A randomised controlled trial of preventive spinal manipulation with and without a home exercise program for patients with chronic neck pain. Implementation of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners: a cluster randomized controlled trial. A randomised controlled trial of spinal manipulative therapy in acute low back pain. Trunk exercise combined with spinal manipulative or NSAID therapy for chronic low back pain: a randomized, observer-blinded clinical trial. Active rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: cognitive-behavioral, physical, or both? First direct post-treatment results from a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN22714229]. Implementation of RCGP guidelines for acute low back pain: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Early intervention for the management of acute low back pain: a single-blind randomized controlled trial of biopsychosocial education, manual therapy, and exercise. A randomized controlled trial comparing 2 types of spinal manipulation and minimal conservative medical care for adults 55 years and older with subacute or chronic low back pain. Should treatment of (sub)acute low back pain be aimed at psychosocial prognostic factors? Cluster randomised clinical trial in general practice. Comparison of general exercise, motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: A randomized trial. Active exercise, education, and cognitive behavioral therapy for persistent disabling low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. A population-based, randomized clinical trial on back pain management. Local and remote sustained trigger point therapy for exacerbations of chronic low back pain. A randomized, double-blind, controlled, multicenter trial. Randomized controlled trial of education and feedback for implementation of guidelines for acute low back pain. Intensive group training versus cognitive intervention in sub-acute low back pain: short-term results of a single-blind randomized controlled trial. A pilot randomized clinical trial on the relative effect of instrumental (MFMA) versus manual (HVLA) manipulation in the treatment of cervical spine dysfunction.
Evidence indicates that supervised home exercises, combined or not with manual therapy, can be beneficial for patients with non-specific chronic neck pain (NCNP). The objective of the study is to investigate the efficacy of preventive spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) compared to a no treatment group in NCNP patients. Another objective is to assess the efficacy of SMT with and without a home exercise program.
                Ninety-eight patients underwent a short symptomatic phase of treatment before being randomly allocated to either an attention-group (n = 29), a SMT group (n = 36) or a SMT + exercise group (n = 33). The preventive phase of treatment, which lasted for 10 months, consisted of meeting with a chiropractor every two months to evaluate and discuss symptoms (attention-control group), 1 monthly SMT session (SMT group) or 1 monthly SMT session combined with a home exercise program (SMT + exercise group). The primary and secondary outcome measures were represented by scores on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS), active cervical ranges of motion (cROM), the neck disability index (NDI) and the Bournemouth questionnaire (BQ). Exploratory outcome measures were scored on the Fear-avoidance Behaviour Questionnaire (FABQ) and the SF-12 Questionnaire.
                Our results show that, in the preventive phase of the trial, all 3 groups showed primary and secondary outcomes scores similar to those obtain following the non-randomised, symptomatic phase. No group difference was observed for the primary, secondary and exploratory variables. Significant improvements in FABQ scores were noted in all groups during the preventive phase of the trial. However, no significant change in health related quality of life (HRQL) was associated with the preventive phase.
                This study hypothesised that participants in the combined intervention group would have less pain and disability and better function than participants from the 2 other groups during the preventive phase of the trial. This hypothesis was not supported by the study results. Lack of a treatment specific effect is discussed in relation to the placebo and patient provider interactions in manual therapies. Further research is needed to delineate the specific and non-specific effects of treatment modalities to prevent unnecessary disability and to minimise morbidity related to NCNP. Additional investigation is also required to identify the best strategies for secondary and tertiary prevention of NCNP.
                ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00566930. Cluster randomized controlled trial for a multifaceted implementation strategy.
                To assess the effectiveness of tailored interventions (multifaceted implementation strategy) to implement the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners with regard to adherence to guideline recommendations.
                Guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care have been developed in various countries, but little is known about the optimal implementation strategy. A multifaceted implementation strategy was developed to overcome identified barriers to the implementation of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners.
                General practitioners were randomized to an intervention or a control group. The general practitioners in the intervention group (n = 21) received tailored interventions consisting of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners, a 2-hour educational and clinical practice workshop; two scientific articles on low back pain management; the guideline for occupational physicians; a tool for patient education; and a tool for reaching agreement on low back care with physical, exercise, and manual therapists. The control group (n = 20) received no intervention. The participating general practitioners were asked to recruit consecutive patients with a new episode of low back pain as the main reason for consultation. General practitioners completed registration forms of each individual consultation with regard to the main outcome measures: advice and information, referral to other health-care providers, and prescription of medication.
