Explore the vast range of titles available.

The use of routine spinal X-rays within chiropractic has a contentious history. Elements of the profession advocate for the need for routine spinal X-rays to improve patient management, whereas other chiropractors advocate using spinal X-rays only when endorsed by current imaging guidelines. This review aims to summarise the current evidence for the use of spinal X-ray in chiropractic practice, with consideration of the related risks and benefits. Current evidence supports the use of spinal X-rays only in the diagnosis of trauma and spondyloarthropathy, and in the assessment of progressive spinal structural deformities such as adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. MRI is indicated to diagnose serious pathology such as cancer or infection, and to assess the need for surgical management in radiculopathy and spinal stenosis. Strong evidence demonstrates risks of imaging such as excessive radiation exposure, overdiagnosis, subsequent low-value investigation and treatment procedures, and increased costs. In most cases the potential benefits from routine imaging, including spinal X-rays, do not outweigh the potential harms. The use of spinal X-rays should not be routinely performed in chiropractic practice, and should be guided by clinical guidelines and clinician judgement.

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 Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is often categorised as acute, subacute or chronic by focusing on the duration of the current episode. However, more than twenty years ago this concept was challenged by a recognition that LBP is often an episodic condition. This episodic nature also means that the course of LBP is not well described by an overall population mean. Therefore, studies have investigated if specific LBP trajectories could be identified which better reflect individuals’ course patterns. Following a pioneering study into LBP trajectories published by Dunn et al. in 2006, a number of subsequent studies have also identified LBP trajectories and it is timely to provide an overview of their findings and discuss how insights into these trajectories may be helpful for improving our understanding of LBP and its clinical management. Discussion LBP trajectories in adults have been identified by data driven approaches in ten cohorts, and these have consistently demonstrated that different trajectory patterns exist. Despite some differences between studies, common trajectories have been identified across settings and countries, which have associations with a number of patient characteristics from different health domains. One study has demonstrated that in many people such trajectories are stable over several years. LBP trajectories seem to be recognisable by patients, and appealing to clinicians, and we discuss their potential usefulness as prognostic factors, effect moderators, and as a tool to support communication with patients. Conclusions Investigations of trajectories underpin the notion that differentiation between acute and chronic LBP is overly simplistic, and we believe it is time to shift from this paradigm to one that focuses on trajectories over time. We suggest that trajectory patterns may represent practical phenotypes of LBP that could improve the clinical dialogue with patients, and might have a potential for supporting clinical decision making, but their usefulness is still underexplored.

Background The assessment of spinal stiffness by manual palpation in clinical settings has demonstrated both poor accuracy and reliability. More recently, mechanical methods for assessment of spinal stiffness have demonstrated superior accuracy and reliability. However, mechanical methods of spinal stiffness assessment can be expensive, time consuming and/or unsuited to clinical practice. While a new device has been designed to address these issues (VerteTrack), its benchtop performance remains unknown. Aim To measure the bench-top performance of VerteTrack. Methods A series of laboratory-based experiments were conducted in February 2018 to investigate the accuracy (precision and bias) of load and displacement measurements obtained by VerteTrack and then were compared against an appropriate reference standard. Measurements of both multiple-level continuous assessment (multiple spinal levels measured), and single-level assessment (single spinal level measured) were performed on a viscoelastic foam medium (AIREX® balance beam, Switzerland) and the resulting stiffness calculated. Results VerteTrack demonstrated high precision at all loads and displacements. There was minimal systematic measurement bias identified for applied versus reference load (mean bias = − 0.123 N; 95%CI − 0.182 to 0.428 N, p  < .001), and no systematic measurement bias for measured versus reference displacement (mean difference = 0.02 mm; 95%CI − 0.09 to 0.14 mm, p  < .001). The magnitude of stiffness obtained during multiple-level continuous assessment was on average 0.25 N/mm (2.79%) less than that for single-level assessment (95%CI − 0.67 to 0.17 N/mm, p  < .001). Conclusions VerteTrack demonstrated high accuracy (high precision, low bias) under bench-top conditions. The difference in stiffness found between multiple versus single spinal levels should be considered in the research context, but is unlikely to be clinically relevant. The results of this study demonstrate that VerteTrack may be suitable for both single and multi-level spinal stiffness measurements in-vivo.

An important series of papers have been published in the Lancet . These papers provide a comprehensive update for the major global problem of low back pain, and the challenges that low back pain presents to healthcare practitioners and policy makers. Chiropractors are well placed to reduce the burden of low back pain, but not all that chiropractors do is supported by robust, contemporary evidence. This commentary summarises the Lancet articles. We also make suggestions for how the chiropractic profession should most effectively help people with low back pain by implementing practices supported by high quality evidence.

Objective We evaluated whether more severe back pain phenotypes—persistent, frequent, or disabling back pain—are associated with higher mortality rate among older men. Methods In this secondary analysis of a prospective cohort, the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study, we evaluated mortality rates by back pain phenotype among 5215 older community-dwelling men (mean age, 73 years, SD = 5.6) from 6 sites in the United States. The primary back pain measure used baseline and Year 5 back pain questionnaire data to characterize participants as having no back pain, nonpersistent back pain, infrequent persistent back pain, or frequent persistent back pain. Secondary measures of back pain from the Year 5 questionnaire included disabling back pain phenotypes. The main outcomes measured were all-cause and cause-specific death. Results After the Year 5 exam, during up to 18 years of follow-up (mean follow-up = 10.3 years), there were 3513 deaths (1218 cardiovascular, 764 cancer, 1531 other). A higher proportion of men with frequent persistent back pain versus no back pain died (78% versus 69%; sociodemographic-adjusted HR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.11–1.45). No association was evident after further adjustment for health-related factors, such as self-reported general health and comorbid chronic health conditions (fully adjusted HR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.86–1.15). Results were similar for cardiovascular deaths and other deaths, but we observed no association of back pain with cancer deaths. Secondary back pain measures, including back-related disability, were associated with increased mortality risk that remained statistically significant in fully adjusted models. Conclusion Although frequent persistent back pain was not independently associated with risk of death in older men, additional secondary disabling back pain phenotypes were independently associated with increased mortality rate. Future investigations should evaluate whether improvements in disabling back pain affect general health and well-being or risk of death.

Background Numerous clinical tests are used in the diagnosis of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury but their accuracy is unclear. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests for the diagnosis of ACL injury. Methods Study Design: Systematic review. The review protocol was registered through PROSPERO (CRD42012002069). Electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL) were searched up to 19th of June 2013 to identify diagnostic studies comparing the accuracy of clinical tests for ACL injury to an acceptable reference standard (arthroscopy, arthrotomy, or MRI). Risk of bias was appraised using the QUADAS-2 checklist. Index test accuracy was evaluated using a descriptive analysis of paired likelihood ratios and displayed as forest plots. Results A total of 285 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, from which 14 studies were included in this review. Included studies were deemed to be clinically and statistically heterogeneous, so a meta-analysis was not performed. Nine clinical tests from the history (popping sound at time of injury, giving way, effusion, pain, ability to continue activity) and four from physical examination (anterior draw test, Lachman’s test, prone Lachman’s test and pivot shift test) were investigated for diagnostic accuracy. Inspection of positive and negative likelihood ratios indicated that none of the individual tests provide useful diagnostic information in a clinical setting. Most studies were at risk of bias and reported imprecise estimates of diagnostic accuracy. Conclusion Despite being widely used and accepted in clinical practice, the results of individual history items or physical tests do not meaningfully change the probability of ACL injury. In contrast combinations of tests have higher diagnostic accuracy; however the most accurate combination of clinical tests remains an area for future research. Clinical relevance Clinicians should be aware of the limitations associated with the use of clinical tests for diagnosis of ACL injury.

