Biomedical subjects

Gert Bronfort

Publications and source records attributed to Gert Bronfort.

13 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Review conclusions by Ernst and Canter regarding spinal manipulation refuted.

In the April 2006 issue of the Journal of Royal Society of Medicine, Ernst and Canter authored a review of the most recent systematic reviews on the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for any condition. The authors concluded that, except for back pain, spinal manipulation is not an effective intervention for any condition and, because of potential side effects, cannot be recommended for use at all in clinical practice. Based on a critical appraisal of their review, the authors of this commentary seriously challenge the conclusions by Ernst and Canter, who did not adhere to standard systematic review methodology, thus threatening the validity of their conclusions. There was no systematic assessment of the literature pertaining to the hazards of manipulation, including comparison to other therapies. Hence, their claim that the risks of manipulation outweigh the benefits, and thus spinal manipulation cannot be recommended as treatment for any condition, was not supported by the data analyzed. Their conclusions are misleading and not based on evidence that allow discrediting of a large body of professionals using spinal manipulation.

Editorial↗

PubMed2006

Traction for low back pain with or without sciatica: an updated systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane collaboration.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To determine if traction is more effective than reference treatments, placebo/sham traction, or no treatment for low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Various types of traction are used in the treatment of LBP, often in conjunction with other treatments. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to November 2004, and screened the latest issue of the Cochrane Library (2004, issue 4) and references in relevant reviews and our personal files. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving any type of traction for the treatment of acute (less than 4 weeks duration), subacute (4-12 weeks), or chronic (more than 12 weeks) nonspecific LBP with or without sciatica. Sets of 2 reviewers independently performed study selection, methodological quality assessment, and data extraction. Because available studies did not provide sufficient data for statistical pooling, we performed a qualitative "levels of evidence" analysis, systematically estimating the strength of the cumulative evidence on the difference/lack of difference observed in trial outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 24 RCTs (2177 patients) were included. There were 5 trials considered high quality. For mixed groups of patients with LBP with and without sciatica, we found: (1) strong evidence that there is no statistically significant difference in short or long-term outcomes between traction as a single treatment, (continuous or intermittent) and placebo, sham, or no treatment; (2) moderate evidence that traction as a single treatment is no more effective than other treatments; and (3) limited evidence that adding traction to a standard physiotherapy program does not result in significantly different outcomes. For LBP with sciatica, we found conflicting evidence in several of the comparisons: autotraction compared to placebo, sham, or no treatment; other forms of traction compared to other treatments; and different forms of traction. In the remaining comparisons, there were no statistically significant differences; level of evidence is moderate regarding continuous or intermittent traction compared to placebo, sham, or no treatment, and is limited regarding different forms of traction. CONCLUSION: Based on the current evidence, intermittent or continuous traction as a single treatment for LBP cannot be recommended for mixed groups of patients with LBP with and without sciatica. Neither can traction be recommended for patients with sciatica because of inconsistent results and methodological problems in most of the studies involved. However, because high-quality studies within the field are scarce, because many are underpowered, and because traction often is supplied in combination with other treatment modalities, the literature allows no firm negative conclusion that traction, in a generalized sense, is not an effective treatment for patients with LBP.

Humans↗

PubMed2005

Chiropractic as spine care: a model for the profession.

BACKGROUND: More than 100 years after its inception the chiropractic profession has failed to define itself in a way that is understandable, credible and scientifically coherent. This failure has prevented the profession from establishing its cultural authority over any specific domain of health care. OBJECTIVE: To present a model for the chiropractic profession to establish cultural authority and increase market share of the public seeking chiropractic care. DISCUSSION: The continued failure by the chiropractic profession to remedy this state of affairs will pose a distinct threat to the future viability of the profession. Three specific characteristics of the profession are identified as impediments to the creation of a credible definition of chiropractic: Departures from accepted standards of professional ethics; reliance upon obsolete principles of chiropractic philosophy; and the promotion of chiropractors as primary care providers. A chiropractic professional identity should be based on spinal care as the defining clinical purpose of chiropractic, chiropractic as an integrated part of the healthcare mainstream, the rigorous implementation of accepted standards of professional ethics, chiropractors as portal-of-entry providers, the acceptance and promotion of evidence-based health care, and a conservative clinical approach. CONCLUSION: This paper presents the spine care model as a means of developing chiropractic cultural authority and relevancy. The model is based on principles that would help integrate chiropractic care into the mainstream delivery system while still retaining self-identity for the profession.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2005

Mono-disciplinary or multidisciplinary back pain guidelines? How can we achieve a common message in primary care?

