Table 3.
Post-treatment (6-week) characteristics and univariate pain-prediction modelsa
| Post-treatment (six-week) variables | Post-treatment Mean (SD) (N = 385) | Responder models | Future pain intensity models |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dose (per 6 spinal manipulation visits) | |||
| Time (in weeks) | |||
| Pain/Disability (6wk) | |||
| Pain intensity (0–100) | 30.9 (17.2) | † | † |
| Functional disability (0–100) | 27.7 (20.1) | † | † |
| Perceived change in pain (1–6) | 4.2 (0.9) | † | † |
| Perceived change in pain score (−100 to 100) | −38.3 (33.0) | † | † |
| Perceived change in disability (1–6) | 3.9 (0.9) | † | † |
| Number of outside care visits prior 4 weeks | 0.1 (1.3) | † | |
| Pain unpleasantness (0–100 scale) | 19.6 (18.9) | † | † |
| Days with pain (last 4 wk) | 16.9 (10.5) | † | † |
| Days with disability (last 4 wk) | 1.6 ( 3.8) | † | |
| Psychosocial (6wk) | |||
| Satisfaction with chiropractor’s time listening (1–5) | 4.7 ( 0.7) | † | † |
| Satisfaction with chiropractor’s comfort treating LBP (1–5) | 4.8 ( 0.5) | † | |
| Satisfaction with chiropractor’s enthusiasm for treatment (1–5) | 4.5 ( 0.8) | † | |
| Satisfaction with chiropractor’s confidence in treatment (1–5) | 3.5 ( 1.0) | † | † |
| Mean satisfaction with chiropractor (1–5) | 4.4 ( 0.5) | † | † |
| Confidence treatment is working (1–7) | 4.9 ( 1.7) | † | † |
| Objective Physical Exam (6wk)b | |||
| Lumbar ROM: flexion | 45.5 (17.6) | ||
| Lumbar ROM: extension | 17.0 ( 9.5) | ||
| Lumbar ROM: right lateral bending | 20.9 ( 9.7) | ||
| Lumbar ROM: left lateral bending | 20.5 ( 9.6) | ||
| LBP: flexion (0–10) | 1.1 ( 1.8) | † | † |
| LBP: extension (0–10) | 1.7 ( 2.0) | † | † |
| LBP: right lateral bending (0–10) | 1.4 ( 1.9) | † | † |
| LBP: left lateral bending (0–10) | 1.3 ( 1.7) | † | † |
| LBP: sum for 4 lumbar ROMs pain scores (each 0–10) | 5.4 ( 6.1) | † | † |
| LBP: maximum of 4 lumbar ROMs pain scores | 2.5 ( 2.2) | † | † |
| LBP: right – left lateral bending | 0.1 ( 1.4) | † | † |
| LBP: |right – left lateral bending| | 0.8 ( 1.2) | † | † |
| LBP: sum for right and left lateral bending pain scores | 2.7 ( 3.4) | † | † |
| LBP: maximum of right and left lateral bending pain scores | 1.7 ( 2.0) | † | † |
| Modified Schober Test (cm) | 21.0 ( 1.9) | ||
| Lumbar hypomobility: L1 % (n) | 43 % (157) | ||
| Lumbar hypomobility: L2 % (n) | 38 % (138) | ||
| Lumbar hypomobility: L3 % (n) | 27 % (100) | ||
| Lumbar hypomobility: L4, % (n) | 29 % (104) | † | † |
| Lumbar hypomobility: L5, % (n) | 43 % (155) | † | † |
| Total hypomobile joints: L1 thru L5 | 1.8 ( 1.3) | † | † |
| Pain Pressure Threshold: right L1-L2 | 6.8 ( 3.7) | ||
| Pain Pressure Threshold: left L1-L2 | 6.8 ( 3.0) | † | |
| Pain Pressure Threshold: right L3-L4 | 6.7 ( 3.3) | † | |
| Pain Pressure Threshold: left L3-L4 | 6.8 ( 3.2) | † | |
| Pain Pressure Threshold: right L5-S1 | 6.7 ( 3.4) | † | |
| Pain Pressure Threshold: left L5-S1 | 6.8 ( 3.5) | † | |
| Pain Pressure Threshold: minimum of 6 measures | 5.4 ( 2.7) | † |
OR Odds ratio, r Pearson’s correlation coefficient, β regression coefficient, ROM range of motion, LBP low back pain
†Variables with a statistically significant association with outcome, p-value < 0.05, after adjusting for dose
aLogistic and longitudinal linear regressions were adjusted for dose and were fitted using generalized estimating equations to account for correlation across time points. Only the statistically significant variables (p < .05) \in this table are used as candidates for the subsequent inclusion into the relevant final multivariate prediction models
bROM was measured in degrees, LBP during ROM on a 0 to 10 scale for each of the 4 ROMs, and pain pressure threshold in kg. Hypomobility was identified using manual motion palpation