Osteopathic manipulative treatment for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

  • John C Licciardone1Email author,

    Affiliated with

    • Angela K Brimhall2 and

      Affiliated with

      • Linda N King3

        Affiliated with

        BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders20056:43

        DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-6-43

        Received: 08 November 2004

        Accepted: 04 August 2005

        Published: 04 August 2005

        Abstract

        Background

        Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a distinctive modality commonly used by osteopathic physicians to complement their conventional treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. Previous reviews and meta-analyses of spinal manipulation for low back pain have not specifically addressed OMT and generally have focused on spinal manipulation as an alternative to conventional treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.

        Methods

        Computerized bibliographic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, OSTMED, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were supplemented with additional database and manual searches of the literature.

        Six trials, involving eight OMT vs control treatment comparisons, were included because they were randomized controlled trials of OMT that involved blinded assessment of low back pain in ambulatory settings. Data on trial methodology, OMT and control treatments, and low back pain outcomes were abstracted by two independent reviewers. Effect sizes were computed using Cohen's d statistic and meta-analysis results were weighted by the inverse variance of individual comparisons. In addition to the overall meta-analysis, stratified meta-analyses were performed according to control treatment, country where the trial was conducted, and duration of follow-up. Sensitivity analyses were performed for both the overall and stratified meta-analyses.

        Results

        Overall, OMT significantly reduced low back pain (effect size, -0.30; 95% confidence interval, -0.47 – -0.13; P = .001). Stratified analyses demonstrated significant pain reductions in trials of OMT vs active treatment or placebo control and OMT vs no treatment control. There were significant pain reductions with OMT regardless of whether trials were performed in the United Kingdom or the United States. Significant pain reductions were also observed during short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-up.

        Conclusion

        OMT significantly reduces low back pain. The level of pain reduction is greater than expected from placebo effects alone and persists for at least three months. Additional research is warranted to elucidate mechanistically how OMT exerts its effects, to determine if OMT benefits are long lasting, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.

        Background

        Historically, low back pain has been the most common reason for visits to osteopathic physicians [1]. More recent data from the Osteopathic Survey of Health Care in America has confirmed that a majority of patients visiting osteopathic physicians continue to seek treatment for musculoskeletal conditions [2, 3]. A distinctive element of low back care provided by osteopathic physicians is osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT). A comprehensive evaluation of spinal manipulation for low back pain undertaken by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research in the United States concluded that spinal manipulation can be helpful for patients with acute low back problems without radiculopathy when used within the first month of symptoms [4]. Nevertheless, because most studies of spinal manipulation involve chiropractic or physical therapy [5], it is unclear if such studies adequately reflect the efficacy of OMT for low back pain.

        Although the professional associations that represent osteopaths, chiropractors, and physiotherapists in the United Kingdom developed a spinal manipulation package consisting of three common manual elements for use in the UK Back pain Exercise and Manipulation (UK BEAM) trial [6], there are no between-profession comparisons of clinical outcomes [7, 8]. It is well known that OMT comprises a diversity of techniques [9] that are not adequately represented by the UK BEAM trial package. Professional differences in spinal manipulation are more pronounced in research studies, where chiropractors have focused almost exclusively on high-velocity-low-amplitude techniques [10]. For example, a major trial of chiropractic manipulation as adjunctive treatment for childhood asthma used a high-velocity-low-amplitude thrust as the active treatment [11]. The simulated treatment provided in the sham manipulation arm of this chiropractic trial, which ostensibly was thought to have no therapeutic effect, had a marked similarity to OMT [10, 12]. Further, because differences in professional background and training lend themselves to diverse manipulation approaches, clinicians have been warned about generalizing the findings of systematic reviews to practice [13].

        In addition to professional differences in the manual techniques themselves, osteopathic physicians in the United States, unlike allopathic physicians, chiropractors, or physical therapists, can treat low back pain simultaneously using both conventional primary care approaches and complementary spinal manipulation. This represents a unique philosophical approach in the treatment of low back pain. Consequently, there is a need for empirical data that specifically address the efficacy of OMT for such conditions as low back pain [14]. The present study was undertaken to address this need by conducting a systematic review of the literature on OMT and performing a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials for low back pain performed in ambulatory settings.

        Methods

        Search

        A search of the English language literature was performed through August 2003 to identify reports of randomized controlled trials of OMT. We searched MEDLINE, OLDMEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, OSTMED, Alt Health Watch, SciSearch, ClinicalTrials.gov, CRISP, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. A detailed description of the search strategy is provided in the Appendix [see Additional file 1]. Additionally, reports were sought from relevant reviews or meta-analyses of spinal manipulation [9, 1532] and manual searches of reference citations in the reviewed literature sources.

        Selection

        The search bibliographies and relevant reports were reviewed by the authors to identify randomized controlled trials involving OMT in human subjects. To assess the efficacy of OMT in primary care, eligibility was limited to randomized controlled trials of OMT performed by osteopaths, osteopathic physicians, or osteopathic trainees that included blinded assessment of low back pain in ambulatory settings. Trials that involved manipulation under anesthesia, industrial settings, or hospitalized patients were not included. Because there is potential confusion regarding the type of manipulation performed in some trials [33], the reported methods in each trial were carefully reviewed to assess eligibility for the meta-analysis. Overall, seven studies known or purported to involve OMT for low back pain were reviewed and excluded for not meeting all eligibility criteria [3440]. A subsequent source [41] indicated that an osteopathic manipulation technique was used in the Irvine study [42]. Although several of the six included OMT trials were identified in multiple bibliographic databases, five [4246] were indexed in MEDLINE. The Cleary [47] trial was identified exclusively through the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

        Data extraction

        Each eligible trial was independently reviewed by two of us to abstract data on methodological characteristics, OMT and control treatments, and low back pain outcomes. Conflicting data were resolved by consensus.

