Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low‐back pain

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008112.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 16 febrero 2011see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Espalda y cuello

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Sidney M Rubinstein

    Correspondencia a: Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    [email protected]

  • Marienke van Middelkoop

    Department of General Practice, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands

  • Willem JJ Assendelft

    Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands

    Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands

  • Michiel R de Boer

    Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University, Amsterdam, Netherlands

  • Maurits W van Tulder

    Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contributions of authors

Conception and design: SM Rubinstein, MW van Tulder, WJJ Assendelft,
Analysis and interpretation of the data: SM Rubinstein, MR de Boer, MW van Tulder
Drafting of the review: SM Rubinstein, MW van Tulder
Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: All members
Final approval of the article: All members
Statistical Expertise: MR de Boer
Administrative, technical, or logistical support: SM Rubinstein, MR de Boer
Collection and assembly of data: SM Rubinstein, M van Middelkoop, MR de Boer, WJJ Assendelft (studies published before 2000).

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Not specified.

External sources

  • Dutch Health Insurance Council (CVZ), Not specified.

Declarations of interest

None

Acknowledgements

The review authors would like to thank the members of the Editorial Board of the Cochrane Back Review Group for their constructive comments on the protocol and draft version of this review and Ms Rachel Couban for her assistance with the development of the search strategies. They also thank Dr. Sally Morton, Mrs. Emily Yu, Ms. Marika Suttorp, and Dr. Paul Shekelle for their work on the original review, which laid the ground work for this update. In addition, they thank Veronica Morton, Nina Zaproudina, Cynthia Long, John Licciardone and Peter McCarthy for providing additional data not found in their original publications.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2011 Feb 16

Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low‐back pain

Review

Sidney M Rubinstein, Marienke van Middelkoop, Willem JJ Assendelft, Michiel R de Boer, Maurits W van Tulder

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008112.pub2

2009 Oct 07

Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low‐back pain

Protocol

Sidney M Rubinstein, Marienke van Middelkoop, Willem JJ Assendelft, Michiel de Boer, Maurits W van Tulder

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008112

Differences between protocol and review

Addition of follow‐up measurement in the meta‐analyses. Three months was added as a follow‐up measurement in the meta‐analyses because it was reported in many studies and we felt that it was important to include. Reactions to SMT are principally short‐term; therefore, to exclude this measurement would have meant an important loss of valuable data.

Under sub‐group analysis and investigation of heterogeneity. Originally, we wanted to investigate the effects of SMT by different sub‐groups with low‐back pain, that is, by subjects with radiating pain to the knee versus those with pain below the knee or those with clear neurological deficit; however, these data were not available.

Notes

Since the previous publication in 2004, this review has been split into two: acute and chronic. In total, 26 RCTs were identified, 18 of which are new studies not previously identified, representing approximately two‐thirds of the included studies.

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.