Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Study protocol

Optimizing treatment protocols for spinal manipulative therapy: study protocol for a randomized trial

Authors: Julie M. Fritz, Jason A. Sharpe, Elizabeth Lane, Doug Santillo, Tom Greene, Gregory Kawchuk

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Low back pain is a common and costly condition. Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a treatment supported in some guidelines, although most clinical trials examining SMT report small effect sizes. Enhancing the effects of SMT requires an understanding of underlying mechanisms and a systematic approach to leverage understanding of mechanisms to create more effective treatment protocols that are scalable in clinical practice. Prior work has identified effects on spinal stiffness and lumbar multifidus activation as possible mechanisms. This project represents a refinement phase study within the context of a multi-phase optimization strategy (MOST) framework. Our goal is to identify an optimized SMT treatment protocol by examining the impact of using co-intervention exercise strategies that are proposed to accentuate SMT mechanisms. The optimized protocol can then be evaluated in confirmation phase clinical trials and implementation studies.

Methods

A phased, factorial randomized trial design will be used to evaluate the effects of three intervention components provided in eight combinations on mechanistic (spinal stiffness and multifidus muscle activation) and patient-reported outcomes (pain and disability). All participants will receive two sessions then will be randomly assigned to receive six additional sessions (or no additional treatment) over the next three weeks with factorial combinations of additional SMT and exercise co-interventions (spine mobilizing and multifidus activating). Outcome assessments occur at baseline, and one week, four weeks, and three months after enrollment. Pre-specified analyses will evaluate main effects for treatment components as well as interaction effects.