        Trial characteristics

        As shown in Table 1, the six OMT trials were conducted between 1973 and 2001 in the United Kingdom or the United States [4247]. Two of the six trials each included two control treatments [43, 46], thus providing eight OMT vs control treatment comparisons. The trials generally were comparable in their methodology, with the possible exception of the Cleary [47] trial. Twenty contrasts were reported in the six trials (a contrast refers to a within-trial comparison between OMT and a control treatment with respect to a low back pain outcome at a given point in time). Following randomization, nine contrasts were reported within one month (short-term outcomes), another seven contrasts were reported within three months (intermediate-term outcomes), and the remaining four contrasts were reported within 12 months (long-term outcomes).
        Table 1

        Summary of trials.

         

        Hoehler 1981 [42]

        Gibson 1985 [43]

        Cleary 1994 [47]

        Years conducted

        1973–1979

        ...

        1991–1992

        Country

        United States

        United Kingdom

        United Kingdom

        Setting

        University clinic

        Hospital outpatient clinic

        Ambulatory clinic

        No. of subjects randomized

        95

        109

        30*

        Comparison

        OMT vs soft tissue massage and sham manipulation

        OMT vs short-wave diathermy

        OMT vs detuned short-wave diathermy

        OMT vs sham manipulation

        Subject

        characteristics

           Age, y

           

        Mean ± SD

        OMT, 30.1 ± 8.4

        Controls, 32.1 ± 9.8

        OMT, 34 ± 14

        Short-wave diarthermy controls, 35 ± 16

        Detuned short-wave diathermy controls, 40 ± 16

        Overall age range, 50–60

           Sex

           

        % male

        OMT, 59

        Controls, 59

        OMT, 49

        Detuned short-wave diathermy controls, 68

        Short-wave diarthermy controls, 53

        OMT, 0

        Controls, 0

           Type of low back pain

        Referred patients with acute or chronic low back pain

        Referred patients with low back pain of greater than 2 months' and less than 12 months' duration

        Recruited subjects with chronic low back pain in conjunction with menopausal symptoms

        OMT protocol

           Technique

        High-velocity, low-amplitude thrust only

        Variety of techniques

        Low-force techniques

           No. of treatments

           

        Mean ± SD

        OMT, 4.8 ± 2.7

        Controls, 3.9 ± 2.5

        4, per protocol

        10, per protocol

        Outcomes assessment

        Blinded

        Blinded

        Assessment independent of treatment, blinding not specified

        No. of pain contrasts

        3

        6 (3 for each of the two OMT vs control treatment comparisons)

        1

        Type of pain outcome

        Dichotomous pain outcomes

        Dichotomous pain outcomes

        Dichotomous pain outcome

        Timing of pain contrasts

           

           Short-term

        First treatment and mean, 20–30 days following randomization

        2 and 4 weeks

        ...

           Intermediate-term

        Mean, 41–51 days following randomization

        ...

        ...

           Long-term

        ...

        12 weeks

        15 weeks

         

        Andersson 1999 [ 44 ]

        Burton 2000 [ 45 ]

        Licciardone 2003 [ 46 ]

        Years conducted

        1992–1994

        ...

        2000–2001

        Country

        United States

        United Kingdom

        United States

        Setting

        Health maintenance organization

        Hospital orthopedic department

        University clinic

        No. of subjects randomized

        178

        40

        91

        Comparison

        Usual care and OMT vs usual care only

        OMT vs chemonucleolysis

        Usual care and OMT vs usual care and sham manipulation

        Usual care and OMT vs usual care only

        Subject characteristics

           

           Age, y

           

        Mean ± SD

        OMT, 28.5 ± 10.6

        Controls, 37.0 ± 11.0

        Overall, 41.9 ± 10.6

        Usual care and OMT, 49 ± 12

        Usual care and sham manipulation controls, 52 ± 12

        Usual care only controls, 49 ± 12

           Sex

           

        % male

        OMT, 41

        Controls, 44

        Overall, 48

        Usual care and OMT, 31

        Usual care and sham manipulation controls, 43

        Usual care only controls, 35

           Type of low back pain

        Patients with low back pain of 3 or more weeks' and less than 6 months' duration

        Recruited patients with low back pain and sciatica; mean duration, 30 and 32 weeks in OMT and chemonucleolysis groups, respectively

        Recruited subjects with low back pain of at least 3 months' duration

        OMT protocol

           

           Technique

        Variety of techniques, individualized to patient

        Variety of techniques, individualized to patient

        Variety of techniques, individualized to subject

           No. of treatments

           

        Mean ± SD

        8, per protocol

        Mean for OMT, 11; range 6–18

        7, per protocol

        Outcomes assessment

        Blinded

        Blinded

        Blinded

        No. of pain contrasts

        1

        3

        6 (3 for each of the two OMT vs control treatment comparisons)

        Type of pain outcome

        Pain scale

        Pain scales

        Pain scales

        Timing of pain contrasts

           

           Short-term

        ...

        2 weeks

        1 month

           Intermediate-term

        12 weeks

        6 weeks

        3 months

           Long-term

        ...

        12 months

        6 months

        OMT denotes osteopathic manipulative treatment.

        *A total of 30 subjects with menopausal symptoms were randomized; however, only 12 subjects had low back pain.

