Erratum

Article Outline

• Copyright

In the March/April 2007 article by Vernon et al, there is clarification needed in Table 1. Two separate sets of data appeared as one incorrectly. The correct table appears here.

Table 1. Relevant data from the accepted studies

Study/Year	Manual therapy (sample size)	Comparative treatments (sample size)	Outcome intervals (baseline = T1)	Results: pain	Adverse reactions	Quality score (/19)
Manipulation trials
Rogers, 199745	1. Manipulation (n = 10) 6 tx over 3-4 wk	2. Stretching exercises (n = 10) twice daily at home	T2. 4 wk	Pain (0-100)	None reported	11.5
				1. SMT:
				T1: 36 (27)
				T2: 20 (29)*
				ES = .40
				*P < .05
				2. EXER:
				T1: 40 (17)
				T2: 37 (27)
Parkin-Smith and Penter, 199846	1. Manipulation: cervical only (n = 13) 6 tx over 3 wk		T2. 3 wk	Pain (0-100)	None reported	12
	2. Manipulation: cervical and upper thoracic (n = 17) 6 tx over 3 wk			1. SMT 1:
				T1: 33.89 (12.47)
				T2: 17.17 (18.41)*
				ES = 1.06
				2. SMT 2:
				T1: 33.0 (13.99)
				T2: 13.18 (10.56)*
				ES = 1.54
				*pre-post P < .05
				NS between groups
Jordan et al, 199848	1. Spinal manipulation (SMT) (n = 40) 2 tx per wk for 6 wk	2. Intensive training (n = 40) 2 tx per wk for 6 wk	T2 = 6 wk	Pain (0-30)	None reported	15
		3. Physiotherapy (n = 39) 2 tx per wk for 6 wk	T3 = 16 wk	1. SMT*:
			T4 = 52 wk	T1: 13 (10-15)
				T2: 6 (4-7)
				ES = 1.96
				T3: 6 (5-8)
				T4: 6 (6-8)
				*Scores are median (90% CI)
Giles and Muller, 199950	1. Spinal manipulation (n = 23) 6 tx over 3-4 wk	2. NSAIDs (n = 12)	T2. 4 wk	Pain: change scores (0-10)	None reported	13
		3. Acupuncture (n = 15) 6 tx over 3-4 wk		1. SMT*:
				T2: −1.5
				[−3;0], P = .002
				*Scores are median [95% CI]
van Schalwyk and Parkin-Smith, 200051	1. Spinal manipulation (supine rotary break) (n = 15) 10 tx over 4 wk		T2. 4 wk	Pain (0-100)		12
	2. Spinal manipulation (supine lateral break) (n = 15) 10 tx over 4 wk		T3. 8 wk	1. SMT (1):
			(1 mo follow-up)	T1: 38.28 (12.47)
				T2: 9.4 (5.47)*
				ES = 3.2
				T3: 11.83** (11.8)
				ES = 2.23
				2. SMT (2):
				T1: 33.25 (9.56)
				T2: 17.54 (12.47) NS
				ES = 1.43
				T3: 18.52*** (14)
				ES = 1.10
				*P = .0003 (baseline to 4 wk)
				**P = .003
				***P = .009
				(from baseline to 8 wk)
				No significant differences between groups at either outcome point
Wood et al, 200152	1. Manual manipulation (n = 15) 8 tx over 4 wk		T2. 4 wk	Pain (0-100)	None reported	12.5
	2. Manually assisted instrumented manipulation (n = 15) 8 tx over 4 wk			1. SMT (man):
				T1: 42.5 (18.7)
				T2: 18.7 (14.1)*
				ES = 1.9
				2. SMT (inst):
				T1: 50.0 (12.6)
				T2: 23.5 (18.2)**
				ES = 1.8
				* P = .0003
				**P = .0019
				NS between groups
Bronfort et al, 200153	1. Spinal manipulation with sham microcurrent therapy (n = 64)	2. Spinal manipulation with low-tech exercises (n = 64)	T2. wk 5	Pain (0-100)	None reported	15
		1 and 2: 20 1-h sessions over 11 wk	T3. wk 11 (primary outcome)	1. SMT:
			T4. mo 3	T1: 56.6 (12.8)
		3. Hi-tech strength and high-level aerobic exercises (n = 63)	T5. mo 6	T3: 31.3 (21.8)*
		20 1-h sessions over 11 wk	T6. mo 12	ES = 1.4
			(see text and Evans et al for discussion of 3-, 6-, and 12-mo follow-up data)	*P < .05
				NS between groups
Evans et al, 200254	1. Spinal manipulation with sham microcurrent therapy (n = 64)	2. Spinal manipulation with low-tech exercises (n = 64)	T5. 6 mo	Pain (0-10)	see Bronfort et al	see Bronfort et al
		1 and 2: 20 1-h sessions over 11 wk	T6. 12 mo	(T1: see Bronfort et al)
			T7. 24 mo	1. SMT:
		3. Hi-tech strength and hi-level aerobic exercises (n = 63)		T5: 3.5 (2.5)
		20 1-h sessions over 11 wk		ES = .78
				T6: 3.5 (2.3)
				ES = .78
				T7: 3.9 (2.3)
				ES = .63
Hurwitz et al, 200255	1. Manipulation (with or without heat; with or without EMS) (n = 171)	2. mobilization (with or without heat; with or without EMS) (n = 165)	(a) 2 wk	Outcomes were reported for:	No major side effects in either group.	15.5
	No data on treatment dose	No data on treatment dose	(b) 6 wk	(i) Most severe pain	For minor side effects in the first 4 wk:
			(c) 13 wk	(ii) Average pain	Manip: 16%
			(d) 24 wk	(iii) Neck Disability Index	Mob = 8.7%
				No pre-post data were reported.	P = .051
				Comparative estimated effects of treatment contrasts were reported:
				No significant differences were reported for manipulation vs mobilization at any outcome point.
Giles and Muller, 200356	1. Spinal manipulation (n = 18) 2 tx per wk up to 9 wk	2. Medication (n = 13)	T2. 2 wk	Pain: (0-10)	None reported	15
		3. Acupuncture (n = 19)	T3. 5 wk	1. SMT:
		2 tx per wk up to 9 wk	T4. 9 wk	T1: 6 (3-7)
			(main end-point = T4)	T4: 3 (1-6)
				P = 0.14
				ES = 0.81
Mobilization trials
Brodin, 198557	1. Manual mobilization (n = 23)	2. Daily aspirin for 3 wk (n = 23)	T2. 4 wk (1 wk post-tx)	Pain improvement (% with >2-point reduction on 0-10 scale)	None reported for manual therapy	11.5
	(9 tx over 3 wk) + aspirin + 3 h neck school	3. Daily aspirin + 3 h neck school + ‘mock therapy' (9 tx over 3 wk) (n = 17)		T2: 78.3% (48% pain-free)	16% reported mild discomfort with the aspirin
				1 > 2 and 3 (P < .05)
David et al, 199858	1. Mobilization:	2. Acupuncture:	T2. 6 wk	Pain 0-100	None reported	15.5
	6 tx over 6 wk (n = 35)	6 tx over 6 wk (n = 35)	T3. 6 mo	1. MOB
				T1: 51 (10)
				T2: 21 (7)
				ES = 2.5
Hurwitz et al, 200255	1. Mobilization (with or without heat; with or without EMS) (n = 165)	2. Manipulation (with or without heat; with or without EMS) (n = 171)	(a) 2 wk	Outcomes were reported for:	No major side effects in either group.	15.5
	No data on treatment dose	No data on treatment dose	(b) 6 wk	(i) Most severe pain	For minor side effects in the first 4 wk:
			(c) 13 wk	(ii) Average pain	Manip = 16%
			(d) 24 wk	(iii) Neck Disability Index	Mob = 8.7%
				No pre-post data were reported.	P = .051
				Comparative estimated effects of treatment contrasts were reported:
				No significant differences were reported for manipulation vs mobilization at any outcome point.
Hoving et al, 200260	1. MT:spinal mobilization (n = 60)	2. Physical therapy: mostly exercises (n = 59)	T2. 3 wk postrandomization	Improvement rates: (full recovery) MT	Minor benign short-term adverse reactions were reported more often for groups 1 and 2:	17
	1 session per wk for 6 wk	1 session per wk for 6 wk	T3. 7 wk	T3: 68.3%*	1. Neck pain for > days:
		3. Medical care (MD) (n = 64)		T3: 1 > 2 and 3, *P > .05	MT: 11%(18.3)
				Pain difference scores on 0-10 scale MT	PT: 4% (6.8)
				T3: 3.5 (2.3)*	MT:3% (4.7)
				T3: 1 > 2 and 3, *P > .05	2. Headache:
					MT: 17% (28.3)
					PT: 19% (32.3)
					MD: 11% (17.2)
					3. Pain and tingling in the extremities:
					MT: 8% (13.3)
					PT: 9% (15.3)
					MD: 4% (6.3)
					4. Dizziness:
					MT: 6% (10)
					PT:7% (11.9)
					MD: 4% (6.3)
Korthals-de Bos, et al, 200361	1. MT: spinal mobilization (n = 60)	2. Physical therapy: mostly exercises (n = 59)	T4. 13 wk	Improvement rates: (full recovery) MT	Minor benign short-term adverse reactions were reported more often for groups 1 and 2:	16
	1 session per wk for 6 wk	1 session per wk for 6 wk	T5. 52 wk	T3: 68%*	1. Neck pain for > days:
		3. General practitioner care (MD) (n = 64)		T5: 71.7 (43)	MT: 11% (18.3)
				T3: 1 > 2 and 3, *P > .05	PT: 4% (6.8)
				T5: NS between groups	MT: 3% (4.7)
				Pain Difference scores on 0-10 scale	2. Headache:
				MT	MT: 17% (28.3)
				T5: 4.2 (2.4)	PT: 19% (32.3)
				1 > 2, P > .05	MD: 11% (17.2)
					3. Pain and tingling in the extremities:
					MT: 8% (13.3)
					PT: 9% (15.3)
					MD: 4% (6.3)
					4. Dizziness:
					MT: 6% (10)
					PT: 7% (11.9)
					MD: 4% (6.3)
Massage trials
Gam et al, 199862	1. Sham ultrasound, massage and exercises (n = 18)	2. Ultrasound, massage and exercise (n = 20)	T2-6. weekly for 6 wk	Pain at rest: 0-10 VAS	None reported	15
		2 tx per wk for 4 wk		No significant differences at any time
		3. Control (n = 18)		Pain during function: 0-10 VAS
				No significant differences at any time
				ES for Group 1 for “pain on function” = .03 at 6 wk
Irnich et al, 200163	1. Massage (n = 60)	2. Acupuncture (n = 56)	T2. 1 wk	Pain related to motion: change scores on 0-100 VAS	Mild, brief discomfort in 7% with massage	17
		3. Sham laser acupuncture (n = 61)	T3. 12 wk (posttreatment)	(mean; 95% CI)	No serious side effects
		1, 2 and 3: 5 treatments over 3 wk		1. MASS:
				T2: 7.89 (.6,15.2)
				T3: 14.4 (31.9)
				T2: 2 > 1, P = .005
				1 = 3, NS
				T3: NS between groups
Excluded trials
Cilliers and Penter, 199847	1. Manipulation: 1 segment (n = 15)		T2. 4 wk	Pain (percent reduction:0-100)	None reported	9
	2. Manipulation: 2 segments (n = 15)			1. SMT (1):
				T2: 28% reduction*
	8 tx over 4 wk			2. SMT (2):
				T2: 38% reduction*
				*pre-post P < .05
				NS between groups
Moodley and Brantingham, 199949	1. Manipulation (n = 15)	2. Ultrasound (n = 15)	T2. 4 wk	Pain 0-100	None reported	10
	8 tx over 4 wk	8 tx over 4 wk	T3. 8 wk	Both groups reported reductions in pain at 4 and 8 wk.
				(P < .05)
				NS between groups
Hanten et al, 200059	1. Self-administered trigger point pressure + stretching (n = 20)	2. Stretching (n = 20)	T2. 1 wk	Pain (0-100)	None reported	10.5
	Twice daily at home for 5 d	Twice daily at home for 5 d		1. TRIGGER
				T1: 25.7 (15.3)
				T2: 13.2 (16.0)
				ES = .56
				1 > 2, P = .04

SMT, Spinal manipulative therapy; EXER, exercise; ES, effect size; MOB, mobilization; MT, manual therapy; MASS, massage; Manip, manipulation; Mob, mobilization; tx, treatment; EMS, electrical muscle stimulation; PT, physiotherapy.