NONOPERATIVE TREATMENTS FOR SCIATICA: A PILOT STUDY FOR A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL
 
   

Nonoperative Treatments for Sciatica: A Pilot Study
for a Randomized Clinical Trial

This section is compiled by Frank M. Painter, D.C.
Send all comments or additions to:
    Frankp@chiro.org
 
   

FROM:   J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2000 (Oct);   23 (8):   536–544 ~ FULL TEXT

Gert Bronfort, DC, PhD, Roni L. Evans, DC, Alfred V. Anderson, MD,
Kurt P. Schellhas, MD, Timothy A. Garvey, MD, Ruth Ann Marks, Sarah Bittell, DC

Wolfe-Harris Center for Clinical Studies,
Northwestern Health Sciences University,
Bloomington, MN 55431, USA.
gbronfort@nwhealth.edu


OBJECTIVES:   To assess the feasibility of patient recruitment, the ability of patients and clinicians to comply with study protocols, and the use of data collection instruments to collect cost-effectiveness data, and to obtain variability estimates for sample-size calculations for a full-scale trial.

STUDY DESIGN:   Prospective, observer-blinded, pilot randomized clinical trial.

SETTING:   Primary contact chiropractic and medical clinics.

PATIENTS:   Ages 20 to 65 years, with low back-related radiating leg pain (sciatica).

OUTCOME MEASURES:   Self-report questionnaires were administered at baseline and 3 and 12 weeks after randomization. The measures included leg and back pain severity, frequency and bothersomeness of symptoms, leg/back disability, medication use, global improvement, satisfaction, and health care utilization.

INTERVENTIONS:   Medical care, chiropractic care, and epidural steroid injections.

RESULTS:   A total of 706 persons were screened by phone to determine initial eligibility. Of these, over 90% of those persons contacted did not meet the entrance criteria. The most common reason for disqualification was that the duration of the complaint was longer than 3 months. Twenty patients were randomized into the study. All 3 groups showed substantial improvements in the main patient-rated outcomes at the end of the 12-week intervention phase. For leg pain, back pain, frequency and bothersomeness of leg symptoms, and Roland-Morris disability score, the percent improvement varied from 50% to 84%, and the corresponding effect sizes ranged from 0.8 to 2.2. Bothersomeness of leg symptoms was the most responsive outcome associated with the largest magnitude of effect size. All within-group changes from baseline were statistically significant (P <.01). No between-group comparisons were planned or performed because of the insufficient sample size and high risk of committing type I and type II errors.

CONCLUSIONS:   Pilot studies such as these are important for the determination of the feasibility of conducting costly, larger scale trials. Recruitment for a full-scale study of sciatica of 2 to 12 weeks duration is not feasible, given the methods used in this pilot study. Our results do indicate, however, that there are substantial numbers of patients with sciatica more chronic in nature who would be interested in participating in a similar study. In addition, collaboration with a local health maintenance organization would likely facilitate clinician referrals and optimize the recruitment process. Patient and provider compliance was high in the pilot study, which indicates that most study protocols are feasible. Additionally, we were able to collect complete outcomes data, including those regarding health care use. A suggested modification by investigators and outside consultants has resulted in the replacement of the medication group with a minimal intervention control group (ie, self-care advice). As a result, a second pilot study of patients with sciatica of more than 4 weeks duration has been planned before a full-scale trial is attempted.



From the FULL TEXT Article:

Introduction

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common and costly problems facing the United States health-care system. [1-3] Back-related leg pain or sciatica is one of the common variations of LBP, with a lifetime incidence estimated between 2% and 40%. [4-6]Among patients with LBP, 12% have accompanying leg symptoms. [7, 8] Sciatica is often a disabling condition, accounting for greater work loss than uncomplicated LBP. [9] Although most first-time LBPs and sciatica resolve spontaneously, recurrences of nontreated lumbar and radicular pain range from 40% to 80% and are more likely to occur in patients with sciatica. [10, 11]

Sciatica can be defined as back-related lower extremity symptoms that suggest lower lumbar nerve root irritation. Sciatica symptoms are typically characterized by pain, numbness, and/or burning in the sciatic nerve distribution. A common cause of sciatica is nerve root compromise as the result of lower lumbar disk herniation, which leads to compression or traction and subsequent intraneural inflammation. [12-14] This inflammation may also be caused by biochemical mechanisms. Breakdown products from degenerating nucleus pulposis tissue of the disk may leak into the epidural space and result in “chemical radiculitis” of the nerve root. [15] Other possible causes are spinal stenosis, vertebral foraminal narrowing, and synovial cysts. Rare causes include spinal and retroperitoneal tumors. [16] The lifetime incidence of low back surgeries in the United States is 1% to 2%. [17] However, in patients with severe sciatica pain, this lifetime incidence increases to 10%. [17] Conservative or nonoperative management is commonly recommended for most patients with sciatica. This includes oral and injected medications and physical treatments such as spinal manipulation. [18, 19]

Several retrospective and prospective case series studies of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for sciatica or disk herniation have been performed, almost all of which have reported favorable outcomes. [20-27] However, there are relatively few randomized clinical trials that have specifically studied patients with sciatica. In a large, hospital-based trial by Mathews et al, [28] significantly more patients in the SMT group had experienced recovery at 2 weeks when compared with the group that received heat alone. Coxhead et al, [29] who evaluated 16 combinations of conservative therapies, found a statistically significant advantage in pain reduction for the groups that received SMT compared with the non-SMT groups. In the study by Nwuga, [30] significant improvement in spinal flexion and straight leg raise occurred in the group that received SMT versus the group that received short-wave diathermy and low-intensity exercise. Contrastingly, the study by Siehl et al [31] found that patients who received SMT showed less change in clinical improvement than patients who underwent disk surgery.

Although overall, these studies suggest that SMT is a promising therapeutic approach for sciatica, they have been cited as having relatively poor methodologic quality. [32-34] Additionally, 3 systematic reviews [35-37] conclude that there is currently no conclusive evidence for or against the efficacy of SMT for this condition.

Two separate clinical guidelines and a recent systematic review have concluded that there is evidence to support the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for acute low back, which may include leg pain. [33, 38, 39] Another systematic review performed by Koes et al [40] found that NSAIDs might be effective for short-term relief for uncomplicated LBP but are less effective or ineffective in patients with sciatica or nerve root symptoms. However, like many of the trials for SMT, the methodologic quality of most medication trials is generally low. [40]

Epidural corticosteroid injections are also commonly used in the management of sciatica. [41, 42] In the recent Maine lumbar spine study, an estimated 18% to 20% of patients with sciatica received this therapy during the observation period. [43] Despite its popularity, there is still uncertainty regarding the efficacy of this procedure. One meta-analysis [44] concluded that epidural steroid injections are effective in the treatment of sciatica both in the short and long term. However, authors of 3 other systematic reviews [33, 45, 46] concluded that the results of the research performed to date are inconsistent and that the effectiveness of epidural steroid injections for sciatica has not yet been established. Also, there is uncertainty about which types of patients with sciatica may benefit. Given these concerns, further research evaluation of epidural injections is definitely warranted.

Efforts to enhance patient responsibility, to decrease costs, and to improve quality of care have lead to the increased use of self-care education in the treatment of LBP disorders. [47] An example of this is back education materials, which have been advocated by recent evidence-based clinical guidelines for LBP and sciatica in the United States and the United Kingdom. [18, 49]

The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a randomized clinical trial to examine the effectiveness of 3 common treatment approaches for sciatica: medical care, chiropractic care, and epidural steroid injections, all with self-care education. The specific aims of the pilot study were to assess the feasibility of patient recruitment, the ability of patients and clinicians to comply with study protocols, and the utility of data collection instruments to capture cost-effectiveness data. A final goal was to obtain variability estimates for sample-size calculations for a full-scale trial.



Discussion

Despite their common use, there is a paucity of well-designed research that evaluates spinal manipulation, medication, and epidural steroid injections for patients with sciatica. The current project was an initial step in remedying this problem. A pilot study was conducted to assess the feasibility of conducting a randomized study that would evaluate these 3 treatments for sciatica.

