Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
Volume 28, Issue 7 , Pages 547.e1-547.e9, September 2005

Reflections on the “type O” disorder

  • Henry Pollard, Grad DC, MSportSc, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationSubmit requests for reprints to: Henry Pollard, Grad DC, MSportSc, PhD, The ONE Research Foundation, 144 West D St, Encinitas, CA 92024.

Received 23 January 2004; received in revised form 6 June 2004

Article Outline

 

In 1979, the Royal Commission into Chiropractic in New Zealand popularized a description of musculoskeletal and nonmusculoskeletal injuries presenting to chiropractors. The terms referred to the treatment of “type M” (musculoskeletal) conditions and visceral “type O” (organic) conditions. Although chiropractors are considered to appropriately treat the type M condition, treatment of the type O condition is not considered as appropriate by many inside and outside the profession. Chiropractors usually cite research into the somatovisceral reflex as a mechanism to support their position. Although this research is of high quality, it is lacking in its direct application to chiropractic management strategies.

Chiropractors have been treating visceral conditions since the inception of their profession. This treatment has been diverse in nature, and some have claimed to be treating all manner of visceral dysfunction and disease. Despite the chiropractic profession being approximately 110 years old, very little research into the effect of chiropractic manual therapy has been conducted in this subgroup of the population of patients who the chiropractor treats. In addition, psychosocial issues have been recognized as important to the work of chiropractors for some time1; however, their potential role in the generation of type O disorders has not been so recognized. Although there have been a few attempts at investigating treatment of visceral conditions, much of the data are flawed by limited or poor methodology, and many of the conclusions are weak, irrelevant, or negative in nature (Table 1).2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Despite this, some small-power studies have shown positive outcomes for such management (Table 2).9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 Despite these findings, strong claims are made as to the success of manual therapy on visceral function. Many of the claims cite a mechanism that involves the somatovisceral reflex. This article discusses the relevance of the somatovisceral reflex as the main mechanism in the proposed effect by manual therapy on the type O condition and its relevance to potential management and research.

Table 1. Studies citing a negative effect on Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy on visceral function2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Author(s)Result of study
Leboeuf et al2No effect on nocturnal enuresis
Brennan et al3No change in lymphocyte profile
Reed et al4No change in bed wetting
Nielsen et al5Objective changes nil
Subjective changes (patient-rated asthma severity) decreased by 34%
Olafsdottir et al6Chiropractic SMT no more effective than placebo in treatment of infantile colic
Straub et al7Chiropractic SMT does not reduce effects of jet lag
Goertz et al8For patients with high-normal blood pressure or stage I hypertension, chiropractic SMT + dietary modification program no different to diet alone

SMT indicates spinal manipulative therapy.

Table 2. Studies citing a positive effect on chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy on visceral function9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Author(s)Result of study
Vernon et al9Small increase in serumβ-endorphin levels at the 5-min postintervention
Yates et al10Improves systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and reduces state anxiety
Kokjohn et al11Chiro SMT may be effective for 1° dysmenorrheal
Brennan et al12Enhanced phagocytic cell respiratory burst by SMT
Peterson13Decreased the intensity of emotional arousal reported by phobic subjects.
Wiberg et al14Is effective in relieving infantile colic
Walsh & Polus15Symptoms associated with premenstrual syndrome generally reduced by Chiro STM & soft tissue therapy
Tuchin et al16Migraine 90% better in 22% of patients

Back to Article Outline

Scope of Practice 

Chiropractors primarily treat patients with neuromusculoskeletal conditions.17, 18 It is not surprising that their training is focused toward such management.19 However, Hawk et al17 have estimated that approximately 10% of conditions presenting to American chiropractors are of a nonmusculoskeletal nature. European data suggest a similar figure of 10% or less,20 although some jurisdictions are reported to see considerably less (less than 2% in the Netherlands).21 Interestingly, those practices with the highest proportion of nonmusculoskeletal patients in the United States were more likely to be in populations of greater than 100000; these physicians used common chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy less often than other practitioners and used more nonadjustive techniques (including diet/nutrition counseling, nutritional supplementation, herbal preparations, naturopathy, and homeopathy).17

Although a diversity of treatment options and conditions is important to primary contact practitioners, so is the training to manage the diversity of conditions that is likely to be encountered with such primary contact status. It appears that as long as chiropractors stay within the realm of the type M musculoskeletal presentations, they may be less likely to fall foul of criticism leveled by the medical fraternity22 and others within and outside the chiropractic profession.18 However, strong criticism usually follows those practitioners who choose to manage nonmusculoskeletal conditions. Much of this criticism is centered on the appropriateness of the care that is delivered, as well as the ability of the chiropractor to diagnose the conditions that are potentially being treated.22 Given the nature of most chiropractic education around the globe, some college curricula would be more deserving of this criticism than others.

In contrast, the treatment of the type O condition is often seen by chiropractors to be (1) part of their scope of practice, (2) a right of practice for a primary contact practitioner, and (3) consistent with the foundation principles of chiropractic and the philosophy on which it is based. Interestingly, this approach is collectively applauded and embraced by many in the profession. Therein lies the dilemma for those entering the debate on the treatment of the type O disorder.

In an attempt to justify the treatment of these conditions and numerous anecdotal reports of success with some of these conditions, chiropractors have sought to explain the mechanism of what they are doing by using well-established neurophysiologic explanations. The somatovisceral reflex is at the core of this explanation.

