Background The purpose was to identify, summarize, and rate scholarly literature that describes manipulative and manual therapy following lumbar surgery. Methods The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and was registered with PROSPERO. PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ICL, CINAHL, and PEDro were searched through July 2019. Articles were screened independently by at least two reviewers for inclusion. Articles included described the practice, utilization, and/or clinical decision making to post surgical intervention with manipulative and/or manual therapies. Data extraction consisted of principal findings, pain and function/disability, patient satisfaction, opioid/medication consumption, and adverse events. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network critical appraisal checklists were utilized to assess study quality. Results Literature search yielded 1916 articles, 348 duplicates were removed, 109 full-text articles were screened and 50 citations met inclusion criteria. There were 37 case reports/case series, 3 randomized controlled trials, 3 pilot studies, 5 systematic/scoping/narrative reviews, and 2 commentaries. Conclusion The findings of this review may help inform practitioners who utilize manipulative and/or manual therapies regarding levels of evidence for patients with prior lumbar surgery. Following lumbar surgery, the evidence indicated inpatient neural mobilization does not improve outcomes. There is inconclusive evidence to recommend for or against most manual therapies after most surgical interventions.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic led to unprecedented changes, as many state and local governments enacted stay-at-home orders and non-essential businesses were closed. State chiropractic licensing boards play an important role in protecting the public via regulation of licensure and provision of guidance regarding standards of practice, especially during times of change or uncertainty. Objective The purpose of this study was to summarize the guidance provided in each of the 50 United States, related to chiropractic practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A review of the public facing websites of governors and state chiropractic licensing boards was conducted in the United States. Data were collected regarding the official guidance provided by each state’s chiropractic licensing board as well as the issuance of stay-at-home orders and designations of essential personnel by state governors. Descriptive statistics were used to report the findings from this project. Results Each of the 50 state governor’s websites and individual state chiropractic licensing board’s websites were surveyed. Stay-at-home or shelter-in-place orders were issued in 86% of all states. Chiropractors were classified as essential providers in 54% of states, non-essential in one state (2%), and no guidance was provided in the remaining 44% of all states. Fourteen states (28%) recommended restricting visits to only urgent cases and the remaining states (72%) provided no guidance. Twenty-seven states (54%) provided information regarding protecting against infectious disease and the remaining states (46%) provided no guidance. Twenty-two states (44%) provided recommendations regarding chiropractic telehealth and the remaining states (56%) provided no guidance. Seventeen states (34%) altered license renewal requirements and eight states (16%) issued warnings against advertising misleading or false information regarding spinal manipulation and protection from COVID-19. Conclusion State guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic was heterogenous, widely variability in accessibility, and often no guidance was provided by state chiropractic licensing boards. Some state chiropractic licensing boards chose to assemble guidance for licensees into a single location, which we identified as a best practice for future situations where changes in chiropractic practice must be quickly communicated.

No abstract

Objective: To develop evidence-based recommendations on best practices for delivery of clinical preventive services by chiropractors and to offer practical resources to empower provider applications in practice.Design: Clinical practice guideline based on evidence-based recommendations of a panel of practitioners and experts on clinical preventive services.Methods: Synthesizing the results of a literature search for relevant clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews, a multidisciplinary steering committee with training and experience in health promotion, clinical prevention, and/or evidence-based chiropractic practice drafted a set of recommendations. A Delphi panel of