      Feasibility of patient recruitment

We have determined that recruitment for our target population of subacute patients with sciatica (duration, 2-12 weeks) will not be feasible for a full-scale study. Even though an aggressive media campaign was undertaken, we recruited fewer than 2 patients per month. There are a few issues that may explain this. First, we were unable to access patients with sciatica when they initially entered into the health care system. Our collaborating physicians had patients with sciatica who were referred from other clinicians, for whom conservative treatments were not recommended. Thus, to access patients who may be eligible for conservative therapies we need to identify them as they first enter into the health care system. Ideally, collaboration with a local health maintenance organization would allow for the most referrals. However, in the current health care climate, recruitment of fee-for-service patients to participate in research will be challenging even in the best of circumstances. Second, our inability to recruit patients may be that the prevalence of sciatica is overestimated. Finally, it appears as if our inclusion/exclusion criteria were too restrictive. This is illustrated by the substantial number of individuals with sciatica of longer duration (more than 12 weeks) who expressed interest in the study. The fact that we identified many individuals with chronic sciatica who were interested in participating in this study suggests that a future trial that would include this population of patients is warranted. However, just because so many individuals expressed interest in participating does not mean that they would have qualified for such a study. Thus, another pilot study (with expanded inclusion criteria) is required to determine the true feasibility of recruiting sufficient patients for a large-scale study of patients with sciatica of longer duration.

      Protocol compliance

Overall, patients and clinicians were willing and able to comply with the study protocols. Some difficulties were encountered with the scheduling of the self-care appointments, but this was attributable to a restrictive schedule on the part of the clinician and can be remedied easily for a full-scale trial. There was also a feeling that the protocol for the medical care group was too restrictive. Because of individual patient tolerances, we anticipate that a broader spectrum of prescription medications is required to optimally treat patients in the medication group. Although a medication group is important to study, the range of different medications creates a relatively diffuse treatment group (eg, mixture of NSAIDs, mild-narcotics). In comparison, the spinal manipulation and epidural steroid injections are more well-defined interventions and can be consistently applied across patients. For studies that assess relative treatment effectiveness, this is preferable. Given this and consultants' recommendations, we believe it would be prudent to replace the medication group with a “minimal intervention” control group. Minimal interventions such as self-care education have been used as control devices in previous clinical trials, including studies on spinal manipulation. [71, 72] The advantage of such a minimal intervention control is that it may enhance patient compliance in clinical trials, in which patients expect some sort of treatment (in contrast with a waiting list or no treatment) and that it provides an interesting comparison in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Additionally, patients in all 3 groups of the proposed study could, according to a prespecified protocol, be prescribed medication if their symptoms could not be managed solely by their randomly assigned treatment (spinal manipulation, epidural steroid injections, or self-care). The need for such “rescue medication” would then be documented and taken into account in the statistical analyses. Whether patients with sciatica would comply with these adjusted protocols remains to be seen and needs to be evaluated in a subsequent pilot study.

      Data collection instruments

The data collection instruments in the current pilot study performed well, with minimal missing data. Completed data collection forms that captured treatment visits and procedures were received in a timely fashion from all study providers, which indicates that this is a satisfactory method for capturing this type of data.

      Variability estimates

The final goal of the current study was to generate variability estimates for sample-size calculations for a full-scale study. The sample in the current study was limited, however, to patients who experienced sciatica for 2 to 12 weeks. It is likely that the variability of outcomes in patients with sciatica of more than 12 weeks duration will be somewhat different than those gathered in this study. Thus, for more accurate sample-size calculations, variability estimates should be gathered in a pilot study of the intended full-scale trial population, most of who will have sciatica for more than 12 weeks.

      Additional issues

It is not known whether patients with low-back-related radiating pain into the lower extremity (sciatica) will respond differently to conservative management that is based on the presence or absence of neurologic signs of nerve root irritation. In our experience, patients in QTF category 2 and 3 (absence of objective signs of radiculopathy) often have pain of neurogenic character, and the source of the pain cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. These patients do, however, frequently experience a positive response to either spinal manipulation or epidural injections.

