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 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Study protocol

Short-term study on risk-benefit outcomes of two spinal manipulative therapies in the treatment of acute radiculopathy caused by lumbar disc herniation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Authors: Lei Han, Ping Zhao, Wei Guo, Jie Wei, Fei Wang, Yu Fan, Yi Li, Yaqing Min

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

That patients with acute radiculopathy caused by lumbar disc herniation (LDH) will benefit from spinal manipulation (SM) treatment has been taken for granted, despite no solid evidence to support that claim. There is a demand for a win-win SM treatment that is both effective and less risky, and we attempt to use this trial to demonstrate such a treatment. In this study, Feng’s Spinal Manipulative Therapy (FSM) is selected as the observational SM. FSM can be performed with either manipulation or mobilization, and also can be easily mimicked as a sham SM.

Methods/Design

Two hundred and sixteen qualified hospitalized participants will be randomly allocated to one of the three following groups: sham SM, mobilization, or manipulation, according to a ratio of 1:1:1. Participants in each group will receive specific FSM treatments four times, along with basic therapies over a course of 2 weeks. Two days after each SM appointment, risk outcomes will be assessed using a questionnaire developed to identify accompanying unpleasant reactions (AUR). The pain pressure threshold (PPT) will be measured paraspinally on the tender spot beside the involved joint before and immediately after each SM treatment. Relative risk (RR) of AUR, number needed to harm (NNH) and the 95% confidence intervals of each group will be calculated and compared. Benefit outcomes will be assessed by analyzing the following data recordings: the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Global Perceived Effect (GPE) before enrollment and at the 7th, and 15th day after the treatment. Analyses will include comparisons of NRS, ODI and changes at the different visit times among the three groups by Repeated Measures Data ANOVA, an evaluation of reduced scores of NRS and ODI after the therapy to determine if they meet the minimum acceptable outcome (MAO), and the determination of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) by the average improvement in NRS and ODI scores of all participants who have been allocated to the category ‘improved’ on the GPE assessment.

