The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
A correction has been published: N Engl J Med 2000;342(11):817.

Original Article
PreviousPrevious
Volume 341:1426-1431 November 4, 1999 Number 19
NextNext

A Comparison of Osteopathic Spinal Manipulation with Standard Care for Patients with Low Back Pain
Gunnar B.J. Andersson, M.D., Ph.D., Tracy Lucente, M.P.H., Andrew M. Davis, M.D., M.P.H., Robert E. Kappler, D.O., James A. Lipton, D.O., and Sue Leurgans, Ph.D.

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text
- PDF

Commentary
-Editorial
 by Howell, J. D.
-Letters

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited

More Information
-Related Article
 by Oppenheim, J. S.
-PubMed Citation
ABSTRACT

Background The effect of osteopathic manual therapy (i.e., spinal manipulation) in patients with chronic and subchronic back pain is largely unknown, and its use in such patients is controversial. Nevertheless, manual therapy is a frequently used method of treatment in this group of patients.

Methods We performed a randomized, controlled trial that involved patients who had had back pain for at least three weeks but less than six months. We screened 1193 patients; 178 were found to be eligible and were randomly assigned to treatment groups; 23 of these patients subsequently dropped out of the study. The patients were treated either with one or more standard medical therapies (72 patients) or with osteopathic manual therapy (83 patients). We used a variety of outcome measures, including scores on the Roland–Morris and Oswestry questionnaires, a visual-analogue pain scale, and measurements of range of motion and straight-leg raising, to assess the results of treatment over a 12-week period.

Results Patients in both groups improved during the 12 weeks. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in any of the primary outcome measures. The osteopathic-treatment group required significantly less medication (analgesics, antiinflammatory agents, and muscle relaxants) (P< 0.001) and used less physical therapy (0.2 percent vs. 2.6 percent, P<0.05). More than 90 percent of the patients in both groups were satisfied with their care.

Conclusions Osteopathic manual care and standard medical care have similar clinical results in patients with subacute low back pain. However, the use of medication is greater with standard care.


Source Information

From the Departments of Orthopedic Surgery (G.B.J.A.) and Preventive Medicine (T.L., A.M.D., S.L.), Rush–Presbyterian–St. Luke's Medical Center, Chicago; and Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine, Downers Grove, Ill. (R.E.K., J.A.L.).

Address reprint requests to Dr. Andersson at the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rush–Presbyterian–St. Luke's Medical Center, 1653 W. Congress Pkwy., 1471 Jelke, Chicago, IL 60612, or at ganderss{at}rush.edu.

Full Text of this Article


Related Letters:

Osteopathic Treatment of Low Back Pain
Oppenheim J. S., Cherkin D., Foster D., Johnson M. D., Harrelson A., Sweetman B. J., Rogers F. J., Lyon D. A., Orlando C., Field L., Andersson G. B.J., Howell J. D.
Extract | Full Text  
N Engl J Med 2000; 342:817-820, Mar 16, 2000. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:



HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.