Back to Article Outline

The Somatovisceral Reflex 

The somatovisceral or somatoautonomic reflex is thought to result from the stimulation of somatic structures (skin, muscle, ligament, bone, etc) to cause a reflex change in the efferent output to a visceral or effector organ.23, 24, 25, 26 These spinal reflexes span the visceral organs and have been investigated by many researchers including Sato27 and others.28, 29, 30, 31 Although this work is of good quality, it is not the validation that is often portrayed by many in the chiropractic profession.

These reflexes are short-term in nature.32, 33 The studies on which they are based have largely been conducted using an animal model and have occurred in normal physiological states or after spinal transaction.34, 35, 36 Very little work has been conducted in a pathological state of visceral function that would equate to a disease state; as well, not as much work has investigated the longer-term nature of the reflexes in normal or pathological tissue.

Even less research has focused on the effect of treatment on the reflexes or their longer-term sequelae in normal or pathological states. In addition, those investigating the somatoautonomic reflexes point to the important role that supraspinal influences have on somatic and visceral structures of the body.30, 37, 38, 39, 40 These supraspinal centers refer to the combined action of higher brain centers such as the thalamus, reticular formation, cerebellum, cortex, hypothalamus, and limbic system.

Thus, this may be another potential explanation for the anecdotal success of type O treatments reported by so many chiropractors. This explanation is not normally discussed as being a factor in the etiology or treatment of the type O condition.

Back to Article Outline

Type M vs Type O Management 

Chiropractors primarily treat type M or neuromusculoskeletal conditions.19 They are said to show equal skill in managing these conditions as medical practitioners.22 It is also reported that chiropractors deal with chronic spinal pain syndromes and that their case mix of spinal pain and associated mental health is, on average, often more severe than their medical counterparts.18

In addition to case mix ratio of the type O to type M conditions, chiropractors treat a great deal of chronic spinal musculoskeletal pain18, 22; however, chronic pain is associated with emotional or psychological content.41, 42

Back to Article Outline

Chronic Spinal Pain 

Chronic pain has attracted much interest in recent years because of the cost of its collective management and the association that it shares with the advent and promotion of evidence-based practice.43, 44 Many studies have investigated outcomes associated with chronic pain presentations (Table 3).45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 Table 4 highlights that assessment and treatment of type M conditions usually associated with manual therapy are not predictive of long-term outcomes.72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81

Table 3. Studies that have shown positive outcomes for the treatment of chronic spinal pain45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71
AuthorsIntervention
Giles & Muller45, Andersson et al46, Blomberg et al47Manipulation
Hagen et al48Mobilization
Mannion et al49Aerobic exercise
Descarreaux et al50, Rittweger et al51Exercise
Mullican & Lacy52Medication
Hurwitz et al53, Sherry et al54Electrotherapy
Leibing et al55, Molsberger et al56Acupuncture
Rozenberg et al57Rest
Holm58Surgery
Chrubasik et al59Nutrition
Geurts et al60Radiofrequency denervation
Stam et al61Homeopathy
Constant et al62Spa therapy
Ruoff et al63Analgesics
Kumar et al64, Vlaeyen et al65, Kovacs et al66Other approaches
Cherkin et al67, Cherkin et al68, Burton et al69, Roberts et al70, Linton & Andersson71Printed material changing behavior. The printed material is more effective if accompanied by verbal illustration and support and actual physical performance.
Table 4. Factors that do not predict chronic pain outcomes72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81
AuthorsFactors
Valat et al72Weight & height
Hildebrandt et al73Physical variables (ie, mobility, strength, endurance, and physical performance) showed limited predictive value
Matsui et al74Light-moderate physical workloads
Haas et al75Early post treatment success
Toomingas et al76Signs of tenderness in the joints, tendons, or muscular insertions or signs in nerve compression tests
Bigos et al77Physical and injury factors
Bigos et al78Pre-employment screening (individual physical factors)
Hicks et al79Segmental mobility
Natvig et al80Specific low back pain in workers
Truchon & Fillion81Age, sex, ethnicity, education, and work task probably not predictors

Although spinal manipulative therapy has shown beneficial outcomes in chronic spinal pain, other forms of therapy have also shown positive outcomes (Table 3). However, no one approach has shown mastery over chronic spinal pain.81

Other studies have determined that the only predictors of chronicity in randomized controlled trials are the yellow flag presentations (Table 5).82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96 Psychosocial variables associated with pain are commonly referred to as yellow flags.95 These yellow flags include several variables related to attitudes and beliefs about pain and behavior associated with pain. They include issues of compensation, diagnosis, treatment factors, analysis, family, and work.95 Despite that the yellow flags are usually used in isolation, red flag and yellow flag conditions are not mutually exclusive.95 Red flag conditions are those that may alert the practitioner to serious and potentially uncommon conditions that require urgent medical management.97

