ScholarLens Back to search
2020•SpineOpen access

Moderators of the Effect of Spinal Manipulative Therapy on Pain Relief and Function in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain

Annemarie de Zoete, Michiel R. de Boer, Sidney M. Rubinstein, Maurits W. van Tulder, Martin Underwood, Jill A. Hayden, Laurien M. Buffart, Raymond Ostelo

Open full text 24 citations

Abstract

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 <1 year of LBP demonstrated more positive point estimates for SMT versus recommended therapy for the outcome pain (mean differences ranged from 4.97 (95% confidence interval, CI: -3.20 to 13.13) at 3 months, 10.76 (95% CI: 1.06 to 20.47) at 6 months to 5.26 (95% CI: -2.92 to 13.44) at 12 months in patients with over a year LBP. No other moderators demonstrated a consistent pattern across time and outcomes. Few moderator analyses were conducted for the other comparisons because of too few data. CONCLUSION: We did not identify any moderators that enable clinicians to identify which patients are likely to benefit more from SMT compared to other treatments.Level of Evidence: 2.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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 <1 year of LBP demonstrated more positive point estimates for SMT versus recommended therapy for the outcome pain (mean differences ranged from 4.97 (95% confidence interval, CI: -3.20 to 13.13) at 3 months, 10.76 (95% CI: 1.06 to 20.47) at 6 months to 5.26 (95% CI: -2.92 to 13.44) at 12 months in patients with over a year LBP. No other moderators demonstrated a consistent pattern across time and outcomes. Few moderator analyses were conducted for the other comparisons because of too few data. CONCLUSION: We did not identify any moderators that enable clinicians to identify which patients are likely to benefit more from SMT compared to other treatments.Level of Evidence: 2.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 24 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

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 <1 year of LBP demonstrated more positive point estimates for SMT versus recommended therapy for the outcome pain (mean differences ranged from 4.97 (95% confidence interval, CI: -3.20 to 13.13) at 3 months, 10.76 (95% CI: 1.06 to 20.47) at 6 months to 5.26 (95% CI: -2.92 to 13.44) at 12 months in patients with over a year LBP. No other moderators demonstrated a consistent pattern across time and outcomes. Few moderator analyses were conducted for the other comparisons because of too few data. CONCLUSION: We did not identify any moderators that enable clinicians to identify which patients are likely to benefit more from SMT compared to other treatments.Level of Evidence: 2.

Key concepts: Medicine, Low back pain, Physical therapy, Randomized controlled trial, Confidence interval, Psychological intervention, Chronic pain, Manual therapy

Related papers

Related paper 1Related paper 2Related paper 3
Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Moderators of the Effect of Spinal Manipulative Therapy on Pain Relief and Function in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain — Research Paper | ScholarLens