Les lombalgiques chroniques et manipulations vertébrales. Étude prospective à propos de 64 cas

Ghroubi, S.; Elleuch, H.; Baklouti, S.; Elleuch, M.H.

doi:10.1016/j.annrmp.2007.02.012

Cited by 25 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In total, 11 of the 19 studies were identified which compared MT only versus sham [22-24,27-29,31-33,38,40]. Three studies combined MT with soft tissue therapy [39] or trigger point therapy [25,26] and compared this with sham MT and effleurage [25,26].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Treatment was delivered by a chiropractor in 12 studies [22,25-28,32,34,35,37-40], a manipulative physical therapist in 4 studies [23,24,29,31], an osteopath in two studies [30,33], and a physician in one study [36]. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thirteen studies included less than 25 patients in their smallest study group [22,23,25,28-34,37-39]. Patients were treated either for neck pain [23,31], osteoarthritis [22], chronic pelvic pain [25], chronic low back pain [24,26,29,30,36,38], primary dysmenorrhea [27,28], chronic asthma [32], obstructive pulmonary disease [33], acute low back pain [34], acute low back pain with sciatica [35], tension type headache [37], premenstrual syndrome [39], and cervicogenic headache [40]. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Six studies examined disability [22,24-26,30,36], and one study examined perceived (asthma) recovery [32]. Secondary outcomes ranged from quality of life [25,26,35,36], range of motion [22, 38 40], headache frequency [37], to pulmonary function tests [32,33].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most studies examined short-term outcomes [22,24-26,29,30,32,37-40], ranging from 1 week [29] to 3 months [25,30,37,39,40]. Five studies examined the immediate effects of MT [23,28,31,33,34].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Is manipulative therapy more effective than sham manipulation in adults?: a systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Is manipulative therapy more effective than sham manipulation in adults?: a systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain

Rubinstein

Middelkoop

Assendelft

et al. 2011

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Many therapies exist for the treatment of low-back pain including spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), which is a worldwide, extensively practiced intervention. Objectives To assess the effects of SMT for chronic low-back pain. Search methods An updated search was conducted by an experienced librarian to June 2009 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature. Selection criteria RCTs which examined the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilisation in adults with chronic low-back pain were included. No restrictions were placed on the setting or type of pain; studies which exclusively examined sciatica were excluded. The primary outcomes were pain, functional status and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. Sensitivity analyses and investigation of heterogeneity were performed, where possible, for the metaanalyses. 1 Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain (Review)

show abstract

Effectiviteit van behandelingen bij chronische lage rugpijn

Tulder¹,

Koes

2013

Evidence-Based Handelen Bij Lage Rugpijn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Les lombalgiques chroniques et manipulations vertébrales. Étude prospective à propos de 64 cas

Cited by 25 publications

References 34 publications

Is manipulative therapy more effective than sham manipulation in adults?: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Is manipulative therapy more effective than sham manipulation in adults?: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain

Effectiviteit van behandelingen bij chronische lage rugpijn

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About