Search

Systematic reviews are necessary to synthesize available evidence and inform clinical practice and health policy decisions. There has been an explosion of evidence available in many fields; this makes it challenging to keep evidence syntheses up to date and useful. Comparative effectiveness systematic reviews are informative; however, producing these often-large reviews bring intense time and resource demands. This commentary describes the implementation of a systematic review using a collaborative model of evidence synthesis. We are implementing the collaborative review model to update a large Cochrane review investigating the efficacy and comparative effectiveness of the design, delivery, and type of exercise treatment for people with chronic low-back pain. Three key benefits of the collaborative review model for evidence synthesis are (1) team coordination and collaboration, (2) quality control measures, and (3) advanced comparative and other analyses. This new collaborative review model is developed and implemented to produce and share high-quality, comparative evidence more efficiently while building capacity and community within a research field.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was (1) to describe diagnostic imaging in Dutch and Belgian chiropractic practice in general, (2) to estimate adherence to the diagnostic imaging guidelines for patients with low back pain (LBP) via vignettes, and (3) to evaluate factors associated with diagnostic imaging and adherence to the guidelines.METHODS: We used a web-based survey to collect sociodemographic data, practice characteristics, amount of imaging, opinions, and indications for requesting imaging from registered Dutch and Belgian chiropractors in 2013. Additionally, adherence to imaging guidelines for LBP was assessed by 6 vignettes in patients with LBP. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted to explore associations between characteristics of chiropractors and the use of imaging. Generalized mixed models were used to explore guidelines adherence and their relationship with chiropractor's characteristics.RESULTS: The overall response rate was 60% (n = 203 out of 340). In total, 83% of chiropractors viewed diagnostic imaging in general as an important part of their practice. It is important to note that Dutch and Belgian chiropractors are not allowed to refer directly for imaging. Chiropractors reported that they would like to have imaging in 42% of their patients. Imaging had already been performed in 37% of patients before the first visit and was ordered by another health care provider (ie, general practitioner or medical specialist). The most common indication for ordering imaging was exclusion of contraindications (73%). The most common reason against imaging was the perceived limited value (45%). Many chiropractors (71%) were familiar with imaging guidelines. Adherence to the imaging guidelines for LBP based upon the vignettes was 66%. Dutch chiropractors and chiropractors with less than 10 years in practice demonstrated better adherence to guidelines and imaging use as compared with Belgian and those with more than 10 years of experience.CONCLUSIONS: Most Dutch and Belgian chiropractors reported that imaging in general was important in chiropractic practice. Self-reported indications for ordering diagnostic imaging were in line with the imaging guidelines in the majority of cases. We found some variances between Belgian and Dutch chiropractors and years of experience related to guideline adherence.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text This individual participant data meta-analysis assessed the effect of spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain (LBP). Based on this review, there is no evidence to suggest that specific patients’ characteristics are associated with a clinically better response to spinal manipulative therapy as compared with other recommended treatments for chronic LBP., Study Design. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. Objective. The aim of this study was to identify which participant characteristics moderate the effect of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) on pain and functioning in chronic LBP. Summary of Background. The effects of SMT are comparable to other interventions recommended in guidelines for chronic low back pain (LBP); however, it is unclear which patients are more likely to benefit from SMT compared to other therapies. Methods. IPD were requested from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of SMT in adults with chronic LBP for pain and function compared to various other therapies (stratified by comparison). Potential patient moderators (n = 23) were a priori based on their clinical relevance. We investigated each moderator using a one-stage approach with IPD and investigated this interaction with the intervention for each time point (1, 3, 6, and 12 months). Results. We received IPD from 21 of 46 RCTs (n = 4223). The majority (12 RCTs, n = 2249) compared SMT to recommended interventions. The duration of LBP, baseline pain (confirmatory), smoking, and previous exposure to SMT (exploratory) had a small moderating effect across outcomes and follow-up points; these estimates did not represent minimally relevant differences in effects; for example, patients with

