Immediate effects of thoracic manipulation in patients with neck pain: a randomized clinical trial. Comparison of short-term response to two spinal manipulation techniques for patients with low back pain in a military beneficiary population. The immediate effects of upper thoracic translatoric spinal manipulation on cervical pain and range of motion: a randomized clinical trial. [Chronic low back pain and vertebral manipulation]. A pilot randomized clinical trial on the relative effect of instrumental (MFMA) versus manual (HVLA) manipulation in the treatment of cervical spine dysfunction. Thoracic spine manipulation for the management of patients with neck pain: a randomized clinical trial. Identifying subgroups of patients with acute/subacute "nonspecific" low back pain: results of a randomized clinical trial. The immediate effect of manipulation versus mobilization on pain and range of motion in the cervical spine: a randomized controlled trial. Comparison of the effectiveness of three manual physical therapy techniques in a subgroup of patients with low back pain who satisfy a clinical prediction rule: a randomized clinical trial. A clinical trial investigating the possible effect of the supine cervical rotatory manipulation and the supine lateral break manipulation in the treatment of mechanical neck pain: a pilot study. Randomised clinical trial of manipulative therapy and physiotherapy for persistent back and neck complaints: results of one year follow up. Low back pain of mechanical origin: randomised comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient treatment. Comparison of general exercise, motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: A randomized trial. The effect of spinal manipulation in the treatment of cervicogenic headache. A randomized controlled trial of exercise and manipulative therapy for cervicogenic headache. Long-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial assessing the efficacy of medication, acupuncture, and spinal manipulation for chronic mechanical spinal pain syndromes. Functional outcomes of low back pain: comparison of four treatment groups in a randomized controlled trial. Manipulation of the cervical spine--a pilot study. Lipid-altering changes and pleiotropic effects of atorvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia.
Mechanical neck pain is a common occurrence in the general population resulting in a considerable economic burden. Often physical therapists will incorporate manual therapies directed at the cervical spine including joint mobilization and manipulation into the management of patients with cervical pain. Although the effectiveness of mobilization and manipulation of the cervical spine has been well documented, the small inherent risks associated with these techniques has led clinicians to frequently utilize manipulation directed at the thoracic spine in this patient population. It is hypothesized that thoracic spine manipulation may elicit similar therapeutic benefits as cervical spine manipulation while minimizing the magnitude of risk associated with the cervical technique. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to investigate the immediate effects of thoracic spine manipulation on perceived pain levels in patients presenting with neck pain. The results suggest that thoracic spine manipulation results in immediate analgesic effects in patients with mechanical neck pain. Further studies are needed to determine the effects of thoracic spine manipulation in patients with neck pain on long-term outcomes including function and disability. To determine whether military health care beneficiaries with low back pain (LBP) who are likely to respond successfully to spinal manipulation experience a difference in short-term clinical outcomes based on the manipulation technique that is used.
                Sixty patients with LBP identified as likely responders to manipulation underwent a standardized clinical examination and were randomized to receive a lumbopelvic (LP) or lumbar neutral gap (NG) manipulation technique. Outcome measures were a numeric pain rating scale and the modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire.
                Both the LP and NG groups experienced statistically significant reductions in pain and disability at 48 hours postmanipulation. The improvements seen in each group were small because of the short follow-up. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences in pain or disability between the two groups.
                The two manipulation techniques used in this study were equally effective at reducing pain and disability when compared at 48 hours posttreatment. Clinicians may employ either technique for the treatment of LBP and can expect similar outcomes in those who satisfy the clinical prediction rule (CPR). Further research is required to determine whether differences exist at longer-term follow-up periods, after multiple treatment sessions, or in different clinical populations. This study examined the effect of translatoric spinal manipulation (TSM) on cervical pain and cervical active motion restriction when applied to upper thoracic (T1-T4) segments. Active cervical rotation range of motion was measured re- and post-intervention with a cervical inclinometer (CROM), and cervical pain status was monitored before and after manipulation with a Faces Pain Scale. Study participants included a sample of convenience that included 32 patients referred to physical therapy with complaints of pain in the mid-cervical region and restricted active cervical rotation. Twenty-two patients were randomly assigned to the experimental group and ten were assigned to the control group. Pre- and post-intervention cervical range of motion and pain scale measurements were taken by a physical therapist assistant who was blinded to group assignment. The experimental group received TSM to hypomobile upper thoracic segments. The control group received no intervention. Paired t-tests were used to analyze within-group changes in cervical rotation and pain, and a 2-way repeated-measure ANOVA was used to analyze between-group differences in cervical rotation and pain. Significance was accepted at p = 0.05. Significant changes that exceeded the MDC(95) were detected for cervical rotation both within group and between groups with the TSM group demonstrating increased mean (SD) in right rotation of 8.23 degrees (7.41 degrees ) and left rotation of 7.09 degrees (5.83 degrees ). Pain levels perceived during post-intervention cervical rotation showed significant improvement during right rotation for patients experiencing pain during bilateral rotation only (p=.05). This study supports the hypothesis that spinal manipulation applied to the upper thoracic spine (T1-T4 motion segments) significantly increases cervical rotation ROM and may reduce cervical pain at end range rotation for patients experiencing pain during bilateral cervical rotation. This study examined the short-term effectiveness of vertebral manipulation for treating chronic low back pain and disability.
                Sixty-four patients were randomly assigned into two groups. One group received 4 true vertebral manipulations (VMG), and the other group received sham manipulations (sham-VMG) under the same conditions as for the first technique. Patients formulated assessments after the manipulations and 1 month later.
                Sixty-four patients participated in the study. Patients receiving the true manipulations showed significant improvement in pain (visual analogic scale score decrease from 71.8+/-18.11 to 49.37+/-16.78; P<0.001) and function (Oswestry scale score decrease from 15.59+/-6.03 to 12.25+/-5.69; P<0.001). Pain improvement persisted at the second month (P=0.01). The improvement was more evident in the VMG than the sham-VMG. No change in perceived disability was observed in the sham-VMG.
                Our study confirms the efficiency of short-term vertebral manipulation for treating chronic low back pain. The assessment of vertebral manipulation effectiveness is difficult. This manual therapy must be preceeded by a specific clinical exam performed by a trained physician. To determine the relative effect of instrument-delivered thrust cervical manipulations in comparison with traditional manual-delivered thrust cervical manipulations in the treatment of cervical spine dysfunction.
                Prospective, randomized, comparative clinical trial.
                Outpatient chiropractic clinic, Technikon Natal, South Africa.
                Thirty patients diagnosed with neck pain and restricted cervical spine range of motion without complicating pathosis for at least 1 month were included in the study.
                The patients were randomized into 2 groups. Those in one group received mechanical force, manually assisted (MFMA) manipulation to the cervical spine, delivered by means of a hand-held instrument (Activator II Adjusting Instrument). Those in the other group received specific contact high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation consisting of standard Diversified rotary/lateral break techniques to the cervical spine. Each group received only the specific therapeutic intervention, no other treatment modalities or interventions (including medication) being used, until asymptomatic status was achieved or a maximum of 8 treatments had been received. Main Outcome Measures: Both treatment groups were assessed through use of subjective (Numerical Pain Rating Scale 101, McGill Short-Form Pain Questionnaire, and Neck Disability Index) and objective (goniometer cervical range of motion) measurement parameters at specific intervals during the treatment period and at 1-month follow-up. The data were assessed through use of 2-tailed nonparametric paired and unpaired analysis, descriptive statistics, and power analysis of the data.
                The results indicate that both treatment methods had a positive effect on the subjective and objective clinical outcome measures, no significant difference being observed between the 2 groups (P < .025). The subjective data from all 3 questionnaires showed statistically significant changes from initial to final consultations as well as from initial consultation to 1-month follow-up (P < .025). The objective range of motion measures showed statistically significant changes in the MFMA group for left and right rotation and left and right lateral flexion from initial consultation to final consultations and for right rotation and right lateral flexion from initial consultation to 1-month follow-up. The HVLA group showed only the change in left rotation from initial to final consultations and from initial consultation to 1-month follow-up to be statistically significant.
