scholarly journals A study of the relative effectiveness of McManis traction used as an adjunct to spinal manipulative therapy

1995 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Heidi M Kretzmann
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Lower Back Pain ◽  
Relative Effectiveness ◽  
Spinal Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Clinical Entity ◽  
Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Lower Back ◽  
Effective Adjunct

Mechanical lower back pain is a common clinical entity which encompasses a spectrum of disorders. studies show that spinal manipulative therapy is of value in the treatment of mechanical lower back pain, while some chiropractors are of the opinion that McManis traction offers an effective adjunct to spinal manipulative therapy in the treatment of such conditions

The relative effectiveness of combined spinal manipulative therapy and action potential therapy versus combined spinal manipulative therapy and placebo action potential therapy in the treatment of mechanical low back pain

2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Micah Justin Atkinson
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Action Potential ◽  
Lower Back Pain ◽  
Spinal Manipulation ◽  
Spinal Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Current Therapy ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Lower Back

Lower back pain represents as a common disorder, with between 60% and 80% of the general population being affected (Kirkaldy-Willis 1992:2). This, apart from just the health aspects, has serious financial implications which are an ongoing concern to industry (Frymoyer 1991: 137). This study was designed to determine the effectiveness of combined spinal manipulation and "Action Potential" therapy versus spinal manipulative therapy and placebo "Action Potential" therapy in the treatment of mechanical lower back pain. It is currently accepted that spinal manipulation is of great benefit in the treatment of lower back pain (Di Fabio 1992), and it appears that "Action Potential Simulation" therapy, a new low-frequency electrical current therapy, would fit the criteria necessary to address the dysfunctional phase of low back pain as set out by the authors such as Kirkaldy- Willis (1988).

scholarly journals Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Chronic Lower Back Pain in Older Veterans

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 154-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul E. Dougherty ◽  
Jurgis Karuza ◽  
Andrew S. Dunn ◽  
Dorian Savino ◽  
Paul Katz
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Lower Back Pain ◽  
Spinal Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Chronic Lower Back Pain ◽  
Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Lower Back

scholarly journals Evaluation of a modified clinical prediction rule for use with spinal manipulative therapy in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized clinical trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul E Dougherty ◽  
Jurgis Karuza ◽  
Dorian Savino ◽  
Paul Katz
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Lower Back Pain ◽  
Spinal Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Prediction Rule ◽  
Clinical Prediction Rule ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Clinical Prediction ◽  
Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Lower Back

Abstract Background Spinal Manipulative Therapy (SMT) and Active Exercise Therapy (AET) have both demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of Chronic Lower Back Pain (CLBP). A Clinical Prediction Rule (CPR) for responsiveness to SMT has been validated in a heterogeneous lower back pain population; however there is a need to evaluate this CPR specifically for patients with CLBP, which is a significant source of disability. Methods We conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in Veteran Affairs and civilian outpatient clinics evaluating a modification of the original CPR (mCPR) in CLBP, eliminating acute low back pain and altering the specific types of SMT to improve generalizability. We enrolled and followed 181 patients with CLBP from 2007 to 2010. Patients were randomized by status on the mCPR to undergo either SMT or AET twice a week for four weeks. Providers and statisticians were blinded as to mCPR status. We collected outcome measures at 5, 12 and 24-weeks post baseline. We tested our study hypotheses by a general linear model repeated measures procedure following a univariate analysis of covariance approach. Outcome measures included, Visual Analogue Scale, Bodily pain subscale of SF-36 and the Oswestry Disability Index, Patient Satisfaction and Patient Expectation. Results Of the 89 AET patients, 69 (78%) completed the study and of the 92 SMT patients, 76 (83%) completed the study. As hypothesized, we found main effects of time where the SMT and AET groups showed significant improvements in pain and disability from baseline. There were no differences in treatment outcomes between groups in response to the treatment, given the lack of significant treatment x time interactions. The mCPR x treatment x time interactions were not significant. The differences in outcomes between treatment groups were the same for positive and negative on the mCPR groups, thus our second hypothesis was not supported. Conclusions We found no evidence that a modification of the original CPR can be used to discriminate CLBP patients that would benefit more from SMT. Further studies are needed to further clarify the patient characteristics that moderate treatment responsiveness to specific interventions for CLBP. Trial registration ISRCTN30511490

scholarly journals The relative effectiveness of specific passive mobilization versus spinal manipulation in the treatment of mechanical low back pain

1988 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Cornelius Myburgh
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Treatment Period ◽  
Spinal Manipulation ◽  
Relative Effectiveness ◽  
Spinal Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Treatment Protocols ◽  
Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Passive Mobilization

The absence oftested theory has resulted in the continued variation of treatment protocols in the treatment of mechanical low back pain. This study was designed to determine the relative effectiveness of specific passive mobilization versus spinal manipulation in the treatment of uncomplicated mechanical low back pain. It was hypothesized that both spinal manipulative therapy and specific passive mobilization would be effective, but that manipulation would be significantly more effective in terms of objective and subjective findings, over the same two week treatment period

scholarly journals The value of isometric and stretch exercises in the management of mechanical lower back pain

1998 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Ashleigh Jane Deall
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Lower Back Pain ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Clinical Entity ◽  
Free State ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Lower Back ◽  
Cost Effective Method ◽  
Professional Treatment

Mechanical low back pain is a common clinical entity which needs professional treatment (Margo 1994). Due to the nature of mechanical low back pain, recurrence of pain is a common entity that can cripple a patient and the ~tate financially. It is for'this reason that the professionals need to establish a cost effective method of treatment that helps maintain the pain free state and prevent recurrences

scholarly journals A study of the relative effectiveness of the lumbar roll and the spinous push technique in the treatment of facet syndrome in the lumbar spine

1996 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Petrus C. Jansen
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Lower Back Pain ◽  
Relative Effectiveness ◽  
Common Cause ◽  
Lower Back ◽  
Facet Syndrome ◽  
Cause Of Pain

Lower back pain due to mechanical dysfunction is a common cause of pain and disability in mankind. Lumbar spine facet syndrome is a major aetiology in mechanical lower back pain

Panel Approves Duloxetine for Lower Back Pain

2010 ◽  
Vol 38 (9) ◽  
pp. 24
Author(s):  
ELIZABETH MECHCATIE
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Lower Back Pain ◽  
Lower Back
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document