Abstract Background Low back pain (LBP) is a common musculoskeletal condition and a major cause of disability worldwide. Previous studies have found associations of biomarkers with pain and pain-related disability in LBP patients. This study aimed to explore the association between serum biomarkers and pain and disability in patients with acute or subacute axial LBP. Methods This study was ancillary to a parent randomized controlled trial. Enrolled participants were randomized into three intervention groups: one of two types of spinal manipulation or medical care. In the parent study, 107 adults who experienced a new episode of LBP within 3 months prior to enrollment were recruited. For this study, 90 of these 107 participants consented to have blood samples obtained, which were drawn immediately before the beginning of treatment. Seven biomarkers were chosen based on previous literature and analyzed. Clinical outcomes were pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) evaluated at baseline and 4 weeks. Spearman’s |r| was used to study the association of initial levels of each biomarker with pain and ODI scores at baseline and with changes in outcome scores from baseline to 4 weeks (end of treatment) within each intervention group. Results At baseline, 4 of 7 biomarkers had an association with pain that was |r| ≥ .20: neuropeptide Y (NPY) (r = 0.23, p = .028), E-Selectin (r = 0.22, p = .043), vitamin D ((r = − 0.32, p = .002), and c-reactive protein (CRP) (r = 0.37, p = .001). No baseline biomarker had an association with disability that was |r| ≥ 0.20. For the correlations of baseline biomarkers with 4-week change in outcomes, vitamin D showed a correlation with change in disability and/or pain (|r| ≥ 0.20, p > .05) in manipulation-related groups, while CRP, NPY, and E-selectin along with TNFα, Substance P and RANTES showed at least one correlation with change in pain or disability (|r| ≥ 0.20, p > .05) in at least one of the treatment groups. Conclusions In 90 LBP patients, the analyzed biomarkers, especially vitamin D, represent a small set of potential candidates for further research aimed at individualizing patient care. Overall, the associations investigated in the current study are an initial step in identifying the direct mechanisms of LBP and predicting outcomes of manipulation-related treatments or medical care. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01211613, Date of Registration: September 29, 2010, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01211613?term=schneider&cond=Low+Back+Pain&cntry=US&state=US%3APA&draw=2&rank=1

Objective: The purpose of this preliminary study was to investigate differences between doctors of chiropractic with respect to their preference for the biomedical or biopsychosocial attitude and belief models. Methods: Alumni of the University of Western States doctor of chiropractic program were asked to complete an online survey that included the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists. This scale yields a biomedical score (10-60 scale) and a biopsychosocial score (9-54 scale). These scores are reported for 5 participant characteristics: sex, country of residence (USA vs other), chiropractic program completed (University of Western States vs other), decade of graduation, and years in practice. Secondarily, multiple linear regression was performed to evaluate the independent effects of participant characteristics on the 2 Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists scales. Results: Of 3877 surveys, 233 were included in the analysis (response rate = 4.7%-7.4%). The mean biomedical scale score was 33.9 (standard deviation = 6.5), and the mean biopsychosocial scale score was 32.4 (standard deviation = 4.1). There was little variation in scores across the 5 participant characteristics (P > .05). Cronbach's a for the biomedical scale reached an acceptable level of internal consistency (0.74). In contrast, Cronbach's a for the biopsychosocial scale was 0.40. Conclusion: This preliminary study found that in a sample of chiropractic program alumni of the University of Western States, there were no differences with respect to preference for the biomedical or biopsychosocial attitude and belief models. A better understanding requires a larger study comparing attitudes/beliefs with behavior in practice.