For a full-scale trial, patients could be prestratified at randomization, according to the absence or presence of lumbar radiculopathy (based on objective neurologic findings). In the current pilot study of patients with subacute sciatica, 30% of the 20 patients had lumbar radiculopathy. The extension of this pilot study, with the inclusion of patients with chronic sciatica, would allow us to determine the feasibility of recruiting sufficient numbers of patients for a full-scale trial with enough statistical power to perform separate analyses for both subgroups (patients with and without radiculopathy). Currently, our estimated sample size for a full-scale trial is 83 patients per group. If we assume that 30% of the patients in our planned full-scale trial will have lumbar radiculopathy, we would have an estimated 25 patients with radiculopathy in each group. Our plan is to use the most responsive of the relevant outcome measures for the subgroup analyses at the end the 12 weeks of intervention. In this pilot study, the most responsive measure was bothersomeness of back and leg symptoms, with a mean reduction of symptoms corresponding to an effect size of 2.2. On the basis of this outcome measure and its variability, 25 patients in each group would allow us to detect a difference of one half of a point on the 0 to 5 scale, which would correspond to a large effect size difference, with a statistical power of 0.8 tested at an alpha level of 0.05 (2-tailed test). This was the approximate magnitude of group differences seen in our pilot study. If it is not feasible to recruit a sufficient number of patients with radiculopathy to ensure reasonable power, our planned full-scale trial would still be balanced between groups on the presence or absence of radiculopathy, and we will have obtained valuable descriptive outcomes data to influence the conduct of a future study.



Conclusion

Pilot studies such as these are important for determining the feasibility of conducting costly, larger scale trials. They also provide the opportunity to refine study protocols and to gain more accurate variability estimates on which to base sample-size calculations. On the basis of the results of this pilot study, we conclude that recruitment for a full-scale study of sciatica of 2 to 12 weeks duration is not feasible, given the methods used. Our results do indicate, however, that there are substantial numbers of patients with sciatica more chronic in nature who would be interested in participating in a similar study. In addition, collaboration with a local health maintenance organization would likely facilitate clinician referrals and optimize the recruitment process. Patient and provider compliance was high in the pilot study, which indicated that most of the study protocols are feasible. Additionally, we were able to collect complete outcomes data, including those regarding health care use. Investigators and consultants have recommended that the medication group be replaced with a minimal intervention control group (ie, self-care advice). As a result, a second pilot study of patients with sciatica of more than 4 weeks duration has been planned before proceeding to a full-scale trial. The second pilot study will randomly assign patients to chiropractic care, injections, or self-care advice and will assess the feasibility of recruiting and retaining sufficient numbers of patients with chronic sciatica. It will also provide variability estimates for the chosen main outcome measures in patients with sciatica of longer duration.



References:

  1. Skovron, ML.
    Epidemiology of low back pain.
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992; 6: 559–573

  2. Nachemson, A.
    Work for all: for those with low back pain as well.
    Clin Orthop. 1983; 179: 77–85

  3. Frymoyer, JW.
    Back pain and sciatica.
    N Engl J Med. 1988; 318: 291–300

  4. Little, DG and MacDonald, D.
    The use of the percentage change in Oswestry Disability Index score as an outcome measure in lumbar spinal surgery.
    Spine. 1994; 19: 2139–2143

  5. Deyo, RA, Haselkorn, J, Hoffman, R, and Kent, DL.
    Designing studies of diagnostic tests for low back pain or radiculopathy.
    Spine. 1994; 19: 2057S-65S

  6. Overman, SS, Larson, JW, Dickstein, DA, and Rockey, PH.
    Physical therapy care for low back pain: monitored program of first-contact nonphysician care.
    Phys Ther. 1988; 68: 199–207

  7. Deyo, RA and Tsui-Wu, YJ.
    Descriptive epidemiology of low-back pain and its related medical care in the United States.
    Spine. 1987; 12: 264–268

  8. Horal, J.
    The clinical appearance of low back disorders in the city of Gothenburg, Sweden: comparisons of incapacitated probands with matched controls.
    Acta Orthop Scand. 1969; 118: 1–109

  9. Andersson, GB.
    The epidemiology of spinal disorders.
    in: The adult spine: principles and practice..
    Raven Press, New York; 1991: 107–146

