Thrust and Nonthrust Manipulation for Older Adults With Low Back Pain: An Evaluation of Pain and Disability

Learman, Kenneth; Showalter, Christopher; O’Halloran, Bryan; Cook, Chad

doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2013.05.007

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…15 Over the course of treatment, the NRS score improved from a 10 to a 7, then from an 8 to a 4, and finally from a 4 to a 0, producing an average change of 3.6 ( Table 2). The results were similar to a study by Learman et al, 16 who demonstrated a change in NRS scores in three different spinal manipulation groups, averaging 3.6, 3.3, and 2.5. Chen et al 17 reported similar results of an overall NRS change from 6 to 0 following four sessions (two of spinal thrust manipulation and two of mechanical diagnosis and therapy).…”

Section: Clinician-and Patient-oriented Outcomessupporting

confidence: 90%

“…The range of success rate was comparable to outcomes experienced on the ODI when using spinal manipulations. Childs et al 4 reported ODI success rates between 44-54% for a one-week trial of spinal manipulation, while Learman et al 16 reported a success rate of 36.8% and 43.3% for thrust manipulation and nonthrust manipulation, respectively. Similar decreases in both NRS and ODI were produced in other studies.…”

Section: Clinician-and Patient-oriented Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Utilizing Mulligan Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glides Within a Clinical Prediction Rule for Treatment of Low Back Pain in a Secondary School Football Player

Eusea¹,

Nasypany

Seegmiller

et al. 2015

International Journal of Athletic Therapy and Training

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Clinician-and Patient-oriented Outcomessupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Clinician-and Patient-oriented Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Utilizing Mulligan Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glides Within a Clinical Prediction Rule for Treatment of Low Back Pain in a Secondary School Football Player

Eusea¹,

Nasypany

Seegmiller

et al. 2015

International Journal of Athletic Therapy and Training

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Using the same data collected in the study by Cook et al (2013), 29 Learman et al (2013) further examined the effects of thrust and non-thrust SM on those who were 55 years or older. 50 Of this particular subset of patients (n = 49), similar observations were made compared to the original study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Similar Effects of Thrust and Nonthrust Spinal Manipulation Found in Adults With Subacute and Chronic Low Back Pain

Xia

Long

Gudavalli

et al. 2016

Spine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design A three-arm controlled trial with adaptive allocation. Objectives The aim of this study was to compare short-term effects of a side-lying, thrust spinal manipulation (SM) procedure and a non-thrust, flexion-distraction SM procedure in adults with subacute or chronic low back pain (LBP) over 2 weeks. Summary of Background Data SM has been recommended in recently published clinical guidelines for LBP management. Previous studies suggest that thrust and non-thrust SM procedures, though distinctly different in joint loading characteristics, have similar effects on patients with LBP. Methods Participants were eligible if they were 21-54 years old, had LBP for at least 4 weeks, scored 6 or above on the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire, and met the diagnostic classification of 1, 2, or 3 according to the Quebec Task Force Classification for Spinal Disorders. Participants were allocated in a 3:3:2 ratio to 4 sessions of thrust or non-thrust SM procedures directed at the lower lumbar and pelvic regions, or to a 2-week wait list control. The primary outcome was LBP-related disability using Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the secondary outcomes were LBP intensity using visual analog scale, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. The study was conducted at the Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research with care provided by experienced doctors of chiropractic. Clinicians and patients were not blinded to treatment group. Results Of 192 participants enrolled, the mean age was 40 years and 54% were male. Improvement in disability, LBP intensity, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire – work subscale, and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey – physical health summary measure for the two SM groups were significantly greater than the control group. No difference in any outcomes was observed between the two SM groups. Conclusions Thrust and non-thrust SM procedures with distinctly different joint loading characteristics demonstrated similar effects in short-term LBP improvement and both were superior to a wait list control.

show abstract

“…The authors concluded that manual therapy and exercises had the same effects on quality of life (i.e ODI), but that manual therapy was more effective at decreasing pain. Learman et al (Learman et al, 2013) compared spinal thrusting manipulation (i.e. high-velocity low-amplitude thurst) vs. non-thrust manual procedures (i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fascial manipulation vs. standard physical therapy practice for low back pain diagnoses: A pragmatic study

Harper

Steinbeck

Aron

2019

Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thrust and Nonthrust Manipulation for Older Adults With Low Back Pain: An Evaluation of Pain and Disability

Cited by 17 publications

References 25 publications

Utilizing Mulligan Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glides Within a Clinical Prediction Rule for Treatment of Low Back Pain in a Secondary School Football Player

Utilizing Mulligan Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glides Within a Clinical Prediction Rule for Treatment of Low Back Pain in a Secondary School Football Player

Similar Effects of Thrust and Nonthrust Spinal Manipulation Found in Adults With Subacute and Chronic Low Back Pain

Fascial manipulation vs. standard physical therapy practice for low back pain diagnoses: A pragmatic study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About