Spinal Manipulation, Epidural Injections, and Self-Care for Sciatica: A Pilot Study for a Randomized Clinical Trial

Brønfort, Gert; Evans, Roni; Maiers, Michele; Anderson, Alfred V.

doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2004.08.002

Cited by 38 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Description of epidural/intradiscal injection studies Summary of interventions Sixty-three studies evaluated the use of epidural/intradiscal injection for sciatica 95, (eight studies had more than two treatment arms 146,149,161,163,167,169,183,197 181,[183][184][185]187,193,194,197,200,202 (two studies had more than two treatment arms 183,197 ) compared different modes of administering epidural/intradiscal injections and 20 studies 149,167,[177][178][179][180]182,186,[188][189][190][191][192]195,196,198,199,203,204,207 compared the use of different epidural/intradiscal injections. Details of the interventions are summarised in Table 17b, but the findings of these studies are not considered any further here.…”

Section: Epidural/intradiscal Injectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two studies included patients who had previously received an epidural for their current episode, but this information was not reported for most studies. Three studies 94,156,169 included patients who had had previous disc surgery, one of which 169 did not report data on global effect, pain or CSOMs. (One study 95 compared the use of epidural with disc surgery.)…”

Section: Summary Of Study Participants For Epidural/intradiscal Injecmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two studies 156,166 (comparator included non-opioids) included some patients with spinal stenosis and one study 94 (epidural vs disc surgery) included patients with sequestered discs. Summary of study design and quality for epidural/intradiscal injection studies Summary information on study details is presented in Table 19, excluding studies 146,161,164,169,172 that did not report outcome data for global effect, pain intensity or CSOMs. Most included epidural studies were RCTs (24/29, 83%); however, the proportion that were deemed good quality was very low (4/29, 14%), all of which compared epidural with inactive control.…”

Section: Summary Of Study Participants For Epidural/intradiscal Injecmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…169,208,258,259 Summary data of the interventions used are presented in Table 68. One RCT 258 compared chiropractic spinal manipulation with sham manipulation.…”

Section: Description Of Manipulation Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One RCT 208 compared osteopathic spinal manipulation with chemonucleolysis. Two three-armed pilot RCTs compared chiropractic spinal manipulation with epidural corticosteroid injections, and also with either self-care education 169 or paracetamol, NSAIDs and activity modification. 161 Neither of these pilot RCTs reported outcomes at follow-up apart from adverse effects and cost data.…”

Section: Description Of Manipulation Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of management strategies for sciatica: systematic review and economic model

Lewis

Williams²,

Matar³

et al. 2011

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How to obtain copies of this and other HTA programme reports An electronic version of this title, in Adobe Acrobat format, is available for downloading free of charge for personal use from the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk). A fully searchable DVD is also available (see below).Printed copies of HTA journal series issues cost £20 each (post and packing free in the UK) to both public and private sector purchasers from our despatch agents.Non-UK purchasers will have to pay a small fee for post and packing. For European countries the cost is £2 per issue and for the rest of the world £3 per issue. How to order:-fax (with credit card details) -post (with credit card details or cheque) -phone during office hours (credit card only).Additionally the HTA website allows you to either print out your order or download a blank order form. Contact details are as follows:Synergie UK (HTA Department) Digital House, The Loddon Centre Wade Road Basingstoke Hants RG24 8QW Email: orders@hta.ac.uk Tel: 0845 812 4000 -ask for 'HTA Payment Services' (out-of-hours answer-phone service) Fax: 0845 812 4001 -put 'HTA Order' on the fax header Payment methods Paying by chequeIf you pay by cheque, the cheque must be in pounds sterling, made payable to University of Southampton and drawn on a bank with a UK address.Paying by credit card You can order using your credit card by phone, fax or post. SubscriptionsNHS libraries can subscribe free of charge. Public libraries can subscribe at a reduced cost of £100 for each volume (normally comprising 40-50 titles). The commercial subscription rate is £400 per volume (addresses within the UK) and £600 per volume (addresses outside the UK). Please see our website for details. Subscriptions can be purchased only for the current or forthcoming volume.How do I get a copy of HTA on DVD?Please use the form on the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk/htacd/index.shtml). HTA on DVD is currently free of charge worldwide.The website also provides information about the HTA programme and lists the membership of the various committees. HTAThe clinical effectiveness and costeffectiveness of management strategies for sciatica: systematic review and economic model NIHR Health Technology Assessment programmeThe Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care. The research findings from the HTA programme directly influence decision-making bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the National Screening Committee (NSC). HTA findings also help to improve the quality of clinical practice in the NHS indirectly in that they form a key component of the 'National Knowledge Service' . The HTA pro...

show abstract

Section: Epidural/intradiscal Injectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Summary Of Study Participants For Epidural/intradiscal Injecmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Summary Of Study Participants For Epidural/intradiscal Injecmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…169,208,258,259 Summary data of the interventions used are presented in Table 68. One RCT 258 compared chiropractic spinal manipulation with sham manipulation.…”

Section: Description Of Manipulation Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Description Of Manipulation Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of management strategies for sciatica: systematic review and economic model

Lewis

Williams²,

Matar³

et al. 2011

Health Technol Assess

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