Many systematic reviews have reported on the effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for low back pain (LBP) in adults. Much less is known about the older population regarding the effects of SMT.To assess the effects of SMT on pain and function in older adults with chronic LBP in an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis.Electronic databases from 2000 until June 2020, and reference lists of eligible trials and related reviews.Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the effects of SMT in adults with chronic LBP compared to interventions recommended in international LBP guidelines.Authors of trials eligible for our IPD meta-analysis were contacted to share data. Two review authors conducted a risk of bias assessment. Primary results were examined in a one-stage mixed model, and a two-stage analysis was conducted in order to confirm findings.Pain and functional status examined at 4, 13, 26, and 52 weeks.10 studies were retrieved, including 786 individuals, of which 261 were between 65 and 91 years of age. There is moderate-quality evidence that SMT results in similar outcomes at 4 weeks (pain: mean difference [MD] - 2.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 5.78 to 0.66; functional status: standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.18, 95% CI - 0.41 to 0.05). Second-stage and sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings.SMT provides similar outcomes to recommended interventions for pain and functional status in the older adult with chronic LBP. SMT should be considered a treatment for this patient population.

Background: Studies using magnetic resonance imaging to assess lumbar multifidus cross-sectional area frequently utilize T1 or T2-weighted sequences, but seldom provide the rationale for their sequence choice. However, technical considerations between their acquisition protocols could impact on the ability to assess lumbar multifidus anatomy or its fat/muscle distinction. Our objectives were to examine the concurrent validity of lumbar multifidus morphology measures of T2 compared to T1-weighted sequences, and to assess the reliability of repeated lumbar multifidus measures. Methods: The lumbar multifidus total cross-sectional area from 360 muscles was measured bilaterally at L4 and L5, with histogram analysis determining the muscle/fat threshold values per muscle. Images were later re-randomized and re-assessed for intra-rater reliability. Matched images were visually rated for consistency of outlining between both image sequences. Bland-Altman bias, limits of agreement, and plots were calculated for differences in total cross-sectional area and percentage fat between and within sequences, and intra-rater reliability analysed. Results: T1-weighted total cross-sectional area measures were systematically larger than T2 (0.2 cm2), with limits of agreement

Objective To assess the benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for the treatment of chronic low back pain. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Index to Chiropractic Literature, and trial registries up to 4 May 2018, including reference lists of eligible trials and related reviews. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials examining the effect of spinal manipulation or mobilisation in adults (≥18 years) with chronic low back pain with or without referred pain. Studies that exclusively examined sciatica were excluded, as was grey literature. No restrictions were applied to language or setting. Review methods Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The effect of SMT was compared with recommended therapies, non-recommended therapies, sham (placebo) SMT, and SMT as an adjuvant therapy. Main outcomes were pain and back specific functional status, examined as mean differences and standardised mean differences (SMD), respectively. Outcomes were examined at 1, 6, and 12 months. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. A random effects model was used and statistical heterogeneity explored. Results 47 randomised controlled trials including a total of 9211 participants were identified, who were on average middle aged (35-60 years). Most trials compared SMT with recommended therapies. Moderate quality evidence suggested that SMT has similar effects to other recommended therapies for short term pain relief (mean difference −3.17, 95% confidence interval −7.85 to 1.51) and a small, clinically better improvement in function (SMD −0.25, 95% confidence interval −0.41 to −0.09). High quality evidence suggested that compared with non-recommended therapies SMT results in small, not clinically better effects for short term pain relief (mean difference −7.48, −11.50 to −3.47) and small to moderate clinically better improvement in function (SMD −0.41, −0.67 to −0.15). In general, these results were similar for the intermediate and long term outcomes as were the effects of SMT as an adjuvant therapy. Evidence for sham SMT was low to very low quality; therefore these effects should be considered uncertain. Statistical heterogeneity could not be explained. About half of the studies examined adverse and serious adverse events, but in most of these it was unclear how and whether these events were registered systematically. Most of the observed adverse events were musculoskeletal related, transient in nature, and of mild to moderate severity. One study with a low risk of selection bias and powered to examine risk (n=183) found no increased risk of an adverse event (relative risk 1.24, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.81) or duration of the event (1.13, 0.59 to 2.18) compared with sham SMT. In one study, the Data Safety Monitoring Board judged one serious adverse event to be possibly related to SMT. Conclusion SMT produces similar effects to recommended therapies for chronic low back pain, whereas SMT seems to be better than non-recommended interventions for improvement in function in the short term. Clinicians should inform their patients of the potential risks of adverse events associated with SMT.

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study was conducted in 2 sessions.OBJECTIVE: It is important to know whether it is possible to accurately detect "specific findings" on lumbosacral magnetic resonance (MR) images and whether the results of different observers are comparable.SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Health care providers frequently use magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnostic process of patients with low back pain. The use of MR scans is increasing. This leads to an increase in costs and to an increase in risk of inaccurately labeling patients with an anatomical diagnosis that might not be the actual cause of symptoms.METHODS: A set of 300 blinded MR images was read by medical radiologists, chiropractors, and chiropractic radiologists in 2 sessions. Each assessor read 100 scans in round 1 and 50 scans in round 2. The reference test was an expert panel.For all analyses, the magnetic resonance imaging findings were dichotomized into "specific findings" or "no specific findings." For the agreement, percentage agreement and κ values were calculated and for validity, sensitivity, and specificity. Sensitivity analysis was done for classifications A and B (prevalence of 31% and 57%, respectively).RESULTS: The intraobserver κ values for chiropractors, chiropractic radiologists, and medical radiologists were 0.46, 0.49, and 0.69 for A and 0.55, 0.75, and 0.64 for B, respectively.The interobserver κ values were lowest for chiropractors (0.28 for A, 0.37 for B) and highest for chiropractic radiologists (0.50 for A, 0.49 for B).The sensitivities of the medical radiologists, chiropractors, and chiropractic radiologists were 0.62, 0.71, and 0.75 for A and 0.70, 0.74, 0.84 for B, respectively.The specificities of medical radiologists, chiropractic radiologists, and chiropractors were 0.82, 0.77, and 0.70 for A and 0.74, 0.52, and 0.61 for B, respectively.CONCLUSION: Agreement and validity of MR image readings of chiropractors and chiropractic and medical radiologists is modest at best. This study supports recommendations in clinical guidelines against routine use of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with low back pain.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to present a case of abdominal aortic aneurysm to illustrate its clinical detection through history and physical examination and the importance of this condition to the chiropractic clinical setting.CLINICAL FEATURES: A 74-year-old retired man consulted a doctor of chiropractic for chronic low back pain. The history and physical examination confirmed chronic sacroiliac and a lumbar facet dysfunction. After 5 weeks, the patient stated he had stomach cramps. After this, a more thorough abdominal examination was done. The doctor of chiropractic detected an enlarged pulsatile mass upon abdominal palpation.INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME: The patient was sent to the cardiologist and had successful surgery within weeks.CONCLUSION: An abdominal aortic aneurysm has specific symptoms and associated risk factors. If known risk factors are present, a clinical examination needs to be carried out, even though sensitivity of the clinical examination may be low. It should be a differential diagnosis in every male patient older than 50 years with low back pain. In case of suspicion, the patient should be referred for advanced imaging.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to identify differences in the diagnosis and treatment of nonspecific low back pain among 3 professional groups in the Netherlands: orthomanual physicians, manual therapists, and chiropractors.METHODS: Information was obtained from training materials from professional groups, literature searches, and observation of selected practitioners at work.RESULTS: In The Netherlands, there are differences in education between the 3 professional groups. The focus of orthomanual medicine is on abnormal positions of components of the skeleton and symmetry in the spine. Manual therapy focuses on functional disorders of the musculoskeletal system. Chiropractic focuses on the musculoskeletal and nervous systems in relation to patients' health in general. Orthomanual medicine considers inspection and palpation the most important diagnostic tools. Manual therapists and chiropractors additionally perform tests to determine functional disorders and manual therapists evaluate psychosocial influences. Chiropractors take radiographs if necessary. Orthomanual physicians apply mobilization techniques using fixed protocols. Manual therapists and chiropractors use various manipulation and mobilization techniques and their manipulation techniques differ in amplitude and velocity.CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic techniques and treatment methods of the 3 professional groups differ considerably. For more accurate reporting of the efficacy of manipulative and mobilizing therapies, the characteristics of treatments should be described in more detail when reported in studies such as randomized clinical trials.

Objective: To review the case of a missed cervical spine fracture in a patient with neck pain. Clinical Features: A 21-year-old thatcher with neck pain presented to a chiropractic clinic after a fall from a roof 4 m high. The hospital radiographs were read as normal. The chiropractor suspected a Jefferson fracture of the atlas after evaluation of the same radiographs. Intervention and Outcome: The chiropractor retook the anteroposterior open-mouth radiograph to confirm the suspected fracture. The patient was referred for further imaging and underwent neurosurgical treatment, after which he recovered well. Conclusion: Normal radiologic reports from a hospital cannot be relied on for contraindications to manipulative treatment in all instances, as shown in this case of a missed fracture. Chiropractors should therefore always evaluate radiographs that are brought to them.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this case report is to draw attention to the differences between a Jefferson fracture and a congenital anomaly of the anterior and/or the posterior arch of the atlas.CLINICAL FEATURES: A 42-year-old woman visited the chiropractic practice complaining of headache, neck pain, dizziness, and numbness in both of her arms after she fell vertically and directly on her head twice on a playground. Before this fall, she had no such complaints. After taking x-rays of the cervical spine, a Jefferson fracture was suspected.INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME: After computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scanning, the patient was diagnosed with a congenital anomaly that looked very similar to a Jefferson fracture. After instability of the cervical spine was excluded by the neurosurgeon, chiropractic treatment was delivered. After 6 treatments, the complaints were significantly reduced.CONCLUSION: It is important to be familiar with the differences between a congenital anomaly of the atlas and a Jefferson fracture and to exclude instability of the upper cervical spine before treatment is started.

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional diagnostic study was conducted in two sessions.OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the reliability and validity of contraindications to chiropractic treatment (infections, malignancies, inflammatory spondylitis, and spondylolysis-listhesis) detected by chiropractors, chiropractic radiologists, and medical radiologists on plain lumbosacral radiographs.SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Plain radiography of the spine is an established part of chiropractic practice. Few studies have assessed the ability of chiropractors to read plain radiographs.METHODS: Five chiropractors, three chiropractic radiologists and five medical radiologists read a set of 300 blinded lumbosacral radiographs, 50 of which showed an abnormality (prevalence, 16.7%), in two sessions. The results were expressed in terms of reliability (percentage and kappa) and validity (sensitivity and specificity).RESULTS: The interobserver agreement in the first session showed generalized kappas of 0.44 for the chiropractors, 0.55 for the chiropractic radiologists, and 0.60 for the medical radiologists. The intraobserver agreement showed mean kappas of 0.58, 0.68, and 0.72, respectively. The difference between the chiropractic radiologists and medical radiologists was not significant. However, there was a difference between the chiropractors and the other professional groups. The mean sensitivity and specificity of the first round, respectively was 0.86 and 0.88 for the chiropractors, 0.90 and 0.84 for the chiropractic radiologists, and 0.84 and 0.92 for the medical radiologists. No differences in the sensitivities were found between the professional groups. The medical radiologists were more specific than the others.CONCLUSIONS: Small differences with little clinical relevance were found. All the professional groups could adequately detect contraindications to chiropractic treatment on radiographs. For this indication, there is no reason to restrict interpretation of radiographs to medical radiologists. Good professional relationships between the professions are recommended to facilitate interprofessional consultation in case of doubt by the chiropractors.

OBJECTIVE: To review the case of a missed cervical spine fracture in a patient with neck pain.CLINICAL FEATURES: A 21-year-old thatcher with neck pain presented to a chiropractic clinic after a fall from a roof 4 m high. The hospital radiographs were read as normal. The chiropractor suspected a Jefferson fracture of the atlas after evaluation of the same radiographs.INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME: The chiropractor retook the anteroposterior open-mouth radiograph to confirm the suspected fracture. The patient was referred for further imaging and underwent neurosurgical treatment, after which he recovered well.CONCLUSION: Normal radiologic reports from a hospital cannot be relied on for contraindications to manipulative treatment in all instances, as shown in this case of a missed fracture. Chiropractors should therefore always evaluate radiographs that are brought to them.