Explore the vast range of titles available.

Low back pain covers a spectrum of different types of pain (eg, nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic, or non-specific) that frequently overlap. The elements comprising the lumbar spine (eg, soft tissue, vertebrae, zygapophyseal and sacroiliac joints, intervertebral discs, and neurovascular structures) are prone to different stressors, and each of these, alone or in combination, can contribute to low back pain. Due to numerous factors related to low back pain, and the low specificity of imaging and diagnostic injections, diagnostic methods for this condition continue to be a subject of controversy. The biopsychosocial model posits low back pain to be a dynamic interaction between social, psychological, and biological factors that can both predispose to and result from injury, and should be considered when devising interdisciplinary treatment plans. Prevention of low back pain is recognised as a pivotal challenge in high-risk populations to help tackle high health-care costs related to therapy and rehabilitation. To a large extent, therapy depends on pain classification, and usually starts with self-care and pharmacotherapy in combination with non-pharmacological methods, such as physical therapies and psychological treatments in appropriate patients. For refractory low back pain, a wide range of non-surgical (eg, epidural steroid injections and spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain, and radiofrequency ablation and intra-articular steroid injections for mechanical pain) and surgical (eg, decompression for neuropathic pain, disc replacement, and fusion for mechanical causes) treatment options are available in carefully selected patients. Most treatment options address only single, solitary causes and given the complex nature of low back pain, a multimodal interdisciplinary approach is necessary. Although globally recognised as an important health and socioeconomic challenge with an expected increase in prevalence, low back pain continues to have tremendous potential for improvement in both diagnostic and therapeutic aspects. Future research on low back pain should focus on improving the accuracy and objectivity of diagnostic assessments, and devising treatment algorithms that consider unique biological, psychological, and social factors. High-quality comparative-effectiveness and randomised controlled trials with longer follow-up periods that aim to establish the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of low back pain management are warranted.

For individuals with recurrent or persistent non-specific low back pain (LBP), exercise and exercise combined with education have been shown to be effective in preventing new episodes or in reducing the impact of the condition. Chiropractors have traditionally used Maintenance Care (MC), as secondary and tertiary prevention strategies. The aim of this trial was to investigate the effectiveness of MC on pain trajectories for patients with recurrent or persistent LBP. This pragmatic, investigator-blinded, two arm randomized controlled trial included consecutive patients (18-65 years old) with non-specific LBP, who had an early favorable response to chiropractic care. After an initial course of treatment, eligible subjects were randomized to either MC or control (symptom-guided treatment). The primary outcome was total number of days with bothersome LBP during 52 weeks collected weekly with text-messages (SMS) and estimated by a GEE model. Three hundred and twenty-eight subjects were randomly allocated to one of the two treatment groups. MC resulted in a reduction in the total number of days per week with bothersome LBP compared with symptom-guided treatment. During the 12 month study period, the MC group (n = 163, 3 dropouts) reported 12.8 (95% CI = 10.1, 15.5; p = <0.001) fewer days in total with bothersome LBP compared to the control group (n = 158, 4 dropouts) and received 1.7 (95% CI = 1.8, 2.1; p = <0.001) more treatments. Numbers presented are means. No serious adverse events were recorded. MC was more effective than symptom-guided treatment in reducing the total number of days over 52 weeks with bothersome non-specific LBP but it resulted in a higher number of treatments. For selected patients with recurrent or persistent non-specific LBP who respond well to an initial course of chiropractic care, MC should be considered an option for tertiary prevention.

AbstractObjectiveTo assess the benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for the treatment of chronic low back pain.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesMedline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Index to Chiropractic Literature, and trial registries up to 4 May 2018, including reference lists of eligible trials and related reviews.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials examining the effect of spinal manipulation or mobilisation in adults (≥18 years) with chronic low back pain with or without referred pain. Studies that exclusively examined sciatica were excluded, as was grey literature. No restrictions were applied to language or setting.Review methodsTwo reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The effect of SMT was compared with recommended therapies, non-recommended therapies, sham (placebo) SMT, and SMT as an adjuvant therapy. Main outcomes were pain and back specific functional status, examined as mean differences and standardised mean differences (SMD), respectively. Outcomes were examined at 1, 6, and 12 months. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. A random effects model was used and statistical heterogeneity explored.Results47 randomised controlled trials including a total of 9211 participants were identified, who were on average middle aged (35-60 years). Most trials compared SMT with recommended therapies. Moderate quality evidence suggested that SMT has similar effects to other recommended therapies for short term pain relief (mean difference −3.17, 95% confidence interval −7.85 to 1.51) and a small, clinically better improvement in function (SMD −0.25, 95% confidence interval −0.41 to −0.09). High quality evidence suggested that compared with non-recommended therapies SMT results in small, not clinically better effects for short term pain relief (mean difference −7.48, −11.50 to −3.47) and small to moderate clinically better improvement in function (SMD −0.41, −0.67 to −0.15). In general, these results were similar for the intermediate and long term outcomes as were the effects of SMT as an adjuvant therapy. Evidence for sham SMT was low to very low quality; therefore these effects should be considered uncertain. Statistical heterogeneity could not be explained. About half of the studies examined adverse and serious adverse events, but in most of these it was unclear how and whether these events were registered systematically. Most of the observed adverse events were musculoskeletal related, transient in nature, and of mild to moderate severity. One study with a low risk of selection bias and powered to examine risk (n=183) found no increased risk of an adverse event (relative risk 1.24, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.81) or duration of the event (1.13, 0.59 to 2.18) compared with sham SMT. In one study, the Data Safety Monitoring Board judged one serious adverse event to be possibly related to SMT.ConclusionSMT produces similar effects to recommended therapies for chronic low back pain, whereas SMT seems to be better than non-recommended interventions for improvement in function in the short term. Clinicians should inform their patients of the potential risks of adverse events associated with SMT.

Low back pain is a very common symptom. It occurs in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries and all age groups from children to the elderly population. Globally, years lived with disability caused by low back pain increased by 54% between 1990 and 2015, mainly because of population increase and ageing, with the biggest increase seen in low-income and middle-income countries. Low back pain is now the leading cause of disability worldwide. For nearly all people with low back pain, it is not possible to identify a specific nociceptive cause. Only a small proportion of people have a well understood pathological cause—eg, a vertebral fracture, malignancy, or infection. People with physically demanding jobs, physical and mental comorbidities, smokers, and obese individuals are at greatest risk of reporting low back pain. Disabling low back pain is over-represented among people with low socioeconomic status. Most people with new episodes of low back pain recover quickly; however, recurrence is common and in a small proportion of people, low back pain becomes persistent and disabling. Initial high pain intensity, psychological distress, and accompanying pain at multiple body sites increases the risk of persistent disabling low back pain. Increasing evidence shows that central pain-modulating mechanisms and pain cognitions have important roles in the development of persistent disabling low back pain. Cost, health-care use, and disability from low back pain vary substantially between countries and are influenced by local culture and social systems, as well as by beliefs about cause and effect. Disability and costs attributed to low back pain are projected to increase in coming decades, in particular in low-income and middle-income countries, where health and other systems are often fragile and not equipped to cope with this growing burden. Intensified research efforts and global initiatives are clearly needed to address the burden of low back pain as a public health problem.

Background Previous research has investigated utilization rates, who sees chiropractors, for what reasons, and the type of care that chiropractors provide. However, these studies have not been comprehensively synthesized. We aimed to give a global overview by summarizing the current literature on the utilization of chiropractic services, reasons for seeking care, patient profiles, and assessment and treatment provided. Methods Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature using keywords and subject headings (MeSH or ChiroSH terms) from database inception to January 2016. Eligible studies: 1) were published in English or French; 2) were case series, descriptive, cross-sectional, or cohort studies; 3) described patients receiving chiropractic services; and 4) reported on the following theme(s): utilization rates of chiropractic services; reasons for attending chiropractic care; profiles of chiropractic patients; or, types of chiropractic services provided. Paired reviewers independently screened all citations and data were extracted from eligible studies. We provided descriptive numerical analysis, e.g. identifying the median rate and interquartile range (e.g., chiropractic utilization rate) stratified by study population or condition. Results The literature search retrieved 14,149 articles; 328 studies (reported in 337 articles) were relevant and reported on chiropractic utilization (245 studies), reason for attending chiropractic care (85 studies), patient demographics (130 studies), and assessment and treatment provided (34 studies). Globally, the median 12-month utilization of chiropractic services was 9.1% (interquartile range (IQR): 6.7%-13.1%) and remained stable between 1980 and 2015. Most patients consulting chiropractors were female (57.0%, IQR: 53.2%-60.0%) with a median age of 43.4 years (IQR: 39.6-48.0), and were employed (median: 77.3%, IQR: 70.3%-85.0%). The most common reported reasons for people attending chiropractic care were (median) low back pain (49.7%, IQR: 43.0%-60.2%), neck pain (22.5%, IQR: 16.3%-24.5%), and extremity problems (10.0%, IQR: 4.3%-22.0%). The most common treatment provided by chiropractors included (median) spinal manipulation (79.3%, IQR: 55.4%-91.3%), soft-tissue therapy (35.1%, IQR: 16.5%-52.0%), and formal patient education (31.3%, IQR: 22.6%-65.0%). Conclusions This comprehensive overview on the world-wide state of the chiropractic profession documented trends in the literature over the last four decades. The findings support the diverse nature of chiropractic practice, although common trends emerged.

