Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25106673›Full record

Observational studyBMC complementary and alternative medicine2014

Study protocol for patient response to spinal manipulation - a prospective observational clinical trial on physiological and patient-centered outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain.

Ting Xia, David G Wilder, Maruti R Gudavalli, James W DeVocht, Robert D Vining, Katherine A Pohlman, Gregory N Kawchuk, Cynthia R Long, Christine M Goertz

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01670292 (Patient Response to Spinal Manipulation), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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.

NCT01670292 nacompletednot on this map

Patient Response to Spinal Manipulation

TypeinterventionalSponsorPalmer College of ChiropracticRan2012 to 2014Enrolled82ConditionsLow Back PainArmsHVLA-SM
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ting XiaPalmer Center for Chiropractic Research, Palmer College of Chiropractic, 741 Brady Street, Davenport, Lowa IA 52803, USA. ting.xia@palmer.edu.
David G Wilder
Maruti R Gudavalli
James W DeVocht
Robert D Vining
Katherine A Pohlman
Gregory N Kawchuk
Cynthia R Long
Christine M Goertz
Palmer College of Chiropractic · USUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversity of Iowa · US

Funding

Developmental Center for Clinical and Translational Science in ChiropracticU19AT004663 · NCCIH · PALMER COLLEGE OF CHIROPRACTIC · PI GOERTZ, CHRISTINE MARIE · 2008 to 2013
$3.6M
RENOVATION OF PALMER CENTER FOR CHIROPRACTIC RESEARCHC06RR015433 · NCRR · PALMER COLLEGE OF CHIROPRACTIC · PI MEEKER, WILLIAM C · 2000 to 2000
$1.3M
NCCIH NIH HHS 5U19AT004663NCCIH NIH HHS U19 AT004663NCRR NIH HHS C06 RR015433NCRR NIH HHS C06 RR15433
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a major health issue due to its high prevalence rate and socioeconomic cost. While spinal manipulation (SM) is recommended for LBP treatment by recently published clinical guidelines, the underlying therapeutic mechanisms remain unclear. Spinal stiffness is routinely examined and used in clinical decisions for SM delivery. It has also been explored as a predictor for clinical improvement. Flexion-relaxation phenomenon has been demonstrated to distinguish between LBP and healthy populations. The primary objective of the current study is to collect preliminary estimates of variability and effect size for the associations of these two physiological measures with patient-centered outcomes in chronic LBP patients. Additionally biomechanical characteristics of SM delivery are collected with the intention to explore the potential dose-response relationship between SM and LBP improvement. METHODS/

designThis is a prospective, observational study applying side-lying, high velocity, low amplitude SM as treatment for patients with LBP over a course of 6 weeks. Approximately 80 participants will be enrolled if they present with chronic LBP of 1, 2 or 3 in Quebec Task Force Classification for spinal disorders, a Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score ≥ 6, and persistent LBP ≥ 2 with a maximum ≥ 4 using numerical rating scale. Patient-centered outcomes include LBP using visual analog scale, RMDQ, and PROMIS-29. Lumbar spine stiffness is assessed using palpation, a hand-held instrumented device, and an automated device. Flexion-relaxation is assessed using surface electromyography at the third level of the lumbar spine. Biomechanical characteristics of SM are assessed using a self-reported, itemized description system, as well as advanced kinetic measures that will be applied to estimate forces and moments at the lumbar segment level targeted by SM. DISCUSSION: Beside alterations in material properties of the passive components of the spine, increased neuromuscular activity may also contribute to a stiffened spine. Examining changes in both spinal stiffness and flexion-relaxation along the course of the treatment provides an opportunity to understand if the therapeutic effect of SM is associated with its action on active and/or passive components of the spine.

trial registrationNCT01670292 on clinicaltrials.gov.

Indexed as

Manipulation, SpinalAdultAgedClinical ProtocolsFemaleHumansLow Back PainLumbosacral RegionMaleMiddle AgedPatient-Centered CareProspective StudiesRange of Motion, ArticularYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25106673
PMCPMC4139615
OpenAlexW2025867470

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.