No Differences in Outcomes in People with Low Back Pain Who Met the Clinical Prediction Rule for Lumbar Spine Manipulation When a Pragmatic Non-thrust Manipulation Was Used as the Comparator.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate differences in pain and disability between patients treated with thrust manipulation (TM) and those treated with non-thrust manipulation (NTM) in a group of patients with mechanical low back pain (LBP) who had a within-session response to an initial assessment and met the clinical prediction rule (CPR).


METHODS
Data from 71 patients who met the CPR were extracted from a database of patients in a larger randomized controlled trial comparing TM and NTM. Treatment of the first two visits involved either TM or NTM (depending on allocation) and a standardized home exercise programme. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and a two-way ANOVA examining within- and between-groups effects for pain and disability, as well as total visits, total days in care, and rate of recovery.


RESULTS
No between-group differences in pain or disability were found for NTM versus TM groups (p=0.55), but within-subjects effects were noted for both groups (p<0.001).


CONCLUSIONS
This secondary analysis suggests that patients who satisfy the CPR benefit as much from NTM as from TM.
Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Oh.
Kenneth
K
Learman
Maitland-Australian Physiotherapy Seminars, Cutchogue, N.Y.
Christopher
C
Showalter
Pain Relief and Physical Therapy, Havertown, Pa.
Bryan
B
O'Halloran
Walsh University, North Canton, Oh, USA.
Megan
M
Donaldson
Walsh University, North Canton, Oh, USA.
Chad
C
Cook
decision support techniques; low back pain; manipulation, spinal