                Forty-one of the 67 randomized general practitioners reported on a total of 616 consultations for 531 patients with nonspecific low back pain. The advice and explanation provided by the general practitioners, the prescription of paracetamol or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and prescription of pain medication on atime contingent or a pain contingent basis showed no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups. There were also no differences in overall referral rate. However, in follow-up consultations fewer patients were referred to a physical or exercise therapist by the general practitioners in the intervention group than in the control group.
                The multifaceted intervention strategy modestly improved implementation (for parts of the recommendations in) the Dutch low back pain guideline by general practitioners and produced small concomitant changes in patient management. The implementation strategy produced fewer referrals to therapists during follow-up consultations. To determine whether treatment with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) administered in addition to standard care is associated with clinically relevant early reductions in pain and analgesic consumption.
                104 patients with acute low back pain were randomly assigned to SMT in addition to standard care (n = 52) or standard care alone (n = 52). Standard care consisted of general advice and paracetamol, diclofenac or dihydrocodeine as required. Other analgesic drugs or non-pharmacological treatments were not allowed. Primary outcomes were pain intensity assessed on the 11-point box scale (BS-11) and analgesic use based on diclofenac equivalence doses during days 1-14. An extended follow-up was performed at 6 months.
                Pain reductions were similar in experimental and control groups, with the lower limit of the 95% CI excluding a relevant benefit of SMT (difference 0.5 on the BS-11, 95% CI -0.2 to 1.2, p = 0.13). Analgesic consumptions were also similar (difference -18 mg diclofenac equivalents, 95% CI -43 mg to 7 mg, p = 0.17), with small initial differences diminishing over time. There were no differences between groups in any of the secondary outcomes and stratified analyses provided no evidence for potential benefits of SMT in specific patient groups. The extended follow-up showed similar patterns.
                SMT is unlikely to result in relevant early pain reduction in patients with acute low back pain. To study the relative efficacy of three different treatment for chronic low back pain (CLBP). Two preplanned comparisons were made: (a) Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) combined with trunk strengthening exercises (TSE) vs. SMT combined with trunk stretching exercises, and (b) SMT combined with TSE vs. nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy combined with TSE.
                Interdisciplinary, prospective, observer-blinded, randomized clinical trial with a 1-yr follow-up period. The trial evaluated therapies in combination only and was not designed to test the individual treatment components.
                Primary contact, college out-patient clinic.
                In total, 174 patients aged 20-60 yr were admitted to the study.
                Patient-rated low back pain, disability, and functional health status at 5 and 11 wk.
                Five weeks of SMT or NSAID therapy in combination with supervised trunk exercise, followed by and additional 6 wk of supervised exercise alone.
                Individual group comparisons after 5 and 11 wk of intervention on all three main outcome measures did not reveal any clear clinically important or statistically significant differences. There seemed to be a sustained reduction in medication use at the 1-yr follow-up. in the SMT/TSE group. Continuance of exercise during the follow-up year, regardless of type, was associated with a better outcome.
                Each of the three therapeutic regimens was associated with similar and clinically important improvement over time that was considered superior to the expected natural history of long-standing CLBP. For the management of CLBP, trunk exercise in combination with SMT or NSAID therapy seemed to be beneficial and worthwhile. The magnitude of nonspecific therapeutic (placebo) effects, cost-effectiveness and relative risks of side effects associated with these types of therapy need to be addressed in future studies. The treatment of non-specific chronic low back pain is often based on three different models regarding the development and maintenance of pain and especially functional limitations: the deconditioning model, the cognitive behavioral model and the biopsychosocial model. There is evidence that rehabilitation of patients with chronic low back pain is more effective than no treatment, but information is lacking about the differential effectiveness of different kinds of rehabilitation. A direct comparison of a physical, a cognitive-behavioral treatment and a combination of both has never been carried out so far.
                The effectiveness of active physical, cognitive-behavioral and combined treatment for chronic non-specific low back pain compared with a waiting list control group was determined by performing a randomized controlled trial in three rehabilitation centers. Two hundred and twenty three patients were randomized, using concealed block randomization to one of the following treatments, which they attended three times a week for 10 weeks: Active Physical Treatment (APT), Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment (CBT), Combined Treatment of APT and CBT (CT), or Waiting List (WL). The outcome variables were self-reported functional limitations, patient's main complaints, pain, mood, self-rated treatment effectiveness, treatment satisfaction and physical performance including walking, standing up, reaching forward, stair climbing and lifting. Assessments were carried out by blinded research assistants at baseline and immediately post-treatment. The data were analyzed using the intention-to-treat principle.