Description of a workshop entitled "Sharing Guidelines for Low Back Pain Between Primary Health Care Providers: Toward a Common Message in Primary Care" that was held at the Fifth International Forum on Low Back Pain in Primary Care in Canada in May 2002. Despite a considerable degree of acceptance of current evidence-based guidelines, in practice, primary health care providers still do not share a common message. The objective of the workshop was to describe the outcomes of a workshop on the sharing of guidelines in primary care. The Fifth International Forum on Low Back Pain Research in Primary Care focused on relations between stakeholders in the primary care management of back pain. Participants in this workshop contributed to an open discussion on "how and why" evidence-based guidelines about back pain do or do not work in practice. Ways to minimise the factors that inhibit implementation were discussed in the light of whether guidelines are mono-disciplinary or multidisciplinary. Examples of potential issues for debate were contained in introductory presentations. The prospects for improving implementation and reducing barriers, and the priorities for future research, were then considered by an international group of researchers. This paper summarises the conclusions of three researcher subgroups that focused on the sharing of guidelines under the headings of: (1) the content, (2) the development process, and (3) implementation. How to share the evidence and make it meaningful to practice stakeholders is the main challenge of guideline implementation. There is a need to consider the balance between the strength of evidence in multidisciplinary guidelines and the utility/feasibility of mono-disciplinary guidelines. The usefulness of both mono-disciplinary and multidisciplinary guidelines was agreed on. However, in order to achieve consistent messages, mono-disciplinary guidelines should have a multidisciplinary parent. In other words, guidelines should be developed and monitored by a multidisciplinary team, but may be transferred to practice by mono-disciplinary messengers. Despite general agreement that multi-faceted interventions are most effective for implementing guidelines, the feasibility of doing this in busy clinical settings is questioned. Research is needed from local implementation pilots and quality monitoring studies to understand how to develop and deliver the contextual understanding required. This relates to processes of care as well as outcomes, and to social factors and policymaking as well as health care interventions. We commend these considerations to all who are interested in the challenges of achieving better-integrated, evidence-based care for people with back pain.

Back Pain↗

PubMed2005

Distraction manipulation of the lumbar spine: a review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to review the literature concerning distraction manipulation of the lumbar spine, particularly regarding physiological effects, clinical efficacy, and safety. DATA SOURCES: A search of the English language literature was conducted using the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Chiropractic Research Archives Collection, and Manual, Alternative, and Natural Therapies Information System databases. A secondary hand search of bibliographies was completed to identify older or nonindexed literature. DATA SELECTION AND EXTRACTION: Articles were identified, which described the characteristics of distraction manipulation beyond a simple description or the results of treatment with distraction manipulation. Data were extracted on the basis of relevance to the stated objective. DATA SYNTHESIS AND RESULTS: Thirty articles were identified. Three were uncontrolled or pilot studies, 3 were basic science studies, and 6 were case series. Most were case reports. Lumbar distraction manipulation is a nonthrust mechanically assisted manual medicine technique with characteristics of manipulation, mobilization, and traction. It is used for a variety of lumbar conditions and chronic pelvic pain. The primary rationale for its use is on the basis of the biomechanical effects of axial spinal distraction. Little data are available describing the in vivo effect of distraction when used in combination with flexion or other motions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread use, the efficacy of distraction manipulation is not well established. Further research is needed to establish the efficacy and safety of distraction manipulation and to explore biomechanical, neurological, and biochemical events that may be altered by this treatment.

Biomechanical Phenomena↗

PubMed2004

A Cochrane review of manipulation and mobilization for mechanical neck disorders.

