This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

BackgroundManipulative therapy is widely used in the treatment of spinal disorders. Manipulative techniques are under debate because of the possibility of adverse events. To date, the efficacy of manipulations compared to sham manipulations is unclear. The purpose of the study is: to assess the efficacy of manipulative therapy compared to sham in adults with a variety of complaints.Study designSystematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsBibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, Central) along with a hand search of selected bibliographies were searched from inception up to April 2012.Two reviewers independently selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated manipulative therapy compared to sham manipulative therapy in adults, assessed risk of bias and extracted data concerning participants, intervention, kind of sham, outcome measures, duration of follow-up, profession, data on efficacy and adverse events. Pooled (standardized) mean differences or risk differences were calculated were possible using a random effects model. The primary outcomes were pain, disability, and perceived recovery. The overall quality of the body of evidence was evaluated using GRADE.ResultsIn total 965 references were screened for eligibility and 19 RCTs (n = 1080) met the selection criteria. Eight studies were considered of low risk of bias. There is moderate level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief immediately after treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.68, 95% confidence interval (-1.06 to -0.31). There is low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief (SMD - 0.37, -0.69 to -0.04) at short- term follow-up. In patients with musculoskeletal disorders, we found moderate level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.73, -1.21 to -0.25) immediate after treatment and low level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.52, -0.87 to -0.17) at short term-follow-up. We found very low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has no statistically significant effect on disability and perceived (asthma) recovery. Sensitivity analyses did not change the main findings. No serious adverse events were reported in the manipulative therapy or sham group.ConclusionsManipulative therapy has a clinical relevant effect on pain, but not on disability or perceived (asthma) recovery. Clinicians can refer patients for manipulative therapy to reduce pain.

Background Medically unexplained physical symptoms are physical symptoms, such as pain, fatigue, and dizziness, that persist for more than a few weeks and cannot be explained after adequate medical examination. Treatment for preventing the chronicity of symptoms is recommended. A promising approach is identifying patients who are at risk and subsequently offering a blended care intervention that focuses on promoting self-management while using eHealth as a supportive tool. When these interventions match with a patient’s expectations, their effectiveness grows. Objective This study aimed to obtain more insights into usability from the patient perspective to improve future interventions. Methods A mixed methods design (ie, the use of qualitative and quantitative data) was used. Through semistructured interviews, in-depth insights were gained into patients’ perspectives on usability. The analysis process was continuous and iterative. Data were synthesized and categorized into different themes. The System Usability Scale, which measures the usability of a system, was used to compare participants that found usability to be low, medium, or high. This study was approved by the Medical Ethical Committee Utrecht (approval number: 17-391/C). Results Saturation was reached after interviewing 13 participants. The following four themes emerged from the interviews: motivations and expectations prior to participating in the program, the applicability of e-coaching, the role of health care professionals, and the integrated design of the blended approach. Conclusions The successful implementation of integrated blended care interventions based on patients’ perspectives requires matching treatments to patients’ individual situations and motivations. Furthermore, personalizing the relative frequency of face-to-face appointments and e-coaching can improve usability.

Letter to the Editor Comments on the article by Conaghan et al.

BACKGROUND Medically unexplained physical symptoms are physical symptoms, such as pain, fatigue, and dizziness, that persist for more than a few weeks and cannot be explained after adequate medical examination. Treatment for preventing the chronicity of symptoms is recommended. A promising approach is identifying patients who are at risk and subsequently offering a blended care intervention that focuses on promoting self-management while using eHealth as a supportive tool. When these interventions match with a patient’s expectations, their effectiveness grows. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to obtain more insights into usability from the patient perspective to improve future interventions. METHODS A mixed methods design (ie, the use of qualitative and quantitative data) was used. Through semistructured interviews, in-depth insights were gained into patients’ perspectives on usability. The analysis process was continuous and iterative. Data were synthesized and categorized into different themes. The System Usability Scale, which measures the usability of a system, was used to compare participants that found usability to be low, medium, or high. This study was approved by the Medical Ethical Committee Utrecht (approval number: 17-391/C). RESULTS Saturation was reached after interviewing 13 participants. The following four themes emerged from the interviews: motivations and expectations prior to participating in the program, the applicability of e-coaching, the role of health care professionals, and the integrated design of the blended approach. CONCLUSIONS The successful implementation of integrated blended care interventions based on patients’ perspectives requires matching treatments to patients’ individual situations and motivations. Furthermore, personalizing the relative frequency of face-to-face appointments and e-coaching can improve usability.