                The results of this clinical trial indicate that both instrumental (MFMA) manipulation and manual (HVLA) manipulation have beneficial effects associated with reducing pain and disability and improving cervical range of motion in this patient population. A randomized, controlled clinical trial in a similar patient base with a larger sample size is necessary to verify the clinical relevance of these findings. Randomized clinical trial.
                To investigate if patients with mechanical neck pain receiving thoracic spine thrust manipulation would experience superior outcomes compared to a group not receiving thrust manipulation.
                Evidence has begun to emerge in support of thoracic thrust manipulation as an intervention n the management of mechanical neck pain. However, to make a strong recommendation for a clinical technique it is necessary to have multiple studies with convergent findings.
                Forty-five patients (21 females) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: a control group, which received electro-thermal therapy for 5 treatment sessions, and the experimental group, which received the same electro/thermal therapy program in addition to a thoracic spine thrust manipulation once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. Mixed-model analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to examine the effects of treatment on pain (100-mm visual analogue scale), disability (100-point disability scale), and cervical range of motion, with group as the between-subjects variable and time as the within-subjects variable. The primary analysis was the group-by-time interaction for pain.
                The group-by-time interaction effects for the ANOVA models were statistically significant for pain, mobility, and disability (P< .05), indicating greater improvements in the manipulation group for all the outcome measures. Patients receiving thoracic manipulation experienced greater improvements in pain at the fifth (final) treatment session and at the 2-week and 4-week follow-up periods (P< .001), with pain improvement scores in the manipulation group of 16.8 mm and 26.6 mm greater than those in the comparison group at the 2- and 4-week follow-up periods, respectively. The experimental group also experienced significantly greater improvements in disability with a between-group difference of 8.8 points (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.5, 10.1; P< .001) at the fifth visit and 8.0 points (95% CI: 5.8, 10.2; P< .001) at the 2-week follow-up.
                The results of our study suggest that thoracic spine thrust manipulation results in superior clinical benefits that persist beyond the 1-mont follow-up period for patients with acute neck pain. Future studies should continue to investigate the effects of thoracic spine thrust manipulation, as compared to other physical therapy interventions, in a population with mechanical neck pain. Randomized clinical trial.
                Compare outcomes of patients with low back pain receiving treatments matched or unmatched to their subgrouping based on initial clinical presentation.
                Patients with "nonspecific" low back pain are often viewed as a homogeneous group, equally likely to respond to any particular intervention. Others have proposed methods for subgrouping patients as a means for determining the treatment most likely to benefit patients with particular characteristics.
                Patients with low back pain of less than 90 days' duration referred to physical therapy were examined before treatment and classified into one of three subgroups based on the type of treatment believed most likely to benefit the patient (manipulation, stabilization exercise, or specific exercise). Patients were randomly assigned to receive manipulation, stabilization exercises, or specific exercise treatment during a 4-week treatment period. Disability was assessed in the short-term (4 weeks) and long-term (1 year) using the Oswestry. Comparisons were made between patients receiving treatment matched to their subgroup, versus those receiving unmatched treatment.
                A total of 123 patients participated (mean age, 37.7 +/- 10.7 years; 45% female). Patients receiving matched treatments experienced greater short- and long-term reductions in disability than those receiving unmatched treatments. After 4 weeks, the difference favoring the matched treatment group was 6.6 Oswestry points (95% CI, 0.70-12.5), and at long-term follow-up the difference was 8.3 points (95% CI, 2.5-14.1). Compliers-only analysis of long-term outcomes yielded a similar result.
                Nonspecific low back pain should not be viewed as a homogenous condition. Outcomes can be improved when subgrouping is used to guide treatment decision-making. The main objective of this study is to compare the immediate results of manipulation to mobilization in neck pain patients.
                The patients were compared in a randomized controlled trial without long-term follow-up.
                The study was conducted at an outpatient teaching clinic on primary and referred patients.
                One hundred consecutive outpatients suffering from unilateral neck pain with referral into the trapezius muscle were studied. Fifty-two subjects were manipulated and 48 subjects were mobilized. The mean (SD) age was 34.5 (13.0) yr for the manipulated group and 37.7 (12.5) yr for the mobilized group. Sixteen subjects had neck pain for less than 1 wk, 34 subjects had pain for between 1 wk and 6 mo and 50 subjects had pain for more than 6 mo. Seventy-eight subjects had a past history of neck pain. Thirty-one subjects had been involved in an injurious motor vehicle accident and 28 subjects had other types of minor trauma to the neck. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups with respect to history of neck pain or level of disability as measured by the Pain Disability Index.
                The patients received either a single rotational manipulation (high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust) or mobilization in the form of muscle energy technique.
                Prior to and immediately after the treatments, cervical spine range of motion was recorded in three planes, and pain intensity was rated on the 101-point numerical rating scale (NRS-101). Both pre- and post-test measurements were conducted in a blinded fashion.
                The results show that both treatments increase range of motion, but manipulation has a significantly greater effect on pain intensity. Eighty-five percent of the manipulated patients and 69% of the mobilized patients reported pain improvement immediately after treatment. However, the decrease in pain intensity was more than 1.5 times greater in the manipulated group (p = .05).
                This study demonstrates that a single manipulation is more effective than mobilization in decreasing pain in patients with mechanical neck pain. Both treatments increase range of motion in the neck to a similar degree. Further studies are required to determine any long-term benefits of manipulation for mechanical neck pain. Randomized clinical trial.
                The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to examine the generalizability of 3 different manual therapy techniques in a patient population with low back pain that satisfy a clinical prediction rule (CPR).
                Recently a CPR that identifies patients with LBP who are likely to respond rapidly and dramatically to thrust manipulation has been developed and validated. The generalizability of the CPR requires further investigation.
                A total of 112 patients were enrolled in the trial and provided demographic information and completed a number of self-report questionnaires including the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) at baseline, 1-week, 4-weeks, and 6-months. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 of the 3 manual therapy techniques for 2 consecutive treatment sessions followed by exercise regimen for an additional 3 sessions. We examined the primary aim using a linear mixed model for repeated measures, using the ODQ and NPRS as dependent variables. The hypothesis of interest was the group by time interaction, which was further explored with pair-wise comparisons of the estimated marginal means.
                There was a significant group x time interaction for the ODQ (P < 0.001) and NPRS scores (P = 0.001). Pair-wise comparisons revealed no differences between the supine thrust manipulation and side-lying thrust manipulation at any follow-up period. Significant differences in the ODQ and NPRS existed at each follow-up between the thrust manipulation and the nonthrust manipulation groups at 1-week and 4-weeks. There was also a significant difference in ODQ scores at 6-months in favor of the thrust groups.
                The results of the study support the generalizability of the CPR to another thrust manipulation technique, but not to the nonthrust manipulation technique that was used in this study. In general, our results also provided support that the CPR can be generalized to different settings from which it was derived and validated. However, additional research is needed to examine this issue. To evaluate the possible effect of the supine cervical rotary manipulation and the supine lateral break manipulation in the treatment of mechanical neck pain, according to subjective and objective clinical findings.
                Delivering a supine lateral break manipulation to the ipsilateral side of an inflamed facet joint(s) that exhibits a lateral flexion fixation may result in pain and/or discomfort to the patient. Thus the proposed alternative is a supine cervical rotary manipulation delivered on the ipsilateral side or a supine lateral break manipulation delivered on the contralateral side of the relevant joint(s).
                Randomized, comparative clinical trial.
                Two groups of 15 subjects diagnosed with mechanical neck pain.
                The diagnosis of mechanical neck pain and the identification of lateral flexion fixations in the cervical spine were made with conventional clinical evaluation, including motion palpation. Group A received a cervical rotary manipulation(s) on the ipsilateral side of the lateral flexion fixation(s), while group B received a supine lateral break manipulation(s) on the contralateral side of the lateral flexion fixation(s). Subjects received a maximum of 10 treatments over a 4-week treatment period. Outcome Measures: Both treatment groups were assessed with subjective (Numerical Pain Rating Scale 101, McGill Short-Form Pain Questionnaire and the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College Neck Disability Index) and objective (cervical range of motion goniometer and algometer) measurement parameters at the initial consultation (before any treatment), the final consultation, and at a 1-month follow-up consultation. Statistical analysis was conducted at a 95% confidence level (alpha =.05) with the non-parametric 2-tailed Wilcoxon signed ranks test, the Mann-Whitney U test, and descriptive statistics. Two-tailed power analysis was conducted after the fact, where a confidence level of 80% (beta =.20) was considered satisfactory.
