Original Article
A Comparison of Osteopathic Spinal Manipulation with Standard Care for Patients with Low Back Pain
N Engl J Med 1999; 341:1426-1431November 4, 1999DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199911043411903
- Abstract
Background
The effect of osteopathic manual therapy (i.e., spinal manipulation) in patients with chronic and subchronic back pain is largely unknown, and its use in such patients is controversial. Nevertheless, manual therapy is a frequently used method of treatment in this group of patients.
Methods
We performed a randomized, controlled trial that involved patients who had had back pain for at least three weeks but less than six months. We screened 1193 patients; 178 were found to be eligible and were randomly assigned to treatment groups; 23 of these patients subsequently dropped out of the study. The patients were treated either with one or more standard medical therapies (72 patients) or with osteopathic manual therapy (83 patients). We used a variety of outcome measures, including scores on the Roland–Morris and Oswestry questionnaires, a visual-analogue pain scale, and measurements of range of motion and straight-leg raising, to assess the results of treatment over a 12-week period.
Results
Patients in both groups improved during the 12 weeks. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in any of the primary outcome measures. The osteopathic-treatment group required significantly less medication (analgesics, antiinflammatory agents, and muscle relaxants) (P< 0.001) and used less physical therapy (0.2 percent vs. 2.6 percent, P<0.05). More than 90 percent of the patients in both groups were satisfied with their care.
Conclusions
Osteopathic manual care and standard medical care have similar clinical results in patients with subacute low back pain. However, the use of medication is greater with standard care.
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Mean (±SD) Changes in the Score on the Visual-Analogue Pain Scale (Panel A), the Roland–Morris Questionnaire Score (Panel B), and the Oswestry Questionnaire Score (Panel C) over the 12 Weeks of the Trial.Table 1
Base-Line Characteristics of the Study Participants.Article Activity
- Article
The treatment of low back pain remains controversial in spite of a growing number of attempts to evaluate different therapeutic interventions and to develop clinical guidelines.1-4 One stumbling block is the scientific evidence on which the guidelines are based. The results of randomized trials of some therapeutic interventions have been published, but the methodologic quality of many such studies is low.5,6 Many of the studies involve manual treatment of the spine (through manipulation or mobilization); millions of patients receive manual treatment every year.
Spinal manipulation as a treatment for back pain has been practiced for centuries. Over the past 150 years, different schools of manual treatment have evolved. In the United States, most spinal-manipulation therapy is provided by chiropractors.7 Not surprisingly, therefore, most research on the efficacy of spinal manipulation assesses the chiropractic type of manipulation, which involves primarily short-lever, high-velocity spinal adjustments applied to specific contact points on the spinous process.8 Osteopathic manipulation has also been studied, but to a lesser degree. In osteopathy, the manipulation itself is only part of a philosophy of care; it is regarded as an adjunct to other medical care. The distinguishing hallmark of the osteopathic profession is the use of osteopathic manipulation. Osteopathic physicians make diagnoses on the basis of a combination of palpation and conventional diagnostic methods, and they use manual therapy in combination with conventional treatment methods, including pharmaceuticals and surgery. An emphasis on the importance of the musculoskeletal system in health and disease is a strong feature of the education of an osteopathic physician.9
Osteopathic medicine and chiropractic are different in terms of training and education and in their view of the musculoskeletal system.10 The focus of osteopathic medicine has been the need to optimize blood circulation to maintain or restore health. The chiropractic approach is focused more on the nervous system and advocates adjustments of the spinal vertebrae to improve neurotransmission.
Recent consensus reports have suggested that although manipulation may be effective in alleviating pain and improving function in patients with acute, uncomplicated back pain, its effectiveness has not been proved in patients with symptoms of longer duration.3,11 Koes and coworkers conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials; after applying criteria for methodologic rigor, they found insufficient evidence to prove the effectiveness of spinal manipulation in either acute or chronic low back pain.12 Given that approximately 80 percent of primary care patients with low back pain have substantial improvement in the first month, regardless of therapy, it is difficult to demonstrate the value of any therapy in patients with acute symptoms.13,14
We undertook this study to determine whether osteopathic care, including manipulative therapy, would benefit patients with low back pain (that had lasted for at least three weeks but less than six months) more than would standard allopathic care. The hypothesis tested was that osteopathic manipulation would result in more rapid relief of pain and recovery of function than that obtained with standard medical care.
Methods
Selection of Patients
The study was conducted at two medical offices of a health maintenance organization (HMO). One office served 29,976 members, of whom 70 percent were members of minority groups (primarily black). The second office had 9682 members, with minimal minority representation.
The enrollment period was from August 1992 through August 1994, and the last follow-up was in December 1994. Patients between 20 and 59 years of age with low back pain that had lasted for at least three weeks but less than six months were identified by triage nurses. We determined preliminary eligibility and willingness to participate by reviewing charts and interviewing candidates over the telephone. We invited eligible patients to attend the base-line visit for further evaluation.
We excluded patients with nerve-root compression (dermatomal pain distribution, neurologic deficit, or both), a systemic inflammatory disorder, scoliosis, a serious medical illness such as cancer, recent myocardial infarction, diabetic neuropathy, neurovascular disease, alcohol or drug abuse, or a known psychiatric or psychological illness, as well as those with no lesion that could be manipulated. We also excluded patients who were pregnant, were involved in active litigation or receiving workers' compensation, had undergone manipulation treatment in the previous three weeks, or were considered unable to follow the protocol for any reason.
