Volume 28, Issue 5 , Pages 312-322, June 2005
Does Clinician Treatment Choice Improve the Outcomes of Manual Therapy for Nonspecific Low Back Pain? A Metaanalysis✯
Objective
The purpose of this study is to quantitatively compare outcomes for trials when treating clinicians did, or did not, have the discretion to decide on treatment technique.
Methods
CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, the Cochrane Controlled Trials register, reference list searching, and citation tracking were investigated. Ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of mobilization and manipulation for nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) met the inclusion criteria. The effectiveness of manual therapy with and without clinician technique choice was assessed using descriptive statistics and metaanalysis for the outcomes of pain and activity limitation.
Results
In approximately two thirds of the included RCTs, clinicians had choice of treatment technique. There were no systematic differences favoring results for RCTs that did allow clinician choice of treatment technique.
Conclusions
Few quality studies are available, and conclusions on the basis of these data need to be interpreted with caution. However, allowing clinicians to choose from a number of treatment techniques does not appear to have improved the outcomes of these RCTs that have investigated the effect of manual therapy for NSLBP. If tailoring manual therapy treatment to NSLBP patients does positively impact on patient outcomes, this is not yet systematically apparent [J Manipulative Physiol Ther 28 (2005), 000-000].
To access this article, please choose from the options below
✯ This study was supported by Faculty of Health Sciences (La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia), Joint Coal Board Health and Safety Trust (Australia), and the Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy Association (Victoria). No benefits in any form have been, or will be, received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of the manuscript.
PII: S0161-4754(05)00109-0
doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.04.009
© 2005 National University of Health Sciences. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Volume 28, Issue 5 , Pages 312-322, June 2005