STUDY DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES: Our systematic review of randomized trials assessed whether manipulation and mobilization relieve pain or improve function/disability, patient satisfaction, and global perceived effect in adults with mechanical neck disorders. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Neck disorders are common, disabling, and costly. METHODS: Computerized bibliographic databases were searched up to March 2002. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection, data abstraction, and methodologic quality assessment. Relative risk and standardized mean differences were calculated. In the absence of heterogeneity, pooled effect measures were calculated using a random effects model. RESULTS: Of the 33 selected trials, 42% were high quality trials. Single or multiple (3-11) sessions of manipulation or mobilization showed no benefit in pain relief when assessed against placebo, control groups, or other treatments for acute/subacute/chronic mechanical neck disorders with or without headache. There was strong evidence of benefit favoring multimodal care (mobilization and/or manipulation plus exercise) over a waiting list control for pain reduction [pooled standardized mean differences -0.85 (95% CI: -1.20 to -0.50)], improvement in function [pooled SMD -0.57 (95% CI: -0.94 to -0.21)] and global perceived effect [standardized mean differences -2.73 (95% CI: -3.30 to -2.16)] for subacute/chronic mechanical neck disorders with or without headache. CONCLUSIONS: Mobilization and/or manipulation when used with exercise are beneficial for persistent mechanical neck disorders with or without headache. Done alone, manipulation and/or mobilization were not beneficial; when compared to one another, neither was superior. There was insufficient evidence available to draw conclusions for neck disorder with radicular findings. Factorial design would help determine the active agent(s) within a treatment mix.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Spinal manipulation, epidural injections, and self-care for sciatica: a pilot study for a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of recruiting sciatica patients and to evaluate their compliance in preparation for a full-scale randomized clinical trial. We also aimed to determine the responsiveness of key outcome measures. METHODS: Thirty-two subjects were randomly assigned to spinal manipulation (n=11), epidural steroid injections (n=11), or self-care education (n=10). No between-group comparisons were planned because of the small sample size. RESULTS: At week 12 (the end of the treatment phase), the outcome measures indicating the most improvement/change were the Oswestry disability score (mean, 22.9; SD, 19.9; effect size [ES], 1.8), leg pain severity (mean, 2.9; SD, 1.7; ES, 1.7), and if the symptoms were bothersome (mean, 25.2; SD, 16.0; ES, 1.6). Twenty-four patients were either "very satisfied" or "completely satisfied," and 22 of 32 patients reported 75% or 100% improvement. After 52 weeks, the outcome measure showing the most improvement/change was leg pain severity (mean, 2.3; SD, 2.6; ES, 1.35), followed by the Oswestry disability score (mean, 15.6; SD, 20; ES, 1.2) and if symptoms were bothersome (mean, 18.1; SD, 22.6; ES, 1.1). Eighteen patients were either "very satisfied" or "completely satisfied," and 15 of 32 patients reported 75% or 100% improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this pilot study suggest that it is feasible to recruit subacute and chronic sciatica patients and to obtain their compliance for a full-scale randomized clinical.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

A pilot study for a randomized clinical trial assessing chiropractic care, medical care, and self-care education for acute and subacute neck pain patients.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a pilot study in preparation for a full-scale randomized clinical trial assessing conservative treatments for acute and subacute neck pain. Study design Prospective, randomized pilot study. SETTING: Primary contact chiropractic and medical clinics. PATIENTS: Ages 21 to 65 with current episode of neck pain less than 12 weeks in duration. Outcome measures Patient self-report questionnaires and cervical spine motion were assessed at baseline and 3 and 12 weeks post-randomization. INTERVENTIONS: Chiropractic spinal manipulation, prescription medications, and self-care education. RESULTS: Recruitment took place over a 1-month period. Twenty-eight patients were randomized to treatment, and 1 patient (medical care group) refused their treatment assignment and was lost to further follow-up. Twenty-three patients were either "very satisfied" or "completely satisfied" with the care they received in the study. More than half the patients reported 75% or 100% improvement (n = 17). No between-group comparisons were planned or performed due to the small sample size. CONCLUSION: Recruitment of patients appears feasible for a full-scale randomized clinical trial evaluating chiropractic spinal manipulation, medical care, and self-care education for acute and subacute neck pain. Patient and provider compliance with study protocols was excellent, and the pilot study allowed us to further develop and optimize our data collection processes. Although pilot studies such as these require substantial time, money, and effort, they provide valuable information for future research efforts.

Acute Disease↗

PubMed2003

What do patients think? Results of a mixed methods pilot study assessing sciatica patients' interpretations of satisfaction and improvement.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the issues low back pain patients take into account when deciding their satisfaction with care, the importance placed on such satisfaction, or the factors they consider when assessing their overall improvement. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore these issues and to assess the feasibility of implementing qualitative research methods within a clinical trial. METHODS: Study participants were volunteers taking part in a randomized clinical pilot study comparing nonsurgical treatments for sciatica. Face-to-face interviews were conducted, transcribed, and analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: All 31 individuals who participated in the pilot study were interviewed. When asked which issues they considered when deciding their satisfaction with care, the most frequently identified themes were change in pain, personnel, and the treatment experience. When assessing their overall improvement, all participants considered whether their pain had changed. In response to the question asking participants which outcomes they considered to be most important, severity of pain and quality of life were most commonly cited. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that a "mixed methods" approach using qualitative research methods within a clinical trial is not only feasible but can provide interesting and useful information for trial interpretation and future study design. By providing insight to the multidimensional nature of patients' beliefs and perceptions, this technique may not only shape but also redefine the focus of patient-oriented research and health care for low back pain conditions.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Two-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial of spinal manipulation and two types of exercise for patients with chronic neck pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of spinal manipulation combined with low-tech rehabilitative exercise, MedX rehabilitative exercise, or spinal manipulation alone in patient self-reported outcomes over a two-year follow-up period. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There have been few randomized clinical trials of spinal manipulation and rehabilitative exercise for patients with neck pain, and most have only reported short-term outcomes. METHODS: One hundred ninety-one patients with chronic neck pain were randomized to 11 weeks of one of the three treatments. Patient self-report questionnaires measuring pain, disability, general health status, improvement, satisfaction, and OTC medication use were collected after 5 and 11 weeks of treatment and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment. Data were analyzed taking into account all time points using repeated measures analyses. RESULTS: Ninety-three percent (178) of randomized patients completed the 11-week intervention phase, and 76% (145) provided data at all evaluation time points over the two-year follow-up period. A difference in patient-rated pain with no group-time interaction was observed in favor of the two exercise groups [F(2141) = 3.2; P= 0.04]. There was also a group difference in satisfaction with care [F(2143) = 7.7; P= 0.001], with spinal manipulation combined with low-tech rehabilitative exercise superior to MedX rehabilitative exercise (P = 0.02) and spinal manipulation alone (P < 0.001). No significant group differences were found for neck disability, general health status, improvement, and OTC medication use, although the trend over time was in favor of the two exercise groups. CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate an advantage of spinal manipulation combined with low-tech rehabilitative exercise and MedX rehabilitative exercise versus spinal manipulation alone over two years and are similar in magnitude to those observed after one-year follow-up. These results suggest that treatments including supervised rehabilitative exercise should be considered for chronic neck pain sufferers. Further studies are needed to examine the cost effectiveness of these therapies and how spinal manipulation compares to no treatment or minimal intervention.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Manual examination of the spine: a systematic critical literature review of reproducibility.

OBJECTIVE: Poor reproducibility of spinal palpation has been reported in previously published literature, and authors of recent reviews have posted criticism on study quality. This article critically analyzes the literature pertaining to the inter- and intraobserver reproducibility of spinal palpation to investigate the consistency of study results and assess the level of evidence for reproducibility. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed on relevant literature published from 1965 to 2005, identified using the electronic databases MEDLINE, MANTIS, and CINAHL and checking of reference lists. Descriptive data from included articles were extracted independently by 2 reviewers. A 6-point scale was constructed to assess the methodological quality of original studies. A meta-analysis was conducted among the high-quality studies to investigate the consistency of data, separately on motion palpation, static palpation, osseous pain, soft tissue pain, soft tissue changes, and global assessment. A standardized method was used to determine the level of evidence. RESULTS: The quality score of 48 included studies ranged from 0% to 100%. There was strong evidence that the interobserver reproducibility of osseous and soft tissue pain is clinically acceptable (kappa > or = 0.4) and that intraobserver reproducibility of soft tissue pain and global assessment are clinically acceptable. Other spinal procedures are either not reproducible or the evidence is conflicting or preliminary.

