osteopathy
Due to the common adverse effects of motion sickness pharmaceuticals (e.g., drowsiness), medication options to treat the condition are limited. Thus many non-pharmacological therapies are being advocated for it. One of them is osteopathy.
The purpose of this study was to explore the potential utility of a nonpharmaceutical method for motion sickness prevention, specifically an osteopathic manipulative technique (OMT). A novel OMT protocol for the reduction of motion sickness symptoms and severity was evaluated using a sham-controlled, counterbalanced, between-subjects study design. The independent variable was OMT treatment administered prior to the motion sickness-inducing procedure (rotating chair). The primary dependent measures were total and subscale scores from the Motion Sickness Assessment Questionnaire.
The OMT treatment group experienced significantly fewer gastrointestinal (mean scores postprocedure, treatment M = 20.42, sham M = 41.67) and sopite-related (mean scores postprocedure, treatment M = 12.81, sham M = 20.68) symptoms than the sham group while controlling for motion sickness susceptibility. There were no differences between groups with respect to peripheral and central symptoms.
The authors concluded that the results suggest that the treatment may prevent gastrointestinal (nausea) and sopite-related symptoms (sleepiness). These preliminary findings support further exploration of OMT for the prevention of motion sickness. A more precise evaluation of the mechanism of action is needed. Additionally, the duration of the effects needs to be investigated to determine the usefulness of this technique in training and operational settings.
Motion sickness is one of those conditions for which many forms of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) have been tried and found in dodgy studies to be promissing, e.g.:
And now even OMT!
But before we rush into doing further research on this topic, we should perhaps ask whether the trial really does show OMT to be effective. Unfortunately, the article is behind a paywall, and I can therefore only speculate and ask whether the sham procedure was credible. Was the success of patient-blinding tested? I suspect it wasn’t. If that is so, it could mean that the OMT itself was not the reason for the results but that patient expectation caused the reported outcomes.
In any case, if nothing else, this paper shows yet again that the notion of OMT being an option purely for spinal problems is fantasy. Its advocates try everything to get it accepted as a cure all.
The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of conservative interventions compared with other interventions, placebo/sham interventions, or no intervention on disability, pain, function, quality of life, and psychological impact in adults with cervical radiculopathy (CR), a painful condition caused by the compression or irritation of the nerves that supply the shoulders, arms and hands.
A multidisciplinary team autors searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO from inception to June 15, 2022 to identify studies that were:
- randomized trials,
- had at least one conservative treatment arm,
- diagnosed participants with CR through confirmatory clinical examination and/or diagnostic tests.
Studies were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the quality of the evidence was rated using the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
Of the 2561 records identified, 59 trials met the inclusion criteria (n = 4108 participants). Due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity, the findings were synthesized narratively.
There is very-low certainty evidence supporting the use of:
- acupuncture,
- prednisolone,
- cervical manipulation,
- low-level laser therapy
for pain and disability in the immediate to short-term, and
- thoracic manipulation,
- low-level laser therapy
for improvements in cervical range of motion in the immediate term.
There is low to very-low certainty evidence for multimodal interventions, providing inconclusive evidence for pain, disability, and range of motion.
There is inconclusive evidence for pain reduction after conservative management compared with surgery, rated as very-low certainty.
The authors concluded that there is a lack of high-quality evidence, limiting our ability to make any meaningful conclusions. As the number of people with CR is expected to increase, there is an urgent need for future research to help address these gaps.
I agree!
Yet, to patients suffering from CR, this is hardly constructive advice. What should they do vis a vis such disappointing evidence?
They might speak to a orthopedic surgeon; but often there is no indication for an operation. What then?
Patients are bound to try some of the conservative options – but which one?
- Acupuncture?
- Prednisolone?
- Cervical manipulation,?
- Low-level laser therapy?
My advice is this: be patient – the vast majority of cases resolves spontaneously regardless of therapy – and, if you are desperate, try any of them except cervical manipulation which is burdened with the risk of serious complications and often makes things worse.