ObjectivesTo (1) estimate the proportion of patients seeking care for low back pain (LBP) who are imaged and (2) explore trends in the proportion of patients who received diagnostic imaging over time. We also examined the effect of study-level factors on estimates of imaging proportion.Data sourcesElectronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases from January 1995 to December 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesObservational designs and controlled trials that reported imaging for patients presenting to primary care or emergency care for LBP. We assessed study quality and calculated pooled proportions by care setting and imaging type, with strength of evidence assessed using the GRADE system.Results45 studies were included. They represented 19 451 749 consultations for LBP that had resulted in 4 343 919 imaging requests/events over 21 years. Primary care: moderate quality evidence that simple imaging proportion was 16.3% (95% CI 12.6% to 21.1%) and complex imaging was 9.2% (95% CI 6.2% to 13.5%). For any imaging, the pooled proportion was 24.8% (95% CI 19.3%to 31.1%). Emergency care: moderate quality evidence that simple imaging proportion was 26.1% (95% CI 18.2% to 35.8%) and high-quality evidence that complex imaging proportion was 8.2% (95% CI 4.4% to 15.6%). For any imaging, the pooled proportion was 35.6% (95% CI 29.8% to 41.8%). Complex imaging increased from 7.4% (95% CI 5.7% to 9.6%) for imaging requested in 1995 to 11.4% (95% CI 9.6% to 13.5%) in 2015 (relative increase of 53.5%). Between-study variability in imaging proportions was only partially explained by study-level characteristics; there were insufficient data to comment on some prespecified study-level factors.Summary/conclusionOne in four patients who presented to primary care with LBP received imaging as did one in three who presented to the emergency department. The rate of complex imaging appears to have increased over 21 years despite guideline advice and education campaigns.Trial registration numberCRD42016041987.

Introduction A well-functioning health system delivers quality services to all people when and where they need them. To help navigate the complex realm of patient care, it is essential that health care professions have a thorough understanding of their scope of practice. However, a lack of uniformity regarding scope of practice across the regulated health professions in Australia currently exists. This has led to ambiguity about what comprises scope of practice in some health care professions in the region. Objective The objective of this review was to explore the literature on the factors that influence scope of practice of the five largest health care professions in Australia. Methods This study employed scoping review methodology to document the current state of the literature on factors that influence scope of practice of the five largest health care professions in Australia. The search was conducted using the following databases: AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Cochrane Library, EMBASE ( Excerpta Medica Database), MANTIS (Manual, Alternative and Natural Therapy Index System), MEDLINE, PubMed, and SCOPUS. Additional data sources were searched from Google and ProQuest. Results A total of 12 771 publications were identified from the literature search. Twenty-three documents fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. Eight factors were identified across three professions (nursing & midwifery, pharmacy and physiotherapy) that influenced scope of practice: education, competency, professional identity, role confusion, legislation and regulatory policies, organisational structures, financial factors, and professional and personal factors. Conclusion The results of this study will inform a range of stakeholders including the private and public arms of the healthcare system, educators, employers, funding bodies, policymakers and practitioners about the factors that influence scope of practice of health professions in Australia.

The concept that spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) outcomes are optimized when the treatment is aimed at a clinically relevant joint is commonly assumed and central to teaching and clinical use (candidate sites). This systematic review investigated whether clinical effects are superior when this is the case compared to SMT applied elsewhere (non-candidate sites). Eligible study designs were randomized controlled trials that investigated the effect of spinal manipulation applied to candidate versus non-candidate sites for spinal pain. We obtained data from four different databases. Risk of bias was assessed using an adjusted Cochrane risk of bias tool, adding four items for study quality. We extracted between-group differences for any reported outcome or, when not reported, calculated effect sizes from the within-group changes. We compared outcomes for SMT applied at a ‘relevant’ site to SMT applied elsewhere. We prioritized methodologically robust studies when interpreting results. Ten studies, all of acceptable quality, were included that reported 33 between-group differences—five compared treatments within the same spinal region and five at different spinal regions. None of the nine studies with low or moderate risk of bias reported statistically significant between-group differences for any outcome. The tenth study reported a small effect on pain (1.2/10, 95%CI − 1.9 to − 0.5) but had a high risk of bias. None of the nine articles of low or moderate risk of bias and acceptable quality reported that “clinically-relevant” SMT has a superior outcome on any outcome compared to “not clinically-relevant” SMT. This finding contrasts with ideas held in educational programs and clinical practice that emphasize the importance of joint-specific application of SMT.