        The methodological quality of four of the OMT trials [4245] was independently confirmed in a recent systematic review that included a best evidence synthesis incorporating eight explicit quality criteria, including similarity of baseline characteristics of subjects or reporting of adjusted outcomes; concealment of treatment allocation; blinding of subjects; blinding of providers or other control for attention bias; blinded or unbiased outcomes assessment; subject dropouts reported and accounted for in the analysis; missing data reported and accounted for in the analysis; and intention-to-treat analysis or absence of differential co-interventions between groups in studies with full compliance [13]. The Cleary [47] trial was not eligible for this review because it did not include a sufficiently large number of subjects. Although the Licciardone [46] trial was not eligible for the review because it was published after the closing date of December 2002, it has been characterized as an innovative and important trial with many rigorous design features [48], and more recently has been identified as an evidence-based supplement relative to the previous review from the Cochrane Library [49].

        Quantitative data synthesis

        We used the effect size, computed as Cohen's d statistic, to report all trial results [50]. A negative effect size represented a greater decrease in pain among OMT subjects relative to control treatment subjects. Dichotomous pain measures were transformed to effect sizes by first computing the relevant P-value and then determining the effect size and 95% confidence interval (CI) that would obtain under the assumption of a two-tailed t-test for measuring the standardized mean difference between OMT and control treatments in the relevant number of subjects [50]. The meta-analysis results were weighted by the inverse variance for each OMT vs control treatment comparison. The Q statistic was used to test the homogeneity of trials included in each analysis [51].

        The overall meta-analysis included the eight OMT vs control treatment comparisons. Four of the six trials, involving six of the eight OMT vs control treatment comparisons, each reported three contrasts [42, 43, 45, 46] (Table 1). The median contrast, as identified by the intermediate effect size among the three reported pain outcomes for a given OMT vs control treatment comparison, was used to represent the pain outcome for each of these six comparisons. These median contrasts were then combined with the lone contrasts reported in each of the two remaining OMT vs control treatment comparisons [44, 47]. Based on the similarity among trials (Table 1), a fixed-effects model initially was used to perform meta-analysis and the results were then compared with those of a random-effects model.

        A series of sensitivity analyses were then performed. First, to address the possibility of bias by using the median contrasts method, analyses were repeated using the best-case and worst-case scenarios for the six relevant OMT vs control treatment comparisons [42, 43, 45, 46]. Second, to address the possibility of bias by including comparisons involving the same OMT group vs two different control treatment groups in two trials [43, 46], analyses were repeated using only one OMT vs control treatment comparison for each of these trials. Each of the four possible combinations of contrasts was analyzed. Third, the analysis was repeated after excluding the Cleary [47] trial. Finally, an analysis was performed using all 20 low back pain contrasts. Similar analyses were performed after stratifying trials according to control treatment, country where the trial was performed, and duration of follow-up.

        As summarized in Table 2, there were 43 analyses performed, including the overall meta-analysis, seven stratified meta-analyses, and 35 sensitivity analyses. Meta-analysis was performed only when there were at least three contrasts available for data synthesis. Database management and analyses were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software package (Version 1.0.23, Biostat, Inc, Englewood, NJ 07631, USA).
        Table 2

        Summary of analyses.*

        Meta-Analyses

        Sensitivity Analyses

        Overall Median Contrasts

        Best-case and worst-case scenarios

        4 possible combinations of contrasts including one control treatment per trial

        Cleary [47] trial excluded

        All 20 contrasts

        Stratified Median Contrasts

           A. Control Treatment

         

        1. Active treatment or placebo control

        Best-case and worst-case scenarios

        2 possible combinations of contrasts including one control treatment per trial

        Cleary [47] trial excluded

        All 16 contrasts

        2. No treatment

         

           B. Country Where Trial was Performed

         

        3. United Kingdom

        Best-case and worst-case scenarios

        2 possible combinations of contrasts including one control treatment per trial

        Cleary [47] trial excluded

        All 10 contrasts

        4. United States

        Best-case and worst-case scenarios

        2 possible combinations of contrasts including one control treatment per trial

        All 10 contrasts

           C. Duration of Follow-Up

         

        5. Short-term

        Best-case and worst-case scenarios

        All 9 contrasts

        6. Intermediate-term

        4 possible combinations of contrasts including one control treatment per trial

        7. Long-term

        2 possible combinations of contrasts including one control treatment per trial

        Cleary [47] trial excluded

        *There were insufficient contrasts to perform sensitivity analyses for the no treatment stratified analysis. For the short-term stratified analysis, the median contrast was defined to be that corresponding to the eighth combination when effect sizes for the 16 possible contrast combinations were rank ordered from least to greatest. For the intermediate-and long-term stratified analyses, the median contrasts defaulted to the all-contrasts analyses because there were no repeated measures within these time intervals in any trial. All possible contrast combinations were included in the sensitivity analyses for intermediate-and long-term follow-up because of the limited numbers of combinations for these analyses

        Results

        Overall analyses

        The search for reports is summarized in Figure 1. A total of 525 subjects with low back pain were randomized in the eligible trials. The overall results are presented in Figure 2. There was a highly significant reduction in pain associated with OMT (effect size, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.47 – -0.13; P = .001). The Q statistic was non-significant, thus supporting the assumption of homogeneity among trials. The primary sensitivity analyses are presented in Table 3. Using a random-effects model, the results were virtually identical to those observed with a fixed-effects model. There were 729 (36 × 12) possible combinations of contrasts for analysis based on three contrasts for each of six OMT vs control treatment comparisons [42, 43, 45, 46] and one contrast for each of the two remaining OMT vs control treatment comparisons [44, 47]. The efficacy of OMT for low back pain was supported in both the best-case (effect size, -0.37; 95% CI, -0.55 – -0.20; P < .001) and worst-case (effect size, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.35 – 0.00; P = .046) scenarios. Similarly, when each trial was limited to one OMT vs control treatment comparison, OMT was found to be efficacious in each of the four analyses. OMT also demonstrated significantly greater low back pain reduction than control treatment in analyses with the Cleary [47] trial excluded and with all 20 contrasts included.
        http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2474-6-43/MediaObjects/12891_2004_Article_156_Fig1_HTML.jpg
        Figure 1

        Flowchart of trials.

        http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2474-6-43/MediaObjects/12891_2004_Article_156_Fig2_HTML.jpg
        Figure 2

        Effect size for low back pain. CI denotes confidence interval; OMT, osteopathic manipulative treatment. Overall effect size, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.47 – -0.13; P = .001.