                For 212 patients, data were available for analysis. After treatment, significant reductions were observed in functional limitations, patient's main complaints and pain intensity for all three active treatments compared to the WL. Also, the self-rated treatment effectiveness and satisfaction appeared to be higher in the three active treatments. Several physical performance tasks improved in APT and CT but not in CBT. No clinically relevant differences were found between the CT and APT, or between CT and CBT.
                All three active treatments were effective in comparison to no treatment, but no clinically relevant differences between the combined and the single component treatments were found. The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) has produced guidelines for the management of acute low back pain in primary care.
                To investigate the impact on patient management of an educational strategy to promote these guidelines among general practitioners (GPs).
                Group randomised controlled trial, using the health centre as the unit of randomisation.
                Primary care teams in north-west England.
                Twenty-four health centres were randomly allocated to an intervention or control arm. Practices in the intervention arm were offered outreach visits to promote national guidelines on acute low back pain, as well as access to fast-track physiotherapy and to a triage service for patients with persistent symptoms.
                Twenty-four centres were randomised. Two thousand, one hundred and eighty-seven eligible patients presented with acute low back pain during the study period: 1049 in the intervention group and 1138 in the control group. There were no significant differences between study groups in the proportion of patients who were referred for X-ray, issued with a sickness certificate, prescribed opioids or muscle relaxants, or who were referred to secondary care, but significantly more patients in the intervention group were referred to physiotherapy or the back pain unit (difference in proportion = 12.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.8% to 21.6%).
                The management of patients presenting with low back pain to primary care was mostly unchanged by an outreach educational strategy to promote greater adherence to RCGP guidelines among GPs. An increase in referral to physiotherapy or educational programmes followed the provision of a triage service. A single blind randomized controlled trial comparing two models of care for patients with acute simple low back pain.
                To compare two research-based models of care for acute low back pain and investigate the effect of the timing of physical intervention.
                National guidelines offer conflicting information on the delivery of physical treatment in the management of acute low back pain. The guidelines suggest two different models of care. Direct comparisons between these models are lacking in the literature. The present study aims to compare these approaches to the management of acute low back pain.
                Among 804 referred patients, 102 subjects met the specific admission criteria and were randomly assigned to an "assess/advise/treat" group or an "assess/advise/wait" group. The intervention consisted of biopsychosocial education, manual therapy, and exercise. Assessment of short-term outcome enables comparison to be made between intervention and advice to stay active. Assessment of long-term outcome enables comparison to be made between early and late intervention. Study outcomes of reported pain (Visual Analogue Scale), functional disability (the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire), mood (Modified Zung Self Rated Depression Score, Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), general health (Euroqol), and quality of life (Short Form 36) were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months.
                At 6 weeks, the assess/advise/treat group demonstrated greater improvements in disability, mood, general health, and quality of life than patients in the assess/advise/wait group (P < 0.05). Disability and pain were not significantly different between the groups at long-term follow up (P > 0.05). However, mood, general health, and quality of life remained significantly better in the assess/advise/treat group (P < 0.05).
                At short-term, intervention is more effective than advice on staying active, leading to more rapid improvement in function, mood, quality of life, and general health. The timing of intervention affects the development of psychosocial features. If treatment is provided later, the same psychosocial benefits are not achieved. Therefore, an assess/advise/treat model of care seems to offer better outcomes than an assess/advise/wait model of care. Chiropractic care is used by many older patients for low back pain (LBP), but there are no published results of randomized trials examining spinal manipulation (SM) for older adults. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 2 biomechanically distinct forms of SM and minimal conservative medical care (MCMC) for participants at least 55 years old with subacute or chronic nonradicular LBP.
                Randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome variable was low back-related disability assessed with the 24-item Roland Morris Disability questionnaire at 3, 6, 12, and 24 weeks. Participants were randomly allocated to 6 weeks of care including 12 visits of either high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA)-SM, low-velocity, variable-amplitude (LVVA)-SM, or 3 visits of MCMC.