  10. Troup, JD, Martin, JW, and Lloyd, DC.
    Back pain in industry: a prospective survey.
    Spine. 1981; 6: 61–69

  11. Valkenburg, HA and Haannen, HCM.
    The epidemiology of low back pain.
    in: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Symposium on idiopathic low back pain..
    Mosby, St Louis; 1982: 9–22

  12. Kortelainen, P, Puranen, J, Koivisto, E, and Lahde, S.
    Symptoms and signs of sciatica and their relation to the localization of the lumbar disc herniation.
    Spine. 1985; 10: 88–92

  13. Kosteljanetz, M, Espersen, JO, Halaburt, H, and Miletic, T.
    Predictive value of clinical and surgical findings in patients with lumbago-sciatica: a prospective study (part I).
    Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1984; 73: 67–76

  14. Hakelius, A and Hindmarsh, J.
    The comparative reliability of preoperative diagnostic methods in lumbar disc surgery.
    Acta Ortho Scand. 1972; 43: 234–238

  15. Garfin, SR, Rydevik, B, Lind, B, and Massie, J.
    Spinal nerve root compression.
    Spine. 1995; 20: 1810–1820

  16. Frymoyer, JW and Gordon, SL.
    Research perspectives in low-back pain: report of a 1988 workshop.
    Spine. 1989; 14: 1384–1390

  17. Frymoyer, JW, Pope, MH, Clements, JH et al.
    Risk factors in low-back pain: an epidemiological survey.
    J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983; 65: 213–218

  18. Deyo, RA.
    Conservative therapy for low back pain: distinguishing useful from useless therapy.
    JAMA. 1983; 250: 1057–1062

  19. Wheeler, AH.
    Diagnosis and management of low back pain and sciatica.
    Am Fam Physician. 1995; 52: 1333–1341

  20. Kuo, PP and Loh, ZC.
    Treatment of lumbar intervertebral disc protrusions by manipulation.
    Clin Orthop. 1987; 215: 47–55

  21. Mensor, MC.
    Non-operative treatment, including manipulation, for lumbar intervertebral disc syndrome.
    J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1955; 37: 925–936

  22. Stern, PJ, Cote, P, and Cassidy, JD.
    A series of consecutive cases of low back pain with radiating leg pain treated by chiropractors.
    J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1995; 18: 335–342

  23. Edwards, BC.
    Low back pain and pain resulting from lumbar spine conditions: a comparison of treatment results.
    Austr J Physiother. 1969; 15: 104–110

  24. Kirkaldy-Willis, WH and Cassidy, JD.
    Spinal manipulation in the treatment of low-back pain.
    Can Fam Physician. 1985; 31: 535–540

  25. Mathews, JA and Ytes, DA.
    Reduction of lumbar disc prolapse by manipulation.
    Br Med J. 1969; 3: 696–697

  26. Chrisman, OD, Mittnacht, A, and Snook, G.
    A study of the results following rotary manipulation in the lumbar intervertabral disc syndrome.
    J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1964; 46: 517–524

  27. Henderson, RS.
    The treatment of lumbar intervertabral disk syndrome protrusion: an assessment of conservative measures.
    Br Med J. 1952; 2: 597–598

  28. Mathews, W, Morkel, M, and Mathews, J.
    Manipulation and traction for lumbago and sciatica: physiotherapeutic techniques used in two controlled trials.
    Physiother Pract. 1988; 4: 201–206

  29. Coxhead, CE, Inskip, H, Meade, TW, North, WR, and Troup, JD.
    Multicentre trial of physiotherapy in the management of sciatic symptoms.
    Lancet. 1981; 1: 1065–1068

  30. Nwuga, VC.
    Relative therapeutic efficacy of vertebral manipulation and conventional treatment in back pain management.
    Am J Phys Med. 1982; 61: 273–278

  31. Siehl, D, Olson, DR, Ross, HE, and Rockwood, EE.
    Manipulation of the lumbar spine with the patient under general anesthesia: evaluation by electromyography and clinical-neurologic examination of its use for lumbar nerve root compression syndrome.
    J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1971; 70: 433–440

