Trial reportThe journal of pain2021
Optimization of Spinal Manipulative Therapy Protocols: A Factorial Randomized Trial Within a Multiphase Optimization Framework.
Trial report in The journal of pain, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors that contribute to the perceived treatment effect of spinal manipulative therapy in a chiropractic teaching clinic: a qualitative study.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2024Article
- Back and neck pain: in support of routine delivery of non-pharmacologic treatments as a way to improve individual and population health.Translational research : the journal of laboratory and clinical medicine · 2021Review
- A consensus approach toward the standardization of spinal stiffness measurement using a loaded rolling wheel device: results of a Delphi study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a common nonpharmacological treatment for low back pain (LBP). Although generally supported by systematic reviews and practice guidelines, clinical trials evaluating SMT have been characterized by small effect sizes. This study adopts a Multiphase Optimization Strategy framework to examine individual components of an SMT delivery protocol using a single-blind trial with the goal of identifying and optimizing a multicomponent SMT protocol. We enrolled 241 participants with LBP. All participants received 2 SMT treatment sessions in the first week then were randomly assigned additional treatment based on a fully factorial design. The 3 randomized treatment components provided in twice weekly sessions over 3 weeks were multifidus activating exercise, spinal mobilizing exercise, and additional SMT dose. Primary outcomes included clinical (Oswestry Disability Index, numeric pain intensity rating) and mechanistic (spinal stiffness, multifidus muscle activation) measures assessed at baseline, 1, 4, and 12 weeks. Significant differences were found for the Oswestry index after 12 weeks for participants receiving multifidus activating exercise (mean difference = -3.62, 97.5% CI: -6.89, -0.35; P= .01). There were no additional significant main or interaction effects for other treatment components or different outcome measures. The optimized SMT protocol identified in this study included SMT sessions followed by multifidus activating exercises. PERSPECTIVE: Optimizing the effects of nonpharmacological treatments such as SMT for LBP is challenging due to uncertainty regarding mechanisms and the complexity of multicomponent protocols. This factorial randomized trial examined SMT protocols provided with differing co-interventions with mechanistic and patient-centered outcomes. Patient-centered outcomes were optimized by inclusion of lumbar multifidus strengthening exercises.
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.