Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003 (Jul); 28 (13): 1355–1362
John C. Licciardone, DO, Scott T. Stoll, DO, Kimberly G. Fulda, MPH, David P. Russo, DO,
Jeff Siu, BA, William Winn, DO, Jon Swift Jr, DO
Address correspondence to John C. Licciardone, DO,
University of North Texas Health Science Center,
3500 Camp Bowie Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX 76107;
Study Design A randomized controlled trial was conducted.
Objective. To determine the efficacy of osteopathic manipulative treatment as a complementary treatment for chronic nonspecific low back pain.
Summary of Background Data Osteopathic manipulative treatment may be useful for acute or subacute low back pain. However, its role in chronic low back pain is unclear.
Methods This trial was conducted in a university-based clinic from 2000 through 2001. Of the 199 subjects who responded to recruitment procedures, 91 met the eligibility criteria. They were randomized, with 82 patients completing the 1-month follow-up evaluation, 71 completing the 3-month evaluation, and 66 completing the 6-month evaluation. The subjects were randomized to osteopathic manipulative treatment, sham manipulation, or a no-intervention control group, and they were allowed to continue their usual care for low back pain. The main outcomes included the SF-36 Health Survey, a 10-cm visual analog scale for overall back pain, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, lost work or school days because of back pain, and satisfaction with back care.
Results As compared with the no-intervention control subjects, the patients who received osteopathic manipulative treatment reported greater improvements in back pain, greater satisfaction with back care throughout the trial, better physical functioning and mental health at 1 month, and fewer cotreatments at 6 months. The subjects who received sham manipulation also reported greater improvements in back pain and physical functioning and greater satisfaction than the no-intervention control subjects. There were no significant benefits with osteopathic manipulative treatment, as compared with sham manipulation.
Conclusions Osteopathic manipulative treatment and sham manipulation both appear to provide some benefits when used in addition to usual care for the treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain. It remains unclear whether the benefits of osteopathic manipulative treatment can be attributed to the manipulative techniques themselves or whether they are related to other aspects of osteopathic manipulative treatment, such as range of motion activities or time spent interacting with patients, which may represent placebo effects.
Keywords: low back pain, orthopedic manipulation, osteopathic manipulative treatment, osteopathic medicine, patient satisfaction, physical functioning, randomized controlled trial