ࡱ > d bjbj Cf V: L L Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y \ Y ϔ ] a a a a b b b Z \ \ \ \ \ \ $ q # Z Y b b b b b Y Y a a e e e b Y a Y a d e b Z e e . x z a g(Y; d $ 0 ϔ ʅ } e } H z } Y z h b b e b b b b b e b b b ϔ b b b b } b b b b b b b b b L X : Supplementary Data File 1 Characteristics of Included Unimodal StudiesAuthor, YearPopulation:
Total N (Months of Chronicity), Mean Age, % FemaleTreatment Arms: Total N, % Dropout; Dosage (Frequency or Total Session x Duration x Time Period)Pain ResultsDisability ResultsHealth Related Quality of Life ResultsAdverse EventsAuthors ConclusionsSIGN ScoreAt Least 3 Months ChronicityThrust vs. Sham or No Treatment ComparatorLicciardone 2003 ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA 1 9 1 ( e" 3 ) , m e a n a g e = 5 0 , S D = 1 2 . 0 , F : 6 5 % O s t e o p a t h i c M a n i p u l a t i v e T r e a t m e n t ( O M T , T h r u s t ) : 4 8 , 3 3 % ; 1 x 1 5 - 3 0 m i n x a t 1 w k , 2 w k , 1 m o s , 2 m o s , 3 m o s , 4 m o s , a n d 5 m o s S h a m O s t e o p a t h i c M a n i p u l a t i v e T r e a t m e n t ( S h a m ) : 2 3 , 1 7 % ;
N D x N D a t 1 w k , 2 w k , 1 m o s , 2 m o s , 3 mos, 4mos, and 5mos
No Treatment: 20, 25%;
ND x ND x NDVisual Analog Scale (post-treatment, 1mos, 3mos; FU: 6mos) P = 0.01 (1mos, OMT vs No Treatment); P = 0.003 (1mos, Sham OMT vs No Treatment); P = 0.001 (3mos, OMT vs No Treatment); P = 0.01 (3mos, Sham OMT vs No Treatment); P = 0.02 (6mos, OMT vs No Treatment); P = 0.02 (6mos, Sham OMT vs No Treatment)
Effect sizePost-Treatment: OMT vs Sham OMT:
ES = 0.16 (-0.34, 0.66)OMT vs No Treatment:
ES = -0.40 (-0.93, 0.13)3mos: OMT vs Sham OMT:
ES = -0.08 (-0.42, 0.58)OMT vs No Treatment:
ES = -0.60 (-1.13, -0.07)
6mos: OMT vs Sham OMT:
ES = 0.48 (-0.02, 0.98)OMT vs No intervention:
ES = 0.20 (-0.32, 0.72)Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (post-treatment, 1mos, 3mos; FU: 6mos)P = NS
SF-36 Questionnaire (post-treatment, 1mos, 3mos; FU: 6mos)
P = 0.04 (1mos, OMT vs No Treatment)
Effect sizePost-Treatment: OMT vs Sham OMT Control
ES = 0.24 (-0.26, 0.74)OMT vs No Treatment
ES = 0.16 (-0.36, 0.68)3mos: OMT vs Sham OMT:
ES = -0.08 (-0.58, 0.42)OMT vs No Treatment:
ES = 0.36 (0.06, 0.78)6mos: OMT vs Sham OMT:
ES = 0.00 (0.40, 0.40)OMT vs No Treatment:
ES = 0.32 (-0.08, 0.72)NDOsteopathic manipulative treatment andsham manipulation both provide some benefits when used in addition to usual care.
