A recent Norwegian systematic review of manual therapies for migraine prevention concluded that chiropractic spinal manipulation and some other conservative interventions appear to be equal to medications (propranolol & topiramate) in their ability to prevent migraines.
Although most of the published research supporting chiropractic treatment of migraine is based upon case reports, there have been other studies including a limited number of randomized clinical trials. A previous 2001 systematic review by Bronfort et. al. concluded that “SMT appears to have a better effect than massage for cervicogenic headache. It also appears that SMT has an effect comparable to commonly used first-line prophylactic prescription medications for tension-type headache and migraine headache.
Migraine occurs in about 15% of the general population. Migraine is usually managed by medication, but some patients do not tolerate migraine medication due to side effects or prefer to avoid medication for other reasons. Non-pharmacological management is an alternative treatment option. The Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) suggest that massage therapy, physiotherapy, relaxation and chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy might be equally effective as propranolol and topiramate in the prophylactic management of migraine. However, due to the methodological shortcomings of the evaluated RCTs, future, well-conducted RCTs on manual therapies for migraine will be required.
Source: http://www.chiroaccess.com/Articles/Chiropractic-Management-of-Migraine-Headache.aspx?id=0000243
Dr. David P. Chen
Chiropractor in Laurel, MD 20708
Laurel Regional Chiropractic
Showing posts with label spinal manipulative therapy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label spinal manipulative therapy. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
Spinal Manipulation Therapy for Acute Low Back Pain
The October 2010 issue of The Spine Journal includes a new review of the scientific evidence supporting spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for low back pain (LBP). The results were quite favorable and reflect a growing body of evidence supporting SMT over medications and other conservative options. SMT research demonstrates “equivalent or superior improvement in pain and function when compared with other commonly used interventions, such as physical modalities, medication, education, or exercise, for short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up.” The authors conclude by recommending that other health care providers consider SMT as a viable option if self care or education fails to provide pain relief.
METHODS: Literature was identified by searching MEDLINE using indexed and free text terms. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English, and SMT was administered to a group of patients with LBP of less than 3 months. RCTs included in two previous SRs were also screened, as were reference lists of included studies. Combined search results were screened for relevance by two reviewers. Data related to methods, risk of bias, harms, and results were abstracted independently by two reviewers.
RESULTS: The MEDLINE search returned 699 studies, of which six were included; an additional eight studies were identified from two previous SRs. There were 2,027 participants in the 14 included RCTs, which combined SMT with education (n=5), mobilization (MOB) (n=4), exercise (n=3), modalities (n=3), or medication (n=2). The groups that received SMT were most commonly compared with those receiving physical modalities (n=7), education (n=6), medication (n=5), exercise (n=5), MOB (n=3), or sham SMT (n=2). Most studies (n=6) administered 5 to 10 sessions of SMT over 2 to 4 weeks for acute LBP. Outcomes measured included pain (n=10), function (n=10), health-care utilization (n=6), and global effect (n=5). Studies had a follow-up of less than 1 month (n=7), 3 months (n=1), 6 months (n=3), 1 year (n=2), or 2 years (n=1). When compared with various control groups, results for improvement in pain in the SMT groups were superior in three RCTs and equivalent in three RCTs in the short term, equivalent in four RCTs in the intermediate term, and equivalent in two RCTs in the long term. For improvement in function, results from the SMT groups were superior in one RCT and equivalent in four RCTs in the short term, superior in one RCT and equivalent in one RCT in the intermediate term, and equivalent in one RCT and inferior in one RCT in the long term. No harms related to SMT were reported in these RCTs.
CONCLUSIONS: Several RCTs have been conducted to assess the efficacy of SMT for acute LBP using various methods. Results from most studies suggest that 5 to 10 sessions of SMT administered over 2 to 4 weeks achieve equivalent or superior improvement in pain and function when compared with other commonly used interventions, such as physical modalities, medication, education, or exercise, for short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up.
Reference: Dagenais, S; Gay, RE; Tricco, AC; Freeman, MD; Mayer, JM (2010). "NASS Contemporary Concepts in Spine Care: spinal manipulation therapy for acute low back pain.". The spine journal. 10 (10): 918–40.
Dr. David P. Chen
Chiropractor in Laurel, MD 20708
METHODS: Literature was identified by searching MEDLINE using indexed and free text terms. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English, and SMT was administered to a group of patients with LBP of less than 3 months. RCTs included in two previous SRs were also screened, as were reference lists of included studies. Combined search results were screened for relevance by two reviewers. Data related to methods, risk of bias, harms, and results were abstracted independently by two reviewers.
RESULTS: The MEDLINE search returned 699 studies, of which six were included; an additional eight studies were identified from two previous SRs. There were 2,027 participants in the 14 included RCTs, which combined SMT with education (n=5), mobilization (MOB) (n=4), exercise (n=3), modalities (n=3), or medication (n=2). The groups that received SMT were most commonly compared with those receiving physical modalities (n=7), education (n=6), medication (n=5), exercise (n=5), MOB (n=3), or sham SMT (n=2). Most studies (n=6) administered 5 to 10 sessions of SMT over 2 to 4 weeks for acute LBP. Outcomes measured included pain (n=10), function (n=10), health-care utilization (n=6), and global effect (n=5). Studies had a follow-up of less than 1 month (n=7), 3 months (n=1), 6 months (n=3), 1 year (n=2), or 2 years (n=1). When compared with various control groups, results for improvement in pain in the SMT groups were superior in three RCTs and equivalent in three RCTs in the short term, equivalent in four RCTs in the intermediate term, and equivalent in two RCTs in the long term. For improvement in function, results from the SMT groups were superior in one RCT and equivalent in four RCTs in the short term, superior in one RCT and equivalent in one RCT in the intermediate term, and equivalent in one RCT and inferior in one RCT in the long term. No harms related to SMT were reported in these RCTs.