                Two hundred forty participants (105 women and 135 men) ages 63.1 +/- 6.7 years without significant comorbidities. Adjusted mean Roland Morris Disability change scores (95% confidence intervals) from baseline to the end of active care were 2.9 (2.2, 3.6) and 2.7 (2.0, 3.3) in the LVVA-SM and HVLA-SM groups, respectively, and 1.6 (0.5, 2.8) in the MCMC group. There were no significant differences between LVVA-SM and HVLA-SM at any of the end points. The LVVA-SM group had significant improvements in mean functional status ranging from 1.3 to 2.2 points over the MCMC group. There were no serious adverse events associated with any of the interventions.
                Biomechanically distinct forms of SM did not lead to different outcomes in older LBP patients and both SM procedures were associated with small yet clinically important changes in functional status by the end of treatment for this relatively healthy older population. Participants who received either form of SM had improvements on average in functional status ranging from 1 to 2.2 over those who received MCMC. From an evidence-based care perspective, patient preference and clinical experience should drive how clinicians and patients make the SM procedure decision for this patient population. To compare the effects of a minimal intervention strategy aimed at assessment and modification of psychosocial prognostic factors and usual care for treatment of (sub)acute low back pain in general practice.
                Cluster randomised clinical trial.
                60 general practitioners in 41 general practices.
                314 patients with non-specific low back pain of less than 12 weeks' duration, recruited by their general practitioner.
                In the minimal intervention strategy group the general practitioner explored the presence of psychosocial prognostic factors, discussed these factors, set specific goals for reactivation, and provided an educational booklet. The consultation took about 20 minutes. Usual care was not standardised.
                Functional disability (Roland-Morris disability questionnaire), perceived recovery, and sick leave because of low back pain assessed at baseline and after 6, 13, 26, and 52 weeks.
                The dropout rate was 8% in the minimal intervention strategy group and 9% in the usual care group. Multilevel analyses showed no significant differences between the groups on any outcome measure during 12 months of follow-up in the whole group or in relevant subgroups (patients with high scores on psychosocial measures at baseline or a history of frequent or prolonged low back pain).
                This study provides no evidence that (Dutch) general practitioners should adopt our new treatment strategy aimed at psychosocial prognostic factors in patients with (sub)acute low back pain. Further research should examine why our new strategy was not more effective than usual care. Practice guidelines recommend various types of exercise and manipulative therapy for chronic back pain but there have been few head-to-head comparisons of these interventions. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare effects of general exercise, motor control exercise and manipulative therapy on function and perceived effect of intervention in patients with chronic back pain. Two hundred and forty adults with non-specific low back pain 3months were allocated to groups that received 8weeks of general exercise, motor control exercise or spinal manipulative therapy. General exercise included strengthening, stretching and aerobic exercises. Motor control exercise involved retraining specific trunk muscles using ultrasound feedback. Spinal manipulative therapy included joint mobilization and manipulation. Primary outcomes were patient-specific function (PSFS, 3-30) and global perceived effect (GPE, -5 to 5) at 8weeks. These outcomes were also measured at 6 and 12months. Follow-up was 93% at 8weeks and 88% at 6 and 12months. The motor control exercise group had slightly better outcomes than the general exercise group at 8weeks (between-group difference: PSFS 2.9, 95% CI: 0.9-4.8; GPE 1.7, 95% CI: 0.9-2.4), as did the spinal manipulative therapy group (PSFS 2.3, 95% CI: 0.4-4.2; GPE 1.2, 95% CI: 0.4-2.0). The groups had similar outcomes at 6 and 12months. Motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy produce slightly better short-term function and perceptions of effect than general exercise, but not better medium or long-term effects, in patients with chronic non-specific back pain. A randomized controlled trial.
                To determine 1) whether, among patients with persistent disabling low back pain (LBP), a group program of exercise and education using a cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) approach, reduces pain and disability over a subsequent 12-month period; 2) the cost-effectiveness of the intervention; and 3) whether a priori preference for type of treatment influences outcome.
                There is evidence that both exercise and CBT delivered in specialist settings is effective in improving LBP. There is a lack of evidence on whether such interventions, delivered by trained individuals in primary care, result in improved outcomes.
                The study was conducted in nine family medical practices in East Cheshire, UK. Patients 18 to 65 years of age, consulting with LBP, were recruited; those still reporting LBP 3 months after the initial consultation were randomized between the two trial arms. The intervention arm received a program of eight 2-hour group exercise session over 6 weeks comprising active exercise and education delivered by physiotherapists using a CBT approach. Both arms received an educational booklet and audio-cassette. The primary outcome measures were pain (0-100 Visual Analogue Scale) and disability (Roland and Morris Disability Scale; score 0-24).
                A total of 196 subjects (84%) completed follow-up 12 months after the completion of the intervention program. The intervention showed only a small and nonsignificant effect at reducing pain (-3.6 mm; 95% confidence interval, -8.5, 1.2 mm) and disability (-0.6 score; 95% confidence interval, -1.6, 0.4). The cost of the intervention was low with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound5000 (U.S. $8650) per quality adjusted life year. In addition, patients allocated to the intervention that had expressed a preference for it had clinically important reductions in pain and disability.
                This intervention program produces only modest effects in reducing LBP and disability over a 1-year period. The observation that patient preference for treatment influences outcome warrants further investigation. Population-based randomized clinical trial.
                To develop and test a model of management of subacute back pain, to prevent prolonged disability.
                The present management of back pain seems inadequate, and development of innovative models has been urged.
                A model for the treatment of subacute work-related back pain has been developed and evaluated in a population-based randomized clinical trial. Workers (n = 130) from eligible workplaces in the Sherbrooke area (N = 31), who had been absent from work for more than 4 weeks for back pain, were randomized, based on their workplace, in one of four treatment groups: usual care, clinical intervention, occupational intervention, and full intervention (a combination of the last two). The duration of absence from regular work and from any work was evaluated using survival analysis. Functional status and pain were compared at study entry and after 1 year of follow-up.
                The full intervention group returned to regular work 2.41 times faster than the usual care intervention group (95% confidence interval 1.19-4.89; P < 0.01). The specific effect of the occupational intervention accounted for the most important part of this result, with a rate ratio of return to regular work of 1.91 (95% confidence interval = 1.18-3.10; P < 0.01). Pain and disability scales demonstrated either a statistically significant reduction or a trend toward reduction in the three intervention groups, compared with the trend in the usual care intervention group.
                Close association of occupational intervention with clinical care is of primary importance in impeding progression toward chronicity of low back pain. A randomized, double-blind, controlled, multicenter trial was conducted.
                To assess the efficacy of neuroreflexotherapy in the management of low back pain.
                Neuroreflexotherapy consists of temporary implantation of epidermal devices in trigger points in the back and referred tender points in the ear.
                The rheumatology and rehabilitation departments of three teaching hospitals in Madrid recruited 78 patients with chronic low back pain. These patients were randomly assigned to the control group (37 patients) or to the treatment group (41 patients). Patients in the treatment group underwent one neuroreflexotherapeutic intervention. The control group received sham treatment consisting of placement of the same number of epidermal devices within a 5-cm radius of the target zones. Patients from both groups were allowed to continue drug treatment as previously prescribed. The use of medications during the trial was recorded.
                Patients underwent clinical evaluations on three occasions: within 5 minutes before intervention, within 5 minutes after intervention, and 45 days later. The preintervention assessment was carried out by the physician from each hospital department who included the patient in the study. Each of the two follow-up assessments were carried out independently by two of three physicians who had no connection with the research team. Patients in the treatment group showed immediate lessening of pain compared with the results in patients in the control group. The pain relief was clinically relevant and statistically significant, and it persisted up to the end of the trial.
                Neuroreflexotherapy intervention seems to be a simple and effective treatment for rapid amelioration of pain episodes in patients with chronic low back pain. At this time, the duration of pain relief beyond 45 days has not been evaluated. The effect of clinical guidelines on resource utilization for complex conditions with substantial barriers to clinician behavior change has not been well studied. We report the impact of a multifaceted guideline implementation intervention on primary care clinician utilization of radiologic and specialty services for the care of acute low back pain.
                Physician groups were randomized to receive guideline education and individual feedback, supporting patient education materials, both, or neither. The impact on guideline adherence and resource utilization was evaluated during the 12-month period before and after implementation.
                Fourteen physician groups with 120 primary care physician and associate practitioners from 2 group model HMO practices.
                Guideline implementation utilized an education/audit/feedback model with local peer opinion leaders. The patient education component included written and videotaped materials on the care of low back pain.
                The clinician intervention was associated with an absolute increase in guideline-consistent behavior of 5.4% in the intervention group versus a decline of 2.7% in the control group (P =.04). The patient education intervention produced no significant change in guideline-consistent behavior, but was poorly adopted. Patient characteristics including duration of pain, prior history of low back pain, and number of visits during the illness episode were strong predictors of service utilization and guideline-consistent behavior.