Discussion

Building on preliminary findings identifying possible mechanisms of effects for SMT, this trial represents the next phase in a multiphase strategy towards the ultimate goal of developing an optimized protocol for providing SMT to patients with LBP. If successful, the results of this trial can be tested in future clinical trials in an effort to produce larger treatment benefits and improve patient-centered outcomes for individuals with LBP.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02868034. Registered on 16 August 2016.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Wyatt M, Underwood MR, Scheel IB, Cassidy JD, Nagel P. Back pain and health policy research: the what, why, how, who, and when. Spine. 2004;29:E468–75.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Licciardone JC. The epidemiology and medical management of low back pain during ambulatory medical care visits in the United States. Osteopath Med Prim Care. 2008;2:11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
4.
Freburger JK, Holmes GM, Agans RP, Jackman AM, Darter JD, Wallace AS, et al. The rising prevalence of chronic low back pain. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:251–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Kao JM, Minh LC, Huang GY, Mitra R, Smuck M. Trends in ambulatory physician opioid prescription in the United States, 1997-2009. PM & R. 2014;6:575–82.CrossRef
6.
Ballantyne JC. Avoiding opioid analgesics for treatment of chronic low back pain. JAMA. 2016;315:2459–60.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Chou R, Deyo R, Friedly J, Skelly A, Hashimoto R, Weimer M, et al. Nonpharmacologic therapies for low back pain: systematic review for an American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:493–505.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, McLean RM, Forciea MA. Noninvasive treatments for acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:514–30.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Andronis L, Kinghorn P, Qiao S, Whitehurst DG, Durrell S, McLeod H. Cost-effectiveness of non-invasive and non-pharmacological interventions for low back pain: a systematic literature review. Applied Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15:173–201.CrossRef
10.
Chou R, Deyo R, Friedly J, Skelly A, Hashimoto R, Weimer M, et al. Noninvasive treatments for low back pain. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 169. (Prepared by the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290–2012-00014-I.). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2016.
11.
Paige NM, Miake-Lye IM, Booth MS, Beroes JM, Mardian AS, Dougherty P, et al. Association of spinal manipulative therapy with clinical benefit and harm for acute low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2017;317:1451–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Rubinstein SM, Terwee CB, Assendelft WJ, de Boer MR, van Tulder MW. Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low back pain: an update of the cochrane review. Spine. 2013;38:E158–77.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Rubinstein SM, van Middelkoop M, Assendelft WJ, de Boer MR, van Tulder MW. Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain: an update of a Cochrane review. Spine. 2011;36:E825–46.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Bronfort G, Haas M, Evans R, Kawchuk G, Dagenais S. Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with spinal manipulation and mobilization. Spine J. 2008;8:213–25.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Bialosky JE, Bishop MD, Price DD, Robinson ME, George SZ. The mechanisms of manual therapy in the treatment of musculoskeletal pain: a comprehensive model. Man Ther. 2009;14:531–8.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Flynn T, Fritz J, Whitman J, Wainner R, Magel J, Rendeiro D, et al. A clinical prediction rule for classifying patients with low back pain who demonstrate short term improvement with spinal manipulation. Spine. 2002;27:2835–43.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Fritz JM, Childs JD, Flynn TW. Pragmatic application of a clinical prediction rule in primary care to identify patients with low back pain likely to respond quickly to spinal manipulation. BMC Fam Pract. 2005;6:29.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
19.
Colloca CJ, Keller TS. Stiffness and neuromuscular reflex response of the human spine to to posteroanterior manipulative thrusts in patients with low back pain. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2001;24:489–500.CrossRef
20.
21.
Cramer GD, Gregerson DM, Knudsen JT, Hubbard BB, Ustas LM, Cantu JA. The effects of side-posture positioning and spinal adjusting on the lumbar Z joints: a randomized controlled trial with sixty-four subjects. Spine. 2002;27:2459–66.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Dishman JD, Greco DS, Burke JR. Motor-evoked potentials recorded from lumbar erector spinae muscles: a study of corticospinal excitability changes associated with spinal manipulation. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2008;31:258–70.CrossRef
23.
Colloca CJ, Keller TS, Harrison DE, Moore RJ, Gunzburg R, Harrison DD. Spinal manipulation force and duration affect vertebral movement and neuromuscular responses. Clin Biomech. 2006;21:254–62.CrossRef
24.
Whittingham W, Nilsson N. Active range of motion in the cervical spine increases after spinal manipulation (toggle recoil). J Manip Physiol Ther. 2001;24:552–5.CrossRef
25.
Gal J, Herzog W, Kawchuk G, Conway PJ, Zhang YT. Movements of vertebrae during manipulative thrusts to unembalmed human cadavers. J Manip Physiol Ther. 1997;20:30–40.
