Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde

Systematic reviews (SRs) provide a solution to handle information overload for busy clinicians by summarising and synthesizing studies on a specific issue. However, because SRs are complicated and often boring to read, the busy or reluctant reader may make do with the When, as it has been shown, many authors overstate efficacy or understate harm in their abstracts, not consulting the underlying article could be misleading. This means that the prudent reader must have the ability to identify the ‘tender points’ of SRs to avoid falling for ‘spin’. To this end we briefly review the method of SRs and ways to relatively quickly determine trustworthiness.

Introduction: Some chiropractors seem to have an inflated belief in the powers of spinal manipulation (SMT), for example aiming at preventing future spinal degeneration and health problems, activities that are without supporting evidence. Non-evidenced health beliefs have been shown to be associated with a tendency toward magical thinking. Holding such beliefs about SMT is associated with a limitless scope of practice (LLSoP). Recent studies have shown that “chiropractic conservatism” (ChiroCon) is also associated with such approaches. We wanted to understand ChiroCon and these attitudes toward SMT by exploring three different factors: intolerance to uncertainty, academic achievement, and tendency toward magical thinking and how they relate to ChiroCon and LLSoP. Method: A cross-sectional survey of 243 chiropractic students from an Australian chiropractic program was conducted in May 2020. Students answered a questionnaire involving a patient case-scenario for LLSoP, levels of ChiroCon, validated questionnaires on (i) Intolerance of uncertainty, (ii) Academic achievement, and (iii) Magical thinking. LLSoP was defined as wanting to treat with SMT a 5-year-old asymptomatic child for future (i) Musculoskeletal (MSK) problems and/or (ii) Non-musculoskeletal diseases. Logistic regression models were used to confirm if there was an association between ChiroCon and LLSoP and to explore associations between LLSoP and (i) Intolerance of uncertainty, (ii) Academic achievement, and (iii) Magical thinking. We repeated the same analyses using ChiroCon as the outcome variable. Results: We confirmed that chiropractic students in the more extreme ChiroCon group were more likely to want to prevent future spinal disorders in an asymptomatic 5-year-old child as compared to those with lower levels (OR = 3.9, (95%CI 1.97–7.72). This was also the case for the prevention of future diseases in the same child (OR = 6.9, (95%CI 3.11–15.06). Of the three predictor variables, magical belief was positively associated with both ChiroCon and LLSoP. Conclusion: Not surprisingly, ChiroCon is closely related to LLSoP and both were linked to magical thinking. Therefore, the questionnaire ‘Magical Health Beliefs’ could be a useful instrument to screen future chiropractic students to prevent a mismatch between student and institution. Depending on the outlook of the school, some schools would welcome these students, whereas other institutions would want to avoid them in their education program.

Background: Shoulder pain was previously shown to diminish in older populations and it was suggested that this could be explained by reduced usage with age. Our objectives were to investigate if estimates of shoulder pain continue to increase after the age of 50 in working populations and to compare these estimates in physically demanding occupations with sedentary occupations. Methods: A systematic review of retrospective, cross-sectional, prospective, or longitudinal. studies reporting prevalence or incidence of non-specific shoulder pain in occupational groups stratified by age. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL from inception until January 2020. Study characteristics and prevalence estimates stratified by age were extracted. Two reviewers independently performed a critical analysis of the included studies to determine their validity and risk of bias. Results: Twenty studies with a total of 40,487 participants and one study of a clinical data base were included and assigned a direction of the estimates for shoulder pain as either ‘increasing’, ‘remaining stable’ or ‘decreasing’ past the age of 50. Shoulder pain generally increased past 50, with 16 of the 21 included studies reporting higher estimates/odds ratios in older participants. In the more physically active occupations over 50, the estimates increased in 14 of the 18 samples compared to only two of the four involving sedentary occupations. Conclusions: Shoulder pain prevalence remains common in workers beyond the age of 50. Prevalence continues to increase in physically demanding occupations. Clinicians should consider factors of occupation when managing shoulder pain. Trial registration: PROSPERO (CRD42019137831).

Background: Chiropractors see themselves as well positioned to provide safe, effective and economical care for the on-going financial burden that spinal pain imposes. However, in many places of the world, the chiropractic profession continues to find itself struggling to gain acceptance as a mainstream allied health care provider. There is evidence of the existence of undesirable chiropractic practice patterns and it is in part due to some of the world’s accredited chiropractic programs. This indicated a need for scrutiny of international chiropractic educational accreditation standards, which are the responsibility of Councils on Chiropractic Education (CCEs). To this end we reviewed an emerging body of evidence about the chiropractic educational system in order to identify issues and make recommendations that may enhance professional acceptance through improved graduate outcomes and hopefully the quality of patient care. This commentary summarises the findings of that research. Main text: We reviewed recent relevant studies, including our own, into the role and function of CCEs and found that there is sufficient evidence to identify areas of concern that could be addressed, at least in part, by improvements to CCEs’ educational standards and processes. Areas included a lack of definitions for key terms such as, ‘chiropractic’, ‘diagnosis’, and ‘competency’, without which there can be no common understanding at a detailed level to inform graduate competencies and standards for a matching scope of practice. Further, there is some evidence to suggest that in some cases this level of detail is avoided in order to enable a “big tent” approach that allows for a diversity of approaches to clinical care to co-exist. This combined with the held view that chiropractic is “unique”, highly valued, and best understood by other chiropractors, explains how students and practitioners can cling to ‘traditional’ thinking. This has implications for public safety and patient quality of care. Conclusion: If chiropractic care is to gain mainstream acceptance worldwide then it needs to adopt, through revitalised CCE accreditation standards and processes, those of other allied healthcare professions and wholeheartedly embrace science, evidence-based practice and patient centred care.

Background: A recent study showed that chiropractic patients had fewer days with bothersome (activity-limiting) low back pain (LBP) when receiving care at regular pre-planned intervals regardless of symptoms (‘maintenance care’, MC) compared to receiving treatment only with a new episode of LBP. Benefit varied across psychological subgroups. The aims of this study were to investigate 1) pain trajectories around treatments, 2) recurrence of new episodes of LBP, and 3) length of consecutive pain-free periods and total number of pain-free weeks, for all study participants as well as for each psychological subgroup. Methods: A secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of patients (n = 319) seeking chiropractic care for recurrent or persistent LBP used 52 weekly estimates of days with bothersome (activity-limiting) LBP. First, a generalized estimating equations analysis was used to compare the pain trajectory before and after the initial treatment in every new treatment period. Thereafter, a time-to-event analysis (using Cox regression) estimated time to/risk of a new LBP episode. The analyses were performed on i) all study participants and ii) separately for each psychological sub-group (named adaptive copers, interpersonally distressed and dysfunctional) classified by the West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory. Results: Patients receiving MC had flat pain trajectories around each new treatment period and reported fewer days with pain compared to patients receiving the control intervention. The entire effect was attributed to the dysfunctional subgroup who reported fewer days with activity limiting pain within each new LBP episode as well as longer total pain-free periods between episodes with a difference of 9.8 weeks (CI 95% 3.3, 16.3) compared to the control group. There were no differences in the time to/risk of a new episode of LBP in either of the subgroups. Conclusion: Data support the use of MC in a stratified care model targeting dysfunctional patients for MC. For a carefully selected group of patients with recurrent and persistent LBP the clinical course becomes more stable and the number of pain-free weeks between episodes increases when receiving MC. Understanding how subgroups of patients are likely to be affected by MC may help align patients’ and clinicians’ expectations based on realistic outcomes. Trial registration: Clinical trials.gov; NCT01539863; February 22, 2012.

Background and objective: Clinical guidelines recommend physical activity to manage neck pain (NP) and low back pain (LBP). However, studies used to support these guidelines are based on self‐reports of physical behaviour, which are prone to bias and misclassification. This systematic review aimed to investigate associations between objectively measured physical behaviour and the risk or prognosis of NP and/or LBP.Databases and data treatment: Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus from their inception until 18 January 2019. We considered prospective cohort studies for eligibility. Article selection, data extraction and critical appraisal were carried out by independent reviewers. Results were stratified on activity/sedentariness.Results: Ten articles out of 897 unique records identified met the inclusion criteria, of which eight studied working populations with mainly blue‐collar workers. The overall results indicate that increased sitting time at work reduces the risk of NP and LBP while increased physical activity during work and/or leisure increases the risk of these conditions among blue‐collar workers; however, associations were weak. Physical activity was not associated with prognosis of LBP (no studies investigated prognosis of NP). Most of the included articles have methodological shortcomings.Conclusions: This review indicates that, among blue‐collar workers, increased sitting at work may protect against NP and LBP while increased physical activity during work and/or leisure may increase this risk. There was no evidence supporting physical activity as a prognostic factor for LBP. Findings should be interpreted with caution due to the weak associations and few available studies with methodological shortcomings.Significance: Based on prospective cohort studies with objectively measured physical behaviour, this review questions the common notion that increased physical activity is associated with reduced risk or better prognosis of NP and/or LBP. We found that, among blue‐collar workers, increased sitting time at work reduces the risk of NP and LBP, whereas physical activity somewhat increases the risk. Despite methodological shortcomings, there was consistency in the direction of the results, although high‐quality articles reported the weakest associations.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42018100765

Background: Spinal manipulation (SM) has been shown to have an effect on the pressure pain threshold (PPT) in asymptomatic subjects, but SM has never been compared in studies on this topic to a validated sham procedure. We investigated the effect of SM on the PPT when measured i) in the area of intervention and ii) in an area remote from the intervention. In addition, we measured the size and duration of the effect. Method: In a randomized cross-over trial, 50 asymptomatic chiropractic students had their PPT measured at baseline, immediately after and every 12 min after intervention, over a period of 45 min, comparing values after SM and a previously validated sham. The trial was conducted during two sessions, separated by 48 h. PPT was measured both regionally and remotely from the ‘treated’ thoracic segment. Blinding of study subjects was tested with a post-intervention questionnaire. We used mixed linear regression with the baseline value and time as co-variates. If a significant difference were found between groups, then an effect size would be calculated using Cohen’s d or Hedge’s h coefficient. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: Study subjects had been successfully blinded. No statistically significant differences were found between SM and sham estimates, at any time or anatomical location. Conclusion: When compared to a valid sham procedure and with successfully blinded subjects, there is no regional or remote effect of spinal manipulation of the thoracic spine on the pressure pain threshold in a young pain-free population.