        Table 3

        Overall results.

          

        No. of Subjects

           

        Model

        No. of

        Contrasts

        OMT

        Control

        Effect

        Size

        95% CI

        P

        Median contrasts

              

           Fixed-effects model*

        8

        318

        231

        -0.30

        -0.47 – -0.13

        .001

           Random-effects model

        8

        318

        231

        -0.31

        -0.49 – -0.13

        .001

        Best-case scenario

        8

        293

        220

        -0.37

        -0.55 – -0.20

        <.001

        Worst-case scenario

        8

        298

        221

        -0.18

        -0.35 – 0.00

        .046

        Median contrasts, one OMT vs control treatment comparison per trial

              

           Gibson [43] active treatment control and Licciardone [46] placebo control

        6

        237

        181

        -0.30

        -0.49 – -0.10

        .003

           Gibson [43] active treatment control and Licciardone [46] no treatment control

        6

        247

        179

        -0.39

        -0.59 – -0.20

        <.001

           Gibson [43] placebo control and Licciardone [46] placebo control

        6

        238

        187

        -0.26

        -0.45 – -0.06

        .01

           Gibson [43] placebo control and Licciardone [46] no treatment control

        6

        248

        185

        -0.35

        -0.54 – -0.15

        <.001

        Median contrasts, Cleary [47] trial excluded

        7

        310

        227

        -0.29

        -0.47 – -0.12

        .001

        All contrasts

        20

        727

        520

        -0.29

        -0.40 – -0.17

        <.001

        CI denotes confidence interval; OMT, osteopathic manipulative treatment.

        *Test for homogeneity, P = .37.

        Stratified analyses

        The results of stratified meta-analyses are presented in Table 4. There was a significant reduction in low back pain associated with OMT in trials vs active treatment or placebo control (effect size, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.48 – -0.05; P = .02), independent of fixed-effects or random-effects model specification. There were 243 (35 × 11) possible contrast combinations based on three contrasts for each of five OMT vs control treatment comparisons [42, 43, 45, 46] and one contrast for another remaining OMT vs control treatment comparison [47]. Both the best-case and worst-case scenarios demonstrated a greater reduction in pain with OMT than active treatment or placebo control, although the worst-case results did not achieve statistical significance. OMT was found to significantly reduce pain in the remaining analyses that limited OMT vs active treatment or placebo control comparisons to one per trial, excluded the Cleary [47] trial, and included all 16 contrasts. The OMT vs no treatment control comparisons were observed in trials in which all subjects received usual low back care in addition to their allocated treatment (ie, OMT and usual care vs only usual care) [44, 47]. For these trials, the all-contrasts model (ie, the only model with sufficient contrasts for data synthesis) demonstrated a highly significant reduction in pain with OMT.
        Table 4

        Stratified results.

          

        No. of Subjects

           

        Model

        No. of

        Contrasts

        OMT

        Control

        Effect

        Size

        95% CI

        P

        OMT vs. Active Treatment or Placebo Control

        Median contrasts

              

           Fixed-effects model*

        6

        193

        142

        -0.26

        -0.48 – -0.05

        .02

           Random-effects model

        6

        193

        142

        -0.26

        -0.48 – -0.05

        .02

        Best-case scenario

        6

        174

        132

        -0.34

        -0.57 – -0.11

        .004

        Worst-case scenario

        6

        183

        134

        -0.07

        -0.29 – 0.16

        .54

        Median contrasts, one OMT vs control treatment comparison per trial

              

           Gibson [43] active treatment

        5

        154

        109

        -0.33

        -0.58 – -0.08

        .01

           Gibson [43] placebo control

        5

        155

        115

        -0.26

        -0.51 – -0.02

        .03

        Median contrasts, Cleary [47] trial excluded

        5

        185

        138

        -0.24

        -0.47 – -0.02

        .03

        All contrasts

        16

        534

        400

        -0.21

        -0.34 – -0.08

        .002

        OMT vs. No Treatment Control

        All contrasts

        4

        193

        120

        -0.53

        -0.76 – -0.30

        <.001

        Trials Performed in the United Kingdom

        Median contrasts

              

           Fixed-effects model*

        4

        105

        84

        -0.29

        -0.58 – 0.00

        .050

           Random-effects model

        4

        105

        84

        -0.30

        -0.63 – 0.02

        .06

        Best-case scenario

        4

        105

        88

        -0.36

        -0.64 – -0.07

        .01

        Worst-case scenario

        4

        100

        83

        -0.11

        -0.40 – 0.19

        .48

        Median contrasts, one OMT vs control treatment comparison per trial

              

           Gibson [43] active treatment

        3

        66

        51

        -0.46

        -0.83 – -0.09

        .02

           Gibson [43] placebo control

        3

        67

        57

        -0.30

        -0.66 – 0.05

        .10

        Median contrasts, Cleary [47] trial excluded

        3

        97

        80

        -0.26

        -0.56 – 0.04

        .09

        All contrasts

        10

        294

        247

        -0.23

        -0.40 – -0.06

        .01

        Trials Performed in the United States

        Median contrasts

              