Table 5. Yellow flag factor in chronic pain82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96
AuthorYellow flag factor
George et al82, van den Hout et al83Fear avoidance behavior
Kole-Snidjers et al84Operant-behavioral factors important
Bigos et al78High job dissatisfaction
Krause et al85High perceived exertion at work
Elders & Burdorf86Malaise
Fordyce et al87Monotonous tasks, unsatisfactory social contacts outside work
Thorbjornsson et al88Unemployment & compensation
Sanderson et al89Demands
Linton90Locus of control
Krause et al91Belief that work is dangerous catastrophic thoughts
Severeijns et al92Low workplace social support
Hoogendoorn et al93Low job satisfaction job content and job control
Hagen et al94Feeling of being worn out
Krause et al91Coworker support
Krause et al85Low supervisory support at work
Linton90Stress
Linton90Work pace
Linton90Emotional effort at work
Kerr et al95Physically demanding job poor workplace social environment
Kerr et al95Inconsistency between job education level
Kerr et al95Better job satisfaction
Kerr et al95Low job control (borderline association)
Valat et al72Compensation for a spinal condition, receipt of work-related sickness payments, or litigation
Hagen et al94Poor general health

Yellow flags have been recognized as being important in the chiropractic treatment of low back pain.1 The usual clinical factors are poor or weak predictors of progression of acute pain to a chronic state.97 Chronic progression is generally predicted by yellow flags, and it is highly likely that the yellow flags are etiologic in the progression from acute to chronic pain.98, 99, 100

To date, there has been only one set of yellow flag clinical observations that has been operationally defined.101 The Waddell nonorganic signs (Fig 1) have shown the ability to predict chronicity when a high score on the 7-inventory test is measured.102 The performance of this inventory entails a series of physical examinations that are not expected to aggravate pain. Despite that the authors believe a high score is reflecting fear and or anxiety on the part of the subject,96 many clinicians have incorrectly interpreted this to be indicative of a malingerer.102

Back to Article Outline

Yellow Flags as the Supraspinal Influences in Chronic Pain? 

From a treatment perspective, outcomes in chronic pain have been shown to be improved by analgesics, exercise, and cognitive/behavioral therapies.96 Colloquially, this translates to patient advice that reads, “Move the injured area, keep a positive mental attitude and if it's sore, use a pain killer.”

Despite that some chiropractors would consider such advice unsavory, there is strong efficacy to such advice.96 This is true compared with the more customary intervention of chiropractors of manual or electrotherapy options. These interventions have been shown to have mixed evidence as to their efficacy.103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 These interventions have been associated with positive or no effective outcome in controlled studies.103

This finding is as important as it is surprising for manual therapists. It signals a clear association between cognitive processes and chronic pain. Moreover, it could be argued that as chiropractors treat the chronic pain syndromes successfully,104 they are also influencing the supraspinal centers as well. This mind-body association leans more toward a vitalistic approach to health care than it does the more common mechanistic approach.

Thus, a potential cause-and-effect mechanism could be proposed for the action of manipulation on the supraspinal centers. This mechanism involves not just local spinal reflexes or reflexes that are primarily mechanonociceptor-based but other supraspinal or psychological reflexes. In addition to the potential supraspinal influence on type M disorders, research has also shown that many type O disorders have a distinct supraspinal component (Table 6).108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 Furthermore, there is evidence that a reduction of this supraspinal effect may be beneficial to the patient outcome.102, 122, 123

Table 6. Some visceral conditions that medicine is recognizing to be strongly associated with supraspinal influences108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121
Author(s)Condition
Richter & Bradley109Gastroesophageal reflux disease
Sternberg et al110Chronic functional abdominal pain
Rogers et al111
Kellow & Phillips112
Whitehead et al113
Drossman et al114Crohn's disease
Carney et al115Coronary artery disease
Carney et al116
Camara & Danao117Psychoneuroimmunology
Ader & Cohen118SLE
Kiecolt-Glaser & Glaser119
Blumenthal et al120Coronary-prone behavior and hostility
Rosenman et al121

Back to Article Outline

Treatment of the Type O Condition 

Despite anecdotal claims of success with type O conditions, success in management is not guaranteed nor is it predictable. Treatment is at best a trial of therapy rather than a known quantity. Unfortunately, some practitioners are overzealous in their expectation of outcome, and this expectation is conveyed to the patient. Although such a positive expectation can be associated with its own positive outcomes,124 it is irresponsible to claim a certainty in outcome when none has been established.

Aside from the elucidation of the mechanistic action of the treatment effects of the chiropractic model of type O treatment, the ability of the chiropractor to diagnose specific conditions and, potentially, to refer patients for more appropriate management continues to be a thorn in the side of the profession.22 I propose that it is for these reasons that chiropractic treatment of the type O condition is often questioned.

Back to Article Outline

Does Medicine Consider the Yellow Flags in Type O Conditions? 

Medicine has traditionally operated in the biomedical model. This model focuses on a tissue in lesion and is both mechanistic and pathological in orientation. This model easily explains the “red flags,” but does not explain the influence of the “yellow flag” psychosocial influences on pain. In the biomedical model, all disease is described for derangement of underlying physiochemical mechanisms. It is reductionist and exclusive and leaves no room for social, psychological, or behavioral dimensions of illness.125 The biomedical model has been rejected by some in the last 20 years in favor of a biopsychosocial model.126

The biopsychosocial model is defined as127 “a framework for understanding the integration and interplay of the biologic, psychological, and social dimensions of health, disease, and health care.”

The effective integration of the biopsychosocial model requires 3 component parts.128 These include (1) a stressful event or challenge to the system, for example, an exposure to an infectious agent, loss of a family member, or problems at work; (2) a physiologic vulnerability, for example, a predisposition to bronchial spasm; and (3) a compromise of one or more pathophysiologic systems: immune, nervous, cardiovascular, and others.