This study was aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of osteopathic visceral manipulation (OVM) combined with physical therapy in pain, depression, and functional impairment in patients with chronic mechanical low back pain (LBP).
A total of 118 patients with chronic mechanical LBP were assessed, and 86 who met the inclusion criteria were included in the randomized clinical trial (RCT). The patients were randomized to either:
- Group 1 (n=43), who underwent physical therapy (5 days/week, for a total of 15 sessions) combined with OVM (2 days/week with three-day intervals),
- or Group 2 (n=43), which underwent physical therapy (5 days/week, for a total of 15 sessions) combined with sham OVM (2 days/week with three-day intervals).
Both groups were assessed before and after treatment and at the fourth week post-treatment.
Seven patients were lost to follow-up, and the study was completed with 79 patients. Pain, depression, and functional impairment scores were all improved in both groups (p=0.001 for all). This improvement was sustained at week four after the end of treatment. However, improvement in the pain, depression, and functional impairment scores was significantly higher in Group 1 than in Group 2 (p=0.001 for all).
The authors concluded that the results suggest that OVM combined with physical therapy is useful to improve pain, depression, and functional impairment in patients with chronic mechanical low back pain. We believe that OVM techniques should be combined with other physical therapy modalities in this patient population.
OVM was invented by the French osteopath, Jean-Piere Barral. In the 1980s, he stated that through his clinical work with thousands of patients, he discovered that many health issues were caused by our inner organs being entrapped and immobile. According to its proponents, OVM is based on the specific placement of soft manual forces that encourage the normal mobility, tone and function of our inner organs and their surrounding tissues. In this way, the structural integrity of the entire body is allegedly restored.
I am not aware of good evidence to show that OVM is effective – and this, sadly, includes the study above.
In my view, the most plausible explanation for its findings have little to do with OVM itself: sham OVM was applied “by performing light pressure and touches with the palm of the hand on the selected points for OVM without the intention of treating the patient”. This means that most likely patients were able to tell OVM from sham OVM and thus de-blinded. In other words, their expectation of receiving an effective therapy (and not the OVM per se) determined the outcome.
According to Healthcare.gov, a primary care provider in the US is “a physician (MD or DO), nurse practitioner, clinical nurse specialist or physician assistant, as allowed under state law, who provides, coordinates or helps a patient access a range of healthcare services.” A growing movement exists to expand who can act as a primary care privider (PCP). Chiropractors have been a part of this expansion, but is that wise? This is the question recently asked by Katie Suleta of THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH In it, she explains that:
- chiropractors would like to act as PCPs,
- chiropractors are not trained in pharmacology,
- chiropractors receive some training in supplements,
- chiropractors wish to avoid pumping the body full of “synthetic” hormones and substances.
Subsequently, she adresses the chiropractic profession’s stance on vaccines.
First, look at similar professional organizations to establish a reasonable expectation. The American Medical Association has firmly taken a stance on vaccines and provides resources for physicians to help communicate with patients. There is no question about where they stand on the topic, whether it be vaccines in general or COVID-19 vaccines specifically. Ditto the American Osteopathic Association and American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine. There is a contingent of vaccine-hesitant MDs and DOs. There is also an anti-vax contingent of MDs and DOs. The vaccine hesitant can be considered misguided and cautious, while anti-vaxxers often have more misinformation and an underlying political agenda. The two groups pose a threat but are, thankfully, the minority. They’re also clearly acting against the recommendations of their professional organizations.
Let’s now turn to the American Chiropractic Association (ACA). Unlike the American Medical Association or American Osteopathic Association, they seem to take no stance on vaccines. None. Zip. Zilch. As of this writing, if you go to the ACA website and search for “vaccines,” zero results are returned. Venturing over to the ACA-CDID, there is a category under their “News and Articles” section for ‘Vaccines.’ This seems promising! However, when you click on it, it returns one article on influenza vaccines from Fox News from 2017. It’s not an original article. It’s not a perspective piece. No recommendations are to be found—nothing even on the COVID-19 vaccines. Basically, there is effectively nothing on ACA-CDID’s website either. We’re oh for two.
