Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18427840›Full record

Trial reportEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2008

Independent evaluation of a clinical prediction rule for spinal manipulative therapy: a randomised controlled trial.

Mark J Hancock, Christopher G Maher, Jane Latimer, Robert D Herbert, James H McAuley

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
12.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 127 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. National Clinical Guidelines for non-surgical treatment of patients with recent onset low back pain or lumbar radiculopathy.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2018
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low-back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  5. Low back pain.The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy · 2012
    Guideline
  6. How is recovery from low back pain measured? A systematic review of the literature.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2011
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Clinical Effectiveness and Efficacy of Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation for Spine Pain.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. In response to: Cook C. How about a little love for non-thrust manipulation?The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2012
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mark J HancockBack Pain Research Group, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, PO Box 170, Lidcombe, NSW, 1825, Australia. M.Hancock@usyd.edu.au
Christopher G Maher
Jane Latimer
Robert D Herbert
James H McAuley
George Institute for Global Health · GBUniversity of Sydney · AUThe George Institute for Global Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A clinical prediction rule to identify patients most likely to respond to spinal manipulation has been published and widely cited but requires further testing for external validity. We performed a pre-planned secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial investigating the efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy in 239 patients presenting to general practice clinics for acute, non-specific, low back pain. Patients were randomised to receive spinal manipulative therapy or placebo 2 to 3 times per week for up to 4 weeks. All patients received general practitioner care (advice and paracetamol). Outcomes were pain and disability measured at 1, 2, 4 and 12 weeks. Status on the clinical prediction rule was measured at baseline. The clinical prediction rule performed no better than chance in identifying patients with acute, non-specific low back pain most likely to respond to spinal manipulative therapy (pain P = 0.805, disability P = 0.600). At 1-week follow-up, the mean difference in effect of spinal manipulative therapy compared to placebo in patients who were rule positive rather than rule negative was 0.3 points less on a 10-point pain scale (95% CI -0.8 to 1.4). The clinical prediction rule proposed by Childs et al. did not generalise to patients presenting to primary care with acute low back pain who received a course of spinal manipulative therapy.

Indexed as

Manipulation, SpinalAdultFemaleHumansLow Back PainMaleTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID18427840
PMCPMC2443269
OpenAlexW1974360030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.