Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain: A systematic review

References

• van Tulder MW, Koes BW, Bouter LM. A cost-of-illness study in the Netherlands. Pain 1995;62:233–40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waddell G. Low back pain: a twentieth century health care enigma. Spine 1996;21:2820–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clinical Standards Advisory Group. Epidemiology review: the epidemiology and cost of back pain. London: HMSO, 1994
   Google Scholar
• Wadell G. Epidemiology review: the epidemiology and cost of back pain. London: HMSO, 1994: 2–6
   Google Scholar
• Bekkering G, Hendriks H, Koes B. Dutch physiotherapy guidelines for low back pain. Physiotherapy 2003;89:82–96
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira ML, Ferreira PH, Latimer J, Herbert R, Maher CG. Efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain of less than three months duration. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2003;26:593–601
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gracey JH, McDonough SM, Baxter GD. Physiotherapy management of low back pain: a survey of current practice in Northern Ireland. Spine 2002;27:406–11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haldeman S. What is meant by manipulation? In: Buerger A, Tobis JS (eds) Approaches to the validation of manipulative therapy. Spingfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1977; 187–97
   Google Scholar
• Koes BW, Assendelft WJ, van der Heijden GJ, Bouter LM. Spinal manipulation for low back pain. An updated systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Spine 1996;21:2860–71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Tulder MW, Malmivaara A, Esmail R, Koes BW. Exercise therapy for non-specific low back pain (Cochrane Review): In: the Cochrane library, Issue 4. Oxford: update software, 2000
   Google Scholar
• Smith BJ, Darzins PJ, Quinn M, Heller RF. Modern methods of searching the medical literature. Med J Aust 1992;157:603–11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petersen T, Kryger P, Ekdahl C, Olsen S, Jacobsen S. The effect of McKenzie therapy as compared with that of intensive strengthening training for the treatment of patients with sun-acute or chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Spine 2002; 27: 1702–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niemisto L, Lahtinen-Suopanki T, Rissanen P, Lindgren KA, Sarna S, Hurri H. A randomized trial of combined manipulation, stabilizing exercise, and physician consultation compared to physician consultation alone for chronic low back pain. Spine 2003;28:2185–91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Childs JD, Fritz JM, Flynn TW, et al. A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain most likely to benefit from spinal manipulation: a validation study. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:920–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frost H, Lamb SE, Doll HA, Carver PT, Stewart-Brown S. Randomized controlled trial of physiotherapy compared with advice for low back pain. BMJ 2004;329:708–13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UK BEAM Trial Team. United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomized trial: cost effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. BMJ 2004;329: 1381
   Google Scholar
• UK BEAM Trial Team. United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomized trial: effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. BMJ 2004;329:1377–86
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Childs JD, Flynn TW, Fritz JM. A perspective for considering the risks and benefits of spinal manipulation in patients with low back pain. Man Ther 2006; 11:316–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moffett JK, Jackson DA, Gardiner ED, et al. Randomized trial of two physiotherapy interventions for primary care neck and back pain patients: McKenzie vs. brief physiotherapy pain management. Rheumatology 2006;45:1514–21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira ML, Ferreira PH, Latimer J, et al. Comparison of general exercise and spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: a randomized trial. Pain 2007;131:31–721 Burton AK, Erg E. Back injury and work loss. Biomechanical and psychosocial influences. Spine 1997;22:2575–80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohlbeck FJ, Haldeman S, Hurwitz EL, Dagenais S. Supplemental care with medicated-assisted manipulation versus spinal manipulative therapy alone for patients with chronic low back pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2005;28:245–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy DR, Hurwitz EL, Gregory AA, Clary R. A non-surgical approach to the management of lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective observational cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2006;7:16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George SZ, Bishop MD, Bialosky JE, Zeppieri G Jr, Robinson ME. Immediate effects of spinal manipulation on thermal pain sensitivity: an experimental study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2006;7:68
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancock MJ, Maher CG, Latimer J, et al. Manipulative therapy and/or NSAIDs for acute low back pain: design of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2005;6:57–63
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brealey S, Burton K, Coulton S, et al. UK back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) trial-national randomised trial of physical treatments for back pain in primary care: objectives, design and interventions. BMC Health Serv Res 2003;3:16–29
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cleland J, Fritz J, Childs J, Kulig K. Comparison of the effectiveness of three manual physical therapy techniques in a subgroup of patients with low back pain who satisfy a clinical prediction rule: study protocol of randomized clinical trials. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2006;7:11–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moseley AM, Herbert RD, Sherrington C, Maher CG. Evidence for physiotherapy practice: a survey of the physiotherapy evidence database (PEDro). Aust J Physiother 2002;48:43–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhogal SK, Teasell RW, Foley NC, Speechley MR. The PEDro scale provides a more comprehensive measure of methodological quality than the Jadad scale in stroke rehabilitation literature. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:668–73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maher CG, Moseley AM, Sherrington C, Elkins MR, Herbert RD. A description of the trials, reviews, and practice guidelines indexed in the PEDro database. Phys Ther 2008;88:1068–77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PEDro: Criteria for inclusion on PEDro, available from: <http://www.pedro.fhs.usyd.edu.au/scale_items.htm> (assessed 3 May 2007)
   Google Scholar
• Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Maher CG, Moseley AM. PEDro: a database of randomised trials and systematic reviews in physiotherapy. Man Ther 2000;5:223–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunz R, Oxman A. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ 1998; 317:1185–90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulz K, Chalmers I, Hayes R, Altman D. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273:408–12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Pham B, Cook D, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998; 352:609–13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Health and Medical Research Council. How to Use the Evidence: Assessment and Application of Scientific Evidence. Canberra, Australia Capital Territory: Biotext, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Moher D, Cook D, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials: the QUORUM statement. Lancet 1999;354:1896–900
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhagen AP, de Vet HCW, de Bie RA, et al. The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:651–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of the index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44:1271–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, et al. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:1235–41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ongley MJ, Klein RG, Dorman TA. A new approach to the treatment of chronic low back pain. Lancet 1987;2:143–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koes BW, Bouter LM, van Mameren H, et al. The effectiveness of manual therapy, physiotherapy, and treatment by the general practitioner for nonspecific back and neck complaints. A randomized clinical trial. Spine 1992;17:28–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hadler NM, Curtis P, Gillings DB, Stinnett S. A benefit of spinal manipulative therapy as adjuctive therapy for acute low back pain: a stratified controlled trial. Spine 1987; 12:702–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald RS, Bell CM. An open controlled assessment of osteopathic manipulation in non-specific low back pain. Spine 1990;15:364–70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders GE, Reinert O, Tepe R, Maloney P. Chiropractic adjustive manipulation on subjects with acute low back pain: visual analog pain scores and plasma beta-endorphin levels. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1990;13:391–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Tulder MW, Koes BW, Bouter LM. Conservative treatment of acute and chronic non-specific low back pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of the most common interventions. Spine 1997;22:2128–56
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Assendelft WJ, Morton SC, Yu EI, Suttorp MJ, Shekelle PG. Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain. In Cochrane Library: Cochrane data base of systematic reviews 2004, Issue 1
   Google Scholar
• Bombardier C, Esmail R, Nachemson A. The Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group for spinal disorders. Spine 1997;22:837–40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar