Table 3. Overview of intervention and control groups, outcome measurements and main findings.
| first author (year) | intervention + n° of participants | control + n° of participants | outcome measurement | findings intervention vs. control |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andersson (1999) | OT + SAT (n = 83) | SAT (n = 72) | pain: VAS; functional status: RMDQ/OPQ | pain: 32.0±23.0 mm vs. 26.3±24.1 mm (p = 0.19); functional status: median: 5 vs. 5 (p = 0.16); medication: anti-inflam.:24.3% vs. 54.3%(p<0.001), muscle relaxants:6.3% vs. 25.1%(p<0.001) |
| Licciardone (2003) | OT (n = 48) | sham manipulation (n = 23) no intervention (n = 20) | pain: VAS, functional status: RMDQ | pain: OT vs. control at 1m (p = 0.01), 3m (p = 0.001), 6m (p = 0.02) / OT vs. sham at 1m (p = 0.29), 3m (p = 0.96), 6m (p = 0.95); functional status: no significant differences among treatment groups; medication: no significant between-group differences |
| UK Beam (2004) | OT+best care* (n = 353) OT+best care*+exercise (n = 333) | best care* (n = 338) | functional status: RMDQ | OT+best care vs. best care: 3m, 1.57 [95%CI 0.82–2.32] p = 0.001; 12m, 1.01 [95%CI 0.22–1.81] p = 0.05 / OT+best care+ exercise vs. best care: 3m, 1.87 [95%CI 1.15–2.60] p = 0.001; 12m, 1.30 [95%CI 0.54–2.07] p = 0.01 |
| McReynolds (2005) | OT (n = 29) | medication (n = 29) | pain: NRS/PRS | 2.8±1.7 vs. 1.7±1.6 (p = 0.02); pain relief: no significant between-group change (p = 0.10) |
| Peters (2006) | OT (n = 30) | no intervention (n = 30) | pain: VAS; functional status: QBPDS | pain: 4.4±2.4vs.-0.3±1.9(p<0.0005); improvement: OT,67%; control, 4.5% deterioration; functional status: 11.1±16.6 vs. -8.4±10.4 (p<0.0005) improvement: OT, 28%; control, 20% deterioration |
| Heinze (2006) | OT + heat + physiotherapy (n = 28) | heat + physiotherapy (n = 32) | pain: NRS; functional status: RMDQ | pain: 4.3 vs. 1.8 (p<0.001) improvement: OT, 66%; control: 30%; functional status: 8.9 vs. 3.4 (p<0.001) improvement: OT, 73%; control, 30% |
| Chown (2008) | OT (n = 79) | physiotherapy (n = 80) | functional status: ODI | mean score OT, -5.0 [95%CI -1.6, -8.4] p<0.01; PT, -4.1 [95%CI -1.4, -6.9] p<0.01 |
| Schwerla (2008) | OT + sham UST (n = 23) | UST (n = 18) | pain: NRS | average pain, 2.48 vs. 0.75 difference: -1.73 [95%CI -3.13, -0.32] p = 0.017 / OT: significant decrease in actual (p = 0.001) and worst (p = 0.001) pain |
| Recknagel (2008) | OT (n = 20) | no intervention (n = 19) | pain: VAS; functional status: OPQ | pain: diff. 4.6 [95%CI 3.4,-5.8] p<0.001 improv.: OT, 4.8 [95%CI 3.7,5.9)p<0.001 70% improvement; funct. status: diff. 1.8[95%CI 1.2,2.4] p<0.001 improv.: OT, 1.8 [95%CI 1.2,2.3] p<0.001 |
| Engemann (2009) | OT (n = 15) | no intervention (n = 15) | pain: NPAD/NRS | -2.14 vs. 0.32 (p<0.001) |
| Licciardone (2010) | OT + UOC (n = 49) | UOC + sham UST (n = 48) / UOC (n = 49) | pain: VAS; functional status: RMDQ | pain: no significant between-group differences or significant improvement in OT; functional status: OT, deterioration from baseline to treatment end |
| Cruser (2012) | OT + UC (n = 30) | UC (n = 30) | pain: VAS; functional status: RMDQ | pain: pain now, 1.96±1.47 vs. 3.73±2.39 difference: -1.47 [95%CI -2.75, -0.18] p = 0.026; functional status: no significant between-group difference / OT (baseline-study end): 12.37±5.30 vs. 4.44±5.95 (p<0.001); medication: no significant between-group differences |
| Vismara (2012) | OT + exercise (n = 10) | exercise (n = 11) | pain: VAS; functional status: RMDQ/ODI | pain: 1.4±1.2 vs. 3.0±0.8 (p<0.05); functional status: RMDQ: 3.13±2.85 vs. 7.27±2.19 (p<0.05) / ODI: 3.50±1.69 vs. 9.18±3.34 (p<0.05) |
| Licciardone (2013a) | OT + (sham) UST (n = 19) | shamOT+(sham)UST(n = 15) | pain: VAS | difference 1.7 [95%CI 3.2, 0.1] p = 0.04 |
| Licciardone (2013b) | OT + (sham) UST (n = 230) | sham OT + (sham) UST (n = 225) | pain: VAS; functional status: RMDQ | pain: -1.8(IQR-3.1,0.0)vs.-0.9(IQR-2.5,0.3) p = 0.002/moderate improv.: 63% vs. 46% RR = 1.38 [95%CI 1.16, 1.64] p<0.001 / substantial improv.: 50% vs. 35% RR = 1.41 [95%CI 1.13, 1.76] p = 0.002 ; funct. status : no signif.diff./significant improv.in OT; medication: 13% vs. 20% (p = 0.048) |
| Hensel (2015) | OT (n = 136) | placebo UST (n = 131) / UOC (n = 133) | pain: VAS; functional status: RMDQ | pain:mean OTvs.UST0.15[95%CI-3.07,3.36]p>0.999; OTvs.UOC-7.11[95%CI-10.30,-3.93]p<0.001; funct. status: OTvs.UST 0.21[95%CI-.73,1.14] p>0.999; OTvs.UOC: -2.25[95%CI -.18,-1.32]p<0.001 |
| Belz (2015) | OT (n = 30) | no intervention (n = 30) | pain: VAS; functional status: PGQ | pain: -4.2±2.0 vs. -0.4±1.3 difference 3.8 [95%CI 2.8, 4.7) p<0.0005; functional status: -22.7±10.1 vs. -8.8±15.4 difference 13.9 [95%CI 6.7, 21.0] p<0.0005 |
| Schwerla (2015) | OT (n = 40) | no intervention (n = 40) | pain: VAS; functional status: ODI | pain: -5.3±1.7 vs. -0.5±1.2 difference 4.8 [95%CI 4.1, 5.4] p<0.001; functional status: -12.6±6.5 vs. -2.0±5.2 difference 10.6 [95%CI 8.0, 13.2] p<0.001 |
| Licciardone (2016) | OT (n = 175) | sham OT (n = 170) | pain: VAS; functional status: RMDQ | pain: median (IQR) reduction 2.0 (0.2, 3.6) vs. 1.2 (-0.5, 2.5) p = 0.002; functional status: median (IQR) reduction 2 (0, 5) vs. 2 (0, 4) p = 0.66 |
*based on the UK national acute back pain guidelines 'continuing normal activities and avoiding rest' / IQR, interquartile range; NPAD, Neck Pain and Disability Scale; NRS, Numerical Rating Scale
ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; OPQ, Oswestry Pain Questionnaire; OT, osteopathic treatment; PGQ, Pelvic Girdle Pain Questionnaire; PRS, Pain Relief Scale; QBPDS, Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale; RMDQ, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire; RR, response ratio; SAT, standard allopathic treatment; UC, usual care; UOC, usual obstetrical care; UST, ultrasound treatment; VAS, Visual Analogue Scale