Trial registration

This trial is registered in Chinese Clinical Trial Register (ChiCTR) on 19 August 2013 (ChiCTR-TRC-13003496).
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Cherkin DC, Deyo RA, Loeser JD. An international comparison of back surgery rates. Spine. 1994;19:1201–6.CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
Andersson GBJ, Brown MO, Dvorak J. Consensus summary on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Spine. 1996;21(24 SUPPL):75–8.CrossRef
4.
Zhao P, Feng TY. The biomechanical significance of herniated lumbar intervertebral disk: a clinical comparison analysis of 22 multiple and 39 single segments in patients with lumbar intervertebral disk herniation. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1996;19(6):391–7.PubMed
5.
Palmer DD. The chiropractor’s adjuster. Oregon: Portland Printing House Company of Portland; 1910.
6.
Gatterman MI. Foundations of chiropractic: subluxation. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier’s Health Sciences Rights Department; 2005. p. 115–32.
7.
Haldeman S: Principles and practice of chiropractic. 3rd Edition. McGraw-Hill Medical Publishing; 2005. p. 368–70.
8.
Zhao P, Tian Q. The history and principle of spinal manipulation in the treatment of lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. China J Orthop Traumatol. 2009;22:276–8.
9.
Assendelft WJ, Morton SC, Yu EI, Suttorp MJ, Shekelle PG. Spinal manipulative therapy for low-back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;1, CD000447.PubMed
10.
11.
Herzog W, Conway PJ, Kawchuk GN. Forces exerted during spinal manipulative therapy. Spine. 1993;18:1206–12.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Herzog W, Kats M, Symons B. The effective forces transmitted by high-speed, low-amplitude thoracic manipulation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26:2105–10.CrossRef
13.
Tsung BYS, Evans J, Tong P, Lee RYW. Measurement of lumbar spine loads and motions during rotational mobilization. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005;28:238–44.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Snodgrass SJ, Rivett D, Robertson VJ, Stojanovski E. Forces applied to the cervical spine during posteroanterior mobilization. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2009;32:72–83.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Myers CA, Enebo BA, Davidson BS. Optimized prediction of contact force application during side-lying lumbar manipulation. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2012;35:669–77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Cao D-Y, Reed WR, Long CR. Effects of thrust amplitude and duration of high velocity low amplitude spinal manipulation on lumbar muscle spindle responses to vertebral position and movement. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2013;36:68–77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Reed WR, Cao DY, Long CR. Relationship between biomechanical characteristics of spinal manipulation and neural responses in an animal model: effect of linear control of thrust displacement versus force, thrust amplitude, thrust duration, and thrust rate. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013. doi: 10.1155/2013/492039.
18.
Ianuzzi A, Khalsa PS. Comparison of human lumbar facet joint capsule strains during simulated high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation versus physiological motions. Spine J. 2005;5:277–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Cavanaugh JM, Lu Y, Chen C, Kallakuri S. Pain generation in lumbar and cervical facet joints. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(2 SUPPL):63–7.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Bronfort G, Haas M, Evans RL. Efficacy of spinal manipulation and mobilization for low back pain and neck pain: a systematic review and best evidence synthesis. Spine J. 2004;4:335–6.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Leininger B, Bronfort G, Evans R, Reiter T. Spinal manipulation or mobilization for radiculopathy: a systematic review. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2011;22:105–25.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Hu YG, Chen BH. Lumbar disc herniation (fourth edition). Beijing: People’s Medical Publishing House; 2011. p. 370.
23.
Feng TY. Clinical study on the treatment of soft tissue injury with combination of TCM and Western medicine. Beijing: Chinese Science and Technology Press; 2002. p. 110–21.
24.
Zhang W, Guo W, Zhao P, Zhou W, Wei J, Li XD, et al. Therapeutic effects of Chinese osteopathy in patients with lumbar disc herniation. Am J Chin Med. 2013;41:983–94.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Walker BF, Hebert JJ, Stomski NJ. Outcomes of usual chiropractic. The OUCH randomized controlled trial of adverse events. Spine. 2013;38:1723–9.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Oliphant D. Safety of spinal manipulation in the treatment of lumbar disk herniations: a systematic review and risk assessment. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004;27:197–210.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zhao P. Personalized attention on lumbar disc herniation. Beijing: Popular Science Press; 2009. p. 40–5.
28.
Zhao P. Spinal health handbook. Beijing: Popular Science Press; 2010. p. 63–6.
29.
Katz J, Melzack R. Measurement of pain. Surg Clin North Am. 2010;79:231–52.CrossRef
30.
Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW. Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain. 2008;9:105–21.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Childs JS, Piva SR. Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with Low back pain. Spine. 2005;30:1331–4.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Smeets R, Köke A, Lin CW, Ferreira M, Demoulin C. Measures of function in low back pain/disorders. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63:158–73.CrossRef
33.
Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Howard J. Fusion and nonsurgical treatment for symptomatic lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review of oswestry disability index and MOS short form-36 outcomes. Spine J. 2008;8:747–55.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Fritz J, Irrgang J. A comparison of a modified oswestry Low back pain disability questionnaire and the Quebec back pain disability scale. Phys Ther. 2001;81:776–88.PubMed
35.
Kamper SJ, Ostelo RW, Knol DL, Maher CG, De Vet HC, Hancock MJ. Global perceived effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:760–6.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Davidson M, Keating JL. A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther. 2002;82:8–24.PubMed
37.
Ostelo RW, de Vet HC, Knol DL. 24-item Roland-Morris disability questionnaire was preferred out of six functional status questionnaires for post-lumbar disc surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:268–76.CrossRefPubMed
38.
39.
Strauss SE, Glasziou P, Richardson SW, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice & teach EBM. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2011. p. 4.
40.
Carragee EJ, Cheng I. Minimum acceptable outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion. Spine J. 2010;10:313–20.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Lauridsen HH, Jan H, Claus M. Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Bang NL, Ni L, Davis CE. Assessment of blinding in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 2004;25:143–56.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Short-term study on risk-benefit outcomes of two spinal manipulative therapies in the treatment of acute radiculopathy caused by lumbar disc herniation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Authors
Lei Han
Ping Zhao
Wei Guo
Jie Wei
Fei Wang
Yu Fan
Yi Li
Yaqing Min
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0634-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Trials 1/2015 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Core Outcomes in Ventilation Trials (COVenT): protocol for a core outcome set using a Delphi survey with a nested randomised trial and observational cohort study

Study protocol

Self-Harm Intervention: Family Therapy (SHIFT), a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of family therapy versus treatment as usual for young people seen after a second or subsequent episode of self-harm 

Study protocol

Investigating the non-specific effects of BCG vaccination on the innate immune system in Ugandan neonates: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Study protocol

Home-based palliative approach for people with severe multiple sclerosis and their carers: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Multidimensional individualised Physical ACTivity (Mi-PACT) – a technology-enabled intervention to promote physical activity in primary care: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Study protocol

Involuntary reflexive pelvic floor muscle training in addition to standard training versus standard training alone for women with stress urinary incontinence: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial