Sham treatment effects in manual therapy trials on back pain patients: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis

Abstract

ObjectiveTo assess the effects and reliability of sham procedures in manual therapy (MT) trials in the treatment of back pain (BP) in order to provide methodological guidance for clinical trial development.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Methods and analysisDifferent databases were screened up to 20 August 2020. Randomised controlled trials involving adults affected by BP (cervical and lumbar), acute or chronic, were included.Hand contact sham treatment (ST) was compared with different MT (physiotherapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, massage, kinesiology and reflexology) and to no treatment. Primary outcomes were BP improvement, success of blinding and adverse effect (AE). Secondary outcomes were number of drop-outs. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed using risk ratio (RR), continuous using mean difference (MD), 95% CIs. The minimal clinically important difference was 30 mm changes in pain score.Results24 trials were included involving 2019 participants. Very low evidence quality suggests clinically insignificant pain improvement in favour of MT compared with ST (MD 3.86, 95% CI 3.29 to 4.43) and no differences between ST and no treatment (MD -5.84, 95% CI −20.46 to 8.78).ST reliability shows a high percentage of correct detection by participants (ranged from 46.7% to 83.5%), spinal manipulation being the most recognised technique.Low quality of evidence suggests that AE and drop-out rates were similar between ST and MT (RR AE=0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.28, RR drop-outs=0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.25). A similar drop-out rate was reported for no treatment (RR=0.82, 95% 0.43 to 1.55).ConclusionsMT does not seem to have clinically relevant effect compared with ST. Similar effects were found with no treatment. The heterogeneousness of sham MT studies and the very low quality of evidence render uncertain these review findings.Future trials should develop reliable kinds of ST, similar to active treatment, to ensure participant blinding and to guarantee a proper sample size for the reliable detection of clinically meaningful treatment effects.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020198301.

Neck-specific strengthening exercise compared with placebo sham ultrasound in patients with migraine: a randomized controlled trial

“…In clinical trials with manual therapy, placebo treatment is performed in different ways and the real placebo treatment does not exist. Therefore, sham therapies are used to verify the effectiveness of the applied technique [ 52 ]. However, in these clinical trials, sham treatment may have a greater effect on outcomes that depend on the patient’s report, such as pain [ 53 – 55 ], as in our study.…”

Including exercise prescription in the management of non‐specific low back pain

“…The passive treatments that are no longer recommended include: paracetamol, NSAIDs, gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline and opiates, injections or surgery 28–35 . Manual therapy (by osteopaths, physiotherapists or chiropractors), massage, cupping and needling all have a short term effect, no long‐term effect, no cumulative effect and do not facilitate exercise based rehabilitation 36–44 …”

“…[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] Manual therapy (by osteopaths, physiotherapists or chiropractors), massage, cupping and needling all have a short term effect, no long-term effect, no cumulative effect and do not facilitate exercise based rehabilitation. [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] Being holistic Some may argue that simplification of NSLBP to failure to cope with load is inappropriate. However, this can be safely executed if a clinician has considered all cornerstones of Te Whare Tapa Wh ataha tinana (physical); taha hine karo (emotional); taha whänau (social); and taha wairua (spiritual).…”

Clinical Effectiveness and Efficacy of Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation for Spine Pain

“…Specifically, manual therapy was reported to be the most effective non-pharmacologic approach. However, the effects of manual therapy (including SMT) against sham treatment are still considered to be small and, more importantly, not clinically meaningful ( 110 ). The low quality of placebo interventions used for SMT trials may be partly to blame for the low quality of this evidence, the large degree of uncertainty, and the difficulty in drawing consistent conclusions ( 119 ).…”