Research Article| Volume 27, ISSUE 6, P388-398, July 2004

Download started.


A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Chiropractic Adjustments to Muscle Relaxants for Subacute Low Back Pain



      The adult lifetime incidence for low back pain is 75% to 85% in the United States. Investigating appropriate care has proven difficult, since, in general, acute pain subsides spontaneously and chronic pain is resistant to intervention. Subacute back pain has been rarely studied.


      To compare the relative efficacy of chiropractic adjustments with muscle relaxants and placebo/sham for subacute low back pain.


      A randomized, double-blind clinical trial.


      Subjects (N = 192) experiencing low back pain of 2 to 6 weeks' duration were randomly allocated to 3 groups with interventions applied over 2 weeks. Interventions were either chiropractic adjustments with placebo medicine, muscle relaxants with sham adjustments, or placebo medicine with sham adjustments. Visual Analog Scale for Pain, Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, and Modified Zung Depression Scale were assessed at baseline, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks. Schober's flexibility test, acetaminophen usage, and Global Impression of Severity Scale (GIS), a physician's clinical impression used as a secondary outcome, were assessed at baseline and 2 weeks.


      Baseline values, except GIS, were similar for all groups. When all subjects completing the protocol were combined (N = 146), the data revealed pain, disability, depression, and GIS decreased significantly (P < .0001); lumbar flexibility did not change. Statistical differences across groups were seen for pain, a primary outcome, (chiropractic group improved more than control group) and GIS (chiropractic group improved more than other groups). No significant differences were seen for disability, depression, flexibility, or acetaminophen usage across groups.


      Chiropractic was more beneficial than placebo in reducing pain and more beneficial than either placebo or muscle relaxants in reducing GIS.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Manipulative & Physiological Therapeutics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Allan DB
        • Waddell G
        An historical perspective on low back pain and disability.
        Acta Orthop Scand. 1989; 60: 1-23
        • Andersson GBJ
        Epidemiology of low back pain.
        Acta Orthop Scand. 1998; 69: 28-31
        • Waddell G
        Low back pain: a twentieth century health care enigma.
        Spine. 1996; 21: 2820-2825
        • Linton SJ
        • Hallden K
        Can we screen for problematic back pain? A screening questionnaire for predicting outcome in acute and subacute back pain.
        Clin J Pain. 1998; 14: 209-215
        • Sinclair SJ
        • Hogg-Johnson S
        • Mondloch MV
        • Shields SA
        The effectiveness of an early active intervention program for workers with soft-tissue injuries: the early claimant cohort study.
        Spine. 1997; 22: 2919-2931
        • Carey TS
        • Garrett J
        • Jackman A
        • McLaughlin C
        • Fryer J
        • Smucker DR
        The outcomes and costs of care for acute low back pain among patients seen by primary care practitioners, chiropractors, and orthopaedic surgeons.
        N Engl J Med. 1995; 333: 913
        • Deyo RA
        • Phillips WR
        Low back pain. A primary care challenge.
        Spine. 1996; 21: 2826-2832
        • Von Korff M
        • Saunders K
        The course of back pain in primary care.
        Spine. 1996; 21: 2833-2839
        • Bigos SJ
        • Bowyer OR
        • Braen GR
        • Brown KC
        • Deyo RA
        • Haldeman S
        • et al.
        Acute low back pain problems in adults. Clinical practice guideline no. 14. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Rockville (MD)1994 (AHCPR publication 95-0642)
        • Abenhaim L
        • Bergeron AM
        Twenty years of randomized clinical trials of manipulative therapy for back pain: a review.
        Clin Invest Med. 1992; 15: 527-535
        • Haldeman S
        Spinal manipulative therapy in sports medicine.
        Clin Sports Med. 1986; 5: 277-293
        • Moritz U
        Evaluation of manipulation and other manual therapy. Criteria for measuring the effect of treatment.
        Scand J Rehabil Med. 1979; 11: 173-179
      1. Raftis KL, Warfield CA. Spinal manipulation for back pain. Hosp Pract (Off Ed) 1989;24:89-90, 95-6, 102.

        • Shekelle PG
        • Adams AH
        • Chassin MR
        • Hurwitz EL
        • Brook RH
        Spinal manipulation for low back pain.
        Ann Intern Med. 1992; 117: 590-598
        • Koes BW
        • Bouter LM
        • van Mameren H
        • Essers AH
        • Verstegen GM
        • Hofhuizen DM
        • et al.
        The effectiveness of manual therapy, physiotherapy, and treatment by the general practitioner for nonspecific back and neck complaints.
        Spine. 1992; 17: 28-35
        • Meade TW
        • Dyer S
        • Browne W
        • Townsend J
        • Frank AO
        Low back pain of mechanical origin: randomized comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient treatment.
        BMJ. 1990; 300: 1431-1437
        • Meade TW
        • Dyer S
        • Browne W
        • Frank AO
        Randomized comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient management for low back pain: results from extended follow-up.
        BMJ. 1995; 311: 349-351
        • 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
        • Hsieh CY
        • Phillips RB
        • Adams AH
        • Pope MH
        Functional outcomes of low back pain: comparison of four treatment groups in a randomized controlled trial.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1992; 15: 4-9
        • Pengel HM
        • Maher CG
        • Refshauge KM
        Systematic review of conservative interventions for subacute low back pain.
        Clin Rehabil. 2002; 16: 811-820
        • Anderson R
        • Meeker WC
        • Wirick BE
        • Mootz RD
        • Kirk DH
        • Adams A
        A meta-analysis of clinical trials of spinal manipulation.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1992; 15: 181-194
        • Gatterman MI
        What's in a word?.
        in: Gatterman MI Foundations of chiropractic: subluxation. Mosby-Year Book, St. Louis1995: 5-17
        • Janse J
        History of the development of chiropractic concepts: chiropractic terminology.
        in: Goldstein M The research status of spinal manipulative therapy. US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Public Health Service, Bethesda (MD)1975: 25-42 (National Institutes of Health NINCDS Monograph 15)
        • Leach RA
        Manipulation terminology.
        in: Leach RA The chiropractic theories: principles and clinical applications. 3rd ed. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore1994: 15-22
        • Meeker WC
        • Haldeman S
        Chiropractic: a profession at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine.
        Ann Intern Med. 2002; 136: 216-227
        • Christensen MG
        • Kerkoff D
        • Kallasch MW
        Job analysis of chiropractic. A project report, survey analysis and summary of the practice of chiropractic within the United States. National Board of Chiropractic Examiners, Greeley (CO)2000: 115-117
        • Nyiendo J
        • Haas M
        • Goodwin P
        Patient characteristics, practice activities, and one-month outcomes for chronic, recurrent low-back pain treated by chiropractors and family medicine physicians: a practice-based feasibility study.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2000; 23: 239-245
        • Hoiriis KT
        • Owens EF
        Changes in general health status during upper cervical chiropractic care: a practice-based research project update.
        Chiropr Res J. 1999; 6: 65-70
        • Henderson C
        Three neurophysiologic theories on the chiropractic subluxation.
        in: Gatterman MI Foundations of chiropractic: subluxation. Mosby, St. Louis1995: 225-233
        • Lantz C
        The vertebral subluxation complex.
        in: Gatterman M Foundations of chiropractic: subluxation. Mosby, St. Louis1995: 149-174
        • Miller KE
        • Douglas VD
        • Richards AB
        • Chandler MJ
        • Foreman RD
        Propriospinal neurons in the C1-C2 spinal segments project to the L5-S1 segments of the rat spinal cord.
        Brain Res Bull. 1998; 47: 43-47
        • Arkuszewski Z
        Involvement of the cervical spine in back pain.
        Man Med. 1986; 2: 126-128
        • Andersson GBJ
        • 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
      2. Grostic JD. Upper cervical care and functional leg length inequality. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference on Research and Education. 1991 June 21-23; Monterey, California. San Jose (CA): Consortium for Chiropractic Research; 1991. p. 70-3.

        • Grostic JD
        • DeBoer KF
        Roentgenographic measurement of atlas laterality and rotation: a retrospective pre and post manipulation study.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1982; 5: 63-69
      3. Reinert OC Chiropractic procedure and practice. Marian Press, Florissant (MO)1976: 78-95
      4. Downe JW Technique manual of Life College, School of Chiropractic. Life University, Marietta (GA)1993: 14-34
        • Hinson R
        • Brown S
        Supine leg length differential estimation: an inter- and intra-examiner reliability study.
        Chiropr Res J. 1998; 5: 17-22
        • Hinson R
        • Pfleger B
        Pre- and post-adjustment supine leg-length estimation.
        J Chiropr Educ. 2000; 14: 37-38
      5. Walsh P. Physicians' desk reference. 55th ed. Montvale (NJ): Medical Economics; 2001. p. 1929, 2716, 3252.

        • Jayson MIV
        Outcome measures for back pain: introduction, justification, and epidemiology.
        in: Erhlich GE Khaltaev NG Low back pain initiative. World Health Organization, Geneva1999: 8-12
        • Ferraz MB
        • Quaresma MR
        • Aquino LR
        • Atra E
        • Tugwell P
        • Goldsmith CH
        Reliability of pain scales in the assessment of literate and illiterate patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
        J Rheumatol. 1990; 17: 1022-1024
        • McCormack HM
        • Horne DJ
        • Sheather S
        Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: a critical review.
        Psychol Med. 1988; 18: 1007-1019
        • Scott J
        • Huskisson EC
        Vertical or horizontal visual analogue scales.
        Ann Rheum Dis. 1979; 38: 560
        • Baker DJ
        • Pynsent PB
        • Fairbank JCT
        The Oswestry Disability Index revisited: its reliability, repeatability and validity, and a comparison with the St Thomas Disability Index.
        in: Roland MO Jenner JR Back pain: new approaches to rehabilitation and education. Manchester University Press, Manchester, England1989: 174-186
        • Fairbank JCT
        • Couper J
        • Davies JB
        • O'Brien JP
        The Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire.
        Physiotherapy. 1980; 66: 271-273
        • Stratford PW
        • Binkley J
        • Solomon P
        • Gill C
        • Finch E
        Assessing change over time in patients with low back pain.
        Phys Ther. 1994; 74: 528-533
        • Hedlund JL
        • Vieweg BW
        The Zung Self-rating Depression Scale: a comprehensive review.
        J Oper Psychiatry. 1979; 10: 51-64
        • Lambert MJ
        • Hatch DR
        • Kingston MD
        • Edwards BC
        Zung, Beck, and Hamilton rating scales as measures of a treatment outcome: a meta-analytic comparison.
        J Consult Clin Psychol. 1986; 54: 54-59
        • Main CG
        • Wood PLR
        • Hollis S
        • Spanswick CC
        • Waddell G
        The distress and risk assessment method: a simple patient classification to identify distress and evaluate the risk of poor outcome.
        Spine. 1992; 17: 42-52
        • Tanaka-Matsumi J
        • Kameoka VA
        Reliabilities and concurrent validities of popular self-report measures of depression, anxiety, and social desirability.
        J Consult Clin Psychol. 1986; 54: 328-333
        • Dequeker J
        • Panayi G
        • Pinus T
        • Grahame R
        Medical management of rheumatic musculoskeletal and connective tissue disease. Marcel Dekker, New York1997: 41
        • Evans RC
        Schober's test.
        in: Evans RC Illustrated essentials in orthopedic assessment. Mosby, St. Louis1994: 326-327
        • Waterworth RF
        • Hunter IA
        An open study of diflunisal, conservative and manipulative therapy in the management of low back pain.
        N Z Med J. 1985; 98: 372-375
        • Bronfort G
        • Goldsmith GH
        • Nelson CF
        • Boline PD
        • Anderson AV
        Trunk exercise combined with spinal manipulative or NSAID therapy for chronic low back pain: a randomized, observer blinded clinical trial.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1996; 19: 570-582
        • 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
        • Balon J
        • Aker PD
        • Crowther ER
        • Danielson C
        • Cox PG
        • O'Shaughnessy D
        • et al.
        A comparison of active and simulated chiropractic manipulation as adjunctive treatment for childhood asthma.
        N Engl J Med. 1998; 339: 1013-1020
        • Browning R
        • Jackson JL
        • O'Malley PG
        Cyclobenzaprine and back pain: a meta-analysis.
        Arch Intern Med. 2001; 161: 1613-1620
        • Dopf CA
        • Mandel SS
        • Geiger DF
        • Mayer PJ
        Analysis of spine motion variability using a computerized goniometer compared to physical examination. A prospective clinical study.
        Spine. 1995; 19: 586-589
        • Miller SA
        • Mayer T
        • Cox R
        • Gatchel RJ
        Reliability problems associated with the modified Schober technique for true lumbar flexion measurement.
        Spine. 1992; 17: 345-348
        • Williams R
        • Binkley J
        • Bloch R
        • Goldsmith CH
        • Minuk T
        Reliability of the modified Schober and double inclinometer methods for measuring lumbar flexion and extension.
        Phys Ther. 1993; 73: 33-44
        • Eisenberg DM
        • Davis RB
        • Ettner SL
        • Appel S
        • Wilkey S
        • Van Rompay M
        • et al.
        Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990-1997. Results of a follow-up national survey.
        JAMA. 1998; 280: 1569-1575
        • Eisenberg DM
        • Kessler RC
        • Foster C
        • Norlock FE
        • Calkins DR
        • Delbanco TL
        Unconventional medicine in the United States–prevalence, costs, and patterns of use.
        N Engl J Med. 1993; 328: 246-252
        • Morin CM
        • Colecchi C
        • Brink D
        • Astruc M
        • Mercer J
        • Remsberg S
        How “blind” are double-blind placebo-controlled trials of benzodiazepine hypnotics?.
        Sleep. 1995; 18: 240-245
        • van Tulder MW
        • Koes BW
        • Bouter LM
        Conservative treatment of acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of the most common interventions.
        Spine. 1997; 22: 2121-2156