For best results switch to Advanced Search. |
Article Detail |
Return to Search Results | ||||||||||||
ID | 21050 | ||||||||||||
Title | ACC-RAC Award Winning Papers. Mechanical vs manual manipulation for low back pain: An observational cohort study | ||||||||||||
URL | http://www.jmptonline.org/article/S0161-4754(10)00046-1/fulltext | ||||||||||||
Journal | J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2010 Mar-Apr;33(3):193-200 | ||||||||||||
Author(s) | |||||||||||||
Subject(s) | |||||||||||||
Peer Review | Yes | ||||||||||||
Publication Type | Article | ||||||||||||
Abstract/Notes | OBJECTIVE: This is an observational prospective cohort study to explore the treatment effect of mechanical vs manual manipulation for acute low back pain. METHODS: Ninety-two patients with a history of acute low back pain were recruited from 3 private chiropractic offices, 2 of which used manual lumbar manipulation and 1 used mechanical instrument manipulation (Activator) as their primary modes of treatment. The chiropractors used their "treatment-as-usual" protocols for a maximum of 8 visits or 4 weeks, whichever occurred first. Primary outcome measures were changes in Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores from baseline to 4 weeks. The linear regression models were adjusted for baseline NPRS and ODI scores, age, and treatment expectancy. RESULTS: Comparison of baseline characteristics did not show any significant differences between the groups except for age (38.4 vs 49.7 years, P < .001) and treatment expectancy (5.7 vs 6.3, P = .003). Linear regression revealed significantly lower NPRS scores in the manual manipulation group at 4 weeks (beta = -1.2; 95% confidence interval, -2.1 to -.28) but no significant difference in ODI scores between the 2 groups at 4 weeks (beta = 1.5; 95% confidence interval, -8.3 to 2.4). Treatment expectancy, but not age, was found to have a significant main effect on both NPRS and ODI scores at 4 weeks. Exploratory analysis of the clinical patterns of care between the clinicians revealed significant differences in treatment frequency, duration, modality, and radiograph use between the 2 cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the challenges inherent with conducting research that allows for "treatment as usual." The data and experience derived from this investigational study will be used to design a future randomized clinical trial in which tighter controls will be imposed on the treatment protocol. This abstract is reproduced with the permission of the publisher; click on the above link for free full text. |
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Text (Citation)
Tagged (Export)
Excel
|
|||||||||||||
|