Intervention usage for the management of low back pain in a chiropractic teaching clinic

Background Despite numerous low back pain (LBP) clinical practice guidelines, published studies suggest guideline nonconcordant care is still offered. However, there is limited literature evaluating the degree to which chiropractors, particularly students, follow clinical practice guidelines when managing LBP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency of use of specific interventions for LBP by students at a chiropractic teaching clinic, mapping recommended, not recommend, and without recommendation interventions based on two clinical practice guidelines. Methods This was a retrospective chart review of patients presenting to the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College teaching clinic with a new complaint of LBP from January to July 2019. Interventions provided under treatment plans for each patient were extracted. Interventions were classified as recommended, not recommended, or without recommendation according to two guidelines, the NICE and OPTIMa LBP guideline. Results 1000 patient files were identified with 377 files meeting the inclusion criteria. The most frequent interventions provided to patients were manipulation/mobilization (99%) and soft tissue therapy (91%). Exercise, localized percussion, and advice and/or education were included in just under half of the treatment plans. Patient files contained similar amounts of recommended (70%) and not recommended (80%) interventions according to the NICE guideline classification, with half the treatment plans including an intervention without recommendation. Under the OPTIMa acute guideline, patient files contained similar amounts of recommended and not recommended care, while more recommended care was provided than not recommended under the OPTIMa chronic guideline. Conclusions Despite chiropractic interns providing guideline concordant care for the majority of LBP patients, interventions classified as not recommended and without recommendation are still frequently offered. This study provides a starting point to understand the treatment interventions provided by chiropractic interns. Further research should be conducted to improve our understanding of the use of LBP guideline recommended care in the chiropractic profession. Trial registration Open Science Framework # g74e8.

Advanced magnetic resonance imaging of chronic whiplash patients: a clinical practice-based feasibility study

Background Whiplash injury is common following road traffic crashes affecting millions worldwide, with up to 50% of the injured developing chronic symptoms and 15% having a reduced working capability due to ongoing disability. Many of these patients receive treatment in primary care settings based upon clinical and diagnostic imaging findings. Despite the identification of different types of injuries in the whiplash patients, clinically significant relationships between injuries and chronic symptoms remains to be fully established. This study investigated the feasibility of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques including quantitative diffusion weighted imaging and measurements of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) flow as novel non-invasive biomarkers in a population of healthy volunteers and chronic whiplash patients recruited from a chiropractic clinic for the purpose of improving our understanding of whiplash injury. Methods Twenty chronic whiplash patients and 18 healthy age- and gender matched control subjects were included [mean age ± SD (sex ratio; females/males), case group: 37.8 years ± 9.1 (1.22), control group: 35.1 years ± 9.2 (1.25)]. Data was collected from May 2019 to July 2020. Data from questionnaires pertaining to the car crash, acute and current symptoms were retrieved and findings from clinical examination and MRI including morphologic, diffusion weighted and phase-contrast images were recorded. The apparent diffusion coefficient and fractional anisotropy were calculated, and measurement and analysis of CSF flow was conducted. Statistical analyses included Fisher’s exact test, Mann Whitney U test and analysis of variance between groups. Results The studied population was described in detail using readily available clinical tools. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups on MRI. Conclusions This study did not show that MRI‐based measures of morphology, spinal cord and nerve root diffusion or cerebrospinal fluid flow are sensitive biomarkers to distinguish between chronic whiplash patients and healthy controls. The detailed description of the chronic whiplash patients using readily available clinical tools may be of great relevance to the clinician. In the context of feasibility, clinical practice-based advanced imaging studies with a technical setup similar to the presented can be expected to have a high likelihood of successful completion.

Efficiency of primary spine care as compared to conventional primary care: a retrospective observational study at an Academic Medical Center

Background Primary Spine Care (PSC) is an innovative model for the primary management of patients with spine-related disorders (SRDs), with a focus on the use of non-pharmacological therapies which now constitute the recommended first-line approach to back pain. PSC clinicians serve as the initial or early point of contact for spine patients and utilize evidence-based spine care pathways to improve outcomes and reduce escalation of care (EoC; e.g., spinal injections, diagnostic imaging, hospitalizations, referrals to a specialist). The present study examined 6-month outcomes to evaluate the efficiency of care for patients who received PSC as compared to conventional primary care. We hypothesized that patients seen by a PSC clinician would have lower rates of EoC compared to patients who received usual care by a primary care (PC) clinician. Methods This was a retrospective observational study. We evaluated 6-month outcomes for two groups seen and treated for an SRD between February 01, 2017 and January 31, 2020. Patient groups were comprised of N = 1363 PSC patients (Group A) and N = 1329 PC patients (Group B). We conducted Pearson chi-square and logistic regression (adjusting for patient characteristics that were unbalanced between the two groups) to determine associations between the two groups and 6-month outcomes. Results Within six months of an initial visit for an SRD, a statistically significantly smaller proportion of PSC patients utilized healthcare resources for spine care as compared to the PC patients. When adjusting for patient characteristics, those who received care from the PSC clinician were less likely within 6 months of an initial visit to be hospitalized (OR = .47, 95% CI .23–.97), fill a prescription for an opioid analgesic (OR = .43; 95% CI .29–.65), receive a spinal injection (OR = .56, 95% CI .33–.95), or have a visit with a specialist (OR = .48, 95% CI .35–.67) as compared to those who received usual primary care. Conclusions Patients who received PSC in an academic primary care clinic experienced significantly less escalation of their spine care within 6 months of their initial visit. The PSC model may offer a more efficient approach to the primary care of spine problems for patients with SRDs, as compared to usual primary care.

Digging deeper: exploring chiropractors online claims about non-musculoskeletal disorders

Background Some chiropractors suggest that chiropractic treatment is appropriate for health issues other than musculoskeletal problems. The prevalence of such claims on individual clinic websites has previously been reported as approximately one-in-four in Denmark. The underlying rationales for such claims may reflect convictions about traditional chiropractic subluxations paradigms, but are not self-evident and has not previously been studied. Methods An exploratory qualitative case interview study of Danish chiropractors with websites which contain claims about chiropractic efficacy in the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Websites were identified from a nation wide random sample (57%) of all chiropractic clinic websites. Results Of the original 139 websites, 36 were identified as mentioning non-MSK conditions. When revisited, 19 of those clinic websites still mentioned non-MSK disorders and were contacted. Eleven (11) declined our invitation to participate. Interviews were conducted with the responsible chiropractor from each of the remaining 8 clinics. Five distinct themes were identified in the rationales for treating non-musculoskeletal disorders: ‘Positive side-effects,’ ‘Experience,’ ‘Web page,’ ‘Communication’ and ‘Conviction.’ Conclusions A minority of Danish chiropractic websites suggest that non-musculoskeletal disorders are within the chiropractic scope of practice. Those that do, do so for varying reasons—poor communication and website maintenance were commonly cited problems. An explicitly stated adherence to traditional chiropractic subluxations concepts was uncommon. By contrast, a more tempered rationale that suggested a potential beneficial side-effect of chiropractic on non-musculoskeletal health issues were more common and was typically presented in softer-language and/or with some reservations.

Corticosteroid injection or dry needling for musculoskeletal pain and disability? A systematic review and GRADE evidence synthesis

Background Corticosteroid injection and dry needling have been used in the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions, but it is unclear which intervention is the most effective. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of corticosteroid injection and dry needling for musculoskeletal conditions at short-, medium-, and long-term follow-up. Methods Electronic databases were searched up to 31 October 2021. Two researchers independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that investigated the effectiveness of dry needling compared to corticosteroid injection in patients over 18 years with a musculoskeletal condition were included in the review. The studies had to report pain and/or disability as outcome. Risk of bias was assessed by using the revised Cochrane Collaboration tool (RoB 2.0). Quality of evidence was evaluated by using the GRADE approach. Results Six studies were included (n = 384 participants). Four musculoskeletal conditions were investigated. There is very low-quality evidence that CSI is superior to DN for reducing heel pain (plantar fasciitis) and lateral elbow pain at short- and medium-term follow-up, but not for myofascial pain and greater trochanteric pain. There is very low-quality evidence that DN is more effective than CSI at long-term follow-up for reducing pain in people with plantar fasciitis and lateral epicondylitis. Very low-certainty evidence shows that there is no difference between DN and CSI for disability at short-term follow-up. One study showed that CSI is superior to DN at medium-term follow-up and another observed that DN is superior to CSI for reducing disability at long-term. Conclusions There are no differences between DN and CSI in pain or disability for myofascial pain and greater trochanteric pain syndrome. Very-low certainty evidence suggests that CSI is superior to DN at shorter follow-up periods, whereas DN seems to be more effective than CSI at longer follow-up durations for improving pain in plantar fasciitis and lateral epicondylitis. Large RCTs with higher methodological quality are needed in order to draw more incisive conclusions. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020148650.

