Background Pain drawing (PD) body charts are widely used in back pain research, but the representation of sex in these charts has not been systematically evaluated. Objective This study aims to evaluate sex representation in PD body charts used in back pain research, assess the perception of a newly designed sex-neutral body chart, and explore user preferences for sex representation in PD body charts. Methods We conducted a multimethod study comprising: (1) a scoping review to assess sex representation and the reporting of sex in PD body charts in back pain literature, (2) an expert opinion study where anatomy experts evaluated the perceived sex of extracted body charts, and (3) a survey among a representative sample of UK adults with and without back pain to assess the perception of a newly designed sex-neutral body chart and explore preferences for sex representation in PD body charts. Results From 349 full-text papers, 108 articles met the inclusion criteria. Most (103/108, 95.4%) did not report the sex of the body charts used, and only 5.6% (6/108) included both male and female charts. Experts showed fair to moderate agreement (Fleiss κ=0.306; Gwet AC1=0.456) in assessing the sex of charts, with most charts assessed as male based on majority ratings (59/108, 54.6%) and classified as male-biased relative to the sex distribution of study participants (76/108, 67.7%). The newly designed sex-neutral body chart was perceived as sex-neutral by 68.5% (204/298) of survey participants across diverse groups. However, perceptions varied by racial group: 73% (181/248) of White participants viewed it as sex-neutral, compared to 42.5% (17/40) of participants from smaller racial groups (χ²2=15.9; P=.001). Female participants slightly preferred female charts (85/154, 55.2%); male participants preferred sex-neutral ones (88/144, 61.1%). Nonetheless, most female participants (82/154, 53.3%) and male participants (107/144, 74.3%) considered the option to choose between male, female, and sex-neutral chart versions unimportant. Conclusions Our study reveals reporting gaps and a predominant male bias in the representation of sex in PD body charts used in back pain research. The newly developed sex-neutral body chart was widely perceived as sex-neutral, offering a promising step toward more inclusive pain assessment. However, variations in perception across racial groups highlight the need for cultural considerations in design. These findings underscore the potential of sex-neutral and culturally sensitive body charts to enhance the inclusivity and equity of back pain research and clinical practice.

The Chiropractic Academy for Research Leadership (CARL) was formed in 2016 as a global mentorship program for early career researchers in chiropractic. CARL is a three-year program anchored around three week-long residentials, alternating between Denmark, Australia, and Canada, with ongoing online activities and project work between residentials. This paper reports on activities and outputs of the second cohort of CARL Fellows, CARL II, that ran from 2020 to 2024. Despite disruptions from the global COVID pandemic, the CARL II cohort was successful in forming a tightly knit group of fourteen early career researchers from seven countries in Australia, Europe, and North America. CARL Fellows co-produced a range of research and leadership outputs, including 70 peer-reviewed manuscripts, and hosted two online conferences (CARLoquium) to support global research engagement during the pandemic. With the completion of the second cohort and recruitment of the third cohort completed, all underwritten by global financial support from chiropractic organizations, CARL is established as a global program building research capacity and academic critical mass in chiropractic.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) application procedures (ie, target, thrust, and region) impacted changes in pain and disability for adults with spine pain. DESIGN: Systematic review with network meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched PubMed and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews indexed up to February 2022 and conducted a systematic search of 5 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL [Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials], PEDro [Physiotherapy Evidence Database], and Index to Chiropractic Literature) from January 1, 2018, to September 12, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from recent systematic reviews and newly identified RCTs published during the review process and employed artificial intelligence to identify potentially relevant articles not retrieved through our electronic database searches. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of the effects of high-velocity, low-amplitude SMT, compared to other SMT approaches, interventions, or controls, in adults with spine pain. DATA SYNTHESIS: The outcomes were spinal pain intensity and disability measured at short-term (end of treatment) and long-term (closest to 12 months) follow-ups. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using version 2 of the Cochrane RoB tool. Results were presented as network plots, evidence rankings, and league tables. RESULTS: We included 161 RCTs (11 849 participants). Most SMT procedures were equal to clinical guideline interventions and were slightly more effective than other treatments. When comparing inter-SMT procedures, effects were small and not clinically relevant. A general and nonspecific rather than a specific and targeted SMT approach had the highest probability of achieving the largest effects. Results were based on very low- to low-certainty evidence, mainly downgraded owing to large within-study heterogeneity, high RoB, and an absence of direct comparisons. CONCLUSION: There was low-certainty evidence that clinicians could apply SMT according to their preferences and the patients' preferences and comfort. Differences between SMT approaches appear small and likely not clinically relevant. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2025;55(2):1-14. Epub 7 January 2025. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2025.12707.

BACKGROUND:Spinal manipulative therapy uses high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) thrusts which are clinically effective, but underlying mechanisms are still unknown. OBJECTIVE:To summarize the evidence for biomechanical effects of HVLA thrusts in asymptomatic and symptomatic humans as well as for a possible link between biomechanical effects and clinical effectiveness. STUDY DESIGN:Systematic review of randomized controlled trials. METHODS:An information specialist conducted systematic literature searches in six databases [Medline (OvidSP), Premedline (PubMed), CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Biosis]. Studies were selected by two authors and classified using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). Results were qualitatively summarized per biomechanical output [range of motion (ROM) according to the spinal region where HVLA thrusts were applied, facet joint gapping, and spinal stiffness]. RESULTS:The thirty-three included studies were heterogeneous regarding participant characteristics, intervention frequency and outcomes. Twenty-seven studies reported on the effects of HVLA thrusts on spinal ROM. There is evidence increased cervical ROM following cervical HVLA thrusts on cervical ROM [9/15 studies with a positive treatment effect (5 low risk of bias/4 some concern) and increased cervical ROM following thoracic HVLA thrusts [8/8 studies (4 low risk of bias/4 some concern)]. The effects of a thoracic and lumbar HVLA thrusts on the respective ROM were less clear. Three (2 low risk/1 some concern) studies on facet joint gapping showed increased gapping following HVLA thrusts compared to side-posture positioning, and a single study (some concern) on spinal stiffness showed no effect of HVLA thrusts. Only one study (some concern) linked the biomechanical to clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION:HVLA thrusts, either applied to the cervical or the thoracic spine, appear to increase cervical ROM, based on studies with low risk and studies with some concern regarding risk of bias. For all other outcomes, the included studies were too heterogeneous and too few to draw any sound conclusion. Future studies on the biomechanical effects of HVLA thrusts should link the biomechanical to clinical outcomes such as pain and disability. PROSPERO REGISTRATION:CRD42018096963.

BACKGROUND:Reliable reporting and publication practices are essential for trustworthy evidence synthesis and clinical decision-making. OBJECTIVE:We aimed to identify latent classes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) based on trial reporting and publication practices, and to examine whether these classes influenced treatment effects. DESIGN:Meta-epidemiological study. METHOD:Trials were evaluated on whether they met criteria for trial reporting and publication practices across six domains. Latent class analysis was used to identify trial subgroups. Random-effects meta-regression models assessed whether class membership predicted pooled estimates of treatment effects for pain and disability. RESULTS:We included 239 RCTs and identified four classes: Dated (23 %), older trials (mostly pre-2010) with consistently low proportions of criteria met; Non-contributing (30 %), newer trials that inconsistently met the criteria, had small samples, and short follow-ups; SMT-focused (15 %), which reported SMT details and fidelity more consistently but otherwise resembled the Non-contributing class; and Pragmatic (33 %), consisting of larger trials, meeting most criteria, but often underreported SMT-specific and fidelity details. Reporting practices had larger impact on class membership than publication practices. Despite differences class membership was not associated with treatment effect estimates and explained minimal outcome variability (R2 ∼1 %). CONCLUSIONS:Although trial reporting and publication practices varied substantially across SMT trials, these differences were not associated with differences in treatment effects. The widespread failure to meet key criteria raises concerns about the interpretability and credibility of the SMT evidence base. To strengthen transparency and scientific value, future trials should adhere more rigorously to reporting guidelines.

Manual therapy, such as spinal manipulation (SM), is commonly used to treat non-specific chronic low back pain (CLBP), although its mechanisms remain poorly understood. It has been hypothesized that the mechanical forces applied during spinal manipulation (SM) influence proprioceptive function, which is often impaired in patients with CLBP. This study aimed to investigate the effect of a single SM intervention on lumbar proprioceptive function and its potential relationship with analgesic effects in patients with CLBP. In a single-blind randomized controlled trial, data from 142 adults with or without CLBP were analyzed after random assignment to receive lumbar spinal manipulation (LMANIP), lumbar mobilization (LMOB), or no intervention (NI). The primary outcome was the proprioceptive weighting (PW) ratio, which reflects the central nervous system’s preferred source of proprioceptive input for balance control, specifically from the lumbar and ankle muscles. PW ratios were assessed immediately before and after intervention by analyzing postural sway changes during vibrotactile stimulation (60 Hz). PW changed in both healthy participants and patients after the intervention, with a significantly stronger lumbar-steered PW following LMANIP compared to NI (β = − 0.047, t(422) = − 2.71, p = 0.007) and LMOB (β = − 0.039, t(422) = − 2.17, p = 0.030). Moreover, LMANIP was particularly effective in reducing pain in patients with stronger lumbar-steered PW before intervention (p < 0.017). These findings suggest that a single SM session enhances proprioceptive input from the lumbar muscles and that the strength of the analgesic effect is associated with the baseline PW status.

Abstract Background Spinal manipulation (SM) has been claimed to change anatomy, either in structure or position, and that these changes may be the cause of clinical improvements. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate and synthesise the peer-reviewed literature on the current evidence of anatomical changes in response to SM. Methods The review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022304971) and reporting was guided by the standards of the PRISMA Statement. We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Cochrane Library all databases, PEDro, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to 11 March 2022 and updated on 06 June 2023. Search terms included manipulation, adjustment, chiropractic, osteopathy, spine and spine-related structures. We included primary research studies that compared outcomes with and without SM regardless of study design. Manipulation was defined as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust delivered by hand to the spine or directly related joints. Included studies objectively measured a potential change in an anatomical structure or in position. We developed a novel list of methodological quality items in addition to a short, customized list of risk of bias (RoB) items. We used quality and RoB items together to determine whether an article was credible or not credible. We sought differences in outcomes between SM and control groups for randomised controlled trials and crossover studies, and between pre- and post-SM outcomes for other study designs. We reported, in narrative form, whether there was a change or not. Results The search retrieved 19,572 articles and 20 of those were included for review. Study topics included vertebral position (n = 3) facet joint space (n = 5), spinal stiffness (n = 3), resting muscle thickness (n = 6), intervertebral disc pressure (n = 1), myofascial hysteresis (n = 1), and further damage to already damaged arteries (n = 1). Eight articles were considered credible. The credible articles indicated that lumbar facet joint space increased and spinal stiffness decreased but that the resting muscle thickness did not change. Conclusion We found few studies on this topic. However, there are two promising areas for future study: facet joint space and spinal stiffness. A research strategy should be developed with funding for high quality research centres.

Abstract Background As part of multimodal therapy, spinal manipulation (SM) is a recommended and effective treatment for musculoskeletal pain. However, the underlying physiological mechanisms for pain relief are largely unknown. SM thrusts can be described and quantified using force–time characteristics (e.g. preload force, peak force, thrust speed, thrust duration, and thrust impulse). If these biomechanical parameters of SM are important for clinical outcomes, a large variability in the delivery of SM could lead to inconsistent responses and could thereby potentially mask a significant clinical effect. Our goal was to determine variability, and repeatability of thoracic spinal manipulation (SM) force–time profiles in a sample of Swiss chiropractors. Methods All interventions were performed on a human analogue manikin. Participating chiropractors received three case scenarios with the following scenarios: 50-year-old male patient, 30-year-old male athlete, and a 70-year-old female patient, each presenting with uncomplicated musculoskeletal thoracic pain. Clinicians were asked to perform three consecutive thoracic SM thrusts for each of the scenarios and repeated the same interventions after 24–48 h. Results Eighty-one chiropractors participated in the study, including 32 females (39.5%) with a mean age of 45.22 ± 12.96 years. The variability in SM force–time characteristics between clinicians was substantial, with preload forces ranging from 4.50 to 450.25 N and peak forces ranging from 146.08 to 1285.17 N. Significant differences between case scenarios were observed for peak force (p < 0.0001), maximum thrust speed (p = 0.0002), and thrust impulse (p = 0.0004). Except for thrust duration, repeatability within and between sessions was fair to excellent (ICCs between 0.578 and 0.957). Conclusion Substantial variability in application of SM was evident across clinicians and between case scenarios. Despite substantial clinician-dependent variability, the high repeatability of thoracic SM thrusts suggests a level of standardization in SM delivery, indicating that chiropractors might have ‘their’ individual force–time profile that they are capable to reproduce. Further research based on these findings should explore how to enhance the consistency, effectiveness, and safety of thoracic SM delivered clinically to humans.

In patients with low back pain (LBP), a visually identified retrospective pain trajectory often mismatches with a trajectory derived from prospective repeated measures. To gain insight into the clinical relevance of the 2 trajectory types, we investigated which showed a higher association with clinical outcomes. Participants were 724 adults seeking care for LBP in Danish chiropractic primary care. They answered weekly short-message-services on pain intensity and frequency over 52 weeks, which we translated into 8 trajectory classes. After 52 weeks, participants selected a retrospective visual pain trajectory from the same 8 trajectory classes. Clinical outcomes included disability, back/leg pain intensity, back beliefs, and work ability. The patient-selected pain trajectory classes were more strongly associated with clinical outcomes than the short-message-service trajectory classes at baseline, at follow-up, and with outcome changes between baseline and follow-up. This held across all 5 clinical outcomes, with the strongest associations observed at week 52 and the weakest at baseline. Patients' retrospective assessment of their LBP is more strongly associated with their clinical status than their prospective assessments translated into trajectory classes. This suggests that retrospective assessments of pain trajectories may provide valuable information not captured by prospective assessments. Researchers collecting prospective pain data should know that the captured pain trajectories are not strongly reflected in patients' perceptions of clinical status. Patients' retrospective assessments seem to offer an interpretation of their pain course that is likely more clinically relevant in understanding the perceived impact of their condition than trajectories based on repeated measures. PERSPECTIVE: Prospective pain data inadequately reflect patients' clinical status. Retrospective assessments provide a more clinically valuable understanding of the impact of their condition.

Background Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a guideline-recommended treatment option for spinal pain. The recommendation is based on multiple systematic reviews. However, these reviews fail to consider that clinical effects may depend on SMT “application procedures” (i.e., how and where SMT is applied). Using network meta-analyses, we aim to investigate which SMT “application procedures” have the greatest magnitude of clinical effectiveness for reducing pain and disability, for any spinal complaint, at short-term and long-term follow-up. We will compare application procedural parameters by classifying the thrust application technique and the application site (patient positioning, assisted, vertebral target, region target, Technique name, forces, and vectors, application site selection approach and rationale) against: 1. Waiting list/no treatment; 2. Sham interventions not resembling SMT (e.g., detuned ultrasound); 3. Sham interventions resembling SMT; 4. Other therapies not recommended in clinical practice guidelines; and 5. Other therapies recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Secondly, we will examine how contextual elements, including procedural fidelity (whether the SMT was delivered as planned) and clinical applicability (whether the SMT is similar to clinical practice) of the SMT. Methods We will include randomized controlled trials (RCT) found through three search strategies, (i) exploratory, (ii) systematic, and (iii) other known sources. We define SMT as a high-velocity low-amplitude thrust or grade V mobilization. Eligibility is any RCT assessing SMT against any other type of SMT, any other active or sham intervention, or no treatment control on adult patients with pain in any spinal region. The RCTs must report on continuous pain intensity and/or disability outcomes. Two authors will independently review title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. Spinal manipulative therapy techniques will be classified according to the technique application and choice of application sites. We will conduct a network-meta analysis using a frequentist approach and multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Discussion This will be the most extensive review of thrust SMT to date, and will allow us to estimate the importance of different SMT application procedures used in clinical practice and taught across educational settings. Thus, the results are applicable to clinical practice, educational settings, and research studies. PROSPERO registration : CRD42022375836.

Background Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is offered by many health professions, most often by chiropractors. While SMT can be effective for some musculoskeletal disorders, there is no evidence that SMT improves human immunity in a clinically meaningful way. Despite this, we showed previously that Twitter misinformation about chiropractic/SMT improving immunity increased sharply at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we perform a two-year follow-up. Methods We previously employed specialized software (i.e. Talkwalker) to search the entirety of Twitter activity in the months before and after the COVID-19 pandemic was declared (March 11, 2020). In this paper, we conducted follow-up searches over two successive 12 month periods using terms related to SMT, immunity and chiropractic. The resulting tweets were then coded into those promoting/refuting a relation between SMT and immunity (tone) and messaging about chiropractic/interventions (content). Further analyses were performed to subcategorize tweet content, tally likes, retweets and followers, and evaluate refuting tweets and the country of origin. Finally, we created a chronology of Twitter activity superimposed with dates of promoting or refuting activities undertaken by chiropractic organizations. Results Over the 27 month study period, Twitter activity peaked on March 31, 2020 then declined continuously. As in our first paper, our follow-up data showed that (1) the ratio of refuting/promoting tweets remained constant and (2) tweets that refuted a relationship between SMT and immunity were substantially more liked, retweeted and followed than those promoting. We also observed that promoting tweets suggesting that SMT improves immunity decreased more rapidly. Overwhelmingly, promoting tweets originated in the USA while refuting tweets originated in Canada, Europe and Australia. The timing of the decline in peak Twitter activity, together with a parallel decline in tweets claiming that SMT improves immunity, was coincident with initiatives by chiropractic organizations and regulators targeting misinformation. Conclusion Overwhelmingly, Twitter activity during the COVID-19 pandemic focussed on refuting a relation between chiropractic/SMT and immunity. A decline in Twitter activity promoting a relation between SMT and immunity was observed to coincide with initiatives from chiropractic organizations and regulators to refute these claims. The majority of misinformation about this topic is generated in the United States.

Spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) is widely used as an intervention for musculoskeletal conditions. However, the automated detection and analysis of force profile features in SMT have received limited attention. This study aims to address this research gap by developing a toolbox for the automatic detection and annotation of force-time profile features in SMT. For validation purposes, we will investigate the correlation between these features and characteristics of patient vignettes. Force data was collected from 1233 SMT interventions using a commercially available pressure sensor. With the aggregation of three feature selection methods (Chi squared, MRMR, and ReliefF), the results indicate a significant increase in maximum thrust speed for mentally envisioned athletic male patients compared to elderly females ( $p< 0.01$ ). To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first of its kind, representing a pioneering exploration of automated force profile analysis in SMT. The findings hold immense potential to advance technology, support training of manual interventions, and facilitate the development of objective treatment feedback tools. The observed correlations between the extracted features and patient characteristics provide valuable insights for personalized SMT approaches.

Background Spinal mobilization (SMob) is often included in the conservative management of spinal pain conditions as a recommended and effective treatment. While some studies quantify the biomechanical (kinetic) parameters of SMob, interpretation of findings is difficult due to poor reporting of methodological details. The aim of this study was to synthesise the literature describing biomechanical parameters of manually applied SMob. Methods This study is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) statement. Databases were searched from inception to October 2022: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, ICL, PEDro and Cochrane Library. Data were extracted and reported descriptively for the following domains: general study characteristics, number of and characteristics of individuals who delivered/received SMob, region treated, equipment used and biomechanical parameters of SMob. Results Of 7,607 records identified, 36 (0.5%) were included in the analysis. Of these, SMob was delivered to the cervical spine in 13 (36.1%), the thoracic spine in 3 (8.3%) and the lumbopelvic spine in 18 (50.0%) studies. In 2 (5.6%) studies, spinal region was not specified. For SMob applied to all spinal regions, biomechanical parameters were: peak force (0-128N); duration (10-120s); frequency (0.1-4.5Hz); and force amplitude (1-102N). Conclusions This study reports considerable variability of the biomechanical parameters of SMob. In studies reporting biomechanical parameters, SMob was most frequently delivered to the lumbar and cervical spine of humans and most commonly peak force was reported. Future studies should focus on the detailed reporting of biomechanical parameters to facilitate the investigation of clinical dose-response effects.

BACKGROUND:Spinal manipulation (SM) is a recommended and effective treatment for musculoskeletal disorders. Biomechanical (kinetic) parameters (e.g. preload/peak force, rate of force application and thrust duration) can be measured during SM, quantifying the intervention. Understanding these force-time characteristics is the first step towards identifying possible active ingredient/s responsible for the clinical effectiveness of SM. Few studies have quantified SM force-time characteristics and with considerable heterogeneity evident, interpretation of findings is difficult. The aim of this study was to synthesise the literature describing force-time characteristics of manual SM. METHODS:This scoping literature review is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) statement. Databases were searched from inception to October 2022: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, ICL, PEDro and Cochrane Library. The following search terms and their derivatives were adapted for each platform: spine, spinal, manipulation, mobilization or mobilisation, musculoskeletal, chiropractic, osteopathy, physiotherapy, naprapathy, force, motor skill, biomechanics, dosage, dose-response, education, performance, psychomotor, back, neck, spine, thoracic, lumbar, pelvic, cervical and sacral. Data were extracted and reported descriptively for the following domains: general study characteristics, number of and characteristics of individuals who delivered/received SM, region treated, equipment used and force-time characteristics of SM. RESULTS:Of 7,607 records identified, 66 (0.9%) fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. Of these, SM was delivered to the cervical spine in 12 (18.2%), the thoracic spine in 40 (60.6%) and the lumbopelvic spine in 19 (28.8%) studies. In 6 (9.1%) studies, the spinal region was not specified. For SM applied to all spinal regions, force-time characteristics were: preload force (range: 0-671N); peak force (17-1213N); rate of force application (202-8700N/s); time to peak thrust force (12-938ms); and thrust duration (36-2876ms). CONCLUSIONS:Considerable variability in the reported kinetic force-time characteristics of SM exists. Some of this variability is likely due to differences in SM delivery (e.g. different clinicians) and the measurement equipment used to quantify force-time characteristics. However, improved reporting in certain key areas could facilitate more sophisticated syntheses of force-time characteristics data in the future. Such syntheses could provide the foundation upon which dose-response estimates regarding the clinical effectiveness of SM are made.

BackgroundSpinal mobilization (SMob) is often included in the conservative management of spinal pain conditions as a recommended and effective treatment. While some studies quantify the biomechanical (kinetic) parameters of SMob, interpretation of findings is difficult due to poor reporting of methodological details. The aim of this study was to synthesise the literature describing force-time characteristics of manually applied SMob.MethodsThis study is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) statement. Databases were searched from inception to October 2022: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, ICL, PEDro and Cochrane Library. Data were extracted and reported descriptively for the following domains: general study characteristics, number of and characteristics of individuals who delivered/received SMob, region treated, equipment used and force-time characteristics of SMob.ResultsThere were 7,607 records identified and of these, 36 (0.5%) were included in the analysis. SMob was delivered to the cervical spine in 13 (36.1%), the thoracic spine in 3 (8.3%) and the lumbopelvic spine in 18 (50.0%) studies. In 2 (5.6%) studies, spinal region was not specified. For SMob applied to all spinal regions, force-time characteristics were: peak force (0-128N); duration (10-120s); frequency (0.1-4.5Hz); and force amplitude (1-102N).ConclusionsThis study reports considerable variability of the force-time characteristics of SMob. In studies reporting force-time characteristics, SMob was most frequently delivered to the lumbar and cervical spine of humans and most commonly peak force was reported. Future studies should focus on the detailed reporting of force-time characteristics to facilitate the investigation of clinical dose-response effects.

To advance evidence-based practice and targeted treatments of low back pain (LBP), a better pathophysiological understanding and reliable outcome measures are required. The processing of nociceptive information from deeper somatic structures (e.g., muscle, fascia) might play an essential role in the pathophysiology of LBP. In this study, we measured the intra- and inter-session reliability of electrical detection and pain thresholds of cutaneous and muscle primary afferents of the lower back. Twenty healthy participants attended two study visits separated by 27.7 ± 1.7 days. To determine the location-specific electrical detection threshold (EDT) and pain threshold (EPT), needle electrodes were inserted in the epidermal layer over, and in the lumbar erector spinae muscle. Additionally, established quantitative sensory testing (QST) parameters were assessed. Reliability was determined by differences between measurements, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC 2,1 ), Bland–Altman plots, and standard error of measurement (SEM). Correspondence between QST parameters and electrical thresholds was assessed using Pearson’s correlation . Except for cutaneous EPT, no significant ( p ≤ 0.05) intra- and inter-session differences were observed. Excellent intra-session reliability was shown for cutaneous and intramuscular electrical stimulations and all QST parameters (ICC: 0.76–0.93). Inter-session reliabilities were good (ICC: 0.74–0.75) except for electrical stimulations (ICC: 0.08–0.36). Limits of agreement and SEM were higher for inter-session than intra-session. A medium to strong relationship was found between electrical and mechanical/pressure pain thresholds. In conclusion, cutaneous and intramuscular electrical stimulation will potentially close an important diagnostic gap regarding the selective examination of deep tissue afferents and provide location-specific information for the excitability of non-nociceptive and nociceptive afferents.

Abstract Background The Balgrist University Hospital in Zurich, Switzerland, is an academic hospital focused on musculoskeletal disorders. An integrated chiropractic medicine clinic provides chiropractic care to a broad patient population. This health services research study aims to advance understanding of chiropractic healthcare service for quality assurance and healthcare quality improvement. Methods We performed an observational clinical cohort study at the Balgrist chiropractic medicine outpatient clinic in 2019. The records of all patients with initial visits or returning initial visits (> 3 months since last visit) and their subsequent visits from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, were used to create the study dataset. Data collected included demographic characteristics, diagnoses, imaging data, conservative treatments, surgeries, and other clinical care data. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data. Results 1844 distinct patients (52% female, mean age 48 ± 17 years) were eligible and included in the study. 1742 patients had a single initial visit, 101 had 2 initial visits, and 1 patient had 3 initial visits during the study period (total of 1947 initial visit records). The most common main diagnoses were low back pain (42%; 95% CI 40–46%), neck pain (22%; 20–24%), and thoracic pain (8%; 7–9%). 32% of patients presented with acute (< 4 weeks) symptoms, 11% subacute (4–12 weeks), and 57% chronic (> 12 weeks). Patients had a median of 5 chiropractic visits during their episode of care within a median of 28 days duration. Only 49% (95% CI 47–52%) of patient records had a clinical outcome that was extractable from routine clinical documentation in the hospital information system. Conclusion This health services study provides an initial understanding of patient characteristics and healthcare delivered in a Swiss academic hospital chiropractic outpatient setting and areas for improved clinical data quality assurance. A more concerted effort to systematically collect patient reported outcome measures would be a worthwhile healthcare quality improvement initiative.

Abstract Background The need for an efficient and feasible strategy to deal with neck pain has a high priority for many countries. Validated assessment tools like the Neck Disability Index (NDI) to evaluate the functional status of a neck pain patient are urgently needed to treat and to follow-up patients purposefully. A German version (NDI-G) was shown to be valid and reliable, but has so far not been tested for responsiveness. The aim of this study was to evaluate the NDI-G`s responsiveness. Methods This was a prospective cohort study with a seven-week follow-up. Fifty chronic neck pain patients filled out NDI-G twice. Additionally, the Patients’ Global Impression of Change score (PGIC) was assessed at follow-up. Wilcoxon and Spearman tests were used to assess direction and strength of the association between the change in NDI-G and PGIC. The receiver operating characteristics method and the area under the curve (AUC) were calculated to assess sensitivity and specificity of the NDI-G change over time. Results The Wilcoxon test showed statistically significant differences for NDI-G at baseline and follow-up in the total sample, the “clinically improved” and “clinically not improved” subgroups as indicated in the PGIC. Spearman test resulted in a moderate correlation between the NDI-G and the PGIC (rS = -0.53, p = 0.01) at follow-up. AUC showed an acceptable discrimination [AUC = 0.78 (95% confidence interval 0.64 – 0.91)] of the NDI-G, with a cutoff score of 1.5, between clinically improved and clinically not improved patients, based on the PGIC. Conclusions The NDI-G is responsive to change in chronic neck pain. Together with the results of a previous study on its validity and reliability, the NDI-G can be recommended for research and clinical settings in patients with neck pain in German speaking countries. Trial registration NCT02676141. February 8, 2016.

Additional file 2: Concept for ICD-10 codes grouping process.