Newsletter sign up
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Spinal manipulation 'has no benefit for back pain'
21 Sep 09
Controversy over the inclusion of spinal manipulation in NICE guidelines on back pain intensified this week after a study showed no benefit when it was added to standard care with painkillers.
The study in patients with acute low back pain presenting in primary care found no difference in the pain scores of those treated with spinal manipulation and analgesics, compared with those receiving analgesics alone.
It casts doubt on NICE advice that GPs consider a course of spinal manipulation in patients with low back pain after prescribing paracetamol, NSAIDs or weak opiods.
All 104 patients in the study – presented at the WONCA Europe conference in Bern, Switzerland this month – received standard care consisting of general advice, regular paracetamol and diclofenac or dihydrocodeine as required over the six months of the study.
Patients who also received spinal manipulation had only a non-significant half point improvement in pain scores after two weeks, compared with those not receiving it.
The consumption of additional analgesics was also similar between both groups, with the spinal manipulation group taking only 18mg less of diclofenac.
Professor Peter Juni, lead investigator and head of the division of clinical epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Bern, Switzerland, said: ‘Spinal manipulation is unlikely to result in relevant early back pain reduction in primary care patients with acute back pain.’
The study adds to mounting criticism over NICE guidelines on back pain. The controversy has already led to the British Pain Society ousting their president, Professor Paul Watson, a member of the guideline development group.
Pulse revealed last month that PCTs are struggling to keep pace with a sudden rise in back pain referrals under the new guidance, with triple digit percentage increases in some areas.
Dr Iain Gilchrist, a GP in Bishop’s Stortford, Hertfordshire, and president of the Primary Care Rheumatology Society, said spinal manipulation should be kept as an option, but the study showed it was not useful for many patients.
‘It is a popular form of treatment and it seems to help some people, but by no means everyone. Occasionally we come across some patients who have been made worse by it,’ he said.
Writing in the latest edition of the British Journal of General Practice this month, Professor Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, said the NICE guidance had ‘serious flaws’.
‘It is uncertain whether spinal manipulation generates more benefit than harm for patients suffering from back pain,’ he said.







Readers' comments
As I look to the left there is a related article called "Alexander Technique 'cost-effective' for back pain. www.freeyourneck.com
Although the trial wasn't big (104 patients) the results are consistent with what we already knew. The results add further to the reasons to be critical of the recommendations by NICE for low back pain, That was, arguably, the biggest ever failure of NICE to assess evidence properly. Unless it is amended it could do great harm to the reputation of NICE and that would be a pity because until this failure it has done a good and valuable job.
The most important point is always missed during debates as to what treatment is best for back pain. The first stage on the road to a patients treatment and recovery has to be an accurate DIAGNOSIS of their condition! No form of treatment should be offered until an accurate diagnosis of the patients spinal injury or condition has been made. This diagnosis can only be made by a consultant who specialises in spinal surgery and who would most probably make us of MRI. There is currently far too much unsafe guesswork being made by unqualified practitioners, leading to unsuitable or potentially dangerous treatment suggestions being offered to patients with spinal injuries. A qualified diagnosis must come first.
This study looked at back pain of less than four weeks duration and treatment was administered over a two week period. In contrast the NICE guidelines relate to persistent back pain that has been present for between six weeks and one year. The NICE guidelines recommend options including pharmacological measures, manual therapy (including manipulation), acupuncture, exercise and psychotherapy. I believe that it is entirely appropriate to manage acute low back pain with simple measures such as pain relief and advice. However, with chronic or recurrent back pain that has failed to respond to these conservative approaches, or where patients cannot tolerate NSAIDs, other options are needed.