PAIN+ CPN

Thomas JS, Clark BC, Russ DW, et al. Effect of Spinal Manipulative and Mobilization Therapies in Young Adults With Mild to Moderate Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Aug 3;3(8):e2012589. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.12589. (Original study)
Abstract

Importance: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common reasons for seeking medical care. Manual therapy is a common treatment of LBP, yet few studies have directly compared the effectiveness of thrust (spinal manipulation) vs nonthrust (spinal mobilization) techniques.

Objective: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization at reducing pain and disability compared with a placebo control group (sham cold laser) in a cohort of young adults with chronic LBP.

Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-blinded (investigator-blinded), placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial with 3 treatment groups was conducted at the Ohio Musculoskeletal and Neurological Institute at Ohio University from June 1, 2013, to August 31, 2017. Of 4903 adult patients assessed for eligibility, 4741 did not meet inclusion criteria, and 162 patients with chronic LBP qualified for randomization to 1 of 3 treatment groups. Recruitment began on June 1, 2013, and the primary completion date was August 31, 2017. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2017, to January 20, 2020.

Interventions: Participants received 6 treatment sessions of (1) spinal manipulation, (2) spinal mobilization, or (3) sham cold laser therapy (placebo) during a 3-week period.

Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary outcome measures were the change from baseline in Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) score over the last 7 days and the change in disability assessed with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater disability) 48 to 72 hours after completion of the 6 treatments.

Results: A total of 162 participants (mean [SD] age, 25.0 [6.2] years; 92 women [57%]) with chronic LBP (mean [SD] NPRS score, 4.3 [2.6] on a 1-10 scale, with higher scores indicating greater pain) were randomized. Fifty-four participants were randomized to the spinal manipulation group, 54 to the spinal mobilization group, and 54 to the placebo group. There were no significant group differences for sex, age, body mass index, duration of LBP symptoms, depression, fear avoidance, current pain, average pain over the last 7 days, and self-reported disability. At the primary end point, there was no significant difference in change in pain scores between spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization (0.24 [95% CI, -0.38 to 0.86]; P = .45), spinal manipulation and placebo (-0.03 [95% CI, -0.65 to 0.59]; P = .92), or spinal mobilization and placebo (-0.26 [95% CI, -0.38 to 0.85]; P = .39). There was no significant difference in change in self-reported disability scores between spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization (-1.00 [95% CI, -2.27 to 0.36]; P = .14), spinal manipulation and placebo (-0.07 [95% CI, -1.43 to 1.29]; P = .92) or spinal mobilization and placebo (0.93 [95% CI, -0.41 to 2.29]; P = .17).

Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, neither spinal manipulation nor spinal mobilization appeared to be effective treatments for mild to moderate chronic LBP.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01854892.

Ratings
Discipline Area Score
Rehab Clinician (OT/PT) 6 / 7
Physician 5 / 7
Show me more articles about:
  Back Pain   Chronic Low Back Pain
Comments from MORE raters

Physician rater

Chiropractors and doctors of Osteopathy spend years learning manipulation medicine. This can not be said of physical therapists. Manual medicine treatments for chronic back pain involves more than 1-2 "cracks of the back". I question the validity the study. I believe the study says physical therapists do not help patients when they try manipulation.

Physician rater

It's indeed important to have robust trial methodology applied to this relevant clinical problem, with far reaching economic implications. Overall, however, the huge inclusion selection (only 162 out of 4900 screened) seriously undermines the external validity of the findings.

Physician rater

This is a well structured study (perhaps the numbers included are somewhat limited); nevertheless the outcome is interesting and has practical implications for clinical practice.

Rehab Clinician (OT/PT) rater

The results of this randomized controlled study further support that passive manual therapies did not provide minimal clinically important reduction in pain and disability of patients with chronic low back pain.
Comments from PAIN+ CPN subscribers

No subscriber has commented on this article yet.