It would appear that allopathic medicine is slowly adapting to the biopsychosocial model and that a whole new area of research referred to as neuropsychoimmunology has developed to investigate the model.129 To illustrate this adaptation, Katon et al130 found that patients with chest pain and normal coronary arteriograms had a higher level of anxiety, depression, and panic disorder than those with normal psychosocial characteristics and arteriographic studies that showed coronary stenosis.

Thus, supraspinal influences seem to be operating on visceral structures too. Medicine is recognizing these factors and beginning to act on them to improve patient outcomes. Despite that chiropractors may be aware of the psychosocial aspects of chronic musculoskeletal pain, do they collectively consider similar influences on the visceral structures? Moreover, do they consider the supraspinal influences on both type O and type M conditions to be important in the generation and treatment of these conditions?

Thus, it would be important for the chiropractic profession to consider this potential mechanism for the cause and treatment of not only the type M conditions, but also the type O conditions. This consideration should be undertaken as there appears to be compelling evidence (albeit indirect) that psychovisceral reflexes may be operating at least as much and probably more than the much-vaunted somatovisceral reflex. Chiropractors should consider embracing the role of the supraspinal factors in the etiology and treatment of their patients.

Back to Article Outline

Where to from Here? 

Chiropractors should embrace evidence-based research into the type O condition or face becoming increasingly marginalized by those inside and outside our profession. Much work has already begun into the somatovisceral reflex. Work by Sato,27, 28 Budgell,28, 29 and Bolton30, 31 is being followed by other research groups, including groups from Japan and Australia. However, much of this research appears to focus on the spinal aspects of the somatovisceral reflex with the supraspinal aspects largely ignored. It is timely for chiropractors to embrace the research on the supraspinal influences in the type O condition, both within the laboratory (animal based) and in the clinic (human clinical trials).

In addition to the current research base, existing and newer therapies should be investigated to determine if they help address the supraspinal component of these conditions. Finally, this research should be applied to both type M and type O conditions to investigate the role that supraspinal influences have on the expression and treatment of these conditions.

