Chiropractic management of mechanical neck and low-back pain: a retrospective, outcome-based analysis

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that spinal manipulation is an effective treatment for mechanical neck and low-back pain (LBP). Treatment efficacy is important to establish for these symptoms because combined they account for a considerable amount of disability and substantial associated direct and indirect costs to society. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the outcome of patients undergoing chiropractic treatment for mechanical neck or LBP. Design and Setting: A retrospective, outcome-based analysis was done for patients seeking care at a private chiropractic practice over a 1-year period. A total of 512 files were reviewed, with 119 patients selected for inclusion. Patients were included if their chief symptom was uncomplicated mechanical neck or LBP. Diagnoses included cervical, lumbar, or sacroiliac joint sprain/strain (International Code of Diagnostics version 9 [ICD-9] code: 847.1, 847.3, 846.1, respectively), discogenic LBP (ICD-9: 722.1), and headaches (ICD-9: 784.0) because many patients with neck pain presented with concomitant headaches. Disability and pain were measured with the modified Oswestry scale (for the patients with LBP), Neck Disability Index, and an 11-box visual analogue pain scale before and after treatment. Treatment consisted of spinal manipulation, various soft-tissue techniques, home-care instructions, and ergonomic and return-to-activity advice, including rehabilitative exercises. Patients received an average of 12 treatments over a 4-week period. Statistical analysis was performed on pretreatment and posttreatment values for both disability and pain. Stratification was based on duration (acute/subacute, chronic, acute exacerbation of a chronic condition) and severity (mild, moderate, or severe) of symptoms. RESULTS: Statistically significant reductions in disability and pain scores were achieved in all groups. An average 52.5% and 52.9% reduction in pain and disability, respectively, was achieved in the low-back group. The chronic LBP group realized a less statistically significant reduction of pain and disability (19.7% and 19.8%, respectively) than the acute/subacute (66.8% and 62.5%) or the chronic/recurrent group (56. 5% and 63.4%). The differences were statistically significant. Patients with neck pain had an average 53.8% and 48.4% reduction in their pain and disability, respectively. Patients with concomitant neck pain and headaches had statistically significant higher pretreatment and posttreatment disability and pain scores than those with only neck pain. There was no statistically significant difference in outcomes between groups stratified according to pain intensity. CONCLUSIONS: Patients attending a private chiropractic clinic for treatment of mechanical neck pain or LBP had statistically significant reductions in their pain-related disability after treatment. These results indicate that chiropractic manipulation is beneficial for the treatment of mechanical neck pain and LBP. However, care must be taken when drawing conclusions from these outcomes. The study design does not account for the natural history of low back- or neck pain-related disability and therefore does not allow for claims of treatment efficacy. In addition, it has been suggested that patients presenting to medical doctors with these symptoms have significant overlying comorbidity when compared with patients presenting to a chiropractor.     

Prevalence of low back pain among physical therapists in Edmonton,Canada

Questionnaires were sent to 462 physical therapists in Edmonton, Canada, to determine the prevalence of work-related low back pain (LBP) and to characterize those who reported pain. Of the 311 (67·3%) valid questionnaires returned, 49·2% reported back pain due to work. The occurrence rates of work-related LBP among physical therapists in Edmonton was higher than that of the general population reported in Canada (27%), Great Britain (27%), and the United States (26·29%). There was no significant difference (p ≤ 005) between those with and without work-related LBP. The initial onset of work-related LBP frequently occurred within the first 5 years of practice as a physical therapist, and before the age of 30. Hospitals and private practices were the most prevalent work settings in which injury occurred. Patient handling, bending, stooping, lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling were the commonly described activities causing precipitation of injury. The severity of back discomfort had been sufficient to require 13·7% of therapists to stop their work. Despite LBP, 35·3% of the pain sufferers continued to work. Over half (55·4%) of the respondents with current work-related LBP demonstrated little or no disability.     

Fear-avoidance beliefs and distress in relation to disability in acute and chronic low back pain

Patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) frequently demonstrate high scores for fear-avoidance beliefs and distress. We need better knowledge about fear-avoidance beliefs and distress in early stages of LBP. The objectives of this study were to compare the level of fear-avoidance beliefs and distress in patients with acute LBP to patients with chronic LBP, and to assess the relationship of fear-avoidance beliefs and distress to disability in acute and chronic LBP. Two different back pain groups including 123 patients with acute and 233 patients with chronic LBP were studied. Main outcome measures were Oswestry Disability Index and work loss. The scores for fear-avoidance beliefs and distress in patients with acute LBP were significantly lower than among patients with chronic LBP. The results of the multivariate regression analyses, adjusting for sociodemographic, pain and clinical variables, demonstrated that whereas fear-avoidance beliefs for physical activity and distress were significantly associated with the Oswestry Disability Index, fear-avoidance beliefs for work and distress were significantly associated with work loss. The associations showed the same pattern in acute and chronic LBP. In addition, several of the pain and clinical variables were significantly associated with the Oswestry Disability Index and fingertip-floor distance was associated with work loss. In conclusion, fear-avoidance beliefs and distress influence pain-related disability both in early acute and long-term chronic LBP. The results replicate