Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Dizziness in older people is a risk factor for falls. Neck pain is associated with dizziness and responds favourably to neck manipulation. However, it is unknown if chiropractic intervention including instrument-assisted manipulation of the neck in older people with neck pain can also improve dizziness. Methods This parallel two-arm pilot trial was conducted in Melbourne, Australia over nine months (October 2015 to June 2016). Participants aged 65–85 years, with self-reported chronic neck pain and dizziness, were recruited from the general public through advertisements in local community newspapers and via Facebook. Participants were randomised using a permuted block method to one of two groups: 1) Activator II™-instrument-assisted cervical and thoracic spine manipulation plus a combination of: light massage; mobilisation; range of motion exercises; and home advice about the application of heat, or 2) Sham-Activator II™-instrument-assisted manipulation (set to zero impulse) plus gentle touch of cervical and thoracic spinal regions. Participants were blinded to group allocation. The interventions were delivered weekly for four weeks. Assessments were conducted one week pre- and post-intervention. Clinical outcomes were assessed blindly and included: dizziness (dizziness handicap inventory [DHI]); neck pain (neck disability index [NDI]); self-reported concerns of falling; mood; physical function; and treatment satisfaction. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment rates, compliance with intervention and outcome assessment, study location, success of blinding, costs and harms. Results Out of 162 enquiries, 24 participants were screened as eligible and randomised to either the chiropractic ( n  = 13) or sham ( n  = 11) intervention group. Compliance was satisfactory with only two participants lost to follow up; thus, post-intervention data for 12 chiropractic intervention and 10 sham intervention participants were analysed. Blinding was similar between groups. Mild harms of increased spinal pain or headaches were reported by 6 participants. Costs amounted to AUD$2635 per participant. The data showed a trend favouring the chiropractic group in terms of clinically-significant improvements in both NDI and DHI scores. Sample sizes of n  = 150 or n  = 222 for dizziness or neck pain disability as the primary outcome measure, respectively, would be needed for a fully powered trial. Conclusions Recruitment of participants in this setting was difficult and expensive. However, a larger trial may be feasible at a specialised dizziness clinic within a rehabilitation setting. Compliance was acceptable and the outcome measures used were well accepted and responsive. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12613000653763 . Registered 13 June 2013. Trial funding: Foundation for Chiropractic Research and Postgraduate Education (Denmark).

An essential reference for the manual therapist seeking to improve patients' movement using pain-free hands-on techniques. Designed as a companion to Mulligan Concept training courses, the text is divided into the following sections: body regions, with techniques highlighting key information to assist with clinical reasoning and assessment; patient and practitioner positioning; and guidelines for application and further adjustments.

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.

Introduction The aim of this study was to investigate the acute effects of Mulligan mobilization with movement (MwM) and taping on function and pain intensity in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Materials and methods Female patients aged between 40 and 70 years with knee OA participated in the study. The patients were divided into three groups and each group received different interventions. Group 1 received MwM and taping according to Mulligan’s concept. Group 2 received MwM and placebo taping with no recovery effect and group 3 received placebo taping. Functional tests including lifting, picking up, sit and stand-up, socket tests in addition to climbing up and down stairs, ten metres walk, and timed up and go (TUG) tests were performed before and after intervention. Pain during the test performances were assessed by a visual analog scale. Results Performance in all tests improved significantly in the MwM + taping group, while only sit and stand-up, ten metres walk, and TUG test performances improved in the MwM + placebo taping group ( p  < 0.05). Pain intensity during the tests was also significantly better after intervention in those two groups ( p  < 0.05). Comparison between the groups showed that the pain intensity during all tests was less and functional test scores were better in sit and stand-up, ten metres walk, and walking down stairs in the MwM + taping group than the MwM + placebo taping group. Conclusions MwM accompanied by taping improves pain during functional activities as well as the performance. MwM without taping may also improve pain intensity; however, it may be inadequate in increasing the performance.

AbstractObjective To estimate the effect of adding exercise classes, spinal manipulation delivered in NHS or private premises, or manipulation followed by exercise to “best care” in general practice for patients consulting with back pain.Fig 1Progress of the UK BEAM trialDesign Pragmatic randomised trial with factorial design.Setting 181 general practices in Medical Research Council General Practice Research Framework; 63 community settings around 14 centres across the United Kingdom.Participants 1334 patients consulting their general practices about low back pain.Main outcome measures Scores on the Roland Morris disability questionnaire at three and 12 months, adjusted for centre and baseline scores.Results All groups improved over time. Exercise improved mean disability questionnaire scores at three months by 1.4 (95% confidence interval 0.6 to 2.1) more than “best care.” For manipulation the additional improvement was 1.6 (0.8 to 2.3) at three months and 1.0 (0.2 to 1.8) at 12 months. For manipulation followed by exercise the additional improvement was 1.9 (1.2 to 2.6) at three months and 1.3 (0.5 to 2.1) at 12 months. No significant differences in outcome occurred between manipulation in NHS premises and in private premises. No serious adverse events occurred.Conclusions Relative to “best care” in general practice, manipulation followed by exercise achieved a moderate benefit at three months and a small benefit at 12 months; spinal manipulation achieved a small to moderate benefit at three months and a small benefit at 12 months; and exercise achieved a small benefit at three months but not 12 months.

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.