BACKGROUND CONTEXT Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used to benefit patients with chronic low back pain. However, questions remain about their efficacy, dosing, safety, and how these approaches compare with other therapies. PURPOSE The present study aims to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic low back pain. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING This is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. OUTCOME MEASURES The present study measures self-reported pain, function, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. METHODS We identified studies by searching multiple electronic databases from January 2000 to March 2017, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation or mobilization therapies with sham, no treatment, other active therapies, and multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Where possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project is funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under Award Number U19AT007912. RESULTS Fifty-one trials were included in the systematic review. Nine trials (1,176 patients) provided sufficient data and were judged similar enough to be pooled for meta-analysis. The standardized mean difference for a reduction of pain was SMD=−0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.47 to −0.09, p=.004; I2=57% after treatment; within seven trials (923 patients), the reduction in disability was SMD=−0.33, 95% CI −0.63 to −0.03, p=.03; I2=78% for manipulation or mobilization compared with other active therapies. Subgroup analyses showed that manipulation significantly reduced pain and disability, compared with other active comparators including exercise and physical therapy (SMD=−0.43, 95% CI −0.86 to 0.00; p=.05, I2=79%; SMD=−0.86, 95% CI −1.27 to −0.45; p<.0001, I2=46%). Mobilization interventions, compared with other active comparators including exercise regimens, significantly reduced pain (SMD=−0.20, 95% CI −0.35 to −0.04; p=.01; I2=0%) but not disability (SMD=−0.10, 95% CI −0.28 to 0.07; p=.25; I2=21%). Studies comparing manipulation or mobilization with sham or no treatment were too few or too heterogeneous to allow for pooling as were studies examining relationships between dose and outcomes. Few studies assessed health-related quality of life. Twenty-six of 51 trials were multimodal studies and narratively described. CONCLUSION There is moderate-quality evidence that manipulation and mobilization are likely to reduce pain and improve function for patients with chronic low back pain; manipulation appears to produce a larger effect than mobilization. Both therapies appear safe. Multimodal programs may be a promising option.

(1) Adverse effects should be routinely reported. For the few studies that did report, adverse effects of spinal manipulation for all ages and conditions were rare, transient, and not severe. (2) Evidence from controlled studies and usual practice supports chiropractic care (the entire clinical encounter) as providing benefit to patients with asthma, cervicogenic vertigo, and infantile colic. Evidence was promising for potential benefit of manual procedures for children with otitis media and elderly patients with pneumonia. (3) The RCT design is not necessarily incompatible with WSR. RCTs could improve generalizability by basing protocols on usual practice. (4) Case reports could contribute more to WSR by increasing their emphasis on patient characteristics and patient-based outcomes. (5) Chiropractic investigators, practitioners, and funding agencies should increase their attention to observational designs.

Background. Evidence rankings do not consider equally internal (IV), external (EV), and model validity (MV) for clinical studies including complementary and alternative medicine/integrative medicine (CAM/IM) research. This paper describe this model and offers an EV assessment tool (EVAT©) for weighing studies according to EV and MV in addition to IV. Methods. An abbreviated systematic review methodology was employed to search, assemble, and evaluate the literature that has been published on EV/MV criteria. Standard databases were searched for keywords relating to EV, MV, and bias-scoring from inception to Jan 2013. Tools identified and concepts described were pooled to assemble a robust tool for evaluating these quality criteria. Results. This study assembled a streamlined, objective tool to incorporate for the evaluation of quality of EV/MV research that is more sensitive to CAM/IM research. Conclusion. Improved reporting on EV can help produce and provide information that will help guide policy makers, public health researchers, and other scientists in their selection, development, and improvement in their research-tested intervention. Overall, clinical studies with high EV have the potential to provide the most useful information about “real-world” consequences of health interventions. It is hoped that this novel tool which considers IV, EV, and MV on equal footing will better guide clinical decision making.

After completion of this article, the reader should be able to describe the concepts of spinal manipulative therapy and types of symptoms for which it might be considered in pregnancy, explain the quality of available research on the use of spinal manipulative therapy, and plan to discuss this therapy with interested pregnant patients.

Objective: The purpose of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of conservative nondrug, nonsurgical interventions, either alone or in combination, for conditions of the shoulder. Methods: The review was conducted from March 2016 to November 2016 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and was registered with PROSPERO. Eligibility criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, or meta-analyses studying adult patients with a shoulder diagnosis. Interventions qualified if they did not involve prescription medication or surgical procedures, although these could be used in the comparison group or groups. At least 2 independent reviewers assessed the quality of each study using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. Shoulder conditions addressed were shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS), rotator cuff-associated disorders (RCs), adhesive capsulitis (AC), and nonspecific shoulder pain. Results: Twenty-five systematic reviews and 44 RCTs met inclusion criteria. Low-to moderate-quality evidence supported the use of manual therapies for all 4 shoulder conditions. Exercise, particularly combined with physical therapy protocols, was beneficial for SIS and AC. For SIS, moderate evidence supported several passive modalities. For RC, physical therapy protocols were found beneficial but not superior to surgery in the long term. Moderate evidence supported extracorporeal shockwave therapy for calcific tendinitis RC. Low-level laser was the only modality for which there was moderate evidence supporting its use for all 4 conditions. Conclusion: The findings of this literature review may help inform practitioners who use conservative methods (eg, doctors of chiropractic, physical therapists, and other manual therapists) regarding the levels of evidence for modalities used for common shoulder conditions. (J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2017;40:293-319)

No abstract

A systematic review was conducted to assess the level of evidence for integrative health care research. We searched PubMed, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), BIOSIS Previews, EMBASE, the entire Cochrane Library, MANTIS, Social SciSearch, SciSearch Cited Ref Sci, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and NCCAM grantee publications listings, from database inception to May 2009, as well as searches of the “gray literature.” Available studies published in English language were included. Three independent reviewers rated each article and assessed the methodological quality of studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN 50). Our search yielded 11,891 total citations but 6 clinical studies, including 4 randomized, met our inclusion criteria. There are no available systematic reviews/meta-analyses published that met our inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed independently using quality checklists of the SIGN 50. Only a small number of RCTs and CCTs with a limited number of patients and lack of adequate control groups assessing integrative health care research are available. These studies provide limited evidence of effective integrative health care on some modalities. However, integrative health care regimen appears to be generally safe.

Herbs may be useful in treatment of asthma. There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use of these herbals. Established effectiveness must be balanced with study quality and safety profile for the herb.