The last one we’ll try is DABCI University. No, it’s not a professional organization, but it does train DCs. The words ‘university’ and ‘internist’ are involved, so they must talk about vaccines…right? Wrong again. While there is a lot of content available only to paying members and students, the sections of their website that are publicly available are noticeably short on vaccine information. There is a section dedicated to articles, currently including five whole articles, and not a single one talked about vaccines. One report addresses the pharmacokinetics of coffee enemas, but none talks about one of the most fundamental tools PCPs have to help prevent illness.
Why It’s Important
Chiropractic was defined by DD. Palmer, its founder, as “a science of healing without drugs.” It relies on spinal manipulation. In traditional chiropractic, there is no room for medications at all. A rift has developed within the profession, and some chiropractors, those seeking that internal medicine certification, “try to avoid pumping the body with synthetic hormones and other prescriptions.”
During the COVID-19 pandemic, several prominent chiropractors publicly pushed anti-vaccine views. To highlight just a few prominent examples: Vax Con ’21, Mile Hi Chiro, and Ben Tapper. Vax Con ’21 was organized and orchestrated by the Chiropractic Society of Wisconsin. It featured Judy Mikovits, of Plandemic fame, as a speaker and touted her book with a forward written by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. It offered continuing education units (CEUs) to DCs to attend this anti-vaccine conference that peddled misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and other prevention measures. Healthcare providers are often required to complete a certain number of continuing education units to maintain licensure, ensuring that they stay current and sharp as healthcare evolves or, in this case, devolves.
This conference was not unique in this either. Mile Hi Chiro was just held in Denver in September of this year, had several questionable speakers (including RFK and Ben Tapper of Disinformation Dozen fame), and offered continuing education. If professional conferences offer continuing education units for attendees and push vaccine misinformation, that should concern everyone. Especially if the profession in question wants to act as PCPs.
Despite training in a system that believes “the body has an innate intelligence, and the power to heal itself if it is functioning properly, and that chiropractic care can help it do that,” without medications, but frequently with supplements, roughly 58% of Oregon’s chiropractors were vaccinated against COVID-19. That said, their training and inclination, along with the silence of their professional organizations and the chiropractic conferences featuring anti-vaccine sentiment, make them a profession that, at the very least, doesn’t consider vaccinations or medications viable health alternatives. We’re now talking about an entire profession that wants to be PCPs.
Irrespective of your belief about the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination, the germ theory of disease remains unchallenged. Anyone unwilling to work to treat and prevent infectious diseases within their community with the most effective means at our disposal should not be allowed to dispense medical advice. Chiropractors lack the basic training that a PCP should have. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I want healthcare accessible for everyone. But, if you’re looking for a PCP, consider going to an MD, DO, NP, or PA – they come fully equipped for your primary care needs.
Regular readers of this blog will be aware that I have discussed the thorny issue of chiros and vaccinations many times before, e.g.:
- Chiropractic and Public Health
- The International Chiropractors Association’s Statement on Vaccination
- The General Chiropractic Council’s ‘Registrant Survey 2020’ has just been published
- Far too many chiropractors believe that vaccinations do not have a positive effect on public health
- Vaccination: chiropractors “espouse views which aren’t evidence based”
- Patients consulting chiropractors, homeopaths, or naturopaths are less likely to agree to the flu jab
- “The uncensored truth” about COVID-19 vaccines” … as told by some chiro loons
- Beliefs and behaviors of US chiropractors
- Media attention forces (some) chiropractors to get their act together
- Ever wondered why so many chiropractors are profoundly anti-vax?
I agree with Katie Suleta that the issue is important and thank her for raising it. I also agree with her conclusion that, if you’re looking for a PCP, consider going to an MD, DO, NP, or PA – they come fully equipped for your primary care needs.
