Trial reportSpine2015
Comparison of spinal manipulation methods and usual medical care for acute and subacute low back pain: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Spine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05425017 (Simultaneous Crepitus and Diagnostic Ultrasound Assessment of the Lumbar Zygapophyseal Joints Expansion of Validation and Reliability of Automated Analysis of Crepitus in Human Subjects), which is not on this map. Cited by 23 papers.
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.
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.
Simultaneous Crepitus and Diagnostic Ultrasound Assessment of the Lumbar Zygapophyseal Joints Expansion of Validation and Reliability of Automated Analysis of Crepitus in Human Subjects
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed, 61 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of McKenzie exercises plus stabilization exercises versus McKenzie exercises alone on disability, pain, and range of motion in patients with nonspecific chronic neck pain: A randomized clinical trial.Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation · 2024Trial
- The association of biomarkers with pain and function in acute and subacute low back pain: a secondary analysis of an RCT.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Trial
- Effect of Spinal Manipulative and Mobilization Therapies in Young Adults With Mild to Moderate Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2020Trial
- A randomized control trial to determine the effectiveness and physiological effects of spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization compared to each other and a sham condition in patients with chronic low back pain: Study protocol for The RELIEF Study.Contemporary clinical trials · 2018Trial
- Self-Administered Traction as an Adjunct in the Chiropractic Treatment of Low Back Pain: A Case Report.Journal of chiropractic medicine · 2024Article
- Feasibility and effectiveness of telehealth in the management of cervicothoracic and lumbar pain during the first six months of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: A case series.Interventional pain medicine · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and biopsychosocial self-management compared to medical care for low back pain: a randomized trial study protocol.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of Spinal Manipulation and Biopsychosocial Self-Management compared to Medical Care for Low Back Pain: A Randomized Trial Study Protocol.Research square · 2023Article
- Clinician Perspectives on Referring Medicaid Back Pain Patients to Integrative and Complementary Medicine: A Qualitative Study.Journal of integrative and complementary medicine · 2023Article
- Urinary TNF-α as a potential biomarker for chronic primary low back pain.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2023Article
- Article
- Safety of Chuna Manipulation Therapy in 289,953 Patients with Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Retrospective Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A spinal manipulative therapy altered brain activity in patients with lumbar disc herniation: A resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging study.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Experiences of Nonpharmacologic Providers Implementing the Oregon Back Pain Policy Expanding Services for Medicaid Recipients: A Focus Group Study.Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.) · 2021Observational
- Clinical Effectiveness and Efficacy of Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation for Spine Pain.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Cost-Efficiency and Effectiveness of Including Doctors of Chiropractic to Offer Treatment Under Medicaid: A Critical Appraisal of Missouri Inclusion of Chiropractic Under Missouri Medicaid.Journal of chiropractic humanities · 2019Review
- Short-Term Effects of Thoracic Spine Manipulation on the Biomechanical Organisation of Gait Initiation: A Randomized Pilot Study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2017Article
- Cerebral Hemorrhage Following Chiropractic Activator Treatment - Case Report and Review of Literature.Journal of neurological surgery reports · 2016Article
- Evidence-Based Evaluation of Complementary Health Approaches for Pain Management in the United States.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2016Review
- Manipulation of Dysfunctional Spinal Joints Affects Sensorimotor Integration in the Prefrontal Cortex: A Brain Source Localization Study.Neural plasticity · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
designRandomized controlled trial with follow-up to 6 months.
objectiveThis was a comparative effectiveness trial of manual-thrust manipulation (MTM) versus mechanical-assisted manipulation (MAM); and manipulation versus usual medical care (UMC). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common conditions seen in primary care and physical medicine practice. MTM is a common treatment for LBP. Claims that MAM is an effective alternative to MTM have yet to be substantiated. There is also question about the effectiveness of manipulation in acute and subacute LBP compared with UMC.
methodsA total of 107 adults with onset of LBP within the past 12 weeks were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: MTM, MAM, or UMC. Outcome measures included the Oswestry LBP Disability Index (0-100 scale) and numeric pain rating (0-10 scale). Participants in the manipulation groups were treated twice weekly during 4 weeks; subjects in UMC were seen for 3 visits during this time. Outcome measures were captured at baseline, 4 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months.
resultsLinear regression showed a statistically significant advantage of MTM at 4 weeks compared with MAM (disability = -8.1, P = 0.009; pain = -1.4, P = 0.002) and UMC (disability = -6.5, P = 0.032; pain = -1.7, P < 0.001). Responder analysis, defined as 30% and 50% reductions in Oswestry LBP Disability Index scores revealed a significantly greater proportion of responders at 4 weeks in MTM (76%; 50%) compared with MAM (50%; 16%) and UMC (48%; 39%). Similar between-group results were found for pain: MTM (94%; 76%); MAM (69%; 47%); and UMC (56%; 41%). No statistically significant group differences were found between MAM and UMC, and for any comparison at 3 or 6 months.
conclusionMTM provides greater short-term reductions in self-reported disability and pain scores compared with UMC or MAM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.