Table 1

Summary of trials.

Hoehler 1981 [42]
 Gibson 1985 [43]
 Cleary 1994 [47]

Years conducted
 1973–1979
 ...
 1991–1992
Country
 United States
 United Kingdom
 United Kingdom
Setting
 University clinic
 Hospital outpatient clinic
 Ambulatory clinic
No. of subjects randomized
 95
 109
 30*
Comparison
 OMT vs soft tissue massage and sham manipulation
 OMT vs short-wave diathermy
OMT vs detuned short-wave diathermy
 OMT vs sham manipulation
Subject
characteristics
     Age, y


          Mean ± SD
 OMT, 30.1 ± 8.4
Controls, 32.1 ± 9.8
 OMT, 34 ± 14
Short-wave diarthermy controls, 35 ± 16
Detuned short-wave diathermy controls, 40 ± 16
 Overall age range, 50–60
     Sex


          % male
 OMT, 59
Controls, 59
 OMT, 49
Detuned short-wave diathermy controls, 68
Short-wave diarthermy controls, 53
 OMT, 0
Controls, 0
     Type of low back pain
 Referred patients with acute or chronic low back pain
 Referred patients with low back pain of greater than 2 months' and less than 12 months' duration
 Recruited subjects with chronic low back pain in conjunction with menopausal symptoms
OMT protocol
     Technique
 High-velocity, low-amplitude thrust only
 Variety of techniques
 Low-force techniques
     No. of treatments


          Mean ± SD
 OMT, 4.8 ± 2.7
Controls, 3.9 ± 2.5
 4, per protocol
 10, per protocol
Outcomes assessment
 Blinded
 Blinded
 Assessment independent of treatment, blinding not specified
No. of pain contrasts
 3
 6 (3 for each of the two OMT vs control treatment comparisons)
 1
Type of pain outcome
 Dichotomous pain outcomes
 Dichotomous pain outcomes
 Dichotomous pain outcome
Timing of pain contrasts


     Short-term
 First treatment and mean, 20–30 days following randomization
 2 and 4 weeks
 ...
     Intermediate-term
 Mean, 41–51 days following randomization
 ...
 ...
     Long-term
 ...
 12 weeks
 15 weeks

Andersson 1999 [44]
 Burton 2000 [45]
 Licciardone 2003 [46]

Years conducted
 1992–1994
 ...
 2000–2001
Country
 United States
 United Kingdom
 United States
Setting
 Health maintenance organization
 Hospital orthopedic department
 University clinic
No. of subjects randomized
 178
 40
 91
Comparison
 Usual care and OMT vs usual care only
 OMT vs chemonucleolysis
 Usual care and OMT vs usual care and sham manipulation
Usual care and OMT vs usual care only
Subject characteristics


     Age, y


          Mean ± SD
 OMT, 28.5 ± 10.6
Controls, 37.0 ± 11.0
 Overall, 41.9 ± 10.6
 Usual care and OMT, 49 ± 12
Usual care and sham manipulation controls, 52 ± 12
Usual care only controls, 49 ± 12
     Sex


          % male
 OMT, 41
Controls, 44
 Overall, 48
 Usual care and OMT, 31
Usual care and sham manipulation controls, 43
Usual care only controls, 35
     Type of low back pain
 Patients with low back pain of 3 or more weeks' and less than 6 months' duration
 Recruited patients with low back pain and sciatica; mean duration, 30 and 32 weeks in OMT and chemonucleolysis groups, respectively
 Recruited subjects with low back pain of at least 3 months' duration
OMT protocol


     Technique
 Variety of techniques, individualized to patient
 Variety of techniques, individualized to patient
 Variety of techniques, individualized to subject
     No. of treatments


          Mean ± SD
 8, per protocol
 Mean for OMT, 11; range 6–18
 7, per protocol
Outcomes assessment
 Blinded
 Blinded
 Blinded
No. of pain contrasts
 1
 3
 6 (3 for each of the two OMT vs control treatment comparisons)
Type of pain outcome
 Pain scale
 Pain scales
 Pain scales
Timing of pain contrasts


     Short-term
 ...
 2 weeks
 1 month
     Intermediate-term
 12 weeks
 6 weeks
 3 months
     Long-term
 ...
 12 months
 6 months

OMT denotes osteopathic manipulative treatment.

*A total of 30 subjects with menopausal symptoms were randomized; however, only 12 subjects had low back pain.

Licciardone et al. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2005 6:43   doi:10.1186/1471-2474-6-43