Do not consult chiropractors.
The concept that the outcomes of spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) – the hallmark intervention of chiropractors which they use on practically every patient – are optimized when the treatment is aimed at a clinically relevant joint is commonly assumed and central to teaching and clinical use of chiropractic. But is the assumption true?
This systematic review investigated whether clinical effects are superior when this is the case compared to SMT applied elsewhere. Eligible study designs were randomized controlled trials that investigated the effect of SMT applied to candidate versus non-candidate sites for spinal pain.
The authors obtained studies from four different databases. Risk of bias was assessed using an adjusted Cochrane risk of bias tool, adding four items for study quality. Between-group differences were extracted for any reported outcome or, when not reported, calculated from the within-group changes. Outcomes were compared for SMT applied at a ‘relevant’ site to SMT applied elsewhere. The authors prioritized methodologically robust studies when interpreting results.
Ten studies were included. They 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.
The authors concluded that the current evidence does not support that SMT applied at a supposedly “clinically relevant” candidate site is superior to SMT applied at a supposedly “not clinically relevant” site for individuals with spinal pain.
I came across this study when I searched for the published work of Prof Stephen Perle, a chiropractor and professor at the School of Chiropractic, College of Health Sciences, University of Bridgeport, US, who recently started trolling me on this blog. Against my expectation, I find his study interesting and worthwhile.
His data quite clearly show that the effects of SMT are non-specific and mainly due to a placebo response. That in itself is not hugely remarkable and has been suspected to some time, e.g.:
- Chiropractic manipulation for migraine is a placebo therapy
- Chiropractic treatments are placebos
- Chiropractic spinal manipulation = placebo!
- Manual therapy (mainly chiropractic and osteopathy) does not have clinically relevant effects on back pain compared with sham treatment
- Manual therapies for back pain: not better than a placebo
- Is spinal manipulation a placebo therapy?
What is remarkable, however, is the fact that Perle and his co-authors offer all sorts of other explanation for their findings without even seriously considering what is stareing in their faces:
SPINAL MANIPULATIONS ARE PLACEBOS
CHIROPRACTIC IS A PLACEBO THERAPY
This might be almost acceptable, if chiropractic would not also be burdened with significant risks (as we have discussed ad nauseam on this blog) – another fact of which chiros like Perle are in denial.
What does all that mean for patients?
The practical implication is fairly straight forward: the risk/benefit balance of chiropractic is negative. And this surely means the only responsible advice to patients is this:
NEVER CONSULT A CHIRO!
The ‘University College of Osteopathy’ announced a proposal to merge with the AECC University College (AECC UC). Both institutions will seek to bring together the two specialist providers to offer a “unique inter-disciplinary environment for education, clinical practice and research in osteopathy, chiropractic, and across a wide range of allied health and related disciplines”.
The partnership is allegedly set to unlock significant opportunities for growth and development by bringing together the two specialist institutions’ expertise and resources across two locations – in Dorset and central London.
As a joint statement, Chair of the Board of Governors at AECC UC, Jeni Bremner and Chair of the Board of Governors at UCO, Professor Jo Price commented:
“We believe the proposed merger would further the institutional ambitions for both of our organisations and the related professional groups, by allowing us to expand our educational offering, grow student numbers and provide a unique inter-disciplinary training environment, providing students the opportunity to be immersed in multi-professional practice and research, with exposure to and participation in multi-disciplinary teams.
“There is also an exciting and compelling opportunity to expedite the development of a nationally unique, and internationally-leading MSK Centre of Excellence for Education and Research, developed and delivered across our two sites.”