Risk factors for low back pain in active military personnel: a systematic review

Purpose Low back pain (LBP) is prevalent in military personnel. We aimed to systematically review the literature regarding risk factors for first-time LBP during military service among active duty military personnel. Methods We searched six electronic databases (inception-April 2020) for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, and case–control studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals. Eligible studies were independently critically appraised by paired reviewers and a descriptive synthesis was conducted. Results We screened 1981 records, reviewed 118 full-text articles, and synthesised data from eight acceptable quality cohort studies. Studies assessed physical (n = 4), sociodemographic (n = 2), and/or occupational factors (n = 5) associated with LBP. Two studies reported prior LBP was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of LBP compared to those without prior LBP. Other factors consistently associated with LBP included previous musculoskeletal injury (n = 2), less time spent on physical training (n = 2), female sex (n = 2), and lower rank (n = 2). Factors associated with LBP from single studies included marital status, lower education level, blast injury, job duties, and service type. We found inconsistent associations for performance on physical fitness tests, age, and occupation type. Psychological risk factors were not assessed in any included studies. Conclusion In active duty personnel, prior history of LBP, previous musculoskeletal injury, less time in physical training, female sex, and lower rank were consistent risk factors for LBP. This information is relevant for researchers, active duty military personnel, and other decision makers. Future studies should explore causal relationships for LBP in this population. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084549.

A descriptive study of sports chiropractors with an International Chiropractic Sport Science Practitioner qualification: a cross-sectional survey

Background This paper describes the education and case management profile of sports chiropractors with the Federation of International Sports Chiropractors (FICS) postgraduate qualification: International Chiropractic Sport Science Practitioner (ICSSP). The ICSSP is the predominant international sports chiropractic qualification. Methods A cross-sectional survey, carried out between 22/10/2014 and 22/12/2014,was utilized with a 39-item web-based survey examining practitioner, practice and clinical management characteristics, and was distributed via email to all sports chiropractors who held an ICSSP qualification (n = 240) in 2014. Results The survey response rate was 64% (n = 154). 36% of chiropractors were aged between 31 and 40 years, just over three quarters were male, and 27% had been in practice for 5–10 years. The majority of respondents were based in North America. All sports chiropractors surveyed reported treating neuromusculoskeletal conditions outside of the spine. 91% utilized a multimodal approach in most of their treatments, prescribing rehabilitative exercises in 76% of consultations. Almost 64% of respondents reported current treatment of professional athletes, and 78% reported current treatment of semi-professional athletes, whilst the vast majority of those surveyed endorsed past treatment of professional (91%) and semi-professional (95%) athletes. All respondents reported referring to a range of conventional and allied health providers. Conclusions This study of ICSSP-qualified sports chiropractors describes a small but well-educated workforce treating high-level athletes, managing a wide range of spine and non-spinal neuromusculoskeletal conditions, utilising multimodal approaches (including active and passive strategies), and referring to and co-managing with other health practitioners.

The effect of spinal manipulative therapy and home stretching exercises on heart rate variability in patients with persistent or recurrent neck pain: a randomized controlled trial

Background Persistent or recurrent neck pain is, together with other chronic conditions, suggested to be associated with disturbances of the Autonomic Nervous System. Acute effects on the Autonomic Nervous System, commonly measured using Heart Rate Variability, have been observed with manual therapy. This study aimed to investigate the effect on Heart Rate Variability in (1) a combination of home stretching exercises and spinal manipulative therapy versus (2) home stretching exercises alone over 2 weeks in participants with persistent or recurrent neck pain. Methods A randomized controlled clinical trial was carried out in five multidisciplinary primary care clinics in Stockholm from January 2019 to April 2020. The study sample consisted of 131 participants with a history of persistent or recurrent neck. All participants performed home stretching exercises daily for 2 weeks and were scheduled for four treatments during this period, with the intervention group receiving spinal manipulative therapy in addition to the home exercises. Heart Rate Variability at rest was measured at baseline, after 1 week, and after 2 weeks, with RMSSD (Root mean square of successive RR interval differences) as the primary outcome. Both groups were blinded to the other group intervention. Thus, they were aware of the purpose of the trial but not the details of the “other” intervention. The researchers collecting data were blinded to treatment allocation, as was the statistician performing data analyses. The clinicians provided treatment for participants in both groups and could not be blinded. A linear mixed-effects model with continuous variables and person-specific random intercept was used to investigate the group-time interaction using an intention to treat analysis. Results Sixty-six participants were randomized to the intervention group and sixty-five to the control group. For RMSSD, a B coefficient of 0.4 (p value: 0.9) was found, indicating a non-significant difference in the regression slope for each time point with the control group as reference. No statistically significant differences were found between groups for any of the Heart Rate Variability indices. Conclusion Adding four treatments of spinal manipulation therapy to a 2-week program of daily stretching exercises gave no significant change in Heart Rate Variability. Trial Registration: The trial was registered 03/07/2018 at ClinicalTrials.gov, registration number: NCT03576846. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31606042/)

