Skip to main content

Table 5 Effects of target treatment

From: Does targeting manual therapy and/or exercise improve patient outcomes in nonspecific low back pain? A systematic review

Outcomes

Mean duration of pain

Three way test of interaction statistically significant*

Mean effect of targeting treatment (95% confidence interval) (0-100 scale)

(positive result favours targeted treatment)

Bolded scores are statistically significant

McKenzie directional preference-based exercises

Short term activity limitation

   

Directional preference matched exercises versus non-directional preference exercises (Long et al. 2004)[21]

Chronic

NA†

16.95 [8.74, 25.16]

P = 0.000, n = 201

Short term pain

   

Directional preference matched exercises versus non-directional preference exercises (Long et al. 2004)[21]

Chronic

NA

19.80 [14.34, 25.26]

P = 0.000, n = 201

Delitto Treatment-Based Classification

Short term activity limitation

   

Treatment matched to classification vs. treatment unmatched to classification (Brennan 2006)[18]

Sub-acute

Yes

5.60 [-0.49, 11.69]

P = 0.070, n = 123

Long term activity limitation

   

Treatment matched to classification vs. treatment unmatched to classification (Brennan 2006) [18]

Sub-acute

Yes

3.10 [-3.13, 9.33]

P = 0.330, n = 123

Flynn manipulation rule

Short term activity limitation

   

Manipulation (fitted prediction rule) versus manipulation (didn't fit rule) (Childs et al. 2004)[19]

Acute

Yes

8.68 [-1.63, 19.0]

P = 0.10, n = 131

SMT (fitted prediction rule) versus SMT (did not fit prediction rule) (Hancock et al. 2008)[26]

Acute

No

-5.50 [-16.09, 5.09]

(rule-negative group had better outcome)

P = 0.310, n = 235

Intermediate term activity limitation

   

Manipulation (fitted prediction rule) versus manipulation (did not fit rule) (Childs et al. 2004)[19]

Acute

Yes

3.51 [-6.26, 13.28]

P = 0.480, n = 131

SMT (fitted prediction rule) versus SMT (did not fit prediction rule) (Hancock et al. 2008)[26]

Acute

No

-10.30 [-20.80, 0.20]

(rule-negative group had better outcome)

P = 0.050, n = 235

Short term pain

   

SMT (fitted prediction rule) versus SMT (did not fit prediction rule) (Hancock et al. 2008)[26]

Acute

No

5.60 [-5.48, 16.68]

P = 0.320, n = 235

Intermediate term pain

   

SMT (fitted prediction rule) versus SMT (did not fit prediction rule) (Hancock et al. 2008)[26]

Acute

No

0.40 [-9.84, 10.64]

P = 0.940, n = 235

  1. * Three way test of interaction = (time × treatment group × prediction rule status) test of interaction, such as ANOVA
  2. †NA = not applicable, as a three way test of interaction was not performed.
  3. SMT = Spinal Manipulative Therapy = 97% received spinal mobilization (low velocity techniques) and 5% received manipulation (high velocity).
Back to article page

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

Contact us