The announcement is accompanied by further uncritical and promotional language:
Established as the first chiropractic training provider in Europe, AECC UC has been at the forefront of evidence-based chiropractic education, practice and research for more than 50 years. The institution is on an exciting journey of growth and development, having expanded and diversified its academic portfolio and activity beyond its traditional core offering of chiropractic across a broad range of allied health courses and apprenticeships, working closely with NHS, local authority and other system partners across Dorset and the south-west. The proposed merger with UCO would allow AECC UC to enhance the breadth and depth of its offer to support the expansion and development of the health and care workforce across a wider range of partners.
Now in its 106th year, UCO is one of the UK’s leading providers of osteopathic education and research with an established reputation for creating highly-skilled, evidence-informed graduates. UCO research is recognised as world-leading, delivering value to the osteopathic and wider health care community.
Sharon Potter, Acting Vice-Chancellor of UCO, said:
“As an institution that has long been at the forefront of osteopathic education and research, we are committed to ensuring further growth and development of the osteopathic profession.
“UCO has been proactively considering options to future-proof the institution. Following a review of strategic options, UCO is delighted by the proposed merger, working closely with AECC UC to ensure that UCO and osteopathy thrives as part of the inter-professional health sciences landscape, both academically and clinically. There is significant congruence between UCO and AECC UC in our strong aligned values, commitment to and delivery of excellent osteopathic education, clinical care and research, and opinion leadership.
“AECC UC has a strong track record of respecting the differences in professions, evidenced by the autonomy across the 10 different professional groups supported by the institution. The merger will not only mean we are protecting UCO through preserving its osteopathic heritage and creating a sustainable future, but that our staff and students can collaborate with other professional groups such as physiotherapy, chiropractic, sport rehabilitation, podiatry and diagnostic imaging, in a multidisciplinary MSK and rehabilitation environment unlike anywhere else in the UK.”
Professor Lesley Haig, Vice-Chancellor of AECC UC, commented:
“Preserving the heritage of UCO and safeguarding its future status as the flagship osteopathy training provider in the UK will be critical, just as it has been to protect the chiropractic heritage of the AECC brand. UCO is seen as synonymous with, and reflective of, the success of the osteopathy profession and we fully recognise and respect the important role that UCO plays not only as a sector-leading provider of osteopathic education, research and clinical care, but as the UK’s flagship osteopathy educational provider.
“Overall it is clear that UCO and AECC UC already have a common values base, similar understanding of approaches to academic and clinical delivery, and positive relationships upon which a future organisational structure and opportunities can be developed. It’s an exciting time for both institutions as we move forward in partnership to create something unique and become recognised nationally and internationally as a centre of excellence.”
The proposed merger would continue the already founded positive relations between the institutions, where regular visits, sharing of good practice, and collaborative research work are already taking place. Heads of terms for the potential merger have now been agreed and both institutions are entering into the next phase of discussions, which will include wide consultation with staff, students and other stakeholders to produce a comprehensive implementation plan.
__________________________________
In case this bonanza of platitudes and half-truths has not yet overwhelmed you, I might be so bold as to ask 10 critical questions:
- What is an “evidence-based chiropractic education”? Does it include the messages that 1) subluxation is nonsense, 2) chiropractic manipulations can cause harm, 3) there is little evidence that they do more good than harm?
- How an an “expansion and development of the health and care workforce” be anticipated on the basis of the 3 points I just made?
- What does the term “evidence-informed graduates” mean? Does it mean they are informed that you teach them nonsense but instruct them to practice this nonsense anyway?
- Do “options to future-proof the institution” include the continuation of misleading the public about the value of chiropractic/osteopathy?
- Does the”delivery of excellent osteopathic education, clinical care and research, and opinion leadership” account for the fact that the evidence for osteopathy is weak at best and for most conditions negative?
- By “preserving its osteopathic heritage”, do you intend to preserve also the reputation of your founding father, Andrew Taylor Still, who did many dubious things. In 1874, for instance, he was excommunicated by the Methodist Church because of his “laying on of hands”; specifically, he was accused of trying to emulate Jesus Christ, labelled an agent of the Devil, and condemned as practicing voodoo. Or do you prefer to white-wash the osteopathic heritage?
- You also want “to protect the chiropractic heritage”; does that mean you aim at white-washing the juicy biography of the charlatan who created chiropractic, DD Palmer, as well?
- “UCO and AECC UC already have a common values base” – what are they? As far as I can see, they mainly consist in hiding the truth about the uselessness of your activities from the public.
- How do you want to “recognised nationally and internationally as a centre of excellence”? Might it be a good idea to begin by critically assessing your interventions and ask whether they do more good than harm?
- Crucially, what is really behing the merger that you are trying to sell us with such concentrated BS?
This systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed at analyzing the effectiveness of craniosacral therapy in improving pain and disability among patients with headache disorders.
PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Osteopathic Medicine Digital Library databases were searched in March 2023. Two independent reviewers searched the databases and extracted data from randomized clinical trials comparing craniosacral therapy with control or sham interventions. The same reviewers assessed the methodological quality and the risk of bias using the PEDro scale and the Cochrane Collaboration tool, respectively. Grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations was used to rate the certainty of the evidence. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models using RevMan 5.4 software.
The searches retrieved 735 papers, and 4 studies were finally included. The craniosacral therapy provided statistically significant but clinically unimportant change on pain intensity (Mean difference = –1.10; 95% CI: –1.85, –0.35; I2: 44%), and no change on disability or headache effect (Standardized Mean Difference = –0.34; 95% CI –0.70, 0.01; I2: 26%). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded to very low.
The authors concluded that very low certainty of evidence suggests that craniosacral therapy produces clinically unimportant effects on pain intensity, whereas no significant effects were observed in disability or headache effect.
I find it strange that researchers seem so frequently unable to formulate their conclusions clearly. Is it political correctness? Or are they somehow favorably inclined (i.e. biased) towards the treatment that they pretend to critically evaluate?
Let’s look at the facts related to this review:
- Craniosacral therapy (CST) is utterly implausible.
- Only 4 RCTs were found.
- They were of poor quality.
- They were published mostly by people who want to promote CST.
- Therefore the overall statistically significant effect is most likely a false-positive result.
- This means that the conclusion should be much more straight forward.
I suggest something along the following lines:
A critical evaluation of the existing RCTs failed to find convincing evidence that CST is an effective treatment for headache disorders.
Charles III is about to pay his first visit to France, his second visit to any state. Earlier this year, he has already visited Germany. Originally, France had been first on his list but the event was cancelled in view of the violent protests that rocked the country at the time. Now he is definitely expected and the French are exited. I am currently in France and have been asked to give several interviews on the king’s love affair with so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
The French have long been fascinated by our royal family which seems a bit odd considering what they did to their own. Now that Charles and Camilla are about to appear with an entourage of about 50 servants between them, the press is full with slightly bemused reports and comments:
Since childhood, Charles has been accustomed to a luxurious, gilded life, which is reproduced on every trip outside the royal palaces, to ensure maximum service, comfort and security… The new king always travels with his private secretary, Sir Clive Alderton, his press advisor, his steward, his doctor, his personal valets, his security guards, and his private chauffeur, Tim Williams… And, of course, his regular osteopath to relieve his lower back. Since he’s had a lot of falls playing polo, Charles regularly suffers from back pain…”.
Really, just an osteopath?
What about all the other SCAM-practitioners whose businesses Charles so regularly supported in the past:
- · Acupuncture
- · Aromatherapy
- · Ayurveda
- · Chiropractic
- · Detox
- · Gerson therapy
- · Herbal medicine
- · Homeopathy
- · Iridology
- · Marma massage
- · Massage therapy
- · Pulse diagnosis
- · Reflexology
- · Tongue diagnosis
- · Traditional Chinese Medicine
- · Yoga
Will they not be disappointed?
I do wonder who Charles’ osteopath and doctor are. Are they competent? I am sure they both must be well-informed and evidence-based experts. If that is the case, they will have, of course, told Charles that osteopathy is hardly an optimal solution for an injured back.
In any case, now I am concerned about the royal back and therefore urgently recommend that HIS MAJESTY reads some of my previous posts on the subject, e.g.:
- Manual therapy (mainly chiropractic and osteopathy) does not have clinically relevant effects on back pain compared with sham treatment
- Spinal manipulative therapy for older adults with chronic low back pain fails to generate convincing results
- NICE no longer recommends acupuncture, chiropractic or osteopathy for low back pain
- The Effects of Yoga, Naturopathy, and Conventional Medical Treatment in Managing Low Back Pain
- Chronic non-specific low back pain: comparing cognitive functional therapy and movement system impairment (MSI)-based treatment
- Cognitive functional therapy for chronic low back pain
- Meditation for Chronic Low Back Pain Management?
Let’s hope all goes well here in France, and please let’s not be so akward as to ask about the environmental aspects – we all know how worried Charles truly is about not just his health but also the health of the planet – of moving such an entourage for a two-day visit.
PS
Charles flew in a private jet from London to Paris and took his Bentley with him.
The aim of this systematic review was to update the current level of evidence for spinal manipulation in influencing various biochemical markers in healthy and/or symptomatic population.
Various databases were searched (inception till May 2023) and fifteen trials (737 participants) that met the inclusion criteria were included in the review. Two authors independently screened, extracted and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. Outcome measure data were synthesized using standard mean differences and meta-analysis for the primary outcome (biochemical markers). The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used for assessing the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome of interest.
There was low-quality evidence that spinal manipulation influenced various biochemical markers (not pooled). There was low-quality evidence of significant difference that spinal manipulation is better (SMD -0.42, 95% CI – 0.74 to -0.1) than control in eliciting changes in cortisol levels immediately after intervention. Low-quality evidence further indicated (not pooled) that spinal manipulation can influence inflammatory markers such as interleukins levels post-intervention. There was also very low-quality evidence that spinal manipulation does not influence substance-P, neurotensin, oxytocin, orexin-A, testosterone and epinephrine/nor-epinephrine.
The authors concluded that spinal manipulation may influence inflammatory and cortisol post-intervention. However, the wider prediction intervals in most outcome measures point to the need for future research to clarify and establish the clinical relevance of these changes.
The majority of the studies were of low or very low quality. This means that the collective evidence is less than reliable. In turn, this means, I think, that the conclusions are misleading. A more honest conclusion would be this:
There is no reliable evidence that spinal manipulation influences inflammatory and cortisol levels.
As for the clinical relevance, I would like to point out that it would not be surprising if chiropractors could one day convincingly show that spinal manipulation do influence various biochemical markers. Many things do! If you fall down a staircase, for instance, plenty of biochemical markers will be affected. This, however, does not mean that throwing our patients down the stairs is of therapeutic value.
This study aimed to compare the effects of cognitive functional therapy (CFT) and movement system impairment (MSI)-based treatment on pain intensity, disability, Kinesiophobia, and gait kinetics in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP).
In a single-blind randomized clinical trial, the researchers randomly assigned 91 patients with CNSLBP into CFT (n = 45) and MSI-based treatment (n = 46) groups. An 8-week training intervention was given to both groups. The researchers measured the primary outcome, which was pain intensity (Numeric rating scale), and the secondary outcomes, including disability (Oswestry disability index), Kinesiophobia (Tampa Kinesiophobia Scale), and vertical ground reaction force (VGRF) parameters at self-selected and faster speed (Force distributor treadmill). They evaluated patients at baseline, at the end of the 8-week intervention (post-treatment), and six months after the first treatment. Mixed-model ANOVA was used to evaluate the effects of the interaction between time (baseline vs. post-treatment vs. six-month follow-up) and group (CFT vs. MSI-based treatment) on each measure.