Humans↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Chiropractic clinical research: progress and recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this white paper is to help inform the chiropractic clinical research agenda with a focus on the United States. METHODS AND DISCUSSION: The recommendations and action items from 2 previous articles published in 1997 are discussed within the context of 3 broad topics: research culture, research infrastructure, and clinical research studies. Progress made toward the action items in these areas is summarized. A summary of findings is presented of the most influential clinical research studies during the past decade performed by or with major contributions by chiropractic investigators. In light of the current evidence and previous recommendations, new clinical research recommendations are proposed. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the assessment of the scientific literature and research currently underway, it is evident that members of the chiropractic research community have made important progress in becoming active players in the clinical research arena. During the past decade, the work of chiropractic researchers has contributed substantially to the amount and quality of the evidence for or against spinal manipulation in the management of low back pain, neck pain, headache, and other conditions.

Chiropractic↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Efficacy of spinal manipulation and mobilization for low back pain and neck pain: a systematic review and best evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Despite the many published randomized clinical trials (RCTs), a substantial number of reviews and several national clinical guidelines, much controversy still remains regarding the evidence for or against efficacy of spinal manipulation for low back pain and neck pain. PURPOSE: To reassess the efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and mobilization (MOB) for the management of low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP), with special attention to applying more stringent criteria for study admissibility into evidence and for isolating the effect of SMT and/or MOB. STUDY DESIGN: RCTs including 10 or more subjects per group receiving SMT or MOB and using patient-oriented primary outcome measures (eg, patient-rated pain, disability, global improvement and recovery time). METHODS: Articles in English, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian and Dutch reporting on randomized trials were identified by a comprehensive search of computerized and bibliographic literature databases up to the end of 2002. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed study quality according to eight explicit criteria. A best evidence synthesis incorporating explicit, detailed information about outcome measures and interventions was used to evaluate treatment efficacy. The strength of evidence was assessed by a classification system that incorporated study validity and statistical significance of study results. Sixty-nine RCTs met the study selection criteria and were reviewed and assigned validity scores varying from 6 to 81 on a scale of 0 to 100. Forty-three RCTs met the admissibility criteria for evidence. RESULTS: Acute LBP: There is moderate evidence that SMT provides more short-term pain relief than MOB and detuned diathermy, and limited evidence of faster recovery than a commonly used physical therapy treatment strategy. Chronic LBP: There is moderate evidence that SMT has an effect similar to an efficacious prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, SMT/MOB is effective in the short term when compared with placebo and general practitioner care, and in the long term compared to physical therapy. There is limited to moderate evidence that SMT is better than physical therapy and home back exercise in both the short and long term. There is limited evidence that SMT is superior to sham SMT in the short term and superior to chemonucleolysis for disc herniation in the short term. However, there is also limited evidence that MOB is inferior to back exercise after disc herniation surgery. Mix of acute and chronic LBP: SMT/MOB provides either similar or better pain outcomes in the short and long term when compared with placebo and with other treatments, such as McKenzie therapy, medical care, management by physical therapists, soft tissue treatment and back school. Acute NP: There are few studies, and the evidence is currently inconclusive. Chronic NP: There is moderate evidence that SMT/MOB is superior to general practitioner management for short-term pain reduction but that SMT offers at most similar pain relief to high-technology rehabilitative exercise in the short and long term. Mix of acute and chronic NP: The overall evidence is not clear. There is moderate evidence that MOB is superior to physical therapy and family physician care, and similar to SMT in both the short and long term. There is limited evidence that SMT, in both the short and long term, is inferior to physical therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our data synthesis suggests that recommendations can be made with some confidence regarding the use of SMT and/or MOB as a viable option for the treatment of both low back pain and NP. There have been few high-quality trials distinguishing between acute and chronic patients, and most are limited to shorter-term follow-up. Future trials should examine well-defined subgroups of patients, further address the value of SMT and MOB for acute patients, establish optimal number of treatment visits and consider the cost-effectiveness of care.

Databases, Factual↗