26.
Keller TS, Colloca CJ, Moore RJ, Gunzburg R, Harrison DE, Harrison DD. Three-dimensional vertebral motions produced by mechanical force spinal manipulation. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2006;29:425–36.CrossRef
27.
Vieira-Pellenz F, Oliva-Pascual-Vaca A, Rodriguez-Blanco C, Heredia-Rizo AM, Ricard F, Almazan-Campos G. Short-term effect of spinal manipulation on pain perception, spinal mobility, and full height recovery in male subjects with degenerative disk disease: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95:1613–9.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Colloca CJ, Keller TS. Active trunk extensor contributions to dynamic posteroanterior lumbar spinal stiffness. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2004;27:229–37.CrossRef
29.
Gill NW, Teyhen DS, Lee IE. Improved contraction of the transversus abdominis immediately following spinal manipulation: a case study using real-time ultrasound imaging. Man Ther. 2007;12:280–5.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Dishman JD, Bulbulian R. Spinal reflex attenuation associated with spinal manipulation. Spine. 2000;25:2519–24.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Dishman JD, Burke JR. Spinal reflex excitability changes after cervical and lumbar spinal manipulation: a comparative study. Spine J. 2003;3:204–12.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Tunnell J, Needle EMG. Response of lumbar multifidus to manipulation in the presence of clinical instability. J Man Manipul Ther. 2009;17:E19–24.CrossRef
33.
Fritz JM, Koppenhaver SL, Kawchuk GN, Teyhen DS, Hebert JJ, Childs JD. Preliminary investigation of the mechanisms underlying the effects of manipulation: exploration of a multi-variate model including spinal stiffness, multifidus recruitment, and clinical findings. Spine. 2011;36:1772–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Koppenhaver SL, Fritz JM, Hebert JJ, Kawchuk GN, Parent EC, Gill NW, et al. Association between history and physical examination factors and change in lumbar multifidus muscle thickness after spinal manipulation in patients with low back pain. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2012;22:724–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Wong AY, Parent EC, Dhillon SS, Prasad N, Kawchuk GN. Do participants with low back pain who respond to spinal manipulative therapy differ biomechanically from nonresponders, untreated controls or asymptomatic controls? Spine. 2015;40:1329–37.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Koppenhaver SL, Fritz JM, Hebert JJ, Kawchuk GN, Childs JD, Parent EC, et al. Association between changes in abdominal and lumbar multifidus muscle thickness and clinical improvement after spinal manipulation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011;41(6):389–99.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Haas M, Groupp E, Kraemer DF. Dose-response for chiropractic care of chronic low back pain. Spine J. 2004;4:574–83.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Haas M, Vavrek D, Peterson D, Polissar N, Neradilek MB. Dose-response and efficacy of spinal manipulation for care of chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Spine J. 2014;14:1106–16.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Collins LM, Chakraborty B, Murphy SA, Strecher V. Comparison of a phased experimental approach and a single randomized clinical trial for developing multicomponent behavioral interventions. Clin Trials. 2009;6:5–15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Collins LM, Murphy SA, Nair VN. A strategy for optimizing and evaluating behavioral interventions. Ann Behav Med. 2005;30:65–73.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Collins LM, Murphy SA, Strecher V. The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) and the sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART): new methods for more potent eHealth interventions. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32(5 suppl):S112–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Fritz JM, Hebert J, Koppenhaver S, Parent E. Beyond minimally important change: defining a successful outcome of physical therapy for patients with low back pain. Spine. 2009;34:2803–9.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–81.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Hebert JJ, Koppenhaver SL, Teyhen DS, Walker BF, Fritz JM. The evaluation of lumbar multifidus muscle function via palpation: reliability and validity of a new clinical test. Spine J. 2015;15:1196–202.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Fritz JM, Piva SR. Physical impairment index: reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with acute low back pain. Spine. 2003;28:1189–94.PubMed
46.
Fritz JM, Irrgang JJ. A comparison of a modified Oswestry disability questionnaire and the Quebec back pain disability scale. Phys Ther. 2001;81:776–88.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Jensen MP, Turner JA, Romano JM. What is the maximum number of levels needed in pain intensity measurement? Pain. 1994;58:387–92.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Childs JD, Piva SR, Fritz JM. Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain. Spine. 2005;30:1331–5.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Ostelo RWJG, Deyo RA, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, Von Korff M, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine. 2008;33:90–4.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Grotle M, Foster NE, Dunn KM, Croft P. Are prognostic indicators for poor outcome different for acute and chronic low back pain consulters in primary care? Pain. 2010;151:790–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