Chiropractic care is a popular alternative for back and neck pain, with efficacy comparable to usual care in randomized trials. However, the effectiveness of chiropractic care as delivered through conventional care settings remains largely unexplored. To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of usual care with or without chiropractic care for patients with chronic recurrent musculoskeletal back and neck pain. Prospective cohort study using propensity score-matched controls. Using retrospective electronic health record data, we developed a propensity score model predicting likelihood of chiropractic referral. Eligible patients with back or neck pain were then contacted upon referral for chiropractic care and enrolled in a prospective study. For each referred patient, two propensity score-matched non-referred patients were contacted and enrolled. We followed the participants prospectively for 6 months. Main outcomes included pain severity, interference, and symptom bothersomeness. Secondary outcomes included expenditures for pain-related health care. Both groups' (N = 70 referred, 139 non-referred) pain scores improved significantly over the first 3 months, with less change between months 3 and 6. No significant between-group difference was observed. (severity - 0.10 (95% CI - 0.30, 0.10), interference - 0.07 (- 0.31, 0.16), bothersomeness - 0.1 (- 0.39, 0.19)). After controlling for variances in baseline costs, total costs during the 6-month post-enrollment follow-up were significantly higher on average in the non-referred versus referred group ($1996 [SD = 3874] vs $1086 [SD = 1212], p = .034). Adjusting for differences in age, gender, and Charlson comorbidity index attenuated this finding, which was no longer statistically significant (p = .072). We found no statistically significant difference between the two groups in either patient-reported or economic outcomes. As clinical outcomes were similar, and the provision of chiropractic care did not increase costs, making chiropractic services available provided an additional viable option for patients who prefer this type of care, at no additional expense.

Study ObjectivesBack and neck pain are persistent and associated with disability and loss of independence in older adults.Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and supervised rehabilitative exercise (SRE) are both recommended treatments for spine pain in adults, often in combination with one another.It is unknown whether long-term management with these therapies is superior to shorter-term treatment.This study compares the effectiveness of short-term treatment (12 weeks) versus long-term management (36 weeks) of back and neck related disability in older adults using SMT combined with SRE. Methods and MaterialThis randomized clinical trial was approved by an Institutional Review Board and conducted at a private healthcare university.Participants were 65 years of age and older, community dwelling, and selfreported both back and neck disability >12 weeks in duration.Individuals were randomly assigned to receive either 12 or 36 weeks of SMT + SRE.Co-primary outcomes were changes in Oswestry and Neck Disability Index after 36 weeks.Secondary outcomes included self-reported pain, improvement, medication use, self-efficacy, and quality of life at weeks 4, 12, 24, 36, 52 and 78.Change in objective functional measures from baseline were measured post-intervention.Linear mixed models were used to compare between group differences in an intention to treat analysis Results 182 individuals participated (91 to each group).Both the short-term and long-term groups demonstrated significant improvements in back (-3.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.8 to -2.0 versus -6.3, 95% CI -8.2 to -4.4) and neck disability (-7.3, 95% CI -9.1 to -5.5 versus -9.0, 95% CI = -10.8 to -7.2) after 36 weeks, with no difference between groups (back 2.4, 95% CI -0.3 to 5.1; neck 1.7, 95% CI -0.8 to 4.2).The long-term management group experienced greater improvement in neck pain at week 36, self-efficacy at week 36 and 52, functional ability and balance.On average, the short-term group attended 10 SMT and 4 SRE sessions; the long-term group attended 19 SMT and 9 SRE sessions. ConclusionFor older adults with chronic back and neck disability, extending management with SMT + SRE from 12 to 36 weeks did not result in

Low back pain (LBP) is common in adolescence, but there is a paucity of high-quality research to inform care. We conducted a multicenter randomized trial comparing 12 weeks of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) combined with exercise therapy (ET) to ET alone. Participants were 185 adolescents aged 12 to 18 years with chronic LBP. The primary outcome was LBP severity at 12, 26, and 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes included disability, quality of life, medication use, patient- and caregiver-rated improvement, and satisfaction. Outcomes were analyzed using longitudinal linear mixed effect models. An omnibus test assessing differences in individual outcomes over the entire year controlled for multiplicity. Of the 185 enrolled patients, 179 (97%) provided data at 12 weeks and 174 (94%) at 26 and 52 weeks. Adding SMT to ET resulted in a larger reduction in LBP severity over the course of 1 year (P = 0.007). The group difference in LBP severity (0-10 scale) was small at the end of treatment (mean difference = 0.5; P = 0.08) but was larger at weeks 26 (mean difference = 1.1; P = 0.001) and 52 (mean difference = 0.8; P = 0.009). At 26 weeks, SMT with ET performed better than ET alone for disability (P = 0.04) and improvement (P = 0.02). The SMT with ET group reported significantly greater satisfaction with care at all time points (P ≤ 0.02). There were no serious treatment-related adverse events. For adolescents with chronic LBP, spinal manipulation combined with exercise was more effective than exercise alone over a 1-year period, with the largest differences occurring at 6 months. These findings warrant replication and evaluation of cost effectiveness.

Cervicogenic headache is a prevalent and costly pain condition commonly treated by chiropractors. There is evidence to support the effectiveness for spinal manipulation, but the dose of treatment required to achieve maximal relief remains unknown. The purpose of this paper is to describe the methodology for a randomized controlled trial evaluating the dose–response of spinal manipulation for chronic cervicogenic headache in an adult population.

Having read the commentary by Oakley, Cuttler, and Harrison (X-Ray Imaging is Essential for Contemporary Chiropractic and Manual Therapy Spinal Rehabilitation: Radiography Increases Benefits and Reduces Risks. Dose Response. 2018 Jun 19;16[2]), we write to express our collective concern and alarm about the authors’ key messages. Timely imaging in musculoskeletal health care is indicated by many clinical practice guidelines when clinical findings indicate suspected pathology (eg, fracture) or when surgery is being considered. What is not supported by any evidencebased clinical guideline is the contrary view presented by the authors to “encourage routine use of radiography in manual spine therapy” and their assertion that “Radiographic imaging is necessary to deliver acceptable patient care in the practice of contemporary manual therapy of the spine.” We emphatically refute this perspective as unsupported by evidence and careless. Specifically, we offer the following counterpoints. At the present time, we know of no reputable clinical practice guideline that suggests radiological imaging is a routine requirement for effective treatment of back pain. In fact, the opposite is often the case; when imaging is performed, there is evidence that it does not improve patient outcomes but can result in undesirable and unintended effects. While guidelines may not include more recent evidence due to a lag in time for their creation, we also know of no high-quality clinical trials that would contradict current guideline recommendations about imaging. Similarly, we do not know of high-quality evidence to suggest that regular imaging is needed to improve the safety of manual therapy in general or spinal manipulative therapy in particular. This supports the observation that in the many jurisdictions where imaging is not directly available to manual therapists, neither safety nor effectiveness is compromised. Finally, the authors state that “Rather than increasing risk, such exposures (from ionizing imaging) would likely stimulate the patient’s own protection systems and result in beneficial health effects.” While knowledge in topics such as radiation exposure modeling and radiation hormesis continually evolve, there are no large-scale studies that would justify the application of this principle in clinical practice today. To suggest otherwise at this time is professionally irresponsible. Given the above, we request that the editors of DoseResponse retract the commentary in question immediately.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate correlative factors affecting chronic low back pain (CLBP), with special emphasis on the radiographic postural findings in the sagittal lumbosacral spine. Methods: A cross-sectional study alongside a randomized trial was conducted. Standing lateral lumbar spine radiographs from 352 patients with CLBP enrolled in a randomized trial were analyzed and radiographic mensuration of lumbar lordosis, lumbosacral disc angle, and sacral inclination performed. These angles were correlated with baseline variables, including CLBP intensity, age, and sex. Multiple polynomial regressions were performed in which CLBP intensity was regressed on linear and quadratic terms of lumbar lordosis to investigate the possibility of greater pain with hypo-and/or hyperlordosis. Results: There was no significant correlation of the angles with pain and age (r <= 0.09, P > .05). Weak but statistically significant correlation was identified between all 3 measurements and sex (r = -0.12 to 0.21, P > .05). Greater pain was not noted for hypo-and hyperlordosis; regression coefficients for the linear and quadratic effects were approximately 0 (P > .05). Conclusion: This study determined that there was no correlation between lumbar lordosis and pain levels for people with CLBP; thus, use of lumbar spine radiographic mensuration in the management of pain for people with CLBP is not recommended.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To quantify and compare the short- and long-term effects of manual treatment and spinal rehabilitative exercise for cervicogenic headache, classified according to the International Headache Society's (IHS) diagnostic criteria, with an active or placebo/sham comparison or wait-list control.

We wish to thank the author of the articulate and well-referenced letter to the editor. We certainly agree that there are many other commonly used nonthrust types of manipulation procedures, such as flexion-distraction and instrument-assisted techniques. Nonthrust techniques may, indeed, be viable and alternative options to thrust manipulation procedures. Any decision concerning patient treatment must be informed by evidence, clinician experience, and/or patient preference to achieve the optimal outcome. Response to “Best Practices for Chiropractic Care for Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Consensus Update”Journal of Manipulative & Physiological TherapeuticsVol. 40Issue 7PreviewHawk et al.1 reported a Delphi study on the effectiveness or efficacy of spinal manipulation thearpy (SMT) in persons over age 65 years and the adverse events associated with chiropractic care, including SMT. Complementing this study is a review by Nielsen et al.,2 who identified 118 studies on the adverse and serious adverse events associated with SMT; 54 (46%) reported that it is safe, 15 (13%) reported that it is harmful, and 49 (42%) were neutral or unclear. Nielsen et al. stated that it is currently not possible to provide an overall conclusion about the safety of SMT; however, the types of serious adverse events reported can, indeed, be significant, indicating that some risk is present. Full-Text PDF

Objective: The purpose of this study was to update evidence-based recommendations on the best practices for chiropractic care of older adults.Methods: The project consisted of a systematic literature review and a consensus process. The following were searched from October 2009 through January 2016: MEDLINE, Index to Chiropractic Literature, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), Alt HealthWatch, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials. Search terms were: (manipulation, spinal OR manipulation, chiropractic OR chiropract*) AND (geriatric OR "older adult*"). Two reviewers independently screened articles and abstracts using inclusion and exclusion criteria. The systematic review informed the project steering committee, which revised the previous recommendations. A multidisciplinary panel of experts representing expertise in practice, research, and teaching in a variety of health professions serving older adults rated the revised recommendations. The RAND Corporation/University of California, Los Angeles methodology for a modified Delphi consensus process was used.Results: A total of 199 articles were found; after exclusion criteria were applied, 6 articles about effectiveness or efficacy and 6 on safety were added. The Delphi process was conducted from April to June 2016. Of the 37 Delphi panelists, 31 were DCs and 6 were other health care professionals. Three Delphi rounds were conducted to reach consensus on all 45 statements. As a result, statements regarding the safety of manipulation were strengthened and additional statements were added recommending that DCs advise patients on exercise and that manipulation and mobilization contribute to general positive outcomes beyond pain reduction only.Conclusions: This document provides a summary of evidence-informed best practices for doctors of chiropractic for the evaluation, management, and manual treatment of older adult patients.

I1 World Congress for Integrative Medicine & Health 2017 - A global forum for exploring the future of comprehensive patient care Benno Brinkhaus1, Torkel Falkenberg2,3, Aviad Haramati4,5, and Stefan N. Willich1 1Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charite – Universitatsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany; 2Department of Neurobiology Care Sciences and Society, Division of Nursing, Research Group Integrative Care, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; 3I C – The Integrative Care Science Center, Jarna, Sweden; 4Department of Biochemistry, Molecular and Cellular Biology, Georgetown University, Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA; 5Department of Medicine, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA We are excited to present the abstracts of the keynote speakers, parallel sessions and oral and poster presentations of the World Congress on Integrative Medicine & Health (WCIMH 2017; http://www.ecim-iccmr.org/2017/) to be held in Berlin on May 3-5, 2017, which will be jointly convened by the European Society of Integrative Medicine (ESIM) and the International Society for Complementary Medicine Research (ISCMR). The Congress will take place in association with a number of national and international organizations from North America and other continents. Consequently, the congress will provide the most comprehensive global forum and perspective in the field of Complementary and Integrative Medicine in 2017. The congress goal is reflected in its tag line: The Future of Comprehensive Patient Care - Strengthening the Alliance of Researchers, Educators and Providers. We believe that by bringing together researchers, educators and providers, who are addressing various aspects of Integrative Medicine and health, we can build on the evidence obtained through research to inform clinical education and practice and thereby create a better platform for comprehensive patient care. The main themes of the Congress are: Clinical care: The practice of Integrative Medicine should be based on distinct definitions, should be informed by evidence and evolve from guidelines that are developed by experts from conventional and complementary medicine. Education: Academic leaders and health officials have called for future clinicians to possess the knowledge and skills to understand how Integrative Medicine can be incorporated into conventional care to improve the health of the public. Therefore, it is essential to share best practices in how to create robust curricular opportunities for medical students to experience systematic teaching of the principles, strengths and limitations of Integrative Medicine. Research: Within this Congress scientists will showcase the highest quality research worldwide in this field and will provide the state-of-the-science evidence base through plenary lectures, symposia and abstract presentations. Traditional healing systems (THS): Traditional healing practices and practitioners are an important and often underestimated part of health care. THS is found in almost every country in the world and the demand for its services is increasing. Research contributing to evidence informed decision making is imperative to develop a cohesive and integrative approach to health care that allows governments, health care practitioners and, most importantly, those who use health care services, to access THS in a safe, respectful, cost-efficient and effective manner. Arts and medicine: For the first time at a research congress, this theme will explore the important contributions of the arts (music, visual arts, dancing, etc,) for integrative therapeutic interventions to achieve optimal health and healing. Given the ambitious scope of this worldwide international congress, the four authors of the present editorial serve as co-presidents and they are guided by the International Organizing Committee consisting of many experts from around the world including Myeong S. Lee, Jianping Liu, Kenji Watanabe (from Far East Asia), Renee Street (Africa), Amie. Steel (Australia), Paulo Arturo Caceres Guido, Chin An Lin (South America), Heather Boon, Josephine Briggs, John Weeks (North America) and Abdullah Al-Bedah, Mohamed Khalil, Elad Schiff (Middle East and Israel). The programming for each of the five themes is directed by WCIMH 2017 theme subcommittees involving some of the most highly regarded clinicians, educators and researchers in the world in this field (in alphabetic order): Linda Balneaves, Lesley Braun, Eva Bojner Horwitz, Gustav Dobos, Jeffery Dusik, David Eisenberg, Iva Fattorini, Eckhart G. Hahn, Suzanne B. Hanser, Frederick Hecht, George Lewith, Harald Matthes, Andreas Michalsen, Judy Rollins, Volker Scheid, Michael Teut, Robert Saper, Claudia M. Witt, Merlin Wilcox and Darong Wu. The Local Organizing Board is coordinated by M. Cree. We are very grateful to all organisations and individuals working diligently to making this first World Congress for Integrative Medicine & Health in 2017 a great success. We are also pleased to announce that the opening welcome will include the Director General for the World Health Organization, Dr Margaret Chan (on video). All plenary speakers are internationally recognized experts in the field of Complementary and Integrative Medicine such as Josephine B Briggs (US) and Merlin Willcox (UK) as keynote speakers for the theme traditional healing systems; Klaus Linde (Ger) and Michael Moore (UK) for the research theme; Lisa M Wong (US) and Tores Theorell (Sweden) will address the theme of arts and medicine; Darong Wu (China) and Jeffery A Dusek (US) are presenting on the theme of clinical care; and Aviad Haramati and David Eisenberg (both US) will close the Congress with presentations on education. In addition, more than 100 oral presentations in over 40 parallel sessions will be in the program to provide newly emerging data from recent research projects, experiences from new treatment aspects in clinical care, descriptions of new models of education in medicine, information about integration of traditional healing systems in health care systems and new aspects on the integration of arts in medicine. In addition, more than 400 posters will be presented in guided poster sessions during the three days of the Congress. To translate the congress goals and objectives into a tangible action for the field, a Berlin Agreement is being developed. With the title ‘Social and Self-responsibility in practicing and fostering Integrate Health and Medicine Globally,’ this document is meant to help shape the future of comprehensive patient care in Integrative Medicine, and addresses the responsibilities of all participants, including patients and citizens, physicians and all colleagues working in the healthcare system. The Berlin Agreement has been developed by the WCIMH 2017 congress presidents and the International Organizing Committee to create a document for further distribution to the scientific and clinical community and to health care stakeholders, decision makers, and politicians. We anticipate having the final version of the Berlin Agreement endorsed by a number of organizations prior to the Congress and also soliciting the support of congress at the WCIMH 2017 in Berlin. Our hope is that this document will provide an important impetus for further engagement world-wide after the Congress has concluded. Immediately before the start of WCIMH 2017 on Wednesday May 3rd 2017 there will be several high-quality pre-conference workshops covering all congress topics. Reflecting the political situation in recent years, especially in Europe, we have arranged for a unique half-day workshop on the topic: “Refugees with Chronic Diseases between the Middle-East and Europe: The Role of Traditional and Integrative Medicine in Bridging Gaps”, The speakers are all from the Middle East and Europe and will address how Integrative Medicine may serve as an important element to overcome the problematic health situation of refugees around the world. We are convinced that the field of Complementary and Integrative Medicine, including traditional healing systems and medicine and the arts, will benefit from The 2017 World Congress on Integrative Medicine & Health—a preeminent scientific international forum that is focused on highlighting advances in these thematic areas. We invite all practitioners, educators and researchers in the field of Integrative Medicine to come together, participate and engage together to make this Congress an exciting meeting for the successful advancement of Integrative Medicine across the globe.

Study Design Cross-sectional. Background Although low back pain (LBP) occurs commonly in adolescence, little is known about the relationship between objectively measured physical activity and chronic LBP. Objectives To assess the relationship between an objective physical activity measure (accelerometer) and standard clinical measures (pain intensity, disability, and quality of life) in a sample of adolescents with recurrent or chronic LBP. Methods The study included a subsample of 143 adolescents, 12 to 18 years of age, from a randomized clinical trial. Pearson correlations (r) and bivariate linear regression were used to assess the relationship between baseline measures of sedentary, light, and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity using accelerometers and clinical measures of LBP (pain intensity, disability, and quality of life). Results Participants spent an average of 610.5 minutes in sedentary activity, 97.6 minutes in light physical activity, and 35.6 minutes in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per day. Physical activity was very weakly associated with clinical measures of LBP (r<0.13). None of the assessed correlations were statistically significant, and bivariate regression models showed that physical activity measures explained very little of the variability for clinical measures of LBP (R2<0.02). Conclusion We found no important relationship between objectively measured physical activity and self-reported LBP intensity, disability, or quality of life in adolescents with recurrent or chronic LBP. The parent randomized clinical trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01096628). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(10):769–774. Epub 12 Sep 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7345

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of performing a larger study to determine if training in diaphragmatic breathing influences static and dynamic balance. METHODS:A group of 13 healthy persons (8 men, 5 women), who were staff, faculty, or students at the University of Western States participated in an 8-week breathing and balance study using an uncontrolled clinical trial design. Participants were given a series of breathing exercises to perform weekly in the clinic and at home. Balance and breathing were assessed at the weekly clinic sessions. Breathing was evaluated with Liebenson's breathing assessment, static balance with the Modified Balance Error Scoring System, and dynamic balance with OptoGait's March in Place protocol. RESULTS:Improvement was noted in mean diaphragmatic breathing scores (1.3 to 2.6, P < .001), number of single-leg stance balance errors (7.1 to 3.8, P = .001), and tandem stance balance errors (3.2 to 0.9, P = .039). A decreasing error rate in single-leg stance was associated with improvement in breathing score within participants over the 8 weeks of the study (-1.4 errors/unit breathing score change, P < .001). Tandem stance performance did not reach statistical significance (-0.5 error/unit change, P = .118). Dynamic balance was insensitive to balance change, being error free for all participants throughout the study. CONCLUSION:This proof-of-concept study indicated that promotion of a costal-diaphragmatic breathing pattern may be associated with improvement in balance and suggests that a study of this phenomenon using an experimental design is feasible.

BACKGROUND:For patients and health care providers who are considering spinal manipulative therapy of the neck, it is crucial to establish if it is a trigger for cervical artery dissection and/or stroke, and if it is, the magnitude of the risk.DISCUSSION:We discuss the biological plausibility of how neck manipulation could cause cervical artery dissection. We also discuss how case misclassification threatens the validity of influential published studies that have investigated the relationship between neck manipulation and dissection. Our position is supported by the fact that the largest epidemiologic studies of neck manipulation safety with respect to neurological outcomes have relied on International Classification of Diseases-9 codes for case identification. However, the application of these codes in prior studies failed to identify dissections (rather than strokes in general) and so conclusions from those studies are invalid.CONCLUSION:There are several methodological challenges to understanding the association between neck manipulation and vertebral artery dissection. Addressing these issues is critical because even a modest association between neck manipulation and cervical artery dissection could translate into a significant number of avoidable dissections given the widespread use of neck manipulation by providers from various backgrounds. We believe that valid case classification, accurate measurement of manipulative procedures, and addressing reverse causation bias should be top priorities for future research.

Online education programs are becoming a popular means to disseminate knowledge about evidence-based practice (EBP) among healthcare practitioners. This mode of delivery also offers a viable and potentially sustainable solution for teaching consistent EBP content to learners over time and across multiple geographical locations. We conducted a study with 3 main aims: 1) develop an online distance-learning program about the principles of evidence-based practice (EBP) for chiropractic providers; 2) test the effectiveness of the online program on the attitudes, skills, and use of EBP in a sample of chiropractors; and 3) determine the feasibility of expanding the program for broader-scale implementation. This study was conducted from January 2013 to September 2014.

No previous studies have created and validated prediction models for outcomes in patients receiving spinal manipulation for care of chronic low back pain (cLBP). We therefore conducted a secondary analysis alongside a dose-response, randomized controlled trial of spinal manipulation.

Evidence based practice (EBP) is being increasingly utilized by health care professionals as a means of improving the quality of health care. The introduction of EBP principles into the chiropractic profession is a relatively recent phenomenon. There is currently a lack of information about the EBP literacy level of US chiropractors and the barriers/facilitators to the use of EBP in the chiropractic profession.

At July 2017, this protocol has been withdrawn. It was part of a series of three reviews (intended to update and replace the original review (Bronfort 2014)), but was not able to be completed within the available editorial resource.

Study Design. Randomized controlled trial with follow-up to 6 months.Objective. This was a comparative effectiveness trial of manual-thrust manipulation (MTM) versus mechanical-assisted manipulation (MAM); and manipulation versus usual medical care (UMC).Summary of Background Data. Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common conditions seen in primary care and physical medicine practice. MTM is a common treatment for LBP. Claims that MAM is an effective alternative to MTM have yet to be substantiated. There is also question about the effectiveness of manipulation in acute and subacute LBP compared with UMC.Methods. A total of 107 adults with onset of LBP within the past 12 weeks were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: MTM, MAM, or UMC. Outcome measures included the Oswestry LBP Disability Index (0-100 scale) and numeric pain rating (0-10 scale). Participants in the manipulation groups were treated twice weekly during 4 weeks; subjects in UMC were seen for 3 visits during this time. Outcome measures were captured at baseline, 4 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months.Results. Linear regression showed a statistically significant advantage of MTM at 4 weeks compared with MAM (disability = -8.1, P = 0.009; pain = -1.4, P = 0.002) and UMC (disability = -6.5, P = 0.032; pain = -1.7, P < 0.001). Responder analysis, defined as 30% and 50% reductions in Oswestry LBP Disability Index scores revealed a significantly greater proportion of responders at 4 weeks in MTM (76%; 50%) compared with MAM (50%; 16%) and UMC (48%; 39%). Similar between-group results were found for pain: MTM (94%; 76%); MAM (69%; 47%); and UMC (56%; 41%). No statistically significant group differences were found between MAM and UMC, and for any comparison at 3 or 6 months.Conclusion. MTM provides greater short-term reductions in self-reported disability and pain scores compared with UMC or MAM.