Context: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the standard for establishing practice guidelines; however, they are expensive and time-consuming, and often the generalizability of the results is limited.

 

Objectives: To conduct an observational study using the findings of the American Osteopathic Association's Clinical Assessment Program (AOA-CAP) low back pain module, and to compare these findings with those of a major back pain–related RCT to determine the validity and generalizability of this pseudoexperimental model.

 

Methods: Data were abstracted from the AOA-CAP for Residencies platform from April 1, 2006, through October 5, 2007, with a diagnosis code consistent with low back pain. Process and outcome measures were compared after segregating a similar patient population to an RCT that compared “osteopathic spinal manipulation” with standard care.

 

Results: A total of 1013 medical records were abstracted and entered into the AOA-CAP low back pain module. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 44.7 (15.9) years, and body mass index was 29.6 (8.1). The eligible patients comprised 415 men (41.0%) and 598 women (59.0%), and common comorbid disease was found in 69 patients (6.8%). Activities of daily living were limited in 402 patients (42.4%), whereas 546 (57.6%) had no limitations. Previous exacerbations of low back pain occurred in 653 patients (65.9%). Most patients had no sensory or proprioception deficit (729 [87.7%]), and motor function was normal in 636 patients (74.5%). Normal ankle and knee reflexes were found in 744 of 814 (91.4%) and 755 of 829 (89.0%) patients, respectively. Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) was performed on the lumbar spine (576 patients [56.9%]), thoracic spine (411 [40.6%]), sacrum/pelvis (440 [43.4%]), rib (261 [25.8%]), and lower extremity (256 [25.3%]). A segregated patient cohort (n=539) showed statistically significant differences between patients who received OMT and those who did not with the use of analgesics, steroids, spinal injections, straight-leg raising, and days off or limited work duties.

 

Conclusion: The observational findings of the present study, which suggest that analgesic medication use is lower in patients who receive OMT, align with previous findings of RCTs and support the generalizability of these findings.

Full text available here.

While background music is often used during osteopathic treatment, it remains unclear whether it facilitates treatment, and, if it does, whether it is listening to music or jointly listening to a common stimulus that is most important. We created three experimental situations for a standard osteopathic procedure in which patients and practitioner listened either to silence, to the same music in synchrony, or (unknowingly) to different desynchronized montages of the same material. Music had no effect on heart rate and arterial pressure pre- and posttreatment compared to silence, but EEG measures revealed a clear effect of synchronized versus desynchronized listening: listening to desynchronized music was associated with larger amounts of mu-rhythm event-related desynchronization (ERD), indicating decreased sensorimotor fluency compared to what was gained in the synchronized music listening condition. This result suggests that, if any effect can be attributed to music for osteopathy, it is related to its capacity to modulate empathy between patient and therapist and, further, that music does not systematically create better conditions for empathy than silence.

Free full text available here.

Chiropractic and Manual Therapies

Abstract:
Background: Manipulative therapy is widely used in the treatment of spinal disorders. Manipulative techniques are under debate because of the possibility of adverse events. To date, the efficacy of manipulations compared to sham manipulations is unclear. The purpose of the study is: to assess the efficacy of manipulative therapy compared to sham in adults with a variety of complaints.
Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Methods: Bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, Central) along with a hand search of selected bibliographies were searched from inception up to April 2012. Two reviewers independently selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated manipulative therapy compared to sham manipulative therapy in adults, assessed risk of bias and extracted data concerning participants, intervention, kind of sham, outcome measures, duration of follow-up, profession, data on efficacy and adverse events. Pooled (standardized) mean differences or risk differences were calculated were possible using a random effects model. The primary outcomes were pain, disability, and perceived recovery. The overall quality of the body of evidence was evaluated using GRADE.
Results: In total 965 references were screened for eligibility and 19 RCTs (n = 1080) met the selection criteria. Eight studies were considered of low risk of bias. There is moderate level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief immediately after treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.68, 95% confidence interval (-1.06 to -0.31). There is low  level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief (SMD - 0.37, -0.69 to -0.04) at short- term follow-up. In patients with musculoskeletal disorders, we found moderate level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.73, -1.21 to -0.25) immediate after treatment and low level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.52, -0.87 to -0.17) at short term-follow-up. We found very low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has no statistically significant effect on disability and perceived (asthma) recovery. Sensitivity analyses did not change the main findings. No serious adverse events were reported in the manipulative therapy or sham group.
Conclusions: Manipulative therapy has a clinical relevant effect on pain, but not on disability or perceived (asthma) recovery. Clinicians can refer patients for manipulative therapy to reduce pain.
Keywords: Spinal manipulation, Musculoskeletal manipulation, Manipulative therapy, Systematic review, Sham, Efficacy, Adverse effect

Free full text available here.