↓ Skip to main content

Spinal manipulative therapy, Graston technique® and placebo for non-specific thoracic spine pain: a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
4 blogs
twitter
65 X users
facebook
20 Facebook pages
reddit
3 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Spinal manipulative therapy, Graston technique® and placebo for non-specific thoracic spine pain: a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12998-016-0096-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy L. Crothers, Simon D. French, Jeff J. Hebert, Bruce F. Walker

Abstract

Few controlled trials have assessed the efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for thoracic spine pain. No high quality trials have been performed to test the efficacy and effectiveness of Graston Technique® (GT), an instrument-assisted soft tissue therapy. The objective of this trial was to determine the efficacy of SMT and GT compared to sham therapy for the treatment of non-specific thoracic spine pain. People with non-specific thoracic pain were randomly allocated to one of three groups: SMT, GT, or a placebo (de-tuned ultrasound). Each participant received up to 10 supervised treatment sessions at Murdoch University chiropractic student clinic over a 4 week period. The participants and treatment providers were not blinded to the treatment allocation as it was clear which therapy they were receiving, however outcome assessors were blinded and we attempted to blind the participants allocated to the placebo group. Treatment outcomes were measured at baseline, 1 week, and at one, three, six and 12 months. Primary outcome measures included a modified Oswestry Disability Index, and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Treatment effects were estimated with intention to treat analysis and linear mixed models. One hundred and forty three participants were randomly allocated to the three groups (SMT = 36, GT = 63 and Placebo = 44). Baseline data for the three groups did not show any meaningful differences. Results of the intention to treat analyses revealed no time by group interactions, indicating no statistically significant between-group differences in pain or disability at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, or 12 months. There were significant main effects of time (p < 0.01) indicating improvements in pain and disability from baseline among all participants regardless of intervention. No significant adverse events were reported. This study indicates that there is no difference in outcome at any time point for pain or disability when comparing SMT, Graston Technique® or sham therapy for thoracic spine pain, however all groups improved with time. These results constitute the first from a fully powered randomised controlled trial comparing SMT, Graston technique® and a placebo. This trial was registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on the 7(th) February, 2008. ACTRN12608000070336.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 65 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 2 1%
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 165 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 27 16%
Student > Master 21 12%
Student > Bachelor 19 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 9%
Researcher 14 8%
Other 30 18%
Unknown 44 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 25%
Sports and Recreations 12 7%
Psychology 7 4%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Other 11 6%
Unknown 52 31%