The quality of placebos used in randomized, controlled trials of lumbar and pelvic joint thrust manipulation – a systematic review

Abstract Background Context Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) has been attributed with substantial non-specific effects. Accurate assessment of the non-specific effects of SMT relies on high-quality studies with low risk of bias that compare to appropriate placebos. Purpose This review aims to chara...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The spine journal 2017-03, Vol.17 (3), p.445-456
Hauptverfasser: Puhl, Aaron A., MSc, DC, Reinhart, Christine J, PhD, DC, Doan, Jon B., PhD, Vernon, Howard, PhD, DC
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 456
container_issue 3
container_start_page 445
container_title The spine journal
container_volume 17
creator Puhl, Aaron A., MSc, DC
Reinhart, Christine J, PhD, DC
Doan, Jon B., PhD
Vernon, Howard, PhD, DC
description Abstract Background Context Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) has been attributed with substantial non-specific effects. Accurate assessment of the non-specific effects of SMT relies on high-quality studies with low risk of bias that compare to appropriate placebos. Purpose This review aims to characterize the types and qualities of placebo control procedures used in controlled trials of manually-applied, lumbar and pelvic (LP) SMT, and to evaluate the assessment of subject blinding and expectations. Study Design This is a systematic review of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Index to Chiropractic Literature and relevant bibliographies. We included randomized, placebo/sham-controlled trials where the index treatment was manually applied LP-SMT. There were no restrictions on the type of condition being investigated. Two independent reviewers selected the studies, assessed study quality and extracted the data. Relevant data were the type and quality of placebo control(s) used, the assessment of blinding and expectations and the results of those assessments. Results Twenty-five randomized, placebo-controlled trials were included in this review. There were 18 trials that used a sham manual SMT procedure for their placebo control intervention; the most common approach was with an SMT set-up, but without the application of any thrust. One small pilot study used an unequivocally indistinguishable placebo, 2 trials used placebos that had been validated as inert a priori , and 8 trials reported on success of subject blinding. Risk of bias was high or unclear, for all included studies. Conclusions Imperfect placebos are ubiquitous in clinical trials of LP-SMT and few trials have assessed for successful subject blinding or balanced expectations of treatment success between active and control group subjects. There is thus a strong potential for unmasking of control subjects, unequal non-specific effects between active and control groups, and non-inert placebos in existing trials. Future trials should consider assessing the success of subject blinding and ensuring inertness of their placebo a priori, as a minimum standard for quality.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.11.003
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1844031569</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1529943016310634</els_id><sourcerecordid>1844031569</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-ce1a3e27085d0f21a9c5602f941039b62cfe28ff5f1813374cb0cf39f69f9a7a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUk1u1jAUjBCIlsINEPKSBQl-dn43SKiigFSJBWVtOc6z6uDYqe0UfaxYcANu2JPg6Css2LCy_TwzTzOaongOtAIK7eu5iqtxiBXLrwqgopQ_KE6h7_oSWs4e5nvDhnKoOT0pnsQ4U0r7Dtjj4oR1fd8D70-Ln1fXSG42aU06EK_JaqXC0UeyRZyIcSRIN_nFfMfpFVHepeCtzT8pGGnjzrDbMspAMoysaG-NIrM3LpF0HbaYyCKdWTcrk_GO3P34RSSJh5hwyRNFAt4a_Pa0eKSzGj67P8-KLxfvrs4_lJef3n88f3tZqhq6VCoEyZF1tG8mqhnIQTUtZXqogfJhbJnSyHqtGw3ZHO9qNVKl-aDbQQ-yk_yseHnUXYO_2TAmsZio0Frp0G9RQF_XlEPTDhlaH6Eq-BgDarEGs8hwEEDFnr-YxTF_secvAETOP9Ne3G_YxgWnv6Q_gWfAmyMAs8_sPYioDDqFkwmokpi8-d-GfwWUNc4oab_iAePst-ByhgJEZIKKz3sH9grkSgBtec1_A1RzsKA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1844031569</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The quality of placebos used in randomized, controlled trials of lumbar and pelvic joint thrust manipulation – a systematic review</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Puhl, Aaron A., MSc, DC ; Reinhart, Christine J, PhD, DC ; Doan, Jon B., PhD ; Vernon, Howard, PhD, DC</creator><creatorcontrib>Puhl, Aaron A., MSc, DC ; Reinhart, Christine J, PhD, DC ; Doan, Jon B., PhD ; Vernon, Howard, PhD, DC</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Background Context Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) has been attributed with substantial non-specific effects. Accurate assessment of the non-specific effects of SMT relies on high-quality studies with low risk of bias that compare to appropriate placebos. Purpose This review aims to characterize the types and qualities of placebo control procedures used in controlled trials of manually-applied, lumbar and pelvic (LP) SMT, and to evaluate the assessment of subject blinding and expectations. Study Design This is a systematic review of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Index to Chiropractic Literature and relevant bibliographies. We included randomized, placebo/sham-controlled trials where the index treatment was manually applied LP-SMT. There were no restrictions on the type of condition being investigated. Two independent reviewers selected the studies, assessed study quality and extracted the data. Relevant data were the type and quality of placebo control(s) used, the assessment of blinding and expectations and the results of those assessments. Results Twenty-five randomized, placebo-controlled trials were included in this review. There were 18 trials that used a sham manual SMT procedure for their placebo control intervention; the most common approach was with an SMT set-up, but without the application of any thrust. One small pilot study used an unequivocally indistinguishable placebo, 2 trials used placebos that had been validated as inert a priori , and 8 trials reported on success of subject blinding. Risk of bias was high or unclear, for all included studies. Conclusions Imperfect placebos are ubiquitous in clinical trials of LP-SMT and few trials have assessed for successful subject blinding or balanced expectations of treatment success between active and control group subjects. There is thus a strong potential for unmasking of control subjects, unequal non-specific effects between active and control groups, and non-inert placebos in existing trials. Future trials should consider assessing the success of subject blinding and ensuring inertness of their placebo a priori, as a minimum standard for quality.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1529-9430</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-1632</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.11.003</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27888138</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Blinding ; Control groups ; Experimental design ; Humans ; Lumbar manipulation ; Lumbosacral Region ; Manipulation, Spinal - methods ; Orthopedics ; Pelvis ; Placebos ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards ; Research Design - standards ; Spinal manipulation ; Systematic review ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>The spine journal, 2017-03, Vol.17 (3), p.445-456</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2016 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-ce1a3e27085d0f21a9c5602f941039b62cfe28ff5f1813374cb0cf39f69f9a7a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-ce1a3e27085d0f21a9c5602f941039b62cfe28ff5f1813374cb0cf39f69f9a7a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1529943016310634$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27888138$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Puhl, Aaron A., MSc, DC</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reinhart, Christine J, PhD, DC</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Doan, Jon B., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vernon, Howard, PhD, DC</creatorcontrib><title>The quality of placebos used in randomized, controlled trials of lumbar and pelvic joint thrust manipulation – a systematic review</title><title>The spine journal</title><addtitle>Spine J</addtitle><description>Abstract Background Context Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) has been attributed with substantial non-specific effects. Accurate assessment of the non-specific effects of SMT relies on high-quality studies with low risk of bias that compare to appropriate placebos. Purpose This review aims to characterize the types and qualities of placebo control procedures used in controlled trials of manually-applied, lumbar and pelvic (LP) SMT, and to evaluate the assessment of subject blinding and expectations. Study Design This is a systematic review of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Index to Chiropractic Literature and relevant bibliographies. We included randomized, placebo/sham-controlled trials where the index treatment was manually applied LP-SMT. There were no restrictions on the type of condition being investigated. Two independent reviewers selected the studies, assessed study quality and extracted the data. Relevant data were the type and quality of placebo control(s) used, the assessment of blinding and expectations and the results of those assessments. Results Twenty-five randomized, placebo-controlled trials were included in this review. There were 18 trials that used a sham manual SMT procedure for their placebo control intervention; the most common approach was with an SMT set-up, but without the application of any thrust. One small pilot study used an unequivocally indistinguishable placebo, 2 trials used placebos that had been validated as inert a priori , and 8 trials reported on success of subject blinding. Risk of bias was high or unclear, for all included studies. Conclusions Imperfect placebos are ubiquitous in clinical trials of LP-SMT and few trials have assessed for successful subject blinding or balanced expectations of treatment success between active and control group subjects. There is thus a strong potential for unmasking of control subjects, unequal non-specific effects between active and control groups, and non-inert placebos in existing trials. Future trials should consider assessing the success of subject blinding and ensuring inertness of their placebo a priori, as a minimum standard for quality.</description><subject>Blinding</subject><subject>Control groups</subject><subject>Experimental design</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lumbar manipulation</subject><subject>Lumbosacral Region</subject><subject>Manipulation, Spinal - methods</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Pelvis</subject><subject>Placebos</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards</subject><subject>Research Design - standards</subject><subject>Spinal manipulation</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1529-9430</issn><issn>1878-1632</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFUk1u1jAUjBCIlsINEPKSBQl-dn43SKiigFSJBWVtOc6z6uDYqe0UfaxYcANu2JPg6Css2LCy_TwzTzOaongOtAIK7eu5iqtxiBXLrwqgopQ_KE6h7_oSWs4e5nvDhnKoOT0pnsQ4U0r7Dtjj4oR1fd8D70-Ln1fXSG42aU06EK_JaqXC0UeyRZyIcSRIN_nFfMfpFVHepeCtzT8pGGnjzrDbMspAMoysaG-NIrM3LpF0HbaYyCKdWTcrk_GO3P34RSSJh5hwyRNFAt4a_Pa0eKSzGj67P8-KLxfvrs4_lJef3n88f3tZqhq6VCoEyZF1tG8mqhnIQTUtZXqogfJhbJnSyHqtGw3ZHO9qNVKl-aDbQQ-yk_yseHnUXYO_2TAmsZio0Frp0G9RQF_XlEPTDhlaH6Eq-BgDarEGs8hwEEDFnr-YxTF_secvAETOP9Ne3G_YxgWnv6Q_gWfAmyMAs8_sPYioDDqFkwmokpi8-d-GfwWUNc4oab_iAePst-ByhgJEZIKKz3sH9grkSgBtec1_A1RzsKA</recordid><startdate>20170301</startdate><enddate>20170301</enddate><creator>Puhl, Aaron