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).