           Fixed-effects model*

        4

        213

        147

        -0.31

        -0.52 – -0.10

        .004

           Random-effects model

        4

        213

        147

        -0.32

        -0.57 – -0.06

        .01

        Best-case scenario

        4

        188

        132

        -0.38

        -0.61 – -0.16

        .001

        Worst-case scenario

        4

        198

        138

        -0.22

        -0.44 – 0.00

        .050

        Median contrasts, one OMT vs control treatment comparison per trial

              

           Licciardone [46] placebo control

        3

        171

        130

        -0.24

        -0.47 – -0.01

        .04

           Licciardone [46] no treatment control

        3

        181

        128

        -0.36

        -0.59 – -0.14

        .002

        All contrasts

        10

        433

        273

        -0.33

        -0.48 – -0.18

        <.001

        Short-Term Follow-Up

        Median contrasts

              

           Fixed-effects model*

        5

        181

        130

        -0.28

        -0.51 – -0.06

        .01

           Random-effects model

        5

        181

        130

        -0.31

        -0.61 – -0.01

        .046

        Best-case scenario

        5

        196

        142

        -0.41

        -0.62 – -0.19

        <.001

        Worst-case scenario

        5

        181

        136

        -0.10

        -0.32 – 0.12

        .38

        All contrasts

        9

        357

        258

        -0.23

        -0.39 – -0.07

        .01

        Intermediate-Term Follow-Up

        Median (all) contrasts

              

           Fixed-effects model*

        7

        283

        209

        -0.33

        -0.51 – -0.15

        <.001

           Random-effects model

        7

        283

        209

        -0.36

        -0.63 – -0.10

        .01

        Median contrasts, one OMT vs control treatment comparison per trial

              

           Gibson [43] active treatment and Licciardone [46] placebo control

        5

        209

        161

        -0.31

        -0.52 – -0.10

        .004

           Gibson [43] active treatment and Licciardone [46] no treatment control

        5

        209

        158

        -0.45

        -0.65 – -0.24

        <.001

           Gibson [43] placebo control and Licciardone [46] placebo control

        5

        209

        166

        -0.25

        -0.46 – -0.05

        .02

           Gibson [43] placebo control and Licciardone [46] no treatment control

        5

        209

        163

        -0.39

        -0.59 – -0.18

        <.001

        Long-Term Follow-Up

        Median (all) contrasts

              

           Fixed-effects model*

        4

        87

        53

        -0.40

        -0.74 – -0.05

        .03

           Random-effects model

        4

        87

        53

        -0.41

        -0.82 – -0.01

        .046

        Median contrasts, one OMT vs control treatment comparison per trial

              

           Licciardone [46] placebo control

        3

        55

        38

        -0.23

        -0.65 – 0.19

        .28

           Licciardone [46] no treatment control

        3

        55

        34

        -0.64

        -1.08 – -0.20

        .01

        Median contrasts, Cleary [47] trial excluded

        3

        79

        49

        -0.36

        -0.72 – 0.01

        .054

        CI denotes confidence interval; OMT, osteopathic manipulative treatment.

        *Tests of homogeneity, P = .45 and P = .06 for active treatment or placebo control, and no treatment control groups, respectively; P = .32 and P = .26 for trials in the United Kingdom and the United States, respectively; and P = .14, P = .06, and P = .28 for short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term follow-up, respectively.

        Trials in both the United Kingdom (effect size, -0.29; 95% CI, -0.58 – 0.00; P = .050) and the United States (effect size, -0.31; 95% CI, -0.52 – -0.10; P = .004) demonstrated significant reductions in low back pain associated with OMT. In the sensitivity analyses, effect sizes were generally of comparable magnitude in both countries, although results in American trials consistently achieved statistical significance as a consequence of the larger sample sizes in these trials (Table 4).

        There were significant reductions in low back pain associated with OMT during the short-term (effect size, -0.28; 95% CI, -0.51 – -0.06; P = .01), intermediate-term (effect size, -0.33; 95% CI, -0.51 – -0.15; P < .001), and long-term (effect size, -0.40; 95% CI, -0.74 – -0.05; P = .03) follow-up periods. Sensitivity analyses for temporal outcomes demonstrated that intermediate-term results consistently achieved statistical significance, generally because of the greater number of subjects in these analyses (Table 4). The results of the meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses are further summarized in Figure 3.
        http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2474-6-43/MediaObjects/12891_2004_Article_156_Fig3_HTML.jpg
        Figure 3

        Summary of meta-analysis results. A denotes all-contrasts model; B, best-case scenario model; C, Cleary [47] trial excluded model; M, median contrasts model; NT, no treatment control; OMT, osteopathic manipulative treatment; W, worst-case scenario model. 1, 2, 3, and 4 indicate alternative models restricted to one OMT vs control treatment comparison per trial. A diamond indicates the inclusion of the relevant contrast or observation of the stated result. Sensitivity analyses are shaded in gray. Results are presented for each of the 43 analyses, including the overall meta-analysis, seven stratified meta-analyses, and 35 sensitivity analyses.

        Discussion

        Efficacy of osteopathic manipulative treatment

        The overall results clearly demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in low back pain with OMT (Figure 2). Further, the meta-analysis results are quite robust as indicated by the comprehensive sensitivity analyses (Figure 3). Stratified meta-analyses to control for moderator variables demonstrated that OMT significantly reduced low back pain vs active treatment or placebo control and vs no treatment control. If it is assumed, as shown in a review [52], that the effect size is -0.27 for placebo control vs no treatment in trials involving continuous measures for pain, then the results of our study are highly congruent (ie, effect size for OMT vs no treatment [-0.53] = effect size for OMT vs active treatment or placebo control [-0.26] + effect size for placebo control vs no treatment [-0.27]).

        It has been suggested that the therapeutic benefits of spinal manipulation are largely due to placebo effects [53]. A preponderance of results from our sensitivity analyses supports the efficacy of OMT vs active treatment or placebo control and therefore indicates that low back pain reduction with OMT is attributable to the manipulation techniques, not merely placebo effects. Also, as indicated above, OMT vs no treatment control demonstrated pain reductions twice as great as previously observed in clinical trials of placebo vs no treatment control [52]. Thus, OMT may eliminate or reduce the need for drugs that can have serious adverse effects [44].

        Because osteopathic physicians provide OMT to complement conventional treatment for low back pain, they tend to avoid substantial additional costs that would otherwise be incurred by referring patients to chiropractors or other practitioners [54]. With respect to back pain, osteopathic physicians make fewer referrals to other physicians and admit a lower percentage of patients to hospitals than allopathic physicians [1], while also treating back pain episodes with substantially fewer visits than chiropractors [55]. Although osteopathic family physicians are less likely to order radiographs or prescribe nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, aspirin, muscle relaxants, sedatives, and narcotic analgesics for low back pain than their allopathic counterparts, osteopathic physicians have a substantially higher proportion of patients returning for follow-up back care than allopathic physicians [56]. In the United Kingdom, where general practitioners may refer patients with spinal pain to osteopaths for manipulation, it has been shown that OMT improved physical and psychological outcomes at little extra cost [57].

        In our study, the effect sizes for OMT in the United Kingdom, where osteopaths are not licensed physicians, were generally comparable to those in the United States, where OMT is provided by licensed physicians. This consistency suggests that the results truly reflect the effects of OMT itself, and not other elements of low back care. It is not surprising that osteopaths in the United Kingdom achieved pain reduction with OMT similar to that of their physician counterparts in the United States. The training of osteopaths in the United Kingdom is highly focused on OMT, whereas osteopathic physicians undertake a medical curriculum that necessarily relegates OMT to one of many therapeutic approaches, albeit a fundamental one for osteopathic practitioners. Regardless of the career training path of the provider, it appears that OMT achieves clinically important reductions in low back pain.

        Potential limitations

        There are several potential limitations of this study that should be addressed. First, as with any meta-analysis, the individual trials varied somewhat with respect to methodology, including trial setting, subject characteristics, OMT and control treatment interventions, and pain measures (Table 1). Such heterogeneity has been commonly observed in previous meta-analyses of spinal manipulation, including a recent meta-analysis performed in collaboration with the Cochrane Back Review Group [31]. The latter study addressed potential heterogeneity by presenting stratified results according to chronicity of low back pain, type of control group, and duration of follow-up. This approach is analogous to the methods used in our study. Further, it should be noted that the assumption of homogeneity among trials was not rejected statistically in any of our eight overall or stratified median contrasts meta-analyses.

        Second, because five trials each included repeated pain measures and two trials each included two control treatments, there was no unique set of independent outcomes for meta-analysis. Such interdependencies were noted to be a problem in an early meta-analysis of spinal manipulation [15]. We used the median contrasts method to address this problem because the median outcome represents an observed outcome that is easy to compute and is less vulnerable to extreme observations than other measures of central tendency. Further, sensitivity analysis was used to assess the range of possible combinations of outcomes. Thus, for the overall meta-analysis, there were 729 potential contrast combinations. Of these, both the best-case and worst-case scenarios demonstrated statistically significant results favoring OMT, thereby providing unequivocal evidence for the efficacy of OMT. Robust findings were also observed for trials performed in the United States and for intermediate-term outcomes.

        Third, because there were a relatively small number of eligible trials, there were not sufficient contrasts for certain analyses and some results were imprecise. The latter phenomenon likely obviated the statistical significance of some results. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the direction of results favored OMT in each of the 43 meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses presented herein (Figure 3).

        Fourth, there exists the possibility that the results of unpublished trials of OMT for low back pain may have altered significantly the conclusions of this study. To address this issue, we performed file drawer analysis by computing the fail-safe N [58]. This represents the number of unpublished trials of OMT for low back pain that would have met our inclusion criteria, and that also would have demonstrated an effect size averaging ≥ -0.10, which is assumed to reflect clinically insignificant levels of pain reduction. A total of 16 unpublished trials (assuming one control group per trial) with, in the aggregate, clinically insignificant pain reduction outcomes would have been needed to obviate the significance of our results. Only recently has government funding for research in the area of complementary and alternative medicine become more widely available, in response to the public's interest in such treatments. Historically, it is highly unlikely that 16 trials of OMT for low back pain would have been sponsored, conducted, and subsequently not published.

        Finally, this study focused only on the efficacy of OMT with respect to pain outcomes. Generic health status, back-specific function, work disability, and back-specific patient satisfaction are other recommended outcome domains [59] that were not assessed because the included OMT trials did not consistently report these data.

        Conclusion

        The present study indicates that OMT is a distinctive modality that significantly reduces low back pain. The level of pain reduction is greater than expected from placebo effects alone and persists for at least three months. Additional research is warranted to elucidate mechanistically how OMT exerts its effects, to determine if OMT benefits are long lasting, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.

        Declarations

        Acknowledgements

        This research was supported in part by a grant (No. D56HP00170) from the Health Resources and Services Administration, United States Department of Health and Human Services. The funding organization had no role in the design, conduct, and reporting of this study.