CFT showed superiority over MSI-based treatment in reducing pain intensity (P < 0.001, Effect size (ES) = 2.41), ODI (P < 0.001, ES = 2.15), and Kinesiophobia (P < 0.001, ES = 2.47) at eight weeks. The CFT also produced greater improvement in VGRF parameters, at both self-selected (FPF[P < 0.001, ES = 3], SPF[P < 0.001, ES = 0.5], MSF[P < 0.001, ES = 0.67], WAR[P < 0.001, ES = 1.53], POR[P < 0.001, ES = 0.8]), and faster speed, FPF(P < 0.001, ES = 1.33, MSF(P < 0.001, ES = 0.57), WAR(P < 0.001, ES = 0.67), POR(P < 0.001, ES = 2.91)] than the MSI, except SPF(P < 0.001, ES = 0.0) at eight weeks.
The authors concluded that this study suggests that the CFT is associated with better results in clinical and cognitive characteristics than the MSI-based treatment for CNSLBP, and the researchers maintained the treatment effects at six-month follow-up. Also, This study achieved better improvements in gait kinetics in CFT. CTF seems to be an appropriate and applicable treatment in clinical setting.
To understand this study, we need to know what CFT and MSI exactly entailed. Here is the information that the authors provide:
Movement system impairment-based treatment
The movement system impairment-based treatment group received 11 sessions of MSI-based treatment over the 8 weeks for 60 min per session with a supervision of a native speaker experienced (above 5 years) physical therapist with the knowledge of MSI-based treatment. The researchers designed the MSI-based treatment uniquely for each patient based on the interview, clinical examination, and questionnaires, just like they did with the CFT intervention. First, they administered standardized tests to characterize changes in the patient’s low back pain symptoms, and then they modified the treatment to make it more specific based on the participant’s individual symptoms. Depending on the participant’s direction-specific low back pain classification, they performed the intervention following one of the five MSI subgroups namely [1] rotation, [2] extension, [3] flexion, [4] rotation with extension, and [5] rotation with flexion. Finally, Patients treated using the standardized MSI protocol as follows: [1] education regarding normal postures and movements such as sitting, walking, bending, standing, and lying down; [2] education regarding exercises to perform trunk movements as painlessly as possible; and [3] prescription of functional exercises to improve trunk movement [32].
Cognitive functional therapy
Cognitive functional therapy was prescribed for each patient in CFT group based the CFT protocol conducted by O’Sullivan et al. (2015). Patients received supervised 12 sessions of training over the 8-week period with 60 min per session provided with another physical therapist who had been trained in CFT treatment. In this protocol, a physical therapist with more than 5 years of experience conducted an interview and physical examination of the patients to determine their own unique training programs, considering modifiable cognitive, biopsychosocial, functional, and lifestyle behavior factors. The intervention consists of the following 3 main stages: [1] making sense of pain that is completely reflective, where physical therapist could use the context of the patient’s own story to provide a new understanding of their condition and question their old beliefs [2] exposure with control which is designed to normalize maladaptive or provocative movement and posture related to activities of daily living that is integrated into each patient’s functional impairments, including teaching how to relax trunk muscles, how to have normal body posture while sitting, lying, bending, lifting, moving, and standing, and how to avoid pain behaviors, which aims to break poor postural habits; and [3] lifestyle change which is investigating the influence of unhealthy lifestyles in the patient’s pain context. Assessing the individual’s body mass, nutrition, quality of sleep, levels of physical activity or sedentary lifestyle, smoking, and other factors via video calls. Identifying such lifestyle factors helped us to individually advise and design exercise programs, rebuild self-confidence and self-efficacy, promote changes in lifestyle, and design coping strategies.
I must admit that I am not fully convinced.
Firstly, the study was not large and we need – as the authors state – more evidence. Secondly, I am not sure that the results show CFT to be more effective that MSI. They might merely indicate 1) that the bulk of the improvement is due to non-specific effects (e.g. reression towards the mean, natural history of the condition, placebo) and 2) that CFT is less harmful than MSI.
My conclusion:
we need not just more but better evidence.