                Intragroup analysis indicated a significant difference between the initial consultation data and the final consultation data for the subjective data, indicating an effect. Analysis of the objective data did not reveal any significant difference. Intergroup analysis did not reveal any significant difference between the 2 groups when comparing the data of the initial consultation and the final consultation, indicating that both treatments had a similar or equal effect. Power analysis was not satisfactory for most data, indicating the possibility of many Type II errors.
                Statistically, the results suggested that both treatments had an effect but that neither group showed a benefit over the other. However, because of the unsatisfactory power of the study, conclusions are to be drawn with caution. Clinical significance supported the statistical outcomes where it was suggested that both treatments had an effect and that neither treatment had a greater effect. A larger sample size and the inclusion of a placebo group is recommended to reveal true treatment outcomes and trends. To compare the effectiveness of manipulative therapy, physiotherapy, treatment by the general practitioner, and placebo therapy in patients with persistent non-specific back and neck complaints.
                Randomised clinical trial.
                Primary health care in the Netherlands.
                256 patients with non-specific back and neck complaints of at least six weeks' duration who had not received physiotherapy or manipulative therapy in the past two years.
                At the discretion of the manipulative therapists, physiotherapists, and general practitioners. Physiotherapy consisted of exercises, massage, and physical therapy (heat, electrotherapy, ultrasound, shortwave diathermy). Manipulative therapy consisted of manipulation and mobilisation of the spine. Treatment by general practitioners consisted of drugs (for example, analgesics), advice about posture, home exercises, and (bed)rest. Placebo treatment consisted of detuned shortwave diathermy (10 minutes) and detuned ultrasound (10 minutes).
                Changes in severity of the main complaint and limitation of physical functioning measured on 10 point scales by a blinded research assistant and global perceived effect measured on a 6 point scale by the patients.
                Many patients in the general practitioner and placebo groups received other treatment during follow up. Improvement in the main complaint was larger with manipulative therapy (4.5) than with physiotherapy (3.8) after 12 months' follow up (difference 0.9; 95% confidence interval 0.1 to 1.7). Manipulative therapy also gave larger improvements in physical functioning (difference 0.6; -0.1 to 1.3). The global perceived effect after six and 12 months' follow up was similar for both treatments.
                Manipulative therapy and physiotherapy are better than general practitioner and placebo treatment. Furthermore, manipulative therapy is slightly better than physiotherapy after 12 months. To compare chiropractic and hospital outpatient treatment for managing low back pain of mechanical origin.
                Randomised controlled trial. Allocation to chiropractic or hospital management by minimisation to establish groups for analysis of results according to initial referral clinic, length of current episode, history, and severity of back pain. Patients were followed up for up two years.
                Chiropractic and hospital outpatient clinics in 11 centres.
                741 Patients aged 18-65 who had no contraindications to manipulation and who had not been treated within the past month.
                Treatment at the discretion of the chiropractors, who used chiropractic manipulation in most patients, or of the hospital staff, who most commonly used Maitland mobilisation or manipulation, or both.
                Changes in the score on the Oswestry pain disability questionnaire and in the results of tests of straight leg raising and lumbar flexion.
                Chiropractic treatment was more effective than hospital outpatient management, mainly for patients with chronic or severe back pain. A benefit of about 7% points on the Oswestry scale was seen at two years. The benefit of chiropractic treatment became more evident throughout the follow up period. Secondary outcome measures also showed that chiropractic was more beneficial.