“Chiropractic is manual therapy, not talk therapy”: a qualitative analysis exploring perceived barriers to remote consultations by chiropractors

Background Remote consultations (RCs) enable clinicians to continue to support patients when face-to-face appointments are not possible. Restrictions to face-to-face care during the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated a pre-existing trend for their adoption. This is true for many health professionals including some chiropractors. Whilst most chiropractors in the UK have used RCs in some form during the pandemic, others have not. This study seeks to understand the views of chiropractors not using RCs and to explore perceived potential barriers. Methods A national online survey was completed by 534 registered practicing UK chiropractors on the use of RCs. Respondents had the opportunity of providing open-ended responses concerning lack of engagement in RCs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Textual responses obtained from 137 respondents were coded and analysed using thematic analysis. Results The use of RCs provided an opportunity for chiropractors to deliver ongoing care during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, many chiropractors expressed concern that RCs misaligned with their strong professional identity of providing ‘hands-on’ care. Some chiropractors also perceived that patients expected physical interventions during chiropractic care and thus considered a lack of demand when direct contact is not possible. In the absence of a physical examination, some chiropractors had concerns about potential misdiagnosis, and perceived lack of diagnostic information with which to guide treatment. Clinic closures and change in working environment led to practical difficulties of providing remote care for a few chiropractors. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic may have accelerated changes in the way healthcare is provided with RCs becoming more commonplace in primary healthcare provision. This paper highlights perceived barriers which may lead to reduced utilisation of RCs by chiropractors, some of which appear fundamental to their perceived identity, whilst others are likely amenable to change with training and experience.

What are the effects of diagnostic imaging on clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care: a matched observational study

Background Evidence suggests that diagnostic imaging for low back pain does not improve care in the absence of suspicion of serious pathology. However, the effect of imaging use on clinical outcomes has not been investigated in patients presenting to chiropractors. The aim of this study was to determine if diagnostic imaging affects clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care. Methods A matched observational study using prospective longitudinal observational data with one year follow up was performed in primary care chiropractic clinics in Denmark. Data was collected from November 2016 to December 2019. Participants included low back pain patients presenting for chiropractic care, who were either referred or not referred for diagnostic imaging during their initial visit. Patients were excluded if they were less than 18 years old, had a diagnosis of underlying pathology, or had previous imaging relevant to their current clinical presentation. Coarsened exact matching was used to match participants referred for diagnostic imaging with participants not referred for diagnostic imaging on baseline variables including participant demographics, pain characteristics, and clinical history. Mixed linear and logistic regression models were used to assess the effect of imaging on back pain intensity and disability at two-weeks, three-months, and one-year, and on global perceived effect and satisfaction with care at two-weeks. Results 2162 patients were included, with 24.1% referred for imaging. Near perfect balance between matched groups was achieved for baseline variables except age and leg pain. Participants referred for imaging had slightly higher back pain intensity at two-weeks (0.4, 95%CI: 0.1, 0.8) and one-year (0.4, 95%CI: 0.0, 0.7), and disability at two-weeks (5.7, 95%CI: 1.4, 10.0), but the changes are unlikely to be clinically meaningful. No difference between groups was found for the other outcome measures. Similar results were found when sensitivity analysis, adjusted for age and leg pain intensity, was performed. Conclusions Diagnostic imaging did not result in better clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care. These results support that current guideline recommendations against routine imaging apply equally to chiropractic practice.