Low back pain is the leading worldwide cause of years lost to disability and its burden is growing alongside the increasing and ageing population.1 Because these population shifts are more rapid in low-income and middle-income countries, where adequate resources to address the problem might not exist, the effects will probably be more extreme in these regions. Most low back pain is unrelated to specific identifiable spinal abnormalities, and our Viewpoint, the third paper in this Lancet Series,2,3 is a call for action on this global problem of low back pain.

INTRODUCTION Vertebral artery dissecting aneurysms (VADAs) are a rare, but serious cause of acute subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. METHODS All patients with a VADA treated endovascularly at a single facility from 1999 to 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. VADAs were categorized as either dominant or non-dominant vertebral artery. Llocation of the VADA was classified as either the 4th section of the vertebral artery (V4 segment, proximal to PICA), incorporating PICA origin, or vertebral basilar (VB, distal to PICA). Primary neurological outcomes were measured via mRS, with a mRS > 2 categorized as a poor neurological outcome. RESULTS 91 patients were found to have an endovascular treatment for a VADA. Coil-occlusion was performed in 47(51%), FDD in 29(32%), and stent/coil in 15(17%) cases. 54 patients(59%) presented with a ruptured VADA (treated via coil-occlusion in 39, FDD in 7, and stent/coil in 8 cases; P < .001) and 44 VADAs(48%) involved a dominant vertebral artery (all dominant vertebral arteries were treated by either a FDD or stent/coil; P < .001). Rates of an endovascular complication and retreatment were both significantly higher in patients treated with stent/coil(complication: N = 4, 27%, retreatment: N = 6, 40%) vs either coil-occlusion(complication: N = 1, 2%, retreatment = 2, 4%) or FDD(complication: N = 2, 7%, retreatment: N = 4, 14%)(P = .008 and P = .002, respectively). Coil-occlusion (22, 46%) was associated with a higher percentage of patients with a mRS > 2 on follow-up than FDD(4, 14%) or stent/coil (3, 20%)(P = .006). For dominant vertebral arteries, stent/coil (6, 40%) was found to have a greater percentage of retreatments than FDD(4, 14%)(P = .049). Of the unruptured VADAs (N = 37), 1 patient had a complication (3%), 4 patients(11%) required retreatment, 2 patients(5%) were found to have mRS > 2, and 8 patients (22%) with a worse mRS on follow-up. CONCLUSION The majority of ruptured VADAs treated endovascularly are via coil-occlusion of non-dominant vertebral arteries. For dominant vertebral arteries, FDD has a lower rate of retreatment than stent/coil, but with similar neurological outcomes. Furthermore, endovascular treatment of unruptured VADAs is safe and associated with relatively favorable angiographic and neurological outcomes especially when considering the poor natural history of these lesions.

Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used by patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain; however, questions remain around efficacy, dosing, and safety, as well as how these approaches compare to other therapies. Based on published trials, to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic nonspecific neck pain. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. We identified studies published between January 2000 and September 2017, by searching multiple electronic databases, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation and/or mobilization therapies to sham, no treatment, each other, and other active therapies, or when combined as multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias by using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. When possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project was funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under award number U19AT007912 and ultimately used to inform an appropriateness panel. A total of 47 randomized trials (47 unique trials in 53 publications) were included in the systematic review. These studies were rated as having low risk of bias and included a total of 4,460 patients with nonspecific chronic neck pain who were being treated by a practitioner using various types of manipulation and/or mobilization interventions. A total of 37 trials were categorized as unimodal approaches and involved thrust or nonthrust compared with sham, no treatment, or other active comparators. Of these, only 6 trials with similar intervention styles, comparators, and outcome measures/timepoints were pooled for meta-analysis at 1, 3, and 6 months, showing a small effect in favor of thrust plus exercise compared to an exercise regimen alone for a reduction in pain and disability. Multimodal approaches appeared to be effective at reducing pain and improving function from the 10 studies evaluated. Health-related quality of life was seldom reported. Some 22/47 studies did not report or mention adverse events. Of the 25 that did, either no or minor events occurred. The current evidence is heterogeneous, and sample sizes are generally small. Studies published since January 2000 provide low-moderate quality evidence that various types of manipulation and/or mobilization will reduce pain and improve function for chronic nonspecific neck pain compared to other interventions. It appears that multimodal approaches, in which multiple treatment approaches are integrated, might have the greatest potential impact. The studies comparing to no treatment or sham were mostly testing the effect of a single dose, which may or may not be helpful to inform practice. According to the published trials reviewed, manipulation and mobilization appear safe. However, given the low rate of serious adverse events, other types of studies with much larger sample sizes would be required to fully describe the safety of manipulation and/or mobilization for nonspecific chronic neck pain. Chronic neck pain, nonspecific, chiropractic, manipulation, mobilization, systematic review, meta-analysis, appropriateness.