51.
Wertli MM, Burgstaller JM, Weiser S, Steurer J, Kofmehl R, Held U. Influence of catastrophizing on treatment outcome in patients with nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review. Spine. 2013;39:263–73.CrossRef
52.
Wertli MM, Rasmussen-Barr E, Held U, Weiser S, Bachmann LM, Brunner F. Fear-avoidance beliefs-a moderator of treatment efficacy in patients with low back pain: a systematic review. Spine J. 2014;14:2658–78.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Marshall PWM, Schabrun S, Knox MF. Physical activity and the mediating effect of fear, depression, anxiety, and catastrophizing on pain related disability in people with chronic low back pain. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0180788.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
54.
Waddell G, Newton M, Henderson I, Somerville D, Main CJ. A Fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability. Pain. 1993;52:157–68.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Sullivan MJ, Bishop SR, Pivik J. The pain catastrophizing scale: development and validation. Psychol Assess. 1995;7:524–32.CrossRef
56.
Caigne B, Vinck E, Beernaert A, Cambier D. How common are side effects of spinal manipulation and can these side effects be predicted? Man Ther. 2004;9:151–6.CrossRef
57.
Brown BT, Blacke A, Carroll V, Graham PL, Kawchuk G, Downie A, et al. The comfort and safety of a novel rolling mechanical indentation device for the measurement of lumbar trunk stiffness in young adults. Chiropract Man Ther. 2017;25:21.CrossRef
58.
Kiesel KB, Uhl TL, Underwood FB, Rodd DW, Nitz AJ. Measurement of lumbar multifidus muscle contraction with rehabilitative ultrasound imaging. Man Ther. 2007;12:161–6.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Childs JD, Fritz JM, Flynn TW, Irrgang JJ, Johnson KK, Majkowski GR, et al. Validation of a clinical prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain likely to benefit from spinal manipulation. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:920–8.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Cleland JA, Fritz JM, Kulig K, Davenport TE, Eberhart S, Magel J, et al. Comparison of the effectiveness of three manual physical therapy techniques in a subgroup of patients with low back pain who satisfy a clinical prediction rule: a randomized clinical trial. Spine. 2009;34:2720–9.CrossRefPubMed
61.
McKenzie RA, May S. The Lumbar Spine: Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy 2 ed. Minneapolis, MN: Orthopedic Physical Therapy Products; 2003.
62.
Elnaggar IM, Nordin M, Sheikhzadeh A, Parnianpour M, Kahanovitz N. Effects of spinal flexion and extension exercises on low-back pain and spinal mobility in chronic mechanical low-back pain patients. Spine. 1991;16:967–72.CrossRefPubMed
63.
Muijic SE, Trebinjac S, Sakota S, Avdic D. The effects of McKenzie and Brunkow exercise program on spinal mobility comparative study. Bosn J Basic Med Sci. 2004;4:62–8.CrossRef
64.
Klipikoski S, Airaksinen O, Kankaanpaa M, Leminen P, Videman T, Alen M. Interexaminer reliability of low back pain assessment using the McKenzie method. Spine. 2002;27:E207–14.CrossRef
65.
Herbert WJ, Heiss DG, Basso M. Influence of feedback schedule in motor performance and learning of a lumbar multifidus muscle task using rehabilitative ultrasound imaging: a randomized clinical trial. Phys Ther. 2008;88:261–9.CrossRefPubMed
66.
Ekstrom RA, Osborn RW, Hauer PL. Surface electromyographic analysis of low back muscles during rehabilitation exercises. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38:736–45.CrossRefPubMed
67.
Kavic N, Grenier S, McGill SM. Quantifying tissue loads and spine stability while performing commonly prescribed low back stabilization exercises. Spine. 2004;29:2319–29.CrossRef
68.
Littell RC, Pendergast J, Natarajan R. Modelling covariance structure in the analysis of repeated measures data. Stat Med. 2000;19:1793–819.CrossRefPubMed
69.
Verbeke G, Molenberghs G. Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2000.
70.
Hsu JC, Nelson B. Multiple comparisons in the general linear model. J Comput Graphical Stat. 1998;7:23–41.
71.
Metadata
Title
Optimizing treatment protocols for spinal manipulative therapy: study protocol for a randomized trial
Authors
Julie M. Fritz
Jason A. Sharpe
Elizabeth Lane
Doug Santillo
Tom Greene
Gregory Kawchuk
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2692-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Trials 1/2018 Go to the issue

Study protocol

ACTonHEALTH study protocol: promoting psychological flexibility with activity tracker and mHealth tools to foster healthful lifestyle for obesity and other chronic health conditions

Study protocol

TISU: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, as first treatment option, compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment, for ureteric stones: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Study protocol

Bias due to MEasurement Reactions In Trials to improve health (MERIT): protocol for research to develop MRC guidance

Study protocol

The effect of remote ischemic preconditioning on serum creatinine in patients undergoing partial nephrectomy: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Improving physical activity, pain and function in patients waiting for hip and knee arthroplasty by combining targeted exercise training with behaviour change counselling: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Research

Choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial – the development of the DELTA2 guidance