Chiropractic is at a crossroad in its development in many ways. With regard to the type O disorder rather than the profession developing an almost dualistic support for the type O/type M vitalistic/mechanistic approaches to management, there exists an acceptable model to act as a bridge between the collective treatment impasse. The embrace of the supraspinal influences inherent in the biopsychosocial model may serve us well when investigating the enigma that is evidence-based practice.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Vernon H. Chiropractic: a model of incorporating the illness behavior model in the management of low back pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991;14:379–389
  2. Leboeuf C, Brown P, Herman A, Leembruggen K, Walton D, Crisp TC. Chiropractic care of children with nocturnal enuresis: a prospective outcome study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991;14:110–115
  3. Brennan PC, Graham MA, Triano JJ, Hondras MA, Anderson RJ. Lymphocyte profiles in patients with chronic low back pain enrolled in a clinical trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1994;17:219–227
  4. Reed WR, Beavers S, Reddy SK, Kern G. Chiropractic management of primary nocturnal enuresis. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1994;17:596–600
  5. Nielsen NH, Bronfort G, Bendix T, Madsen F, Weeke B. Chronic asthma and chiropractic spinal manipulation: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Exp Allergy. 1995;25:80–88
  6. Olafsdottir E, Forshei S, Fluge G, Markestad T. Randomized controlled trial of infantile colic treated with chiropractic spinal manipulation. Arch Dis Child. 2001;84:138–141
  7. Straub WF, Spino MP, Alattar MM, Pfleger B, Downes JW, Belizaire MA, et al. The effect of chiropractic care on jet lag of Finnish junior elite athletes. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2001;24:191–198
  8. Goertz CH, Grimm RH, Svendsen K, Grandits G. Treatment of hypertension with alternative therapies (THAT) study: a randomized clinical trial. J Hypertens. 2002;20:2063–2068
  9. Vernon HT, Dhami MS, Howley TP, Annett R. Spinal manipulation and beta-endorphin: a controlled study of the effect of a spinal manipulation on plasma beta-endorphin levels in normal males. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1986;9:115–123
  10. Yates RG, Lamping DL, Abram NL, Wright C. Effects of chiropractic treatment on blood pressure and anxiety: a randomized, controlled trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1988;11:484–488
  11. Kokjohn K, Schmid DM, Triano JJ, Brennan PC. The effect of spinal manipulation on pain and prostaglandin levels in women with primary dysmenorrhea. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1992;15:279–285
  12. Brennan PC, Kokjohn K, Kaltinger CJ, Lohr GE, Glendening C, Hondras MA, et al. Enhanced phagocytic cell respiratory burst induced by spinal manipulation: potential role of substance P. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991;14:399–408
  13. Peterson KB. A preliminary enquiry into manual muscle testing response in phobic and control subjects exposed to threatening stimuli. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1996;19:310–316
  14. Wiberg JM, Nordsteen J, Nilsson N. The short-term effect of spinal manipulation in the treatment of infantile colic: a randomized controlled clinical trial with a blinded observer. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1999;22:517–522
  15. Walsh MJ, Polus BI. A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial on the efficacy of chiropractic therapy on premenstrual syndrome. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1999;22:582–585
  16. Tuchin PJ, Pollard H, Bonello R. A randomized controlled trial of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for migraine. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2000;23:91–95
  17. Hawk C, Long CR, Boulanger KT. Prevalence of non-musculoskeletal complaints in chiropractic practice: report from a practice-based research program. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2001;24:157–169
  18. Coulter ID, Hurwitz EL, Adams AH, Genovese BJ, Hays R, Shekelle PG. Patients using chiropractors in North America: who are they, and why are they in chiropractic care?. Spine. 2002;27:291–296
  19. Dagenais S, Haldeman S. Chiropractic. Prim Care. 2002;29:419–437
  20. Hartvigsen J, Bolding-Jensen O, Hviid H, Grunnet-Nilsson N. Danish chiropractic patients then and now: a comparison between 1962 and 1999. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2003;26:65–69
  21. Rubinstein S, Pfeifle CE, van Tulder MW, Assendelft WJ. Chiropractic patients in the Netherlands: a descriptive study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2000;23:557–563
  22. Shekelle PG, Coulter I, Hurwitz EL, Genovese B, Adams AH, Mior SA, et al. Congruence between decisions to initiate chiropractic spinal manipulation for low back pain and appropriateness criteria in North America. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129:9–17
  23. Janig W, Habler HJ. Specificity in the organization of the autonomic nervous system: a basis for precise neural regulation of homeostatic and protective body functions. Prog Brain Res. 2000;122:351–367
  24. Kerman IA, Yates BJ. Patterning of somatosympathetic reflexes. Am J Physiol. 1999;277:R716–R724
  25. Mayer EA, Raybould HE. Role of visceral afferent mechanisms in functional bowel disorders. Gastroenterology. 1990;99:1688–1704
  26. Janig W. Neurobiology of visceral afferent neurons: neuroanatomy, functions, organ regulations and sensations. Biol Psychol. 1996;42:29–51
  27. Sato A. Neural mechanisms of autonomic responses elicited by somatic sensory stimulation. Neurosci Behav Physiol. 1997;27:610–621
  28. Budgell BS, Sato A. The cervical subluxation and regional cerebral blood flow. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1997;20:103–107
  29. Budgell BS. Reflex effects of subluxation: the autonomic nervous system. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2000;23:104–106
  30. Bolton PS, Wardman DL, Macefield VG. Absence of short-term vestibular modulation of muscle sympathetic outflow, assessed by brief galvanic vestibular stimulation in awake human subjects. Exp Brain Res. 2004;154:39–43
  31. Bolton PS, Kerman IA, Woodring SF, Yates BJ. Influences of neck afferents on sympathetic and respiratory nerve activity. Brain Res Bull. 1998;47:413–419
  32. Dampney RA, Coleman MJ, Fontes MA, Hirooka Y, Horiuchi J, Li YW, et al. Central mechanisms underlying short- and long-term regulation of the cardiovascular system. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2002;25:433–469
  33. Morrison SF, Reis DJ. Reticulospinal vasomotor neurons in the RVL mediate the somatosympathetic reflex. Am J Physiol. 1989;256:R1084–R1097
  34. Kang YM, Kenney MJ, Spratt KF, Pickar JG. Somatosympathetic reflexes from the low back in the anesthetized cat. J Neurophysiol. 2003;90:2548–2559
  35. Whitwam JG, Galletly DC, Ma D, Chakrabarti MK. The effects of propofol on heart rate, arterial pressure and adelta and C somatosympathetic reflexes in anaesthetized dogs. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2000;17:57–63
  36. Adachi T, Miyazaki Y, Kurata J, Utsumi J, Shinomura T, Nakao S, et al. Nitrous oxide depresses somatocardiac sympathetic A- and C-reflexes in anesthetized rats. Neurosci Lett. 1996;213:57–60
  37. Sjolander P, Johansson H, Djupsjobacka M. Spinal and supraspinal effects of activity in ligament afferents. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2002;12:167–176
  38. Miyawaki T, Goodchild AK, Pilowsky PM. Rostral ventral medulla 5-HT1A receptors selectively inhibit the somatosympathetic reflex. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2001;280:R1261–R1268
  39. Uchida S, Suzuki A, Hotta H, Sato A. The effects of morphine on supraspinal and propriospinal somatocardiac reflexes in anesthetized rats. Neurosci Lett. 1999;269:161–164
  40. Kimura A, Sato A, Sato Y, Suzuki H. A- and C-reflexes elicited in cardiac sympathetic nerves by single shock to a somatic afferent nerve include spinal and supraspinal components in anesthetized rats. Neurosci Res. 1996;25:91–96
  41. Burns JW, Kubilus A, Bruehl S. Emotion induction moderates effects of anger management style on acute pain sensitivity. Pain. 2003;106:109–118
  42. Swinkels-Meewisse IE, Roelofs J, Verbeek AL, Oostendorp RA, Vlaeyen JW. Fear of movement/(re)injury, disability and participation in acute low back pain. Pain. 2003;105:371–379
  43. Fishbain DA, Cole B, Cutler RB, Lewis J, Rosomoff HL, Rosomoff RS. A structured evidence-based review on the meaning of nonorganic physical signs: Waddell signs. Pain Med. 2003;4:141–181
  44. Atlas SJ, Nardin RA. Evaluation and treatment of low back pain: an evidence-based approach to clinical care. Muscle Nerve. 2003;27:265–284
  45. Giles LG, Muller R. Chronic spinal pain syndromes: a clinical pilot trial comparing acupuncture, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, and spinal manipulation. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1999;22:376–381
  46. Andersson GB, Lucente T, Davis AM, Kappler RE, Lipton JA, Leurgans S. A comparison of osteopathic spinal manipulation with standard care for patients with low back pain. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1426–1431
  47. Blomberg S, Svardsudd K, Mildenberger F. A controlled, multicentre trial of manual therapy in low-back pain. Initial status, sick-leave and pain score during follow-up. Scand J Prim Health Care. 1992;10:170–178
  48. Hagen EM, Eriksen HR, Ursin H. Does early intervention with a light mobilization program reduce long-term sick leave for low back pain?. Spine. 2000;25:1973–1976
  49. Mannion AF, Muntener M, Taimela S, Dvorak J. Comparison of three active therapies for chronic low back pain: results of a randomized clinical trial with one-year follow-up. Rheumatology. 2001;40:772–778
  50. Descarreaux M, Normand MC, Laurencelle L, Dugas C. Evaluation of a specific home exercise program for low back pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2002;25:497–503
  51. Rittweger J, Just K, Kautzsch K, Reeg P, Felsenberg D. Treatment of chronic lower back pain with lumbar extension and whole-body vibration exercise: a randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2002;27:1829–1834
  52. Mullican WS, Lacy JR. Tramadol/acetaminophen combination tablets and codeine/acetaminophen combination capsules for the management of chronic pain: a comparative trial. Clin Ther. 2001;23:1429–1445
  53. Hurwitz EL, Morgenstern H, Harber P, Kominski GF, Yu F, Adams AH. A randomized trial of chiropractic manipulation and mobilization for patients with neck pain: clinical outcomes from the UCLA neck-pain study. Am J Public Health. 2002;92:1634–1641
  54. Sherry E, Kitchener P, Smart R. A prospective randomized controlled study of VAX-D and TENS for the treatment of chronic low back pain. Neurol Res. 2001;23:780–784
  55. Leibing E, Leonhardt U, Koster G, Goerlitz A, Rosenfeldt JA, Hilgers R, et al. Acupuncture treatment of chronic low-back pain: a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial with 9-month follow-up. Pain. 2002;96:189–196
  56. Molsberger AF, Mau J, Pawelec DB, Winkler J. Does acupuncture improve the orthopedic management of chronic low back pain—a randomized, blinded, controlled trial with 3 months follow up. Pain. 2002;99:579–587
  57. Rozenberg S, Delval C, Rezvani Y, Olivieri-Apicella N, Kuntz JL, Legrand E, et al. Bed rest or normal activity for patients with acute low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2002;27:1487–1493
  58. Holm I. Fusion surgery is slightly better than non-surgical treatment in patients with severe chronic non-specific low back pain. Aust J Physiother. 2002;48:133
  59. Chrubasik S, Kunzel O, Model A, Conradt C, Black A. Treatment of low back pain with a herbal or synthetic anti-rheumatic: a randomized controlled study. Willow bark extract for low back pain. Rheumatology. 2001;40:1388–1393
  60. Geurts JW, van Wijk RM, Stolker RJ, Groen GJ. Efficacy of radiofrequency procedures for the treatment of spinal pain: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2001;26:394–400
  61. Stam C, Bonnet MS, van Haselen RA. The efficacy and safety of a homeopathic gel in the treatment of acute low back pain: a multi-centre, randomized, double-blind comparative clinical trial. Br Homeopath J. 2001;90:21–28
  62. Constant F, Collin JF, Guillemin F, Boulange M. Effectiveness of spa therapy in chronic low back pain: a randomized clinical trial. J Rheumatol. 1995;22:1315–1320
  63. Ruoff GE, Rosenthal N, Jordan D, Karim R, Kamin M. Protocol CAPSS-112 Tramadol/acetaminophen combination tablets for the treatment of chronic lower back pain: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled outpatient study. Clin Ther. 2003;25:1123–1141
  64. Kumar K, Hunter G, Demeria DD. Treatment of chronic pain by using intrathecal drug therapy compared with conventional pain therapies: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Neurosurg. 2002;97:803–810
  65. Vlaeyen JW, de Jong J, Geilen M, Heuts PH, van Breukelen G. The treatment of fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic low back pain: further evidence on the effectiveness of exposure in vivo. Clin J Pain. 2002;18:251–261
  66. Kovacs FM, Llobera J, Abraira V, Lazaro P, Pozo F, Kleinbaum D. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of neuroreflexotherapy for subacute and chronic low back pain in routine general practice: a cluster randomized, controlled trial. Spine. 2002;27:1149–1159
  67. Cherkin DC, Deyo RA, Street JH, Hunt M, Barlow W. Pitfalls of patient education. Limited success of a program for back pain in primary care. Spine. 1996;21:345–355
  68. Cherkin DC, Deyo RA, Battie M, Street J, Barlow W. A comparison of physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, and provision of an educational booklet for the treatment of patients with low back pain. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1021–1029
  69. Burton AK, Waddell G, Tillotson KM, Summerton N. Information and advice to patients with back pain can have a positive effect. A randomized controlled trial of a novel educational booklet in primary care. Spine. 1999;24:2484–2491
  70. Roberts L, Little P, Chapman J, Cantrell T, Pickering R, Langridge J. The back home trial: general practitioner-supported leaflets may change back pain behavior. Spine. 2002;27:1821–1828
  71. Linton SJ, Andersson T. Can chronic disability be prevented? A randomized trial of a cognitive-behavior intervention and two forms of information for patients with spinal pain. Spine. 2000;25:2825–2831
  72. Valat JP, Goupille P, Vedere V. Low back pain: risk factors for chronicity. Rev Rhum Engl Ed. 1997;64:189–194
  73. Hildebrandt J, Pfingsten M, Saur P, Jansen J. Prediction of success from a multidisciplinary treatment program for chronic low back pain. Spine. 1997;22:990–1001
  74. Matsui H, Maeda A, Tsuji H, Naruse Y. Risk indicators of low back pain among workers in Japan. Association of familial and physical factors with low back pain. Spine. 1997;22:1242–1247
  75. Haas M, Nyiendo J, Aickin M. One-year trend in pain and disability relief recall in acute and chronic ambulatory low back pain patients. Pain. 2002;95:83–91
  76. Toomingas A, Theorell T, Michelsen H, Nordemar R. Associations between self-rated psychosocial work conditions and musculoskeletal symptoms and signs. Stockholm MUSIC I Study Group. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1997;23:130–139
  77. Bigos SJ, Battie MC, Fisher LD, Hansson TH, Spengler DM, Nachemson AL. A prospective evaluation of preemployment screening methods for acute industrial back pain. Spine. 1992;17:922–926
  78. Bigos SJ, Battie MC, Spengler DM, Fisher LD, Fordyce WE, Hansson TH, et al. A prospective study of work perceptions and psychosocial factors affecting the report of back injury. Spine. 1991;16:1–6
  79. Hicks GE, Fritz JM, Delitto A, Mishock J. Interrater reliability of clinical examination measures for identification of lumbar segmental instability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:1858–1864
  80. Natvig B, Eriksen W, Bruusgaard D. Low back pain as a predictor of long-term work disability. Scand J Public Health. 2002;30:288–292
  81. Truchon M, Fillion L. Biopsychosocial determinants of chronic disability and low back pain: a review. J Occup Rehab. 2000;21:93–103
  82. George SZ, Fritz JM, Erhard RE. A comparison of fear-avoidance beliefs in patients with lumbar spine pain and cervical spine pain. Spine. 2001;26:2139–2145
  83. van den Hout JH, Vlaeyen JW, Houben RM, Soeters AP, Peters ML. The effects of failure feedback and pain-related fear on pain report, pain tolerance, and pain avoidance in chronic low back pain patients. Pain. 2001;92:247–257
  84. Kole-Snijders AM, Vlaeyen JW, Goossens ME, Rutten-van Molken MP, Heuts PH, van Breukelen G, et al. Chronic low-back pain: what does cognitive coping skills training add to operant behavioral treatment? Results of a randomized clinical trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1999;67:931–944
  85. Krause N, Ragland DR, Greiner BA, Syme SL, Fisher JM. Psychosocial job factors associated with back and neck pain in public transit operators. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1997;23:179–186
  86. Elders LA, Burdorf A. Interrelations of risk factors and low back pain in scaffolders. Occup Environ Med. 2001;58:597–603
  87. Fordyce WE, Bigos SJ, Batti'e MC, Fisher LD. MMPI scale 3 as a predictor of back injury report: what does it tell us?. Clin J Pain. 1992;8:222–226
  88. Thorbjornsson CO, Alfredsson L, Fredriksson K, Koster M, Michelsen H, Vingard E, et al. Psychosocial and physical risk factors associated with low back pain: a 24 year follow up among women and men in a broad range of occupations. Occup Environ Med. 1998;55:84–90
  89. Sanderson PL, Todd BD, Holt GR, Getty CJ. Compensation, work status, and disability in low back pain patients. Spine. 1995;20:554–556
  90. Linton SJ. Occupational psychological factors increase the risk for back pain: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2001;11:53–66
  91. Krause N, Dasinger LK, Deegan LJ, Rudolph L, Brand RJ. Psychosocial job factors and return-to-work after compensated low back injury: a disability phase-specific analysis. Am J Ind Med. 2001;40:374–392
  92. Severeijns R, Vlaeyen JW, van den Hout MA, Weber WE. Pain catastrophizing predicts pain intensity, disability, and psychological distress independent of the level of physical impairment. Clin J Pain. 2001;17:165–172
  93. Hoogendoorn WE, van Poppel MN, Bongers PM, Koes BW, Bouter LM. Systematic review of psychosocial factors at work and private life as risk factors for back pain. Spine. 2000;25:2114–2125