                For patients with low back pain in whom manipulation is not contraindicated chiropractic almost certainly confers worthwhile, long term benefit in comparison with hospital outpatient management. The benefit is seen mainly in those with chronic or severe pain. Introducing chiropractic into NHS practice should be considered. Practice guidelines recommend various types of exercise and manipulative therapy for chronic back pain but there have been few head-to-head comparisons of these interventions. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare effects of general exercise, motor control exercise and manipulative therapy on function and perceived effect of intervention in patients with chronic back pain. Two hundred and forty adults with non-specific low back pain 3months were allocated to groups that received 8weeks of general exercise, motor control exercise or spinal manipulative therapy. General exercise included strengthening, stretching and aerobic exercises. Motor control exercise involved retraining specific trunk muscles using ultrasound feedback. Spinal manipulative therapy included joint mobilization and manipulation. Primary outcomes were patient-specific function (PSFS, 3-30) and global perceived effect (GPE, -5 to 5) at 8weeks. These outcomes were also measured at 6 and 12months. Follow-up was 93% at 8weeks and 88% at 6 and 12months. The motor control exercise group had slightly better outcomes than the general exercise group at 8weeks (between-group difference: PSFS 2.9, 95% CI: 0.9-4.8; GPE 1.7, 95% CI: 0.9-2.4), as did the spinal manipulative therapy group (PSFS 2.3, 95% CI: 0.4-4.2; GPE 1.2, 95% CI: 0.4-2.0). The groups had similar outcomes at 6 and 12months. Motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy produce slightly better short-term function and perceptions of effect than general exercise, but not better medium or long-term effects, in patients with chronic non-specific back pain. To study whether the isolated intervention of high-speed, low-amplitude spinal manipulation in the cervical spine has any effect on cervicogenic headache.
                Prospective randomized controlled trial with a blinded observer.
                Ambulatory outpatient facility in an independent research institution.
                Fifty-three subjects suffering from frequent headaches who fulfilled the International Headache Society criteria for cervicogenic headache (excluding radiological criteria). These subjects were recruited from 450 headache sufferers who responded to newspaper advertisements.
                After randomization, 28 of the group received high-velocity, low-amplitude cervical manipulation twice a week for 3 wk. The remaining 25 received low-level laser in the upper cervical region and deep friction massage (including trigger points) in the lower cervical/upper thoracic region, also twice a week for 3 wk.
                The change from week 1 to week 5 in analgesic use per day, in headache intensity per episode and in number of headache hours per day, as registered in a headache diary.
                The use of analgesics decreased by 36% in the manipulation group, but was unchanged in the soft-tissue group; this difference was statistically significant (p = .04, chi 2 for trend). The number of headache hours per day decreased by 69% in the manipulation group, compared with 37% in the soft-tissue group; this was significant at p = .03 (Mann-Whitney). Finally, headache intensity per episode decreased by 36% in the manipulation group, compared with 17% in the soft-tissue group; this was significant at p = .04 (Mann-Whitney).
                Spinal manipulation has a significant positive effect in cases of cervicogenic headache. A multicenter, randomized controlled trial with unblinded treatment and blinded outcome assessment was conducted. The treatment period was 6 weeks with follow-up assessment after treatment, then at 3, 6, and 12 months.
                To determine the effectiveness of manipulative therapy and a low-load exercise program for cervicogenic headache when used alone and in combination, as compared with a control group.
                Headaches arising from cervical musculoskeletal disorders are common. Conservative therapies are recommended as the first treatment of choice. Evidence for the effectiveness of manipulative therapy is inconclusive and available only for the short term. There is no evidence for exercise, and no study has investigated the effect of combined therapies for cervicogenic headache.
                In this study, 200 participants who met the diagnostic criteria for cervicogenic headache were randomized into four groups: manipulative therapy group, exercise therapy group, combined therapy group, and a control group. The primary outcome was a change in headache frequency. Other outcomes included changes in headache intensity and duration, the Northwick Park Neck Pain Index, medication intake, and patient satisfaction. Physical outcomes included pain on neck movement, upper cervical joint tenderness, a craniocervical flexion muscle test, and a photographic measure of posture.
                There were no differences in headache-related and demographic characteristics between the groups at baseline. The loss to follow-up evaluation was 3.5%. At the 12-month follow-up assessment, both manipulative therapy and specific exercise had significantly reduced headache frequency and intensity, and the neck pain and effects were maintained (P < 0.05 for all). The combined therapies was not significantly superior to either therapy alone, but 10% more patients gained relief with the combination. Effect sizes were at least moderate and clinically relevant.
