Elsevier

Physiotherapy

Volume 112, September 2021, Pages 121-134
Physiotherapy

Systematic review
The effect of spinal manipulative therapy on pain relief and function in patients with chronic low back pain: an individual participant data meta-analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2021.03.006Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license
open access

Abstract

Background

A 2019 review concluded that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) results in similar benefit compared to other interventions for chronic low back pain (LBP). Compared to traditional aggregate analyses individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses allows for a more precise estimate of the treatment effect.

Purpose

To assess the effect of SMT on pain and function for chronic LBP in a IPD meta-analysis.

Data sources

Electronic databases from 2000 until April 2016, and reference lists of eligible trials and related reviews.

Study selection

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) examining the effect of SMT in adults with chronic LBP compared to any comparator.

Data extraction and data synthesis

We contacted authors from eligible trials. Two review authors independently conducted the study selection and risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. A one-stage mixed model analysis was conducted. Negative point estimates of the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) favors SMT.

Results

Of the 42 RCTs fulfilling the inclusion criteria, we obtained IPD from 21 (n = 4223). Most trials (s = 12, n = 2249) compared SMT to recommended interventions. There is moderate quality evidence that SMT vs recommended interventions resulted in similar outcomes on pain (MD −3.0, 95%CI: −6.9 to 0.9, 10 trials, 1922 participants) and functional status at one month (SMD: −0.2, 95% CI −0.4 to 0.0, 10 trials, 1939 participants). Effects at other follow-up measurements were similar. Results for other comparisons (SMT vs non-recommended interventions; SMT as adjuvant therapy; mobilization vs manipulation) showed similar findings. SMT vs sham SMT analysis was not performed, because we only had data from one study. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings.

Limitations

Only 50% of the eligible trials were included.

Conclusions

Sufficient evidence suggest that SMT provides similar outcomes to recommended interventions, for pain relief and improvement of functional status. SMT would appear to be a good option for the treatment of chronic LBP.

Systematic Review Registration Number PROSPERO CRD42015025714

Abbreviations

IPD
individual participant data
RCT
randomized clinical trial
LBP
low back pain
SMT
spinal manipulative therapy
PRISMA-P
Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol
MD
mean difference
SMD
standardized mean difference
SD
standard deviation
RR
relative risk
RMDQ
Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire

Keywords

Spinal manipulative therapy
Individual participant data
Low back pain

Cited by (0)