Cochrane · systematic review · CD008112
Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low‐back pain
Rubinstein, SM, van Middelkoop, M, Assendelft, WJJ, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2011 · Cochrane Library
Back and NeckAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
24
current version
GRADE rated
24
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 11 · 45.8%Low 2 · 8.3%Moderate 3 · 12.5%High 8 · 33.3%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Spinal manipulative therapy compared to inert interventions for chronic low‐back pain
Population: patients with chronic low‐back pain
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain VAS. Scale from 0‐100 (worse pain). Spinal manipulative therapy vs inert interventions | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 72 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Pain VAS. Scale from 0‐100 (worse pain). Spinal manipulative therapy vs inert interventions | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 70 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Recovery at 1 month Spinal manipulative therapy vs inert interventions | RR 1.03 [0.49, 2.19] | 1 study · 72 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Recovery at 3 months Spinal manipulative therapy vs inert interventions | RR 0.96 [0.56, 1.65] | 1 study · 70 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) compared to sham SMT for chronic LBP
Population: patients with chronic LBP
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain VAS. Scale from: 0‐100 (worse pain). spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) vs sham SMT | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 148 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Pain VAS. Scale from: 0‐100 (worse pain). spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) vs sham SMT | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 55 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Pain VAS. Scale from: 0‐100 (worse pain). spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) vs sham SMT | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 51 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Functional status Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Scale from 0 to 24 (worse function). spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) vs sham SMT | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 65 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Functional status Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Scale from: 0 to 24 (worse function). spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) vs sham SMT | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 55 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Functional status Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Scale from: 0 to 24 (worse function). spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) vs sham SMT | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 51 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Spinal manipulative therapy compared to all other interventions for chronic low‐back pain
Population: patients with chronic low‐back pain
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain VAS. Scale from: 0‐100 (worse pain). Spinal manipulative therapy vs all other interventions | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 1405 participants | High |
Pain VAS. Scale from: 0‐100 (worse pain). Spinal manipulative therapy vs all other interventions | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 1074 participants | Moderate |
Pain VAS. Scale from: 0‐100 (worse pain). Spinal manipulative therapy vs all other interventions | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 1285 participants | High |
Functional status Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Scale from: 0 to 24 (worse function). Spinal manipulative therapy vs all other interventions | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 1402 participants | High |
Functional status Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Scale from: 0 to 24 (worse function). Spinal manipulative therapy vs all other interventions | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 1323 participants | Moderate |
Functional status Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Scale from 0 to 24 (worse function). Spinal manipulative therapy vs all other interventions | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 1418 participants | High |
Recovery at 1 month Spinal manipulative therapy vs all other interventions | RR 1.2 [1.04, 1.37] | 3 studies · 370 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
spinal manipulative therapy plus any intervention compared to the intervention alone for chronic LBP
Population: patients with chronic LBP
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain VAS. Scale from: 0‐100 (worse pain). spinal manipulative therapy plus any intervention vs the intervention alone | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 228 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Pain VAS. Scale from: 0‐100 (worse pain). spinal manipulative therapy plus any intervention vs the intervention alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 1016 participants | High |
Pain VAS. Scale from: 0‐100 (worse pain). spinal manipulative therapy plus any intervention vs the intervention alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 1000 participants | High |
Functional status Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Scale from: 0 to 24 (worse function). spinal manipulative therapy plus any intervention vs the intervention alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 156 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Functional status Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Scale from: 0 to 24 (worse function) . spinal manipulative therapy plus any intervention vs the intervention alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 1078 participants | High |
Functional status Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Scale from: 0 to 24 (worse function). spinal manipulative therapy plus any intervention vs the intervention alone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 994 participants | High |
Recovery at one month spinal manipulative therapy plus any intervention vs the intervention alone | RR 3.4 [1.12, 10.28] | 1 study · 32 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |