Manipulative Therapy in Patients with Chronic Back Pain - Assignment Example

CONSORT Evaluation of Journal Report: Immediate Effects of Region Specific and Non-Region-Specific Spinal Manipulative Therapy in Patients with Chronic Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial Name Institution Course Professor Date Title and Abstract The title was visibly written in fonts big enough to capture eyes of the potential readers of the trial research. The title had the important component of “randomized” in its inscription. It was identified as randomized in the report and this validates the requirement for a consort (Consort Statement, 2010). With this word, a person superficially looking for such related papers may spot it immediately to avoid wasting time searching irrelevant materials. The abstract in the paper was well reported with the author clearly describing the situation as it is and then the problem that motivated the research on the specific spinal manipulation. The author was also keen in providing a structured brief on the designs used, settings, number of participants, the intervention, measurements, limitations, results and conclusion. In fact the research was structured in a way that is very easy to read with objectives being very precise and prompt. However, it dint indicate in the abstract section the harm caused to anybody, funding and the registration of the research although they were reported in other sections Introduction The author did well in reporting the theoretical part of how Low back pain has been a significant condition worldwide due to its overall effect on work disability, absenteeism and the absolute cost on the victims. The statistical evidence in the theoretical review of the condition globally especially to the low month prevalence which was well reported to be 23.2% with a (standard error of the measurement being quoted at 2.9%) and higher in women and in patients aged between 40 and 80 years (Oliveira, Liebano, Costa, Rissato, & Costa, 2013). The scientific part was well reviewed with all implications of the process on the pain and non-biomechanical and biomechanical effects reported appropriately. The researchers did well in reporting the number of people involved in the study as well as the extended systematic review on changes in pain sensitivity following spinal manipulation. The readers from this review, gets to appreciate clearly the importance/need of this study to the said people as well as the society by extension. He clearly reported how the process works basing his arguments on past studies to point to the rationale of the experiment. Methods The author described well the trial design by indicating that they used a randomized controlled trial with a blinded assessor. He also discussed the software they used in the analysis to reduce statistical differences as windows excel and SPSS. Then he described eligibility requirements for the participants to give a clear picture of the right choice given the demographic requirements standards that were set and met. Participants he reports were of different sex with ages ranging between 40-80years. This shows unbiasness of the choice of participants and ensures generalization. He also reported well on sources of participants and their qualification criteria. The intervention for each patient was reported to be based on whether the participant had been allocated to a non-region specific manipulation group or the region specific manipulation group. The sample size was originally 150 but reduced to 148 due to failure to meet inclusion requirements. This was well reported especially the changes that were made with reasons. The process of determining the sample was clearly reported and conforms to the standard requirements. What was not very clear is the of sequence concealment mechanism. Blinding of the assessor and the exclusion criteria were also reported. Results This section was generally well reported although most of what was to be reported here had been reported in methods section including the numbers of those who received random assignment, intended treatment, losses and exclusion criteria reasons. The participant flow report was very good though the table explaining the participants’ demographic characteristics either for experimental group or control group was in the methods section instead of result section. The report here was numerical, essay, figures and tables. Dates defining periods of recruitment was reported, however, reasons for termination of trial was not clearly indicated here. A table showing the outcomes and statistical characteristics for each group was included in the report. The estimated precision was also reported in terms of statistical differences between the two regions and the confidence level of 95% between group differences while also reporting the correlation between changes in pain and changes in PPT at the specified lumbar levels. All important harms to the groups were not reported except for determining pain level. The general confidence level was not directly reported implying that a person of limited research could not make sense of that from this section. The terms and numerical used are not basic and therefore would require interpretation for a layman. Discussion This section of the report came out very basic and easy to understand by any report reader. The author reported that all possible care was taken to ensure the study had low risk of bias through proper randomization. However they admit to a major weakness of not being able to blind the therapists and the participants. This section on limitations was well reported. The analysis was however precise with no multiplicity. The researchers also admit that the result of the study was restricted to immediate effects (24 hours) and recommended validation of the research findings for longer period. They also recommend for the generalization but only to patients with long standing pain as it may not be similar to patients with acute and sub-acute low back pain. The researchers were also keen to interpret the findings according to the results while also reminding the readers of the original aim of the study so as not to miss the point. They also reported the overall outcome to show the reduction of 30% from the baseline in pain intensity after the treatment and explained that it was not true that biomechanical approach explains the reduction in pain intensity experienced by the participants. Other information Referencing both in the bibliography was prompt. There was the use of et al in cases when the reporter had already quoted the name which is the correct and recommended way according to APA formatting. The list of bibliography was arranged in alphabetical order. The other fact that was obviously mentioned was that the trial was registered prior to beginning of data collection with Brazilian registry of clinical trials (RBR-7CB9yc) DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20120256. However, the source of funding and physical address where full article could be found was not reported except for the online site. Reference Consort Statement. (2010). Retrieved from www.consort-statement.org Oliveira, R. F., Liebano, R. E., Costa, L. C., Rissato, L. L., & Costa, P. L. (2013, June 19th). Intermediate Effects of Region-specific And Non-Region-specific spinal Manipulative therapy in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Physical Therapy, 749. Read More