+
Licciardone
2013a (Linked to Licciardone 2012, ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA 2 2013b, ADDIN EN.CITE Licciardone201311633116331163317Licciardone, J. C.Kearns, C. M.Hodge, L. M.Minotti, D. E.The Osteopathic Research Center, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX 76107-2644, USA. john.licciardone@unthsc.eduOsteopathic manual treatment in patients with diabetes mellitus and comorbid chronic low back pain: subgroup results from the OSTEOPATHIC TrialJ Am Osteopath AssocJ Am Osteopath Assoc468-7811362013/06/07AdultAgedChronic Pain/complications/ therapyDiabetes Mellitus/ therapyDouble-Blind MethodFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLow Back Pain/complications/ therapyMaleManipulation, Osteopathic/ methodsMiddle AgedPain MeasurementTreatment OutcomeYoung Adult2013Jun1945-1997 (Electronic)
0098-6151 (Linking)23739758NLMeng3 2013c ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA 4) 455 ( e" 3 ) , m e d i a n ( I Q R ) a g e = 4 1 , r a n g e = 2 9 - 5 1 , F : 6 2 %
O s t e o p a t h i c M a n i p u l a t i v e T r e a t m e n t ( O M T , T h r u s t ) : 2 3 0 , 1 7 % ; 1 x 1 5 m i n x 0 , 1 , 2 , 4 , 6 , a n d 8 w k S h a m O s t e o p a t h i c M a n u a l T r e a t m e n t ( S h a m ) : 2 2 5 , 1 5 % ; 1 x 1 5 m i n x 0 , 1 , 2 , 4 , 6 , a n d 8 w k V i s u a l A n a l o g S c a l e (4wk, 8wk, 12wk)
P = 0.002
Effect sizePost-Treatment: OMT vs Sham OMT:
ES = -0.40 (-0.59, -0.21)Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (4wk, 8wk, 12wk)
P = NS
Effect sizePost-Treatment:OMT vs Sham OMT:
ES = 0.00 (-0.18, 0.18)4wk: OMT vs Sham OMT:
ES = -0.25 (-0.43, -0.06)SF-36 Questionnaire (4wk, 8wk, 12wk)
P = NS
Effect SizePost-TreatmentOMT vs Sham OMT:
ES = 0 (-0.18, 0.18)4wk:OMT vs Sham OMT:
ES = 0 (-0.18, 0.18)Twenty-seven patients had adverse events, and nine of which were definitely or probably related to a therapy. The OMT regimen met or exceeded the Cochrane Back Review Group criterion for a medium effect size in relieving chronic low back pain. It was safe, parsimonious, and well accepted by patients.+Bicalho
2010 ADDIN EN.CITE Bicalho201010800108001080017Bicalho, E.Setti, J. A.Macagnan, J.Cano, J. L.Manffra, E. F.Postgraduate Programme in Technology in Healthcare, Pontifical Catholic University of Parana, Rua Imaculada Conceicao, Curso de Engenharia Eletrica-Telecomunicacoes, 1155, 80215-901 Curitiba, PR, Brazil.Immediate effects of a high-velocity spine manipulation in paraspinal muscles activity of nonspecific chronic low-back pain subjectsMan TherMan Ther469-751552010/05/08AdultChronic DiseaseDisability EvaluationElectromyographyFemaleHumansLow Back Pain/physiopathology/ rehabilitationMaleManipulation, Spinal/ methodsMuscle Contraction/physiologyMuscle, Skeletal/ physiopathologyPain MeasurementStatistics, NonparametricTreatment Outcome2010Oct1532-2769 (Electronic)
1356-689X (Linking)2044785710.1016/j.math.2010.03.012NLMeng5 4 0 ( e" 3 ) , m e a n a g e = 2 9 , S D = 8 . 9 , F : 6 8 % H i g h V e l o c i t y S p i n a l M a n i p u l a t i o n ( T h r u s t ) : 2 0 , 0 % ;
1 x N D x 1 d
N o T r e a t m e n t : 2 0 , 0 % ;
1 x N D x 1 d
V i s u a l A n a l o g S c a l e ( p o s t - t r e a t m e n t )
P = 0 . 0 3 7 9 E f f e c t s i z e P o s t - T r e a t m e n t : H V L A v s N o T r e a t m e n t :
E S = - 0 . 6 0 (-1.23, 0.03)NDHigh velocity spinal manipulation technique acutely modifies the EMG activity during flexion-extension movements. 0 Thrust vs. Active ComparatorAure
2003 ADDIN EN.CITE Aure200310737107371073717Aure, O. F.Nilsen, J. H.Vasseljen, O.Larvik Fysioterapi, Norway. auro@sensewave.comManual therapy and exercise therapy in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized, controlled trial with 1-year follow-upSpine (Phila Pa 1976)Spine (Phila Pa 1976)525-31; discussion 531-22862003/03/19AdultChronic DiseaseDisability EvaluationExercise Therapy/statistics & numerical dataFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHealth StatusHumansLow Back Pain/ therapyMaleManipulation, Spinal/statistics & numerical dataMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPhysical Therapy Modalities/statistics & numerical dataRange of Motion, ArticularSick Leave/statistics & numerical dataTreatment Outcome2003Mar 151528-1159 (Electronic)
0362-2436 (Linking)12642755