time a possible recurrence is likely to occur. A detailed description of the pain pattern has been difficult to establish with commonly used methods for follow-up, and we now introduce data collection by means of text messaging on mobile phones. The purpose of this study was to describe the detailed course of LBP during 18 weeks in a population treated in the primary care sector by chiropractors. Methods: The study population consisted of 78 patients presenting to a chiropractor with LBP, who for at least 12 weeks responded to the questions sent by text messaging concerning 1) the number of LBP-days the preceding week and 2) the intensity of present LBP. Results: A rapid improvement was observed through weeks one to four. After week seven no further improvement happened, and from the 12th week there seemed to be a tendency towards worsening. Conclusions: We suggest that follow-ups in studies concerning primary sector LBP care are conducted in week seven after treatment was initiated and at some later point which cannot be established from this study. In clinical practice we recommend that patients' LBP status is systematically followed for the first four weeks since lack of improvement during that period should cause watchfulness.

The relationship between hip abductor muscle strength and iliotibial band tightness in individuals with low back pain

Amir Arab — 2010-01-13T00:00:00Z

Background: Shortening of the iliotibial band (ITB) has been considered to be associated with low back pain (LBP). It is theorized that ITB tightness in individuals with LBP is a compensatory mechanism following hip abductor muscle weakness. However, no study has clinically examined this theory. The purpose of this study was to investigate the muscle imbalance of hip abductor muscle weakness and ITB tightness in subjects with LBP. Methods: A total of 300 subjects with and without LBP between the ages of 20 and 60 participated in this cross-sectional study. Subjects were categorized in three groups: LBP with ITB tightness (n = 100), LBP without ITB tightness (n = 100) and no LBP (n = 100). Hip abductor muscle strength was measured in all subjects. Results: Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with the body mass index (BMI) as the covariate revealed significant difference in hip abductor strength between three groups (P < 0.001). Post hoc analysis showed no significant difference in hip abductor muscle strength between the LBP subjects with and without ITB tightness (P = 0.59). However, subjects with no LBP had significantly stronger hip abductor muscle strength compared to subjects with LBP with ITB tightness (P < 0.001) and those with LBP without ITB tightness (P < 0.001). Conclusion: The relationship between ITB tightness and hip abductor weakness in patients with LBP is not supported as assumed in theory. More clinical studies are needed to assess the theory of muscle imbalance of hip abductor weakness and ITB tightness in LBP.

The Nordic Subpopulation Research Programme: prediction of treatment outcome in patients with low back pain treated by chiropractors - does the psychological profile matter?

Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde — 2009-12-30T00:00:00Z

Background: It is clinically important to be able to select patients suitable for treatment and to be able to predict with some certainty the outcome for patients treated for low back pain (LBP). It is not known to what degree outcome among chiropractic patients is affected by psychological factors.ObjectivesTo investigate if some demographic, psychological, and clinical variables can predict outcome with chiropractic care in patients with LBP. Methods: A prospective multi-center practice-based study was carried out, in which demographic, clinical and psychological information was collected at base-line. Outcome was established at the 4th visit and after three months. The predictive value was studied for all base-line variables, individually and in a multivariable analysis. Results: In all, 55 of 99 invited chiropractors collected information on 731 patients. At the 4th visit data were available on 626 patients and on 464 patients after 3 months. Fee subsidization (OR 3.2; 95% CI 1.9-5.5), total duration of pain in the past year (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.0-2.2), and general health (OR 1.2; 95% CI 1.1-1.4) remained in the final model as predictors of treatment outcome at the 4th visit. The sensitivity was low (12%), whereas the specificity was high (97%). At the three months follow-up, duration of pain in the past year (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.4-3.1), and pain in other parts of the spine in the past year (OR1.6; 1.1-2.5) were independently associated with outcome. However, both the sensitivity and specificity were relatively low (60% and 50%). The addition of the psychological variables did not improve the models and none of the psychological variables remained significant in the final analyses. There was a positive gradient in relation to the number of positive predictor variables and outcome, both at the 4th visit and after 3 months. Conclusion: Psychological factors were not found to be relevant in the prediction of treatment outcome in Swedish chiropractic patients with LBP.

An epidemiological examination of the subluxation construct using Hill's criteria of causation

Timothy Mirtz — 2009-12-02T00:00:00Z

Background: Chiropractors claim to locate, analyze and diagnose a putative spinal lesion known as subluxation and apply the mode of spinal manipulation (adjustment) for the correction of this lesion.AimThe purpose of this examination is to review the current evidence on the epidemiology of the subluxation construct and to evaluate the subluxation by applying epidemiologic criteria for it's significance as a causal factor. Methods: The databases of PubMed, Cinahl, and Mantis were searched for studies using the keywords subluxation, epidemiology, manipulation, dose-response, temporality, odds ratio, relative risk, biological plausibility, coherence, and analogy. Results: The criteria for causation in epidemiology are strength (strength of association), consistency, specificity, temporality (temporal sequence), dose response, experimental evidence, biological plausibility, coherence, and analogy. Applied to the subluxation all of these criteria remain for the most part unfulfilled. Conclusion: There is a significant lack of evidence to fulfill the basic criteria of causation. This lack of crucial supportive epidemiologic evidence prohibits the accurate promulgation of the chiropractic subluxation.

A descriptive report of management strategies used by chiropractors, as reviewed by a single independent chiropractic consultant in the Australian workers compensation system.

Henry Pollard — 2009-11-18T00:00:00Z

Background: In New South Wales, Australia, an injured worker enters the workers compensation system with the case often managed by a pre-determined insurer. The goal of the treating practitioner is to facilitate the claimant to return to suitable duties and progress to their pre-injury status, job and quality of life. Currently, there is very little documentation on the management of injured workers by chiropractors in the Australian healthcare setting. This study aims to examine treatment protocols and recommendations given to chiropractic practitioners by one independent chiropractic reviewer in the state of New South Wales, and to discuss management strategies recommended for the injured worker. Methods: A total of 146 consecutive Independent Chiropractic Consultant reports were collated into a database. Pain information and management recommendations made by the Independent Chiropractic Consultant were tabulated and analysed for trends. The data formulated from the reports is purely descriptive in nature. Results: The Independent Chiropractic Consultant determined the current treatment plan to be "reasonable" (80.1%) or "unreasonable" (23.6%). The consultant recommended to "phase out" treatment in 74.6% of cases, with an average of six remaining treatments. In eight cases treatment was unreasonable with no further treatment; in five cases treatment was reasonable with no further treatment. In 78.6% of cases, injured workers were to be discharged from treatment and 21.4% were to be reassessed for the need of a further treatment plan. Additional recommendations for treatment included an active care program (95.2%), general fitness program (77.4%), flexibility/range of movement exercises (54.1%), referral to a chronic pain specialist (50.7%) and work hardening program (22.6%). Conclusion: It is essential chiropractic practitioners perform 'reasonably necessary treatment' to reduce dependency on passive treatment, increase compliance to active care programs and reduce the progression to chronic pain states. It is recommended that common findings be integrated in further research, to improve the management of treatment for patients with an occupational injury.

The Nordic back pain subpopulation program - individual patterns of low back pain established by means of text messaging: a longitudinal pilot study

Alice Kongsted — 2009-11-17T00:00:00Z

Background: Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is known to be a fluctuating condition and there is a growing realisation that it consists of different subgroups of patients. The detailed course of pain is not known since traditional methods of data collection do not allow very frequent follow-ups. This is a limitation in relation to identification of subgroups with different course patterns. The objective of this pilot study was to see if it is possible to identify characteristic course-patterns of non-specific LBP in patients treated in a primary care setting. Methods: Patients seeing a chiropractor for a new LBP episode were included after the first consultation and followed for 18 weeks by means of automatic short message service (SMS) received and returned on their mobile phones. Every week they were asked how many days they had experienced LBP in the preceding week. The course of pain was studied for each individual and described as an early course (1st - 4th week) and a late course (5th - 18th week), which was fitted into one of 13 predefined course patterns. Results: A total of 110 patients were included from 5 chiropractic clinics, and the study sample consisted of the 78 patients who participated at least until week 12. Nine of the predefined patterns were identified within this population. The majority of patients improved within the first four weeks (63%), and such early improvement was associated with a generally favourable course. Conclusion: Patients with nonspecific LBP were shown to have a number of different course-patterns. The next step is to explore whether the identified patterns relate to different LBP diagnoses.