Manipulation, Spinal

Background: Some chiropractors use spinal x-rays to inform care, but the relationship between radiographic findings and outcomes is unclear. This study examined the association between radiographic findings and 30% improvement in back-related disability in older adults after receiving 12 weeks of chiropractic spinal manipulation and home exercise instruction.

Methods: This IRB-approved secondary analysis used randomized trial data of community-dwelling adults age ≥ 65 with chronic spinal pain and disability. Data were collected during the parent trial between January 2010-December 2014. The primary outcome of the parent study was ≥ 30% improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 12 weeks, a clinically important response to care. In this secondary analysis, two chiropractic radiologists independently assessed digital lumbar radiographs for pre-specified anatomic, degenerative, and alignment factors; differences were adjudicated. The unadjusted association between baseline radiographic factors and 30% ODI improvement was determined using chi-square tests.

Results: From the parent trial, 120 adults with baseline lumbar radiographs were included in this study. Mean age was 70.4 years (range 65–81); 59.2% were female. Mean baseline disability (ODI = 25.6) and back pain (5.2, 0–10 scale) were moderate. Disc degeneration (53.3% moderate, 13.3% severe), anterolisthesis (53.3%), retrolisthesis (36.6%) and scoliosis (35.0%) were common among the participant sample. After 12-weeks of treatment, 51 (42.5%) participants achieved 30% improvement in back disability. No alignment, degenerative, or anatomic factors were associated with ODI improvement at 12 weeks (all p > 0.05), regardless of severity of radiographic findings.

Conclusion: We found no association between a predetermined subset of radiographic findings and improvement in back-related disability among this sample of older adults. As such, this study provides preliminary data suggesting that imaging may be unhelpful for predicting response to chiropractic spinal manipulation and home exercise.

Background: Patient perceptions may influence the effectiveness and utilization of healthcare interventions, particularly for complex health conditions such as sciatica or back-related leg pain (BRLP).

Objectives: To explore BRLP patients' perceptions of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and home exercise with advice (HEA).

Design: Qualitative study in a controlled clinical trial.

Method: Semi-structured interviews conducted after 12 weeks of treatment asked participants about
satisfaction with care and whether treatment was worthwhile. An interdisciplinary research team
conducted content analysis using qualitative data analysis software to identify and summarize themes.

Results: Of 192 trial participants, 174 (91%) completed interviews (66% female, age 57.0 ± 11.5 years).
Participants identified interactions with providers and staff, perceived treatment effects, and information
as key contributors to both their satisfaction and the worthwhile nature of treatment. HEA was liked for
its convenience and ability to foster an exercise habit. SMT was liked for specific aspects of the modality
(e.g. manipulation, stretching) and provider competency. Most participants reported no dislikes for SMT
or HEA, but some noted the dose/time commitment for SMT and discipline of HEA as least liked aspects
of the interventions.

Conclusions: The quality of patient-provider interactions, perceived treatment effects, and information
sharing influenced BRLP patients' satisfaction with care. Qualitative research describing patients' preferences can facilitate translation of study findings into practice and allow clinicians to tailor treatments
to facilitate compliance and satisfaction with care.

Objectives: The goals of this study were to identify self-reported differences in function, comorbidities, and medical service utilization among adults who reported using chiropractic and/or osteopathic manipulation in the 2012 National Health Interview Survey, and to compare these between older and younger adults.

Methods: We conducted a descriptive study of adults aged 18 or older who were included in the 2012 National Health Interview Survey and the Alternative Medicine Questionnaire. We included those who reported using chiropractic and/or osteopathic manipulation in the past 12 months. Responses were analyzed using SAS software. Weighted estimates were reported as percentages of chiropractic/osteopathic users overall and by age group (<65 years vs ≥65 years).

Results: Among the 8.5% of US adults who reported receiving manipulation, 97.6% saw chiropractors. Most adults were under age 65 (83.7%), female (56.6%), and white (85.1%). Except for sitting tolerance, functional limitations were significantly higher among older manipulation users compared with younger manipulation users (all P < .001). Older (vs younger) chiropractic/osteopathic users more often reported functional limitations (65.7% vs 37.2%), had difficulty walking without equipment (14.7% vs 2.8%), found it very difficult or were unable to walk one-quarter mile (15.7% vs 3.8%) or climb 10 steps (11.4% vs 2.5%), and needed help with instrumental activities of daily living (6.9% vs 2.0%). Comorbidities differed by age: cardiovascular events/conditions, cancer, diabetes, and arthritis were more common among older adults, and headaches, neck pain, and depression were more frequent in younger adults. Similar proportions of older and younger adults had emergency room visits (23.0% vs 21.7%); older adults reported more surgeries (26.1% vs 15.4%).

Conclusions: Notable differences exist in functional limitations and comorbidities between older and younger chiropractic and osteopathic manipulation users. This information could inform clinical practice, education, and policy.

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a common disabling condition in older adults which often limits physical function and diminishes quality of life. Two clinical trials in older adults have shown spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) results in similar or small improvements relative to medical care; however, the effectiveness of adding SMT or rehabilitative exercise to home exercise is unclear. 

Methods: We conducted a randomized clinical trial assessing the comparative effectiveness of adding SMT or supervised rehabilitative exercise to home exercise in adults 65 or older with sub-acute or chronic LBP. Treatments were provided over 12-weeks and self-report outcomes were collected at 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks. The primary outcome was pain severity. Secondary outcomes included back disability, health status, medication use, satisfaction with care, and global improvement. Linear mixed models were used to analyze outcomes. The primary analysis included longitudinal outcomes in the short (week 4–12) and long-term (week 4–52). An omnibus test assessing differences across all groups over the year was used to control for multiplicity. Secondary analyses included outcomes at each time point and responder analyses. This study was funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration. 

Results: 241 participants were randomized and 230 (95%) provided complete primary outcome data. The primary analysis showed group differences in pain over the one-year were small and not statistically significant. Pain severity was reduced by 30 to 40% after treatment in all 3 groups with the largest difference (eight percentage points) favoring SMT and home exercise over home exercise alone. Group differences at other time points ranged from 0 to 6 percentage points with no consistent pattern favoring one treatment. One-year post-treatment pain reductions diminished in all three groups. Secondary self-report outcomes followed a similar pattern with no important group differences, except satisfaction with care, where the two combination groups were consistently superior to home exercise alone. 

Conclusions: Adding spinal manipulation or supervised rehabilitative exercise to home exercise alone does not appear to improve pain or disability in the short- or long-term for older adults with chronic low back pain but did enhance satisfaction with care.

Objective: To assess the feasibility of recruiting sciatica patients and to evaluate their compliance in preparation for a full-scale randomized clinical trial. We also aimed to determine the responsiveness of key outcome measures.

Methods: Thirty-two subjects were randomly assigned to spinal manipulation (n=11), epidural steroid injections (n=11), or self-care education (n=10). No between-group comparisons were planned because of the small sample size.

Results: At week 12 (the end of the treatment phase), the outcome measures indicating the most improvement/change were the Oswestry disability score (mean, 22.9; SD, 19.9; effect size [ES], 1.8), leg pain severity (mean, 2.9; SD, 1.7; ES, 1.7), and if the symptoms were bothersome (mean, 25.2; SD, 16.0; ES, 1.6). Twenty-four patients were either “very satisfied” or “completely satisfied,” and 22 of 32 patients reported 75% or 100% improvement. After 52 weeks, the outcome measure showing the most improvement/change was leg pain severity (mean, 2.3; SD, 2.6; ES, 1.35), followed by the Oswestry disability score (mean, 15.6; SD, 20; ES, 1.2) and if symptoms were bothersome (mean, 18.1; SD, 22.6; ES, 1.1). Eighteen patients were either “very satisfied” or “completely satisfied,” and 15 of 32 patients reported 75% or 100% improvement.

Conclusions: The results of this pilot study suggest that it is feasible to recruit subacute and chronic sciatica patients and to obtain their compliance for a full-scale randomized clinical.

Objective: The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to compare functional limitations and comorbidity prevalence between older adult users and nonusers of chiropractic and osteopathic (DC/DO) manipulation to inform provider training.

Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of the 2012 National Health Interview Survey data. Adults age 65 or older who responded to the survey were included. Descriptive statistics are reported for adults who used DC/DO manipulation (vs nonusers) regarding function, comorbidities, musculoskeletal complaints, and medical services. Weighted percentages were derived using SAS and compared with χ2 tests.

Results: The DC/DO users were more often female, overweight or obese, and of white race than nonusers. More DC/DO users reported arthritis (55.3% vs 47.0%, <0.01) or asthma (15.0% vs 10.0%, P < .01) than nonusers; hypertension (61.9% vs 55.5%, P = .02) and diabetes (20.3% vs 15.7%, P = .02) were more prevalent in nonusers; and other comorbidities were comparable. The DC/DO users reported more joint pain/stiffness (55.7% vs 44.8%), chronic pain (19.8% vs 14.2%), low back pain (27.8% vs 18.4%), low back with leg pain (18.8% vs 10.6%), and neck pain (24.2% vs 13.1%) than nonusers (all P < .01). Functional limitations affected two-thirds overall, but DC/DO users reported more difficulties stooping and bending; other limitations were comparable. One in 9 reported activities of daily living or instrumental activities of daily living limitations; nonusers were more affected. Surgery was more common among DC/DO users (26.1% vs 19.3%, <0.01); emergency room visits were comparable.

Conclusion: Differences existed between older adult manipulation users and nonusers, especially surgical utilization, musculoskeletal complaints, and comorbidities; functional differences were modest. Our findings highlight areas for provider training and awareness regarding comorbidity burden and management needs in older patients who may simultaneously use manipulation and medical care for musculoskeletal complaints.

Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and exercise have demonstrated effectiveness for neck pain (NP). Adverse events (AE) reporting in trials, particularly among elderly participants, is inconsistent and challenges informed clinical decision making.

This paper provides a detailed report of AE experienced by elderly participants in a randomized comparative effectiveness trial of SMT and exercise for chronic NP.

AE data, consistent with CONSORT recommendations, were collected on elderly participants who received 12 weeks of SMT with home exercise, supervised plus home exercise, or home exercise alone. Standardized questions were asked at each treatment; participants were additionally encouraged to report AE as they occurred. Qualitative interviews documented participants' experiences with AE. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used to categorize and report these data.

Compliance was high among the 241 randomized participants. Non-serious AE were reported by 130/194 participants. AE were reported by three times as many participants in supervised plus home exercise, and nearly twice as many as in SMT with home exercise, as in home exercise alone. The majority of AE were musculoskeletal in nature; several participants associated AE with specific exercises. One incapacitating AE occurred when a participant fell during supervised exercise session and fractured their arm. One serious adverse event of unknown relationship occurred to an individual who died from an aneurysm while at home. Eight serious, non-related AE also occurred.

Musculoskeletal AE were common among elderly participants receiving SMT and exercise interventions for NP. As such, they should be expected and discussed when developing care plans.

The purpose of this study was to assess the relative efficacy of supervised exercise, spinal manipulation, and home exercise for the treatment of CLBP.  A total of 301 individuals were included in this trial. For all three treatment groups, outcomes improved during the 12 weeks of treatment. Those who received supervised trunk exercise were most satisfied with care and experienced the greatest gains in trunk muscle endurance and strength, but they did not significantly differ from those receiving chiropractic spinal manipulation or home exercise in terms of pain and other patient-rated individual outcomes, in both the short- and long-term.  For CLBP, supervised exercise was significantly better than chiropractic spinal manipulation and home exercise in terms of satisfaction with treatment and trunk muscle endurance and strength. Although the short- and long-term differences between groups in patient-rated pain, disability, improvement, general health status, and medication use consistently favored the supervised exercise group, the differences were relatively small and not statistically significant for these individual outcomes.