                Manipulative therapy and exercise can reduce the symptoms of cervicogenic headache, and the effects are maintained. To assess the long-term benefits of medication, needle acupuncture, and spinal manipulation as exclusive and standardized treatment regimens in patients with chronic (>13 weeks) spinal pain syndromes.
                Extended follow-up (>1 year) of a randomized clinical trial was conducted at the multidisciplinary spinal pain unit of Townsville's General Hospital between February 1999 and October 2001.
                Of the 115 patients originally randomized, 69 had exclusively been treated with the randomly allocated treatment during the 9-week treatment period (results at 9 weeks were reported earlier). These patients were followed up and assessed again 1 year after inception into the study reapplying the same instruments (ie, Oswestry Back Pain Index, Neck Disability Index, Short-Form-36, and Visual Analogue Scales). Questionnaires were obtained from 62 patients reflecting a retention proportion of 90%. The main analysis was restricted to 40 patients who had received exclusively the randomly allocated treatment for the whole observation period since randomization.
                Comparisons of initial and extended follow-up questionnaires to assess absolute efficacy showed that only the application of spinal manipulation revealed broad-based long-term benefit: 5 of the 7 main outcome measures showed significant improvements compared with only 1 item in each of the acupuncture and the medication groups.
                In patients with chronic spinal pain syndromes, spinal manipulation, if not contraindicated, may be the only treatment modality of the assessed regimens that provides broad and significant long-term benefit. The revised Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire (ROLBPQ) and Roland-Morris Activity Scale (RMAS) were compared in a randomized controlled trial of chiropractic manipulation, stroking massage, corset and transcutaneous muscular stimulation (TMS). This trial employed specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, including nonspecific low back pain for a duration of 3 wk to 6 months and ages between 18 and 55. We had the opportunity to ask 85 patients to answer the questionnaires. Sixty-three patients, who completed the initial and final evaluations, were used for data analysis. Both ROLBPQ and RMAS showed good internal consistency with alpha coefficients ranging from .77 to .93. Both instruments showed a significant difference between the chiropractic manipulation and massage groups (p less than .05). RMAS was able to further show significant differences between the chiropractic manipulation and TMS groups, and between the corset and massage groups, but the ROLBPQ failed to do so. RMAS also showed that chiropractic manipulation had a better but nonsignificant result than corset, possibly due to insufficient sample size and/or duration of treatment. We conclude that both instruments are reliable for measuring low back pain disability, and chiropractic manipulation has a superior short-term benefit when compared to stroking massage and TMS in subacute low back pain patients. In addition, it appears that RMAS is preferable in a clinical trial situation for subacute low back pain because it is more sensitive than ROLBPQ to detect changes. A randomized controlled trial of manipulation of the cervial spine was carried out on 52 patients in general practice, and the results were assessed symptomatically and goniometrically for three weeks. Manipulation produced a significant immediate improvement in symptoms in those with pain or stiffness in the neck, and pain/paraesthesia in the shoulder, and a nearly significant improvement in those with pain/paraesthesia in the arm/hand. Manipulation also produced a significant increase in measured rotation that was maintained for three weeks and an immediate improvement in lateral flexion that was not maintained.This is to our knowledge the first published formal trial of such manipulation and should increase interest in this form of treatment by the medical profession. In this prospective study, we found beneficial short-term effects from atorvastatin therapy, including effects on low-density lipoprotein subfractions and remnant-like lipoprotein particle cholesterol, antioxidant effects, and alterations in endothelial function that may be important in early benefit from statin therapy; some effects would support much earlier benefit than previously reported. We also found long-term effects of atorvastatin, including decreased plasminogen activator inhibitor type-1 and additional significant alterations in low-density lipoprotein subfractions and endothelial function, supporting benefits from continuous long-term atorvastatin therapy beyond early reversal of hypercholesterolemia.
Cervical manipulation and mobilisation produced similar changes. Either may provide immediate- or short-term change; no long-term data are available. Thoracic manipulation may improve pain and function. Optimal techniques and dose are unresolved. Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.