Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Low Back Pain
- 3 June 2003
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American College of Physicians in Annals of Internal Medicine
- Vol. 138 (11) , 871-881
- https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-138-11-200306030-00008
Abstract
Low back pain is a costly illness for which spinal manipulative therapy is commonly recommended. Previous systematic reviews and practice guidelines have reached discordant results on the effectiveness of this therapy for low back pain. To resolve the discrepancies related to use of spinal manipulative therapy and to update previous estimates of effectiveness by comparing spinal manipulative therapy with other therapies and then incorporating data from recent high-quality randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) into the analysis. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and previous systematic reviews. Randomized, controlled trials of patients with low back pain that evaluated spinal manipulative therapy with at least 1 day of follow-up and at least one clinically relevant outcome measure. Two authors, who served as the reviewers for all stages of the meta-analysis, independently extracted data from unmasked articles. Comparison treatments were classified into the following seven categories: sham, conventional general practitioner care, analgesics, physical therapy, exercises, back school, or a collection of therapies judged to be ineffective or even harmful (traction, corset, bed rest, home care, topical gel, no treatment, diathermy, and minimal massage). Thirty-nine RCTs were identified. Meta-regression models were developed for acute or chronic pain and short-term and long-term pain and function. For patients with acute low back pain, spinal manipulative therapy was superior only to sham therapy (10-mm difference [95% CI, 2 to 17 mm] on a 100-mm visual analogue scale) or therapies judged to be ineffective or even harmful. Spinal manipulative therapy had no statistically or clinically significant advantage over general practitioner care, analgesics, physical therapy, exercises, or back school. Results for patients with chronic low back pain were similar. Radiation of pain, study quality, profession of manipulator, and use of manipulation alone or in combination with other therapies did not affect these results. There is no evidence that spinal manipulative therapy is superior to other standard treatments for patients with acute or chronic low back pain.Keywords
This publication has 72 references indexed in Scilit:
- Does spinal manipulative therapy help people with chronic low back pain?Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, 2002
- Does folk medicine work? A randomized clinical trial on patients with prolonged back painArchives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1997
- Randomized controlled trials in industrial low back pain. Part 3. Subacute/chronic pain interventionsArchives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1997
- Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?Controlled Clinical Trials, 1996
- The Relationship Between Methodological Quality and Conclusions in Reviews of Spinal ManipulationJAMA, 1995
- Randomized controlled trials in industrial low back pain relating to return to work. Part 1. Acute interventionsArchives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1995
- A cost-of-illness study of back pain in The NetherlandsPain, 1995
- A random‐effects regression model for meta‐analysisStatistics in Medicine, 1995
- Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: Is there a tower of babel bias?Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1995
- A randomized study of manual therapy with steroid injections in low-back painEuropean Spine Journal, 1994