  32. Koes, BW, Assendelft, WJJ, van der Heijden, GJMG, and Bouter, LM.
    Spinal manipulation and mobilization for low-back pain: an updated systematic review of randomized clinical trials.
    in: Low back pain in primary care: effectiveness of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions..
    EMGO Institute, Amsterdam (The Netherlands); 1996: 149–170

  33. van Tulder, MW, Koes, BW, and Bouter, LM.
    Conservative treatment of acute low back pain: a systematic mega-review of 81 randomized clinical trials of 11 interventions.
    in: Low back pain in primary care: effectiveness of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions..
    EMGO Institute, Amsterdam (The Netherlands); 1996: 205–243

  34. Bronfort, G.
    Efficacy of spinal manipulation and mobilization for low back and neck pain: a systematic review and best evidence synthesis..
    in: Efficacy of manual therapies of the spine.
    Thesis Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 1997: 117–146

  35. Shekelle, PG, Adams, AH, Chassin, MR, Hurwitz, EL, and Brook, RH.
    Spinal manipulation for low-back pain
    Ann Intern Med. 1992; 117: 590–598

  36. Koes, BW, Assendelft, WJJ, van der Heijden, GJMG, and Bouter, LM.
    Spinal manipulation for low back pain: an updated systematic review of randomized clinical trials.
    Spine. 1996; 21: 2860–2873

  37. van Tulder, MW, Koes, BW, and 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: 2128–2156

  38. Bigos, S, Bowyer, O, Braen, G, Brown, K, Deyo, R, and Haldeman, S.
    Acute Lower Back Problems in Adults
    clinical practice guideline number 14.
    US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,
    Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Rockville (MD); 1994

  39. Clinical Standards Advisory Group.
    Report on back pain.
    HMSO, London; 1994

  40. Koes, BW, Scholten, RJPM, Mens, JMA, and Bouter, LM.
    Efficacy of NSAIDs for low-back pain: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials.
    in: Low back pain in primary care..
    EMGO Institute, Amsterdam (The Netherlands); 1996: 171–189

  41. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.
    Orthopaedic clinical policy.
    AAOS, Rosemont (IL); 1996

  42. Weinstein, SM, Herring, SA, and Derby, R.
    Contemporary concepts in spine care: epidural steroid injections.
    Spine. 1995; 20: 1842–1846

  43. Atlas, SJ, Deyo, RA, Keller, RB et al.
    The Maine Lumbar Spine Study: part II, 1-year outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of sciatica.
    Spine. 1996; 21: 1777–1786

  44. Watts, RW and Silagy, CA.
    A meta-analysis on the efficacy of epidural corticosteroids in the treatment of sciatica.
    Anesth Intensive Care. 1995; 23: 564–569

  45. Koes, BW, Scholten, RJ, Mens, JM, and Bouter, LM.
    Efficacy of epidural steroid injections for low-back pain and sciatica: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials.
    Pain. 1995; 63: 279–288

  46. National Health and Medical Research Council.
    Epidural use of steroids in the management of back pain.
    Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra; 1994

  47. Burton, AK and Waddell, G.
    Clinical guidelines in the management of low back pain.
    Baillieres Clin Rheumatol. 1998; 12: 17–35

  48. Sackett, DL.
    Methods for compliance research.
    in: Compliance in health care..
    Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (MD); 1979: 323–333

  49. Waddell, G, Feder, G, McIntosh, A, and Hutchinson, A.
    Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Acute Low Back Pain
    in: Royal College of General Practitioners,
    London; 1996: 1–35

  50. Quebec Task Force on Spinal Disorders.
    Scientific approach to the assessment and management of activity- related spinal disorders: a monograph for clinicians: report of the Quebec Task Force on spinal disorders.
    Spine. 1987; 12: S1–S59

  51. Atlas, SJ, Deyo, RA, Patrick, DL, Convery, K, Keller, RB, and Singer, DE.
    The Quebec Task Force classification for spinal disorders and the severity, treatment, and outcomes of sciatica and lumbar spinal stenosis.
    Spine. 1996; 21: 2885–2892

  52. Stankovic, R and Johnell, O.
    Conservative treatment of acute low-back pain: a prospective randomized trial: McKenzie method of treatment versus patient education in “mini back school.”.
    Spine. 1990; 15: 120–123

  53. McKenzie, R.
    Treat your own back.
    Spinal Publications, Ltd, Waikanae (New Zealand); 1985

  54. Dvorak, J, Kranzlin, P, Muhleman, D, and Walchli, B.
    Musculoskeletal complications.
    in: Principles and practice of chiropractic.
    Appleton & Lange, Norwalk (CT); 1992: 549–577

  55. in: Current medical diagnosis and treatment.
    Appleton & Lange, Stamford (CT); 1997

  56. Roland, M and Morris, R.
    A study of the natural history of low-back pain: part II, development of guidelines for trials of treatment in primary care.
    Spine. 1983; 8: 145–150

  57. Roland, M and Morris, R.
    A study of the natural history of back pain: part I, development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain.
    Spine. 1983; 8: 141–144

  58. Patrick, DL.
    Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica.
    Spine. 1995; 20: 1899–1909

  59. Jensen, MP, Karoly, P, and Braver, S.
    The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods.
    Pain. 1986; 27: 117–126

  60. Jaeschke, R, Singer, J, and Guyatt, GH.
    A comparison of seven-point and visual analogue scales: data from a randomized trial.
    Control Clin Trials. 1990; 11: 43–51

  61. Huskisson, EC.
    Measurement of pain.
    Lancet. 1974; 2: 1127–1131

  62. Carlsson, AM.
    Assessment of chronic pain: I, aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale.
    Pain. 1983; 16: 87–101

  63. Deyo, RA, Walsh, NE, Martin, DC, Schoenfeld, LS, and Ramamurthy, S.
    A controlled trial of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and exercise for chronic low back pain.
    N Engl J Med. 1990; 322: 1627–1634

  64. Koes, BW, Bouter, LM, van Mameren, H et al.
    A blinded randomized clinical trial of manual therapy and physiotherapy for chronic back and neck complaints: physical outcome measures.
    J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1992; 15: 16–23

  65. Hansen, FR, Bendix, T, Skov, P et al.
    Intensive, dynamic back-muscle exercises, conventional physiotherapy, or placebo-control treatment of low-back pain: a randomized, observer-blind trial.
    Spine. 1993; 18: 98–108

  66. Cherkin, DC, Deyo, RA, Street, JH, Hunt, M, and Barlow, W.
    Pitfalls of patient education: limited success of a program for back pain in primary care.
    Spine. 1996; 21: 345–355

  67. Bronfort, G, Goldsmith, CH, Nelson, CF, Boline, PD, and 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 (Nov); 19 (9): 570–582

  68. Bronfort, G, Evans, R, Nelson, B, Aker, P, Goldsmith, C, and Vernon, H.
    A Randomized Clinical Trial of Exercise and Spinal Manipulation for
    Patients with Chronic Neck Pain

    Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001 (Apr 1); 26 (7): 788–797

  69. Cleary, PD and Jette, AM.
    The validity of self-reported physician utilization measures.
    Med Care. 1984; 22: 796–803

  70. Manning, WG, Leibowitz, A, Goldberg, GA et al.
    A controlled trial of the effect of a prepaid group practice on use of services.
    N Engl J Med. 1984; 310: 1505–1510

  71. Triano, JJ, McGregor, M, Hondras, MA, and Brennan, PC.
    Manipulative therapy versus education programs in chronic low back pain.
    Spine. 1995; 20: 948–955

  72. Cherkin, DC, Deyo, RA, Battie, M, Street, J, and Barlow, W.
    A Comparison of Physical Therapy, Chiropractic Manipulation, and Provision of an
    Educational Booklet for the Treatment of Patients with Low Back Pain

    New England Journal of Medicine 1998 (Oct 8); 339 (15): 1021-1029



Return to the LOW BACK PAIN Section

Return to the CHIROPRACTIC AND SCIATICA Page

Since 10-12-2017

         © 1995–2017 ~ The Chiropractic Resource Organization ~ All Rights Reserved