The study was approved by the institutional review committee of Rush University, and all subjects provided written informed consent.
Randomization and Treatment
At the base-line visit, we explained the study in detail and obtained informed consent. After eligibility was evaluated and the presence of a lesion suitable for manipulation was confirmed by a doctor of osteopathy, the patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: that receiving osteopathic manipulation (the osteopathic-treatment group) or that receiving standard allopathic treatment (the standard-care group). The assignments, which were generated by a computer, were presented in sealed, sequentially numbered envelopes; each envelope was opened when the patient returned for the first appointment one week after enrollment. There was no stratification (blocking) according to treatment center.
The standard allopathic treatment was provided by physicians in the HMOs. The treatment included analgesics, antiinflammatory medication, active physical therapy, or therapies such as ultrasonography, diathermy, hot or cold packs (or both), use of a corset, or transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. All patients (including those in the osteopathic-treatment group) viewed a 10-minute educational videotape on back pain. The antiinflammatory agents that could be used were ibuprofen, naproxen, and piroxicam, and the approved analgesics were aspirin, acetaminophen, codeine, and oxycodone. Cyclobenzaprine was used as a muscle relaxant. Manual therapy in any form was not permitted as part of standard care.
For the osteopathic-treatment group, one of three osteopathic physicians from the Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine provided additional treatment in the form of manipulation. In this study, osteopathic manipulation was applied to areas that the osteopathic physician determined to be related in some way to the patient's back pain; that is, treatment was individualized. A variety of techniques were used, including thrust, muscle energy, counterstrain, articulation, and myofascial release.15 The treating physician chose the techniques used. All treatment was documented at each visit. All contacts with physicians occurred in the offices of the HMO.
At each of four weekly visits, and then four more visits at intervals of two weeks, patients in both groups were seen first by a certified nurse practitioner and then by the assigned physician. At 12 weeks, the patients were assessed by an evaluator who was blinded to the treatment assignments and had no relationship with either the HMO or the patients. Patients who reported before the 12th week that they had no pain were given a final evaluation at that time. For patients who chose to discontinue participation early, the reason for dropping out was documented.
Outcomes
At the base-line visit, we collected information on demographic characteristics, education, work, income, use of tobacco and medications, and the presence of other diseases. The evaluation of pain and function was based on a visual-analogue pain scale, the Roland–Morris questionnaire, the Oswestry questionnaire, selected questions from the North American Spine Society outcomes questionnaire, a pain drawing (the patient's indication of pain on a drawing of a person), and measurements of the range of motion and the degree to which the straight leg could be raised.
The visual-analogue pain scale consisted of a horizontal 10-cm line with the words “no pain” at one end and “worst pain” at the other.16 The Roland–Morris questionnaire is a validated 24-item adaptation of the Sickness Impact Profile, which assesses the loss of function due to back pain.17,18 Scores can range from 0 to 24; higher scores denote increasing severity of disease. To evaluate pain further, we used two items from the North American Spine Society Lumbar Spine Outcome Assessment Instrument: one on the frequency of pain and one on how “bothersome” the back pain was.19 The Oswestry questionnaire is a 10-item scale on which each item is scored from 0 to 5, with total scores ranging up to 50; higher numbers indicate worse pain. The first section deals with pain, and the other sections deal with various activities considered relevant to low back disability.20 The Oswestry questionnaire was administered at the base-line and final visits, whereas the other evaluations were performed at every visit. The patients' acceptance of pain was determined at base line and at the final visit with a six-point scale. Range of motion was measured with a double inclinometer, and straight-leg raising was measured with a single inclinometer. Both measurements were performed by nurse practitioners who were not involved in the care of the patients. The use of standard care or osteopathic manipulation was documented at each visit.
Data were transferred to and analyzed by the Department of Preventive Medicine at Rush–Presbyterian–St. Luke's Medical Center. Double data entry was used for all key outcome variables.
Patients
A total of 1193 patients were identified by the triage nurses. Of these patients, 981 were ineligible — 39 percent for reasons related to their pain (the distribution of pain or the duration of pain), 26 percent for other reasons (unwillingness to participate, unavailability, or legal reasons), 19 percent because of other medical problems, and 16 percent for reasons pertaining to age. A total of 212 patients attended the base-line visit; 34 of these patients (16 percent) were found to be ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria. We randomly assigned the remaining 178 patients to the two treatment groups; we assigned 93 patients to the osteopathic-treatment group and 85 to the standard-care group. Twenty-three patients (13 percent) subsequently dropped out of the study: 2 (1 in each group) because of high sedimentation rates (an exclusion criterion) discovered after randomization, and 21 for unknown reasons (manifested in poor attendance at study visits). Of these 21 patients, 9 were in the osteopathic-treatment group and 12 were in the standard-care group. Six patients dropped out before any follow-up visits (two in the osteopathic-treatment group and four in the standard-care group), eight after one week (three in the osteopathic-treatment group and five in the standard-care group), six after two weeks (three and three, respectively), and one (in the osteopathic-treatment group) after three weeks. In all, 155 patients completed the study; 83 were in the osteopathic-treatment group, and 72 were in the standard-care group.
Statistical Analysis
We summarized numerical variables as means ±SD.21 Medians are shown for the Roland–Morris questionnaire, however, because the scores were distinctly skewed. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for mean differences in outcome are shown for osteopathic-manipulation treatment minus standard care.
We compared the osteopathic-treatment group and the standard-care group using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for numerical variables. For categorical variables, we used either a chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. We assigned values at the end of treatment using the last-value-carried-forward method of analysis, in which patients who had completed their treatment in fewer than 12 weeks were assigned the value at the final visit, whenever it occurred. Standard statistical software packages (6.09 and S-Plus, SAS, Cary, N.C.) were used for the analyses, which were performed on a Sun Sparcstation 10 (Sun Microsystems, Palo Alto, Calif.). All reported P values are two-tailed.
Results
The osteopathic-treatment group and the standard-care group were similar with respect to demographic, socioeconomic, and work-related factors (Table 1Table 1
Base-Line Characteristics of the Study Participants.). Education, income, and marital status were similar in the two groups. The severity of back pain and its functional effects were also similar between groups (Table 1). There was no difference between the groups in the frequency of nonmusculoskeletal diseases. Tobacco use was more common in the standard-care group (32 percent vs. 18 percent, P=0.05). About 90 percent of patients in both groups were satisfied with their work situation, and almost 30 percent were in physically demanding jobs.Because we observed that the patients' condition continued to improve over the 12-week period, and because our primary measures were changes in scores, rather than occurrences of events, we excluded from the primary analyses the 23 patients who dropped out of the study. Tests in which large improvements were imputed for the 10 patients assigned to the osteopathic-treatment group and in which small improvements were imputed for the 13 patients assigned to the standard-care group showed that our conclusions from the primary analysis were not sensitive to the exclusion of these subjects, 8 of whom had no follow-up at all. Table 2Table 2
Change in Primary Outcome Measures from the First to the Final Visit and Primary Outcome Measures in the Two Groups at the Final Visit. shows the changes in primary outcomes from base line to the final visit. Improvement occurred in both groups on every measure of outcome used. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups in terms of improvement, nor were there any statistically significant differences between the groups at the final evaluation.Figure 1Figure 1
Mean (±SD) Changes in the Score on the Visual-Analogue Pain Scale (Panel A), the Roland–Morris Questionnaire Score (Panel B), and the Oswestry Questionnaire Score (Panel C) over the 12 Weeks of the Trial. shows the changes in the primary outcomes, as measured by the visual-analogue pain scale, the Roland–Morris questionnaire, and the Oswestry questionnaire, as a function of time. The curves for the standard-care and osteopathic-treatment groups did not differ significantly. Forty-seven percent of the patients in the osteopathic-treatment group and 39 percent of those in the standard-care group completed all nine visits (P=0.39).The use of medication was greater in the standard-care group than in the osteopathic-treatment group, with significant differences for nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (P<0.001) and muscle relaxants (P<0.001). Nonsteroidal medication was prescribed at 54.3 percent of the patient visits to the standard-care physicians, as compared with 24.3 percent of the visits to the osteopathic-treatment physicians. A muscle relaxant was prescribed at 25.1 percent of the visits in the standard-care group and 6.3 percent in the osteopathic-treatment group. Physical therapy was also used more frequently in the standard-care group (2.6 percent vs. 0.2 percent, P<0.05).
More than 90 percent of the patients in each group were satisfied with their care (Table 3Table 3
Patients' Satisfaction with Their Treatment.). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups. Answers to a quality-of-life question that was asked at the final visit — “If you had to spend the rest of your life this way, how would you feel?” — indicated that 80 percent of the patients in both groups accepted their back problem well.Discussion
We found no difference in clinical outcome between standard care and osteopathic care among patients with low back pain of at least three weeks in duration. Because of the study design, we cannot determine whether the results reflect the natural history of subchronic-to-chronic low back pain or were modified by either standard or osteopathic care. We decided against using a placebo or nontreatment group because it is not possible to prevent patients with back pain from initiating self-care (by adjustment of activity and use of pain medication). Although the natural history of low back pain in patients with pain for more than three weeks and less than six months is not specifically known, previous studies indicate that the recovery rate is slower after three weeks than before.1,22,23 Most previous studies have focused on the first two to four weeks.6,8,24 Because most patients recover without specific treatment during this period, the additional effect of manipulation is difficult to determine. A few studies show a beneficial effect of manual treatment during that period, mainly in the form of a more rapid reduction in pain.25,26
Koes et al.6,24 developed criteria for assessing the quality of published studies of the efficacy of spinal manipulation. When those criteria were applied to our study, the study scored between 66 points (with the 1991 criteria) and 74 points (with the 1995 criteria) out of a possible 100. This compares favorably with the 30 trials of spinal manipulation or mobilization reviewed by Koes et al.,6 in which scores ranged from 20 to 56, with a median of 35. It also compares well with the 25 controlled trials of manipulation that were accepted for review by Shekelle et al.8 The main areas of methodologic weakness in our study, according to the criteria of Koes et al.,6 were the size of the study groups (72 in the smaller group, as compared with an ideal size of more than 100), the presence of other interventions, the lack of a placebo control group, and the lack of blinding of the patients. These four items constitute 24 points deducted from 100. Although rectifying these deficiencies would increase the value of a study from a methodologic perspective, we did not consider these items essential for addressing our hypothesis.
Other interventions are difficult to avoid when performing a pragmatic study comparing one treatment system (with several aspects) with standard care, which by its nature includes different alternatives for intervention. We chose not to evaluate the effect of manipulation separately because osteopathic manual care involves much more than manipulation, which should be viewed as one part of a larger philosophy of care. Several of the other interventions, including the informational videotape, were distributed equally between the two treatment groups.
We did not try to prevent the patients from knowing which type of treatment they were receiving; we believed that it would not be possible, because one type of treatment involved physicians who were not part of the HMO. It is difficult to develop a placebo for manipulation. The patients were unfamiliar with osteopathic manual care, but a few had undergone manipulation by other care providers in the past. None had received manual treatment for their current episode. A blinded assessment was made at the exit interview. Because most measures of outcome were completed by the patients themselves, the value of the blinded evaluation is limited.
Because of the study design, we could not determine differences in cost between treatment groups. Since the environment in which treatment occurs can influence the results of treatment, we decided that all patients should be treated at the HMO offices, to which the osteopathic physicians traveled. This method was logistically complicated because of the limited hours and availability of the osteopathic physicians and contributed to the uneven distribution of patients among the three osteopathic physicians. The frequency of patient visits is typically greater when patients are undergoing manual therapy than when they are receiving standard allopathic care.19,27,28 We were concerned that the greater frequency of visits would introduce a placebo effect by itself in the osteopathic-treatment group; we therefore provided the same number of visits (eight) for both groups, on the basis of information from the osteopathic physicians.
The osteopathic-treatment group received less medication and less physical therapy than the standard-care group, and the differences in cost were significant. The value of drugs in the treatment of acute pain is supported in controlled trials.29 However, as compared with those who wrote more prescriptions, physicians in managed-care settings — who wrote fewer prescriptions and emphasized education, continued physical activity, and self-care — obtained similar outcomes in terms of pain and function at one year, with lower cost and higher patient satisfaction.30 Given the known and potentially serious adverse effects and costs of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug therapy,31,32 the achievement of equal outcomes in regard to pain relief, function, and satisfaction, with less use of medication and physical therapy, suggests an important benefit of osteopathic manipulative treatment; this type of treatment deserves careful examination through a formal cost–benefit analysis.33,34
Supported by a grant from the American Osteopathic Association.
We are indebted to Marilyn Lindeman, C.N.P., and Amy Parker, C.N.P., without whom the study could not have been completed.
Source Information
From the Departments of Orthopedic Surgery (G.B.J.A.) and Preventive Medicine (T.L., A.M.D., S.L.), Rush–Presbyterian–St. Luke's Medical Center, Chicago; and Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine, Downers Grove, Ill. (R.E.K., J.A.L.).
Address reprint requests to Dr. Andersson at the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rush–Presbyterian–St. Luke's Medical Center, 1653 W. Congress Pkwy., 1471 Jelke, Chicago, IL 60612, or at ganderss@rush.edu.
- References
References
1
Spitzer WO ,Leblanc FE ,Dupuis M , et al. Scientific approach to the assessment and management of activity-related spinal disorders: a monograph for clinicians. Spine 1987;12:Suppl 1:S1-S59
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline2
Guidelines for the management of back-injured employees. Melbourne, Australia: Workcover Corporation, October 1993:1-44.
3
Bigos SJ, Bowyer OR, Braen GR, et al. Acute low back problems in adults. Clinical practice guideline no. 14. Rockville, Md.: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, December 1994. (AHCPR publication no. 95-0642.)
4
Clinical guidelines for the management of acute low back pain. London: Royal College of General Practitioners, 1996.
5
Bloch R . Methodology in clinical back pain trials. Spine 1987;12:430-432
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline6
Koes BW ,Bouter LM ,van der Heijden GJMG . Methodological quality of randomized clinical trials on treatment efficacy in low back pain. Spine 1995;20:228-235
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
Shekelle PG . Spinal manipulation. Spine 1994;19:858-861
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline8
Shekelle PG ,Adams AH ,Chassin MR ,Hurwitz EL ,Brook RH . Spinal manipulation for low-back pain. Ann Intern Med 1992;117:590-598
Web of Science | Medline9
Hruby RJ. Contemporary philosophy and practice of osteopathic medicine. In: Sirica CM, ed. Osteopathic medicine: past, present, and future. New York: Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation, 1995:49-80.
10
Ross-Lee B, Wood DL. Osteopathic medical education. In: Sirica CM, ed. Osteopathic medicine: past, present, and future. New York: Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation, 1995:89-129.
11
Rosen M, Breen A, Breen A, et al. Report of a CSAG (Clinical Standards Advisory Group), committee on back pain. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1994.
12
Koes BW ,Assendelft WJJ ,van der Heijden GJMG ,Bouter LM . Spinal manipulation for low back pain: an updated systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Spine 1996;21:2860-2873
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline13
Deyo RA ,Phillips WR . Low back pain: a primary care challenge. Spine 1996;21:2826-2832
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline14
Von Korff M ,Saunders K . The course of back pain in primary care. Spine 1996;21:2833-2839
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline15
Ward RC, ed. Foundations for osteopathic medicine. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1997.
16
Huskisson EC . Measurement of pain. Lancet 1974;2:1127-1131
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline17
Deyo RA . Comparative validity of the Sickness Impact Profile and shorter scales for functional assessment in low-back pain. Spine 1986;11:951-954
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline18
Roland M ,Morris R . A study of the natural history of back pain. I. Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine 1983;8:141-144
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline19
Daltroy LH ,Cats-Baril WL ,Katz JN ,Fossel AH ,Liang MH . The North American Spine Society Lumbar Spine Outcome Assessment Instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine 1996;21:741-749
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline20
Fairbank JCT ,Couper J ,Davies JB ,O'Brian JP . The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980;66:271-273
Medline21
Armitage P, Berry G. Statistical methods in medical research. 3rd ed. Oxford, England: Blackwell Scientific, 1994.