CONCLUSIONS: Several RCTs have been conducted to assess the efficacy of SMT for acute LBP using various methods. Results from most studies suggest that 5 to 10 sessions of SMT administered over 2 to 4 weeks achieve equivalent or superior improvement in pain and function when compared with other commonly used interventions, such as physical modalities, medication, education, or exercise, for short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up.
Reference: Dagenais, S; Gay, RE; Tricco, AC; Freeman, MD; Mayer, JM (2010). "NASS Contemporary Concepts in Spine Care: spinal manipulation therapy for acute low back pain.". The spine journal. 10 (10): 918–40.
Dr. David P. Chen
Chiropractor in Laurel, MD 20708
Friday, June 4, 2010
Chiropractic had the highest perceived benefit for back pain
A study published in the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine reports on interviews with 31,044 individuals who used complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for low back pain (LBP). The results are as follows:
The top 6 CAM therapies for LBP, starting with the most-used approaches are: chiropractic, massage, herbal therapy, acupuncture, yoga/tai chi/qi gong, and relaxation techniques.
Chiropractic use (76% of respondents) was larger than all the other 5 therapies combined.
Of those who used CAM modalities for back pain, 27% used it because conventional medicine did not help, 53% used it in conjunction with medical care, and 24% used it because their medical provider recommended it.
Chiropractic users scored the highest on their satisfaction and clinical benefits out of all 6 approaches. This reconfirms earlier findings from the Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2005, which reported that spinal manupulative therapy (SMT) provided the greatest pain relief scoring higher than nerve blocks, opioid analgesics, muscle relaxants, acupuncture, or NSAIDs.
Reference: Kanodia AK, Legedza ATR, Davis RB, et al. Perceived benefit of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for back pain: a national survey. J Am Board Fam Med. 2010;23(3):354–362.
Dr. David Chen
Chiropractor in Laurel, MD
Laurel Regional Chiropractic
The top 6 CAM therapies for LBP, starting with the most-used approaches are: chiropractic, massage, herbal therapy, acupuncture, yoga/tai chi/qi gong, and relaxation techniques.
Chiropractic use (76% of respondents) was larger than all the other 5 therapies combined.
Of those who used CAM modalities for back pain, 27% used it because conventional medicine did not help, 53% used it in conjunction with medical care, and 24% used it because their medical provider recommended it.
Chiropractic users scored the highest on their satisfaction and clinical benefits out of all 6 approaches. This reconfirms earlier findings from the Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2005, which reported that spinal manupulative therapy (SMT) provided the greatest pain relief scoring higher than nerve blocks, opioid analgesics, muscle relaxants, acupuncture, or NSAIDs.
Reference: Kanodia AK, Legedza ATR, Davis RB, et al. Perceived benefit of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for back pain: a national survey. J Am Board Fam Med. 2010;23(3):354–362.
Dr. David Chen
Chiropractor in Laurel, MD
Laurel Regional Chiropractic
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Effect of spinal manipulative therapy with stretching compared with stretching alone on full-swing performance of golf players: a randomized trial
There has been a steady growth of chiropractic treatment using spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) that aims to increase the performance of athletes in various sports. This study evaluates the effect of SMT by chiropractors on the performance of golf players.
Golfers of 2 golf clubs in São Paulo, Brazil, participated in this study. They were randomized to 1 of 2 groups: Group I received a stretch program, and group II received a stretch program in addition to SMT. Participants in both groups performed the same standardized stretching program. Spinal manipulative therapy to dysfunctional spinal segments was performed on group II only. All golfers performed 3full-swing maneuvers. Ball range was considered as the average distance for the 3 shots. Treatment was performed after the initial measurement, and the same maneuvers were performed afterward. Each participant repeated these procedures for a 4-week period.
Forty-three golfers completed the protocol. Twenty participants were allocated to group I and 23 to group II. Average age, handicap, and initial swing were comparable. No improvement of full-swing performance was observed during the 4 sessions on group I (stretch only). An improvement was observed at the fourth session of group II (P = .005); when comparing the posttreatment, group II had statistical significance at all phases (P = .003).
Chiropractic SMT in association with muscle stretching may be associated with an improvement of full-swing performance when compared with muscle stretching alone.
Dr. David Chen
Chiropractor in Laurel, Maryland
Laurel Regional Chiropractic
Golfers of 2 golf clubs in São Paulo, Brazil, participated in this study. They were randomized to 1 of 2 groups: Group I received a stretch program, and group II received a stretch program in addition to SMT. Participants in both groups performed the same standardized stretching program. Spinal manipulative therapy to dysfunctional spinal segments was performed on group II only. All golfers performed 3full-swing maneuvers. Ball range was considered as the average distance for the 3 shots. Treatment was performed after the initial measurement, and the same maneuvers were performed afterward. Each participant repeated these procedures for a 4-week period.
Forty-three golfers completed the protocol. Twenty participants were allocated to group I and 23 to group II. Average age, handicap, and initial swing were comparable. No improvement of full-swing performance was observed during the 4 sessions on group I (stretch only). An improvement was observed at the fourth session of group II (P = .005); when comparing the posttreatment, group II had statistical significance at all phases (P = .003).
Chiropractic SMT in association with muscle stretching may be associated with an improvement of full-swing performance when compared with muscle stretching alone.
Dr. David Chen
Chiropractor in Laurel, Maryland
Laurel Regional Chiropractic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)