A., MSc, DC</creator><creator>Reinhart, Christine J, PhD, DC</creator><creator>Doan, Jon B., PhD</creator><creator>Vernon, Howard, PhD, DC</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170301</creationdate><title>The quality of placebos used in randomized, controlled trials of lumbar and pelvic joint thrust manipulation – a systematic review</title><author>Puhl, Aaron A., MSc, DC ; Reinhart, Christine J, PhD, DC ; Doan, Jon B., PhD ; Vernon, Howard, PhD, DC</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-ce1a3e27085d0f21a9c5602f941039b62cfe28ff5f1813374cb0cf39f69f9a7a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Blinding</topic><topic>Control groups</topic><topic>Experimental design</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lumbar manipulation</topic><topic>Lumbosacral Region</topic><topic>Manipulation, Spinal - methods</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Pelvis</topic><topic>Placebos</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards</topic><topic>Research Design - standards</topic><topic>Spinal manipulation</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Puhl, Aaron A., MSc, DC</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reinhart, Christine J, PhD, DC</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Doan, Jon B., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vernon, Howard, PhD, DC</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The spine journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Puhl, Aaron A., MSc, DC</au><au>Reinhart, Christine J, PhD, DC</au><au>Doan, Jon B., PhD</au><au>Vernon, Howard, PhD, DC</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The quality of placebos used in randomized, controlled trials of lumbar and pelvic joint thrust manipulation – a systematic review</atitle><jtitle>The spine journal</jtitle><addtitle>Spine J</addtitle><date>2017-03-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>445</spage><epage>456</epage><pages>445-456</pages><issn>1529-9430</issn><eissn>1878-1632</eissn><abstract>Abstract Background Context Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) has been attributed with substantial non-specific effects. Accurate assessment of the non-specific effects of SMT relies on high-quality studies with low risk of bias that compare to appropriate placebos. Purpose This review aims to characterize the types and qualities of placebo control procedures used in controlled trials of manually-applied, lumbar and pelvic (LP) SMT, and to evaluate the assessment of subject blinding and expectations. Study Design This is a systematic review of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Index to Chiropractic Literature and relevant bibliographies. We included randomized, placebo/sham-controlled trials where the index treatment was manually applied LP-SMT. There were no restrictions on the type of condition being investigated. Two independent reviewers selected the studies, assessed study quality and extracted the data. Relevant data were the type and quality of placebo control(s) used, the assessment of blinding and expectations and the results of those assessments. Results Twenty-five randomized, placebo-controlled trials were included in this review. There were 18 trials that used a sham manual SMT procedure for their placebo control intervention; the most common approach was with an SMT set-up, but without the application of any thrust. One small pilot study used an unequivocally indistinguishable placebo, 2 trials used placebos that had been validated as inert a priori , and 8 trials reported on success of subject blinding. Risk of bias was high or unclear, for all included studies. Conclusions Imperfect placebos are ubiquitous in clinical trials of LP-SMT and few trials have assessed for successful subject blinding or balanced expectations of treatment success between active and control group subjects. There is thus a strong potential for unmasking of control subjects, unequal non-specific effects between active and control groups, and non-inert placebos in existing trials. Future trials should consider assessing the success of subject blinding and ensuring inertness of their placebo a priori, as a minimum standard for quality.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>27888138</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.spinee.2016.11.003</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1529-9430
ispartof The spine journal, 2017-03, Vol.17 (3), p.445-456
issn 1529-9430
1878-1632
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1844031569
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Blinding
Control groups
Experimental design
Humans
Lumbar manipulation
Lumbosacral Region
Manipulation, Spinal - methods
Orthopedics
Pelvis
Placebos
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards
Research Design - standards
Spinal manipulation
Systematic review
Treatment Outcome
title The quality of placebos used in randomized, controlled trials of lumbar and pelvic joint thrust manipulation – a systematic review
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T23%3A57%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20quality%20of%20placebos%20used%20in%20randomized,%20controlled%20trials%20of%20lumbar%20and%20pelvic%20joint%20thrust%20manipulation%20%E2%80%93%20a%20systematic%20review&rft.jtitle=The%20spine%20journal&rft.au=Puhl,%20Aaron%20A.,%20MSc,%20DC&rft.date=2017-03-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=445&rft.epage=456&rft.pages=445-456&rft.issn=1529-9430&rft.eissn=1878-1632&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.spinee.2016.11.003&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1844031569%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1844031569&rft_id=info:pmid/27888138&rft_els_id=S1529943016310634&rfr_iscdi=true