22
Andersson GBJ ,Svensson HO ,Oden A . The intensity of work recovery in low back pain. Spine 1983;8:880-884
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline23
Carey TS ,Garrett J ,Jackman A , et al. The outcomes and costs of care for acute low back pain among patients seen by primary care practitioners, chiropractors, and orthopedic surgeons. N Engl J Med 1995;333:913-917
Free Full Text | Web of Science | Medline24
Koes BW ,Assendelft WJJ ,van der Heijden GJMG ,Bouter LM ,Knipschild PG . Spinal manipulation and mobilisation for back and neck pain: a blinded review. BMJ 1991;303:1298-1303
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline25
Hadler NM ,Curtis P ,Gillings DB ,Stinnett S . A benefit of spinal manipulation as adjunctive therapy for acute low-back pain: a stratified controlled trial. Spine 1987;12:703-706
CrossRef | Web of Science26
MacDonald RS ,Bell CM . An open controlled assessment of osteopathic manipulation in nonspecific low-back pain. Spine 1990;15:364-370[Erratum, Spine 1991;16:104.]
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline27
Meade TW ,Dyer S ,Browne W ,Townsend J ,Frank AO . Low back pain of mechanical origin: randomised comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient treatment. BMJ 1990;300:1431-1437
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline28
Shekelle PG ,Markovich M ,Louie R . Comparing the costs between provider types of episodes of back pain care. Spine 1995;20:221-226
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline29
Deyo RA . Drug therapy for back pain: which drugs help which patients? Spine 1996;21:2840-2850
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline30
Von Korff M ,Barlow W ,Cherkin D ,Deyo RA . Effects of practice style in managing back pain. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:187-195
Web of Science | Medline31
Palmer BF ,Henrich WL . Systemic complications of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use. Adv Intern Med 1996;41:605-639
Medline32
Gabriel SE ,Wagner JL . Costs and effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: the importance of reducing side effects. Arthritis Care Res 1997;10:56-63
CrossRef | Medline33
Conrad DA ,Deyo RA . Economic decision analysis in the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a methodologic primer. Spine 1994;19:Suppl:2101S-2106S
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline34
Smalley WE ,Griffin MR ,Fought RL ,Ray WA . Excess costs from gastrointestinal disease associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. J Gen Intern Med 1996;11:461-469
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (97)
Citing Articles
1
(2013) Recognising patient-centred care in clinical trials of osteopathy – towards a more pragmatic approach. International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine 16:2, 65-67
2
Wolfgang J. von Heymann, Patrick Schloemer, Juergen Timm, Bernd Muehlbauer. (2013) Spinal High-Velocity Low Amplitude Manipulation in Acute Nonspecific Low Back Pain. Spine 38:7, 540-548
3
Sidney M. Rubinstein, Caroline B. Terwee, Willem J. J. Assendelft, Michiel R. de Boer, Maurits W. van Tulder. (2013) Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Acute Low Back Pain. Spine 38:3, E158-E177
4
Willem JJ Assendelft, Sally C Morton, Emily I Yu, Marika J Suttorp, Paul G Shekelle, Sidney M Rubinstein. Spinal manipulative therapy for low-back pain. In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2013.
5
Luca Vismara, Veronica Cimolin, Francesco Menegoni, Fabio Zaina, Manuela Galli, Stefano Negrini, Valentina Villa, Paolo Capodaglio. (2012) Osteopathic manipulative treatment in obese patients with chronic low back pain: A pilot study. Manual Therapy 17:5, 451-455
6
Helge Franke. (2012) Why reservations remain: A critical reflection about the systematic review and meta-analysis “Osteopathic manipulative treatment for low back pain” by Licciardone et al.. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies 16:4, 411-415
7
Paolo Tozzi. (2012) Selected fascial aspects of osteopathic practice. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies 16:4, 503-519
8
J. Buchmann, U. Arens, G. Harke, U. Smolenski, R. Kayser. (2012) Manualmedizinische Syndrome bei unteren Rückenschmerzen: Teil I. Manuelle Medizin
9
Sidney M Rubinstein, Caroline B Terwee, Willem JJ Assendelft, Michiel R de Boer, Maurits W van Tulder, Sidney M Rubinstein. Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low-back pain. In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2012.
10
A. I. Cuesta-Vargas, N. Adams, J. A. Salazar, A. Belles, S. Hazañas, M. Arroyo-Morales. (2012) Deep water running and general practice in primary care for non-specific low back pain versus general practice alone: randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rheumatology 31:7, 1073-1078
11
Roger Kerry, Aurélien Madouasse, Antony Arthur, Stephen D. Mumford. (2012) Analysis of scientific truth status in controlled rehabilitation trials. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practiceno-no
12
Sidney M. Rubinstein, Caroline B. Terwee, Michiel R. de Boer, Maurits W. van Tulder. (2012) Is the methodological quality of trials on spinal manipulative therapy for low-back pain improving?. International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine 15:2, 37-52
13
Michael Saulino, Adam Schreiber, Thomas Watanabe. (2012) The Appropriateness of Long-term Opioids to Treat Chronic Back Pain. PM&R 4:4, 304-311
14
P. Tozzi, D. Bongiorno, C. Vitturini. (2012) Low back pain and kidney mobility: local osteopathic fascial manipulation decreases pain perception and improves renal mobility. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies
15
Rafael Zegarra-Parodi, Marjolaine Dey, Guillaume Krief. (2012) Traitement ostéopathique de patients souffrant de lombalgies chroniques communes. Douleurs : Evaluation - Diagnostic - Traitement 13:1, 17-24
16
Luis Liu Perez, Jason A. Sneed, David Eland. (2012) Evidence-based osteopathic manipulative treatment for common conditions. Osteopathic Family Physician 4:1, 8-12
17
Jan Van Zundert, Pascal Vanelderen, Maarten van Eerd, Arno Lataster, Craig Hartrick, Nagy Mekhail, Maarten van Kleef. Radiofrequency Rhizotomy for Facet Syndrome. In: Spinal Injections & Peripheral Nerve Blocks. Elsevier, 2012:148-163.
18
Philip Buttaravoli, Stephen M. Leffler. Lumbar Strain, Acute. In: Minor Emergencies. Elsevier, 2012:451-457.
19
Maarten van Kleef, Pascal Vanelderen, Steven P. Cohen, Arno Lataster, Jan Van Zundert, Nagy Mekhail. Pain Originating from the Lumbar Facet Joints. In: Evidence-Based Interventional Pain Medicine. Wiley-Blackwell, 2011:87-95.
20
Christopher K. Wong, Neil Moskovitz, Rico Fabillar. (2011) The effect of strain counterstrain (SCS) on forearm strength compared to sham positioning. International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine 14:3, 86-95
21
K. Ammer. (2011) Weichteilbehandlung bei Tennisellenbogen. Manuelle Medizin 49:4, 267-272
22
Sidney M. Rubinstein, Marienke van Middelkoop, Willem J.J. Assendelft, Michiel R. de Boer, Maurits W. van Tulder. (2011) Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Chronic Low-Back Pain. Spine 36:13, E825-E846
23
Daryl A. Rosenbaum, Mark Rogers, Saunora Prom. (2011) Are We Being Manipulated? Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine in Athletes. Athletic Training & Sports Health Care 3:3, 112-114
24
C Arienti, S Daccò, I Piccolo, T Redaelli. (2011) Osteopathic manipulative treatment is effective on pain control associated to spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 49:4, 515-519
25
Sidney M Rubinstein, Marienke van Middelkoop, Willem JJ Assendelft, Michiel R de Boer, Maurits W van Tulder, Sidney M Rubinstein. Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain. In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2011.
26
Paul Posadzki, Edzard Ernst. (2011) Osteopathy for musculoskeletal pain patients: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Clinical Rheumatology 30:2, 285-291
27
Kevin D. Treffer. Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment of the Chronic Pain Patient. In: Pain Management. Elsevier, 2011:998-1008.
28
Simon Dagenais, Ralph E. Gay, Andrea C. Tricco, Michael D. Freeman, John M. Mayer. (2010) NASS Contemporary Concepts in Spine Care: Spinal manipulation therapy for acute low back pain. The Spine Journal 10:10, 918-940
29
Kenji Serigano, Daisuke Sakai, Akihiko Hiyama, Futoshi Tamura, Masahiro Tanaka, Joji Mochida. (2010) Effect of cell number on mesenchymal stem cell transplantation in a canine disc degeneration model. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 28:10, 1267-1275
30
Maarten Van Kleef, Pascal Vanelderen, Steven P. Cohen, Arno Lataster, Jan Van Zundert, Nagy Mekhail. (2010) 12. Pain Originating from the Lumbar Facet Joints. Pain Practice 10:5, 459-469
31
Raymond Y. Teets, Stephen Dahmer, Emilie Scott. (2010) Integrative Medicine Approach to Chronic Pain. Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice 37:2, 407-421
32
A.M. Cuccia, C. Caradonna, V. Annunziata, D. Caradonna. (2010) Osteopathic manual therapy versus conventional conservative therapy in the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies 14:2, 179-184
33
Kate R. Meltzer, Thanh V. Cao, Joseph F. Schad, Hollis King, Scott T. Stoll, Paul R. Standley. (2010) In vitro modeling of repetitive motion injury and myofascial release. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies 14:2, 162-171
34
Brian E. Earley, Helen Luce. (2010) An Introduction to Clinical Research in Osteopathic Medicine. Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice 37:1, 49-64
35
Kerry H. Levin. Low Back Pain. In: Current Clinical Medicine. Elsevier, 2010:932-936.
36
Scott T. Stoll, Justin McCormick, Brian F. Degenhardt, Marc B. Hahn. (2009) The National Osteopathic Research Center at the University of North Texas Health Science Center: Inception, Growth, and Future. Academic Medicine 84:6, 737-743
37
Oliver Thomson, Lesley Haig, Hazel Mansfield. (2009) The effects of high-velocity low-amplitude thrust manipulation and mobilisation techniques on pressure pain threshold in the lumbar spine. International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine 12:2, 56-62
38
John C. Licciardone, Michael B. Clearfield, V James Guillory. (2009) Clinical Practice Characteristics of Osteopathic and Allopathic Primary Care Physicians at Academic Health Centers: Results From the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Academic Medicine 84:6, 744-750
39
Juan Antonio Díaz Mancha, Cristina Ojedo Martín. (2009) Técnica semidirecta de thrust con kick para lesión de ilíaco anterior izquierdo. Osteopatía Científica 4:2, 61-64
40
May Loo. Chronic Pain. In: Integrative Medicine for Children. Elsevier, 2009:238-244.
41
Rita Strutt, Quentin Shaw, Janine Leach. (2008) Patients’ perceptions and satisfaction with treatment in a UK osteopathic training clinic. Manual Therapy 13:5, 456-467
42
Paul R. Standley, Kate Meltzer. (2008) In vitro modeling of repetitive motion strain and manual medicine treatments: Potential roles for pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies 12:3, 201-203
43
John C. Licciardone. (2008) Educating osteopaths to be researchers – What role should research methods and statistics have in an undergraduate curriculum?. International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine 11:2, 62-68
44
Gert Bronfort, Mitch Haas, Roni Evans, Greg Kawchuk, Simon Dagenais. (2008) Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with spinal manipulation and mobilization. The Spine Journal 8:1, 213-225
45
(2008) CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs. CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs
46
François Ricard. Différentes techniques de traitement ostéopathique. In: Traitement ostéopathique des lombalgies et lombosciatiques par hernie discale. Elsevier, 2008:525-561.
47
Fred H. Geisler. Statistical Outcome Interpretation of Randomized Clinical Trials. In: Motion Preservation Surgery of the Spine. Elsevier, 2008:126-131.
48
Chad M. Brummett, Steven P. Cohen. Facet Joint Pain. In: Raj's Practical Management of Pain. Elsevier, 2008:1003-1037.
49
Neil Cohen, Tyler Childs Cymet, Abner Salas, Jeffrey Meyers. Manual Medicine. In: Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Secrets. Elsevier, 2008:221-225.
50
Steven P. Stanos, James McLean, Lynn Rader. (2007) Physical Medicine Rehabilitation Approach to Pain. Anesthesiology Clinics 25:4, 721-759
51
Kerry H. Levin. (2007) Nonsurgical Interventions for Spine Pain. Neurologic Clinics 25:2, 495-505
52
Steven P. Cohen, Srinivasa N. Raja. (2007) Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Lumbar Zygapophysial (Facet) Joint Pain. Anesthesiology 106:3, 591-614
53
John C. Licciardone. (2007) Responding to the challenge of clinically relevant osteopathic research: Efficacy and beyond. International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine 10:1, 3-7
54
Denise M. Oleske, Mary Morrissey Kwasny, Steven A. Lavender, Gunnar B.J. Andersson. (2007) Participation in Occupational Health Longitudinal Studies: Predictors of Missed Visits and Dropouts. Annals of Epidemiology 17:1, 9-18
55
Steven P. Stanos, James McLean, Lynn Rader. (2007) Physical Medicine Rehabilitation Approach to Pain. Medical Clinics of North America 91:1, 57-95
56
Gira Patel, David Euler, Joseph F. Audette. (2007) Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Noncancer Pain. Medical Clinics of North America 91:1, 141-167
57
Wendy Kohatsu. Low Back Pain. In: Integrative Medicine. Elsevier, 2007:687-696.
58
Jung Yul Park. (2007) Nonsurgical Management of Chronic Low Back Pain. Journal of the Korean Medical Association 50:6, 507
59
Michael A. Seffinger, Raymond J. Hruby. Treatment Procedures Overview. In: Evidence-Based Manual Medicine. Elsevier, 2007:59-70.
60
Michael A. Seffinger, Raymond J. Hruby. Mechanical Low Back Pain. In: Evidence-Based Manual Medicine. Elsevier, 2007:71-128.
61
Philip Buttaravoli. Lumbar Strain, Acute. In: Minor Emergencies. Elsevier, 2007:478-485.
62
Jerrilyn A. Cambron, M. Ram Gudavalli, Donald Hedeker, Marion McGregor, James Jedlicka, Michael Keenum, Alexander J. Ghanayem, Avinash G. Patwardhan, Sylvia E. Furner. (2006) One-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Flexion Distraction with an Exercise Program for Chronic Low-Back Pain. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 12:7, 659-668
63
T. Woodhead. (2006) Evidenz von Manipulationsbehandlungen der Lendenwirbelsäulenregion. Manuelle Medizin 44:2, 79-98
64
Valter Santilli, Ettore Beghi, Stefano Finucci. (2006) Chiropractic manipulation in the treatment of acute back pain and sciatica with disc protrusion: a randomized double-blind clinical trial of active and simulated spinal manipulations. The Spine Journal 6:2, 131-137
65
Eric L. Hurwitz, Hal Morgenstern, Gerald F. Kominski, Fei Yu, Lu-May Chiang. (2006) A Randomized Trial of Chiropractic and Medical Care for Patients With Low Back Pain. Spine 31:6, 611-621
66
G. Egizii, A. Dupeyron, P. Vautravers. (2005) Les manipulations vertébrales : enquête concernant la pratique des médecins formés dans le cadre du diplôme inter-universitaire de Strasbourg. Annales de Réadaptation et de Médecine Physique 48:8, 623-631
67
Jennifer Klaber Moffett, Anne F. Mannion. (2005) What is the value of physical therapies for back pain?. Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology 19:4, 623-638
68
Nissar A. Darmani, Angelo A. Izzo, Brian Degenhardt, Marta Valenti, Giuseppe Scaglione, Raffaele Capasso, Italo Sorrentini, Vincenzo Di Marzo. (2005) Involvement of the cannabimimetic compound, N-palmitoyl-ethanolamine, in inflammatory and neuropathic conditions: Review of the available pre-clinical data, and first human studies. Neuropharmacology 48:8, 1154-1163
69
James N. Dillard, Sharon Knapp. (2005) Complementary and Alternative Pain Therapy in the Emergency Department. Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America 23:2, 529-549
70
Tony Sinay. (2005) Cost structure of osteopathic hospitals and their local counterparts in the USA: Are they any different?. Social Science & Medicine 60:8, 1805-1814
71
Scott T. Stoll, David P. Russo, James W. Atchison. (2004) Physicians' and patients' attitudes toward manual medicine: Implications for continuing medical education. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions 23:1, 13-20
72
Piercarlo Sarzi-Puttini, Fabiola Atzeni, Mario Fumagalli, Franco Capsoni, Mario Carrabba. (2004) Osteoarthritis of the Spine. Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism 34:6, 38-43
73
Mitchell Haas, Elyse Groupp, Dale F. Kraemer. (2004) Dose-response for chiropractic care of chronic low back pain. The Spine Journal 4:5, 574-583
74
Gert Bronfort, Mitchell Haas, Roni L. Evans, Lex M. Bouter. (2004) Efficacy of spinal manipulation and mobilization for low back pain and neck pain: a systematic review and best evidence synthesis. The Spine Journal 4:3, 335-356
75
(2004) Another negative trial of manipulative treatment for back pain. Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies 9:1, 43-44
76
Stover H. Snook. (2004) Work-related low back pain: secondary intervention. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 14:1, 153-160
77
Willem JJ Assendelft, Sally C Morton, Emily I Yu, Marika J Suttorp, Paul G Shekelle, Willem JJ Assendelft. Spinal manipulative therapy for low-back pain. In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2004.
78
P Klein. (2003) Global 3D head–trunk kinematics during cervical spine manipulation at different levels. Clinical Biomechanics 18:9, 827-831
79
Leena Niemistö, Tiina Lahtinen-Suopanki, Pekka Rissanen, Karl-August Lindgren, Seppo Sarna, Heikki Hurri. (2003) A Randomized Trial of Combined Manipulation, Stabilizing Exercises, and Physician Consultation Compared to Physician Consultation Alone for Chronic Low Back Pain. Spine 28:19, 2185-2191
80
Lynton G. F. Giles, Reinhold Muller. (2003) Chronic Spinal Pain. Spine 28:14, 1490-1502
81
John C. Licciardone, Scott T. Stoll, Kimberly G. Fulda, David P. Russo, Jeff Siu, William Winn, Jon Swift. (2003) Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment for Chronic Low Back Pain. Spine 28:13, 1355-1362
82
Edzard Ernst, Peter H. Canter. (2003) Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation Treatment for Back Pain? A Systematic Review of Randomised Clinical Trials. Physical Therapy Reviews 8:2, 85-91
83
Michael L. O'Neal. (2003) The pediatric spine: Anatomical and dynamic considerations preceding manipulation. Comprehensive Therapy 29:2-3, 124-129
84
Steven J. Atlas, Rachel A. Nardin. (2003) Evaluation and treatment of low back pain: An evidence-based approach to clinical care. Muscle & Nerve 27:3, 265-284
85
Richard A. Cooper, Heather J. McKee. (2003) Chiropractic in the United States: Trends and Issues. Milbank Quarterly 81:1, 107-138
86
Olav Frode Aure, Jens Hoel Nilsen, Ottar Vasseljen. (2003) Manual Therapy and Exercise Therapy in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain. Spine 28:6, 525-531
87
Kerry H. Levin. Radiculopathy. In: Encyclopedia of the Neurological Sciences. Elsevier, 2003:109-123.
88
Eric L. Hurwitz, Hal Morgenstern, Philip Harber, Gerald F. Kominski, Thomas R. Belin, Fei Yu, Alan H. Adams. (2002) A Randomized Trial of Medical Care With and Without Physical Therapy and Chiropractic Care With and Without Physical Modalities for Patients With Low Back Pain: 6-Month Follow-Up Outcomes From the UCLA Low Back Pain Study. Spine 27:20, 2193-2204
89
R. P. Hertzman-Miller, H. Morgenstern, E. L. Hurwitz, F. Yu, A. H. Adams, P. Harber, G. F. Kominski. (2002) Comparing the Satisfaction of Low Back Pain Patients Randomized to Receive Medical or Chiropractic Care: Results From the UCLA Low-Back Pain Study. American Journal of Public Health 92:10, 1628-1633
90
Anthony P Phillips, Deirdre M Cobbin. (2001) Examination of the scope and quantity of published osteopathic research (1999 – 2000) identified using the search words osteopath, osteopathy and osteopathic. Journal of Osteopathic Medicine 4:2, 56-61
91
R Lee. (2001) Kinematics of rotational mobilisation of the lumbar spine. Clinical Biomechanics 16:6, 481-488
92
(2001) Low Back Pain. New England Journal of Medicine 344:21, 1644-1645
Free Full Text93
David G. Borenstein. (2001) Epidemiology, etiology, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment of low back pain. Current Opinion in Rheumatology 13:2, 128-134
94
Deyo , Richard A. , Weinstein , James N. , . (2001) Low Back Pain. New England Journal of Medicine 344:5, 363-370
Full Text95
(2000) Essay evokes nostalgia . . . . Ethical concerns about communicators . . . . Looking for leaders . . . . Treatment options needed. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 216:11, 1713-1716
96
(2000) Osteopathic Treatment of Low Back Pain. New England Journal of Medicine 342:11, 817-820
Free Full Text97
Howell , Joel D. , . (1999) The Paradox of Osteopathy. New England Journal of Medicine 341:19, 1465-1468
Full Text
- Letters