  94. Hagen KB, Magnus P, Vetlesen K. Neck/shoulder and low-back disorders in the forestry industry: relationship to work tasks and perceived psychosocial job stress. Ergonomics. 1998;41:1510–1518
  95. Kerr MS, Frank JW, Shannon HS, Norman RW, Wells RP, Neumann WP, et al. Biomechanical and psychosocial risk factors for low back pain at work. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:1069–1075
  96. Guzman J, Esmail R, Malmivaara A, Karjalainen K, Irvin E, Bombardier C. Multidisciplinary team approaches for low back pain (protocol for a Cochrane Review). The cochrane library. 2000;3:
  97. Australian Acute Musculoskeletal Pain Guidelines Group. Evidence-based management of acute musculoskeletal pain. [monograph on the Internet] Brisbane: Australian Academic Press; 2003;[cited 2004 Jun 14]. Available from http://www.nhmrc.gov.au
  98. Pincus T, Vlaeyen JW, Kendall NA, Von Korff MR, Kalauokalani DA, Reis S. Cognitive-behavioral therapy and psychosocial factors in low back pain: directions for the future. Spine. 2002;27:E133–E138
  99. Kendall NAS. Psychosocial approaches to the prevention of chronic pain: the low back paradigm. Ballieres Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 1999;13:545–554
  100. Sikorski JM, Stampfer HG, Cole RM, Wheatley AE. Psychological aspects of chronic low back pain. Aust N Z J Surg. 1996;66:294–297
  101. Main CJ, Waddell G. Behavioral responses to examination: a reappraisal of the interpretation of “nonorganic signs”. Spine. 1998;23:2367–2371
  102. Waddell G, McCulloch JA, Kummel E, Venner RM. Nonorganic physical signs in low-back pain. Spine. 1980;5:117–125
  103. Assendelft WJ, Morton SC, Yu EI, Suttorp MJ, Shekelle PG. Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain. A meta-analysis of effectiveness relative to other therapies. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:871–881
  104. Wenban AB. Is chiropractic evidence based? A pilot study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2003;26:47
  105. Hurwitz EL, Morgenstern H, Harber P, Kominski GF, Belin TR, Yu F, et al. A randomized trial of medical care with and without physical therapy and chiropractic care with and without physical modalities for patients with low back pain: 6-month follow-up outcomes from the UCLA low back pain study. Spine. 2002;27:2193–2204
  106. Smith M, Greene BR, Meeker W. The CAM movement and the integration of quality health care: the case of chiropractic. J Ambul Care Manage. 2002;25:1–16
  107. Skargren EI, Carlsson PG, Oberg BE. One-year follow-up comparison of the cost and effectiveness of chiropractic and physiotherapy as primary management for back pain. Subgroup analysis, recurrence, and additional health care utilization. Spine. 1998;23:1875–1883
  108. Rudomin P, Schmidt RF. Presynaptic inhibition in the vertebrate spinal cord revisited. Exp Brain Res. 1999;129:1–37
  109. Richter JE, Bradley LC. Psychophysiological interactions in esophageal diseases. Semin Gastrointest Dis. 1996;7:169–184
  110. Sternberg EM, Chrousos GP, Wilder RL, Gold PW. The stress response and the regulation of inflammatory disease. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:854–866
  111. Rogers J, Henry MM, Misiewicz JJ. Increased segmental activity and intraluminal pressures in the sigmoid colon of patients with the irritable bowel syndrome. Gut. 1989;30:634–641
  112. Kellow JE, Phillips SF. Altered small bowel motility in irritable bowel syndrome is correlated with symptoms. Gastroenterology. 1987;92:1885–1893
  113. Whitehead WE, Engel BT, Schuster MM. Irritable bowel syndrome: physiological and psychological differences between diarrhea-predominant and constipation-predominant patients. Dig Dis Sci. 1980;25:404–413
  114. Drossman DA, Leserman J, Li ZM, Mitchell CM, Zagami EA, Patrick DL. The rating form of IBD patient concerns: a new measure of health status. Psychosom Med. 1991;53:701–712
  115. Carney RM, Rich MW, Freedland KE, Saini J, teVelde A, Simeone C, et al. Major depressive disorder predicts cardiac events in patients with coronary artery disease. Psychosom Med. 1988;50:627–633
  116. Carney RM, Rich MW, Tevelde A, Saini J, Clark K, Jaffe AS. Major depressive disorder in coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 1987;60:1273–1275
  117. Camara EG, Danao TC. The brain and the immune system: a psychosomatic network. Psychosomatics. 1989;30:140–146
  118. Ader R, Cohen N. Behaviorally conditioned immunosuppression and murine systemic lupus erythematosus. Science. 1982;215:1534–1536
  119. Kiecolt-Glaser JK, Galser R. Psychoneuroimmunology: past, present, and future. Health Psychol. 1989;8:677–678
  120. Blumenthal JA, Williams RB, Kong Y, Schanberg SM, Thompson LW. Type A behavior pattern and coronary atherosclerosis. Circulation. 1978;58:634–639
  121. Rosenman RH, Brand RJ, Jenkins D, Friedman M, Straus R, Wurm M, et al. Final follow-up experience of 8 1/2 years. JAMA. 1975;233:872–877
  122. Sullivan MJ, Stanish WD. Psychologically based occupational rehabilitation: the pain-disability prevention program. Clin J Pain. 2003;19:97–104
  123. Broadhurst NA. Chronic low back pain. What are the treatment options?. Aust Fam Physician. 1999;28:25–30
  124. Caspi O, Millen C, Sechrest L. Integrity and research: introducing the concept of dual blindness. How blind are double-blind clinical trials in alternative medicine?. J Altern Complement Med. 2000;6:493–498
  125. Engel GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science. 1977;196:129–136
  126. Cherkin DC. Primary care research on low back pain: the state of the science. Spine. 1998;23:1997–2002
  127. Dougherty WJ, Baird MA, Becker LA. Family medicine and the biopsychosocial model. Advances. 1986;3:17–28
  128. Brody H. The validation of the biopsychosocial model. J Fam Pract. 1990;30:271–272
  129. Trilling JS. Selections from current literature. Psychoneuroimmunology: validation of the biopsychosocial model. Fam Pract. 2000;17:90–93
  130. Katon W, Hall ML, Russo J, Cormier L, Hollifield M, Vitaliano PP, et al. Chest pain: relationship of psychiatric illness to coronary arteriographic results. Am J Med. 1988;84:1–9

PII: S0161-4754(05)00192-2

doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.07.014

Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
Volume 28, Issue 7 , Pages 547.e1-547.e9, September 2005

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution