Katherine A. Pohlman

Patient-centered outcomes of high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation for low back pain: A systematic review

Low back pain (LBP) is a well-recognized public health problem with no clear gold standard medical approach to treatment. Thus, those with LBP frequently turn to treatments such as spinal manipulation (SM). Many clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy or effectiveness of SM for LBP. The primary objective of this paper was to describe the current literature on patient-centered outcomes following a specific type of commonly used SM, high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA), in patients with LBP. A systematic search strategy was used to capture all LBP clinical trials of HVLA using our predefined patient-centered outcomes: visual analogue scale, numerical pain rating scale, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index. Of the 1294 articles identified by our search, 38 met our eligibility criteria. Like previous SM for LBP systematic reviews, this review shows a small but consistent treatment effect at least as large as that seen in other conservative methods of care. The heterogeneity and inconsistency in reporting within the studies reviewed makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. Future SM studies for LBP would benefit if some of these issues were addressed by the scientific community before further research in this area is conducted.

Otitis media and spinal manipulative therapy: a literature review

OBJECTIVE Otitis media (OM) is one of the common conditions for doctor visits in the pediatric population. Spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) may be a potential conservative treatment of OM. The purpose of this study is to review the literature for OM in children, outlining the diagnosis of OM, SMT description, and adverse event notation. METHODS Databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, Index to Chiropractic Literature, The Allied and Complementary Medicine, and Alt Health Watch) were queried and hand searches were performed to identify relevant articles. All potential studies were independently screened for inclusion by both authors. The inclusion criteria were as follows: written in the English language, addressed OM, involved human participants 6 years or younger, and addressed SMT. Studies were evaluated for overall quality using standardized checklists performed independently by both authors. RESULTS Forty-nine articles were reviewed: 17 commentaries, 15 case reports, 5 case series, 8 reviews, and 4 clinical trials. Magnitude of effect was lower in higher-quality articles. No serious adverse events were found; minor transient adverse effects were noted in 1 case series article and 2 of the clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS From the studies found in this report, there was limited quality evidence for the use of SMT for children with OM. There are currently no evidence to support or refute using SMT for OM and no evidence to suggest that SMT produces serious adverse effects for children with OM. It is possible that some children with OM may benefit from SMT or SMT combined with other therapies. More rigorous studies are needed to provide evidence and a clearer picture for both practitioner and patients.

Effect of Usual Medical Care Plus Chiropractic Care vs Usual Medical Care Alone on Pain and Disability Among US Service Members With Low Back Pain: A Comparative Effectiveness Clinical Trial

Importance It is critically important to evaluate the effect of nonpharmacological treatments on low back pain and associated disability. Objective To determine whether the addition of chiropractic care to usual medical care results in better pain relief and pain-related function when compared with usual medical care alone. Design, Setting, and Participants A 3-site pragmatic comparative effectiveness clinical trial using adaptive allocation was conducted from September 28, 2012, to February 13, 2016, at 2 large military medical centers in major metropolitan areas and 1 smaller hospital at a military training site. Eligible participants were active-duty US service members aged 18 to 50 years with low back pain from a musculoskeletal source. Interventions The intervention period was 6 weeks. Usual medical care included self-care, medications, physical therapy, and pain clinic referral. Chiropractic care included spinal manipulative therapy in the low back and adjacent regions and additional therapeutic procedures such as rehabilitative exercise, cryotherapy, superficial heat, and other manual therapies. Main Outcomes and Measures Coprimary outcomes were low back pain intensity (Numerical Rating Scale; scores ranging from 0 [no low back pain] to 10 [worst possible low back pain]) and disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire; scores ranging from 0-24, with higher scores indicating greater disability) at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included perceived improvement, satisfaction (Numerical Rating Scale; scores ranging from 0 [not at all satisfied] to 10 [extremely satisfied]), and medication use. The coprimary outcomes were modeled with linear mixed-effects regression over baseline and weeks 2, 4, 6, and 12. Results Of the 806 screened patients who were recruited through either clinician referrals or self-referrals, 750 were enrolled (250 at each site). The mean (SD) participant age was 30.9 (8.7) years, 175 participants (23.3%) were female, and 243 participants (32.4%) were nonwhite. Statistically significant site × time × group interactions were found in all models. Adjusted mean differences in scores at week 6 were statistically significant in favor of usual medical care plus chiropractic care compared with usual medical care alone overall for low back pain intensity (mean difference, −1.1; 95% CI, −1.4 to −0.7), disability (mean difference, −2.2; 95% CI, −3.1 to −1.2), and satisfaction (mean difference, 2.5; 95% CI, 2.1 to 2.8) as well as at each site. Adjusted odd ratios at week 6 were also statistically significant in favor of usual medical care plus chiropractic care overall for perceived improvement (odds ratio = 0.18; 95% CI, 0.13-0.25) and self-reported pain medication use (odds ratio = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97). No serious related adverse events were reported. Conclusions and Relevance Chiropractic care, when added to usual medical care, resulted in moderate short-term improvements in low back pain intensity and disability in active-duty military personnel. This trial provides additional support for the inclusion of chiropractic care as a component of multidisciplinary health care for low back pain, as currently recommended in existing guidelines. However, study limitations illustrate that further research is needed to understand longer-term outcomes as well as how patient heterogeneity and intervention variations affect patient responses to chiropractic care. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01692275

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

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.DiscussionBeside 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.

Effects of spinal manipulation on sensorimotor function in low back pain patients – A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem in industrialized societies. Spinal manipulation (SM) is often used for treating LBP, though the therapeutic mechanisms remain elusive. Research suggests that sensorimotor changes may be involved in LBP. It is hypothesized that SM may generate its beneficial effects by affecting sensorimotor functions. OBJECTIVES To compare changes in sensorimotor function, as measured by postural sway and response to sudden load, in LBP patients following the delivery of high-velocity low amplitude (HVLA)-SM or low-velocity variable amplitude (LVVA)-SM versus a sham control intervention. DESIGN A three-arm (1:1:1 ratio) randomized controlled trial. METHODS A total of 221 participants who were between 21 and 65 years, having LBP intensity (numerical rating scale) ≥4 at either phone screen or the first baseline visit and ≥2 at phone screen and both baseline visits, and Quebec Task Force diagnostic classifications of 1, 2, 3 or 7 were enrolled to receive four SM treatments over two weeks. Study outcomes were measured at the first and fifth visits with the examiners blinded from participant group assignment. RESULTS The LVVA-SM group demonstrated a significant increase in medial-to-lateral postural excursion on the soft surface at the first visit when compared to the control group. No other significant between-group differences were found for the two sensorimotor tests, whether during the first visit or over two weeks. CONCLUSIONS It appears that short-term SM does not affect the sensorimotor functions as measured by postural sway and response to sudden load in this study.

Effect of Spinal Manipulation of Upper Cervical Vertebrae on Blood Pressure: Results of a Pilot Sham-Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this pilot sham-controlled clinical trial was to estimate the treatment effect and safety of toggle recoil spinal manipulation for blood pressure management. METHODS Fifty-one participants with prehypertension or stage 1 hypertension (systolic blood pressure ranging from 135 to 159 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ranging from 85 to 99 mm Hg) were allocated by an adaptive design to 2 treatments: toggle recoil spinal manipulation or a sham procedure. Participants were seen by a doctor of chiropractic twice weekly for 6 weeks and remained on their antihypertensive medications, as prescribed, throughout the trial. Blood pressure was assessed at baseline and after study visits 1, 6 (week 3), and 12 (week 6), with the primary end point at week 6. Analysis of covariance was used to compare mean blood pressure changes from baseline between groups at each end point, controlling for sex, age, body mass index, and baseline blood pressure. RESULTS Adjusted mean change from baseline to week 6 was greater in the sham group (systolic, -4.2 mm Hg; diastolic, -1.6 mm Hg) than in the spinal manipulation group (systolic, 0.6 mm Hg; diastolic, 0.7 mm Hg), but the difference was not statistically significant. No serious and few adverse events were noted. CONCLUSIONS Six weeks of toggle recoil spinal manipulation did not lower systolic or diastolic blood pressure when compared with a sham procedure. No serious adverse events from either treatment were reported. Our results do not support a larger clinical trial. Further research to understand the potential mechanisms of action involving upper cervical manipulation on blood pressure is warranted before additional clinical investigations are conducted.

Eligibility determination for clinical trials: development of a case review process at a chiropractic research center.

BackgroundSystematic procedures addressing the limitations of eligibility determination are needed to improve the quality of participant recruitment and enrollment in randomized clinical trials. This paper describes an eligibility determination process developed by and in use at a chiropractic research center engaged in community recruitment for clinical trials studying spinal pain conditions.MethodsA team of investigators developed a case review process for application across clinical trials involving chiropractic care. Study personnel representing key study roles including research clinicians, study coordinators, a project manager, and at least one investigator convene in person to determine eligibility for participants following baseline study visit examinations. The research clinician who performed the eligibility examination presents the case and a moderator leads the case review panel through a structured discussion including diagnosis, eligibility criteria, definition review, and clinical precautions. Panel members provide clinical recommendations and determine final eligibility using a structured and moderated voting process.ResultsThrough the case review process for three externally funded clinical trials for participants with neck and low back pain, we presented 697 cases, rendering 472 participants eligible for enrollment and excluding 225 individuals. The most common reasons for case review exclusions across the three trials included neck or back pain not meeting diagnostic classifications, safety concerns related to treatment or testing, referral for further evaluation or treatment, and compliance concerns.ConclusionsThe case review process uses the expertise of study coordinators, research clinicians, project managers, and investigators to render eligibility decisions consistent with study aims for the duration of the trial. This formal eligibility determination process includes steps designed to mitigate the potential for participant misclassification from clinician advocacy or misunderstanding of eligibility criteria, and helps ensure that participants can safely take part in study procedures.Trial registrationThe three trials discussed in this article were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with the ID numbers of NCT00830596 (27 January 2009), NCT01312233 (04 March 2011), and NCT01765751 (30 May 2012).

Core Competencies of the Certified Pediatric Doctor of Chiropractic Results of a Delphi Consensus Process

An outline of the minimum core competencies expected from a certified pediatric doctor of chiropractic was developed using a Delphi consensus process. The initial set of seed statements and substatements was modeled on competency documents used by organizations that oversee chiropractic and medical education. These statements were distributed to the Delphi panel, reaching consensus when 80% of the panelists approved each segment. The panel consisted of 23 specialists in chiropractic pediatrics (14 females) from across the broad spectrum of the chiropractic profession. Sixty-one percent of panelists had postgraduate pediatric certifications or degrees, 39% had additional graduate degrees, and 74% were faculty at a chiropractic institution and/or in a postgraduate pediatrics program. The panel were initially given 10 statements with related substatements formulated by the study’s steering committee. On all 3 rounds of the Delphi process the panelists reached consensus; however, multiple rounds occurred to incorporate the valuable qualitative feedback received.

Leadership and capacity building in international chiropractic research: introducing the chiropractic academy for research leadership (CARL)

In an evidence-based health care environment, healthcare professions require a sustainable research culture to remain relevant. At present however, there is not a mature research culture across the chiropractic profession largely due to deficiencies in research capacity and leadership, which may be caused by a lack of chiropractic teaching programs in major universities. As a response to this challenge the Chiropractic Academy for Research Leadership, CARL, was created with the aim of develop a global network of successful early-career chiropractic researchers under the mentorship of three successful senior academics from Australia, Canada, and Denmark. The program centres upon an annual week-long program residential that rotates continental locations over the first three-year cycle and between residentials the CARL fellows work on self-initiated research and leadership initiatives. Through a competivite application process, the first cohort was selected and consists of 13 early career researchers from five professions in seven countries who represent diverse areas of interests of high relevance for chiropractic. The first residential was held in Odense, Denmark, with the second being planned in April 2018 in Edmonton, Canada, and the final residential to be held in Sydney, Australia in 2019.

Barriers to Implementing a Reporting and Learning Patient Safety System: Pediatric Chiropractic Perspective.

A reporting and learning system is a method of monitoring the occurrence of incidents that affect patient safety. This cross-sectional survey asked pediatric chiropractors about factors that may limit their participation in such a system. The list of potential barriers for participation was developed using a systematic approach. All members of the 2 pediatric councils associated with US national chiropractic organizations were invited to complete the survey (N = 400). The cross-sectional survey was created using an online survey tool (REDCap) and sent directly to member emails addressed by the respective executive committees. Of the 400 potential respondents, 81 responded (20.3%). The most common limitations to participating were identified as time pressure (96%) and patient concerns (81%). Reporting and learning systems have been utilized to increase safety awareness in many high-risk industries. To be successful, future patient safety studies with pediatric chiropractors need to ensure these barriers are understood and addressed.