        Authors’ Affiliations

        (1)
        Osteopathic Research Center, University of North Texas Health Science Center
        (2)
        Department of Family Medicine, University of North Texas Health Science Center
        (3)
        Gibson D. Lewis Health Science Library, University of North Texas Health Science Center

        References

        1. Cypress BK: Characteristics of physician visits for back symptoms: a national perspective. Am J Public Health 1983, 73:389–395.View ArticlePubMed
        2. Licciardone JC, Herron KM: Characteristics, satisfaction, and perceptions of patients receiving ambulatory healthcare from osteopathic physicians: a comparative national survey. J Am Osteopath Assoc 2001, 101:374–385.PubMed
        3. Licciardone JC: Awareness and use of osteopathic physicians in the United States: results of the Second Osteopathic Survey of Health Care in America (OSTEOSURV-II). J Am Osteopath Assoc 2003, 103:281–289.PubMed
        4. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research [AHCPR]: Acute low back problems in adults. Clinical Practice Guideline 14 Rockville, MD, US Department of Health and Human Services 1994.
        5. Kuchera ML, DiGiovanna EL, Greenspan PE: Efficacy and complications. Foundations for Osteopathic Medicine 2 Edition (Edited by: Ward RC). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2003, 1143–1152.
        6. Harvey E, Burton AK, Moffett JK, Breen A: Spinal manipulation for low-back pain: a treatment package agreed by the UK chiropractic, osteopathy and physiotherapy professional associations. Man Ther 2003, 8:46–51.View ArticlePubMed
        7. UK BEAM Trial Team: United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. BMJ 2004, 329:1377. doi:10.1136/bmj.38282.669225.AE.View Article
        8. UK BEAM Trial Team: United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: cost effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. BMJ 2004, 329:1381. doi:10.1136/bmj.38282.607859.AE.View Article
        9. Lesho EP: An overview of osteopathic medicine. Arch Fam Med 1999, 8:477–484.View ArticlePubMed
        10. Mein EA, Greenman PE, McMillin DL, Richards DG, Nelson CD: Manual medicine diversity: research pitfalls and the emerging medical paradigm. J Am Osteopath Assoc 2001, 101:441–444.PubMed
        11. Balon J, Aker PD, Crowther ER, Danielson C, Cox PG, O'Shaughnessy D, Walker C, Goldsmith CH, Duku E, Sears MR: A comparison of active and simulated chiropractic manipulation as adjunctive treatment for childhood asthma. N Engl J Med 1998, 339:1013–20.View ArticlePubMed
        12. Nelson CD, McMillin DL, Richards DG, Mein EA, Redwood D: Manual healing diversity and other challenges to chiropractic integration. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2000, 23:202–207.View ArticlePubMed
        13. Bronfort G, Haas M, Evans RL, Bouter LM: Efficacy of spinal manipulation and mobilization for low back pain and neck pain: a systematic review and best evidence synthesis. Spine J 2004, 4:335–356.View ArticlePubMed
        14. Howell JD: The paradox of osteopathy. N Engl J Med 1999, 341:1465–1468.View ArticlePubMed
        15. Ottenbacher K, DiFabio RP: Efficacy of spinal manipulation/mobilization therapy: a meta-analysis. Spine 1985, 10:833–837.View ArticlePubMed
        16. Koes BW, Assendelft WJJ, van der Heijden GJMG, Bouter LM, Knipschild PG: Spinal manipulation and mobilisation for back and neck pain: a blinded review. BMJ 1991, 303:1298–1303.View ArticlePubMed
        17. 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.PubMed
        18. 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.PubMed
        19. DiFabio RP: Efficacy of manual therapy. Phys Ther 1992, 72:853–864.
        20. Shekelle PG, Adams AH, Chassin MR, Hurwitz EL, Brook RH: Spinal manipulation for low-back pain. Ann Intern Med 1992, 117:590–598.PubMed
        21. Scheer SJ, Radack KL, O'Brien DR: Randomized controlled trials in industrial low back pain relating to return to work. Part 1. Acute interventions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995, 76:966–973.View ArticlePubMed
        22. Koes BW, Assendelft WJJ, van der Heijden GJMG, Bouter LM: Spinal manipulation for low back pain: an updated systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Spine 1996, 21:2860–2873.View ArticlePubMed
        23. Scheer SJ, Radack KL, O'Brien DR: Randomized controlled trials in industrial low back pain relating to return to work. Part 2. Discogenic low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996, 77:1189–1197.View ArticlePubMed
        24. Scheer SJ, Watanabe TK, Radack KL: Randomized controlled trials in industrial low back pain. Part 3. Subacute/chronic pain interventions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997, 78:414–423.View ArticlePubMed
        25. van der Weide WE, Verbeek JHAM, van Tulder MW: Vocational outcome of intervention for low-back pain. Scand J Work Environ Health 1997, 23:165–178.PubMed
        26. 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, 22:2128–2156.View ArticlePubMed
        27. Bronfort G: Spinal manipulation: current state of research and its indications. Neurol Clin 1999, 17:91–111.View ArticlePubMed
        28. Ernst E, Harkness E: Spinal manipulation: a systematic review of sham-controlled, double-blind, randomized clinical trials. J Pain Symptom Manage 2001, 22:879–889.View ArticlePubMed
        29. Ferreira ML, Ferreira PH, Latimer J, Herbert R, Maher CG: Does spinal manipulative therapy help people with chronic low back pain? Aust J Physiother 2002, 48:277–284.PubMed
        30. Pengel HM, Maher CG, Refshauge KM: Systematic review of conservative interventions for subacute low back pain. Clin Rehabil 2002, 16:811–820.View ArticlePubMed