                Implementation of an education and feedback-supported acute low back pain care guideline for primary care clinicians was associated with an increase in guideline-consistent behavior. Patient education materials did not enhance guideline effectiveness. Implementation barriers could limit the utility of this approach in usual care settings. To evaluate the short-term effect of physical exercise and a cognitive intervention in low back pain.
                Randomized controlled trial.
                Ninety-three patients sick-listed for 8-12 weeks for sub-acute low back pain were randomized to an exercise regime (n = 30), a cognitive intervention (n = 34) or a control group (n = 29).
                Primary outcome measures were pain, disability, sick-listing and satisfaction with care. Secondary outcome measures were self-efficacy for pain and for function, fear-avoidance beliefs, emotional distress, generic health status and life satisfaction.
                Eighteen percent of subjects dropped out. Drop-out was most frequent in the exercise group. At 18 weeks after inclusion fear-avoidance beliefs were reduced in both intervention groups. The cognitive group demonstrated significant improvement in disability, self-efficacy for pain, emotional distress, general health and life satisfaction. Patients in the exercise group were significantly more satisfied with the treatment, and patients following the exercise protocol reduced pain significantly. No effect on sick-listing was seen.
                Cognitive intervention improved disability and may be feasible for most patients sick-listed in the sub-acute phase. Physical exercise reduced patients' symptoms, but requires high motivation by patients. Despite positive effects in intervention groups on variables considered as negative prognostic factors for long-term disability and sickness absence, interventions had no effect on sick-listing. To determine the relative effect of instrument-delivered thrust cervical manipulations in comparison with traditional manual-delivered thrust cervical manipulations in the treatment of cervical spine dysfunction.
                Prospective, randomized, comparative clinical trial.
                Outpatient chiropractic clinic, Technikon Natal, South Africa.
                Thirty patients diagnosed with neck pain and restricted cervical spine range of motion without complicating pathosis for at least 1 month were included in the study.
                The patients were randomized into 2 groups. Those in one group received mechanical force, manually assisted (MFMA) manipulation to the cervical spine, delivered by means of a hand-held instrument (Activator II Adjusting Instrument). Those in the other group received specific contact high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation consisting of standard Diversified rotary/lateral break techniques to the cervical spine. Each group received only the specific therapeutic intervention, no other treatment modalities or interventions (including medication) being used, until asymptomatic status was achieved or a maximum of 8 treatments had been received. Main Outcome Measures: Both treatment groups were assessed through use of subjective (Numerical Pain Rating Scale 101, McGill Short-Form Pain Questionnaire, and Neck Disability Index) and objective (goniometer cervical range of motion) measurement parameters at specific intervals during the treatment period and at 1-month follow-up. The data were assessed through use of 2-tailed nonparametric paired and unpaired analysis, descriptive statistics, and power analysis of the data.
                The results indicate that both treatment methods had a positive effect on the subjective and objective clinical outcome measures, no significant difference being observed between the 2 groups (P < .025). The subjective data from all 3 questionnaires showed statistically significant changes from initial to final consultations as well as from initial consultation to 1-month follow-up (P < .025). The objective range of motion measures showed statistically significant changes in the MFMA group for left and right rotation and left and right lateral flexion from initial consultation to final consultations and for right rotation and right lateral flexion from initial consultation to 1-month follow-up. The HVLA group showed only the change in left rotation from initial to final consultations and from initial consultation to 1-month follow-up to be statistically significant.
                The results of this clinical trial indicate that both instrumental (MFMA) manipulation and manual (HVLA) manipulation have beneficial effects associated with reducing pain and disability and improving cervical range of motion in this patient population. A randomized, controlled clinical trial in a similar patient base with a larger sample size is necessary to verify the clinical relevance of these findings.
SMT is no more effective in participants with acute low-back pain than inert interventions, sham SMT, or when added to another intervention. SMT also appears to be no better than other recommended therapies. Our evaluation is limited by the small number of studies per comparison, outcome, and time interval. Therefore, future research is likely to have an important impact on these estimates. The decision to refer patients for SMT should be based upon costs, preferences of the patients and providers, and relative safety of SMT compared to other treatment options. Future RCTs should examine specific subgroups and include an economic evaluation.