TY - JOUR
T1 - Efficacy of "therapist-selected" versus "randomly selected" mobilisation techniques for the treatment of low back pain
T2 - A randomised controlled trial
AU - Chiradejnant, Adit
AU - Maher, Christopher G.
AU - Latimer, Jane
AU - Stepkovitch, Nicholas
PY - 2003
Y1 - 2003
N2 - The aim of this study was to establish whether the mobilisation technique selected by the treating physiotherapist is more effective in relieving low back pain than a randomly selected mobilisation technique. Two manipulative physiotherapists and 140 subjects suffering non-specific low back pain participated. Baseline measurements were taken before treatment allocation; the therapist then assessed subjects and nominated the preferred treatment grade, spinal level to be treated and mobilisation technique to be used. The subjects were then randomly allocated to one of two groups. One group received the preferred mobilisation technique as selected by the therapist; the other group received a randomly assigned mobilisation technique. All mobilisation treatments were applied to the nominated spinal level using the nominated treatment grade. Follow-up measures were taken immediately after intervention. Two-way ANOVA was used to analyse the data; the first factor was the treatment group and the second factor was the direction of the patient's most painful movement. The choice of mobilisation treatment had no effect on any outcome measure investigated in this study; however, post hoc tests revealed that mobilisation treatment applied to the lower lumbar levels had a greater analgesic effect than when applied to upper lumbar levels. The results of this study confirm that lumbar mobilisation treatment has an immediate effect in relieving low back pain, however the specific technique used seems unimportant.
AB - The aim of this study was to establish whether the mobilisation technique selected by the treating physiotherapist is more effective in relieving low back pain than a randomly selected mobilisation technique. Two manipulative physiotherapists and 140 subjects suffering non-specific low back pain participated. Baseline measurements were taken before treatment allocation; the therapist then assessed subjects and nominated the preferred treatment grade, spinal level to be treated and mobilisation technique to be used. The subjects were then randomly allocated to one of two groups. One group received the preferred mobilisation technique as selected by the therapist; the other group received a randomly assigned mobilisation technique. All mobilisation treatments were applied to the nominated spinal level using the nominated treatment grade. Follow-up measures were taken immediately after intervention. Two-way ANOVA was used to analyse the data; the first factor was the treatment group and the second factor was the direction of the patient's most painful movement. The choice of mobilisation treatment had no effect on any outcome measure investigated in this study; however, post hoc tests revealed that mobilisation treatment applied to the lower lumbar levels had a greater analgesic effect than when applied to upper lumbar levels. The results of this study confirm that lumbar mobilisation treatment has an immediate effect in relieving low back pain, however the specific technique used seems unimportant.
KW - Low back pain
KW - Manipulation therapy
KW - Physical therapy
KW - Randomized controlled trial
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0346266260&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
C2 - 14632622
AN - SCOPUS:0346266260
VL - 49
SP - 233
EP - 241
JO - The Australian journal of physiotherapy
JF - The Australian journal of physiotherapy
SN - 0004-9514
IS - 4
ER -