        31. Assendelft WJJ, Morton SC, Yu EI, Suttorp MJ, Shekelle PG: Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain: a meta-analysis of effectiveness relative to other therapies. Ann Intern Med 2003, 138:871–881.PubMed
        32. Cherkin DC, Sherman KJ, Deyo RA, Shekelle PG: A review of the evidence for the effectiveness, safety, and cost of acupuncture, massage therapy, and spinal manipulation for back pain. Ann Intern Med 2003, 138:898–906.PubMed
        33. Haldeman S, Hooper PD, Phillips RB, Scaringe JG, Traina AD: Spinal manipulative therapy. The Adult Spine: Principles and Practice 2 Edition (Edited by: Frymoyer JW). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers 1997, 1837–1861.
        34. Siehl D, Olson DR, Ross HE, 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.PubMed
        35. Doran DML, Newell DJ: Manipulation in treatment of low back pain: a multicentre study. Br Med J 1975, 2:161–164.View ArticlePubMed
        36. Hadler NM, Curtis P, Gillings DB, Stinnett S: A benefit of spinal manipulation as adjunctive therapy for acute low-back pain: a stratified controlled trial. Spine 1987, 12:703–706.View Article
        37. Ellestad SM, Nagle RV, Boesler DR, Kilmore MA: Electromyographic and skin resistance responses to osteopathic manipulative treatment for low-back pain. J Am Osteopath Assoc 1988, 88:991–997.PubMed
        38. MacDonald RS, Bell CMJ: An open controlled assessment of osteopathic manipulation in nonspecific low-back pain. Spine 1990, 15:364–370.View ArticlePubMed
        39. Boesler D, Warner M, Alpers A, Finnerty EP, Kilmore MA: Efficacy of high-velocity low-amplitude manipulative technique in subjects with low-back pain during menstrual cramping. J Am Osteopath Assoc 1993, 93:203–214.PubMed
        40. Hoffman KS, Hoffman LL: Effects of adding sacral base leveling to osteopathic manipulative treatment of back pain: a pilot study. J Am Osteopath Assoc 1994, 94:217–226.PubMed
        41. Patterson MM: Foundations for osteopathic medical research. Foundations for Osteopathic Medicine 2 Edition (Edited by: Ward RC). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2003, 1167–1187.
        42. Hoehler FK, Tobis JS, Buerger AA: Spinal manipulation for low back pain. JAMA 1981, 245:1835–1838.View ArticlePubMed
        43. Gibson T, Grahame R, Harkness J, Woo P, Blagrave P, Hills R: Controlled comparison of short-wave diathermy treatment with osteopathic treatment in non-specific low back pain. Lancet 1985, 1:1258–1261.View ArticlePubMed
        44. 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.View ArticlePubMed
        45. Burton AK, Tillotson KM, Cleary J: Single-blind randomised controlled trial of chemonucleolysis and manipulation in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation. Eur Spine J 2000, 9:202–207.View ArticlePubMed
        46. Licciardone JC, Stoll ST, Fulda KG, Russo DP, Siu J, Winn W, Swift J: Osteopathic manipulative treatment for chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Spine 2003, 28:1355–1362.View ArticlePubMed
        47. Cleary C, Fox JP: Menopausal symptoms: an osteopathic investigation. Complement Ther Med 1994, 2:181–186.View Article
        48. Ernst E: Another negative trial of manipulative treatment for back pain. Focus Altern Complement Ther 2004, 9:43–44.
        49. Margo K: Cochrane for clinicians: putting evidence into practice. Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain. Am Fam Physician 2005, 71:464–465.PubMed
        50. Rosenthal R: Parametric measures of effect size. The Handbook of Research Synthesis (Edited by: Cooper H, Hedges LV). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation 1994, 231–244.
        51. Hedges LV, Olkin I: Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis Boston, MA: Academic Press 1985.
        52. Hróbjartsson A, Gøtzsche PC: Is the placebo powerless? An analysis of clinical trials comparing placebo with no treatment. N Engl J Med 2001, 344:1594–1602.View ArticlePubMed
        53. Ernst E: Does spinal manipulation have specific treatment effects? Fam Pract 2000, 17:554–556.View ArticlePubMed
        54. Reilly BM, Hart A, Evans AT: Part II. Evidence-based medicine: a passing fancy or the future of primary care? Dis Mon 1998, 44:370–399.View ArticlePubMed
        55. Shekelle PG, Markovich M, Louie R: Factors associated with choosing a chiropractor for episodes of back pain care. Med Care 1995, 33:842–850.View ArticlePubMed
        56. Hart LG, Deyo RA, Cherkin DC: Physician office visits for low back pain: frequency, clinical evaluation, and treatment patterns from a U.S. national survey. Spine 1995, 20:11–19.View ArticlePubMed
        57. Williams NH, Wilkinson C, Russell I, Edwards RT, Hibbs R, Linck P, Muntz R: Randomized osteopathic manipulation study (ROMANS): pragmatic trial for spinal pain in primary care. Fam Pract 2003, 20:662–669.View ArticlePubMed
        58. Wolf FM: Meta-analysis: quantitative methods for research synthesis. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences (Edited by: Lewis-Beck MS (Series)). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, no. 07–059 1986.
        59. Bombardier C: Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations. Spine 2000, 25:3100–3103.View ArticlePubMed
        60. Pre-publication history

          1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://​www.​biomedcentral.​com/​1471-2474/​6/​43/​prepub

        Copyright

        © Licciardone et al. 2005

        This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​2.​0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.