title: Comparison of spinal manipulation methods and usual medical care for acute and subacute low back pain: a randomized clinical trial.
abstract: METHODS
  Randomized controlled trial with follow-up to 6 months.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  This was a comparative effectiveness trial of manual-thrust manipulation (MTM) versus mechanical-assisted manipulation (MAM); and manipulation versus usual medical care (UMC).
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common conditions seen in primary care and physical medicine practice. MTM is a common treatment for LBP. Claims that MAM is an effective alternative to MTM have yet to be substantiated. There is also question about the effectiveness of manipulation in acute and subacute LBP compared with UMC.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 107 adults with onset of LBP within the past 12 weeks were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: MTM, MAM, or UMC. Outcome measures included the Oswestry LBP Disability Index (0-100 scale) and numeric pain rating (0-10 scale). Participants in the manipulation groups were treated twice weekly during 4 weeks; subjects in UMC were seen for 3 visits during this time. Outcome measures were captured at baseline, 4 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Linear regression showed a statistically significant advantage of MTM at 4 weeks compared with MAM (disability = -8.1, P = 0.009; pain = -1.4, P = 0.002) and UMC (disability = -6.5, P = 0.032; pain = -1.7, P < 0.001). Responder analysis, defined as 30% and 50% reductions in Oswestry LBP Disability Index scores revealed a significantly greater proportion of responders at 4 weeks in MTM (76%; 50%) compared with MAM (50%; 16%) and UMC (48%; 39%). Similar between-group results were found for pain: MTM (94%; 76%); MAM (69%; 47%); and UMC (56%; 41%). No statistically significant group differences were found between MAM and UMC, and for any comparison at 3 or 6 months.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  MTM provides greater short-term reductions in self-reported disability and pain scores compared with UMC or MAM.
  
  
  METHODS
  2.
authors.affiliation: *School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA †Center for Outcomes Studies, University of Western States, Portland, OR ‡Department of Psychiatry and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Center for Integrative Medicine at UPMC Shadyside, Pittsburgh, PA §School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; and ¶Department of Medicine and Department of Biostatistics, Clinical & Translational Science Institute, Center for Research on Health Care Data Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
authors.forename: Michael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Schneider
authors.forename: Mitchell
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Haas
authors.forename: Ronald
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Glick
authors.forename: Joel
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Stevans
authors.forename: Doug
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Landsittel
mesh_terms: D059787:Acute Pain / Q000628:therapy*; D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D017116:Low Back Pain / Q000628:therapy*; D008297:Male; D020393:Manipulation, Spinal / Q000379:methods*; D008875:Middle Aged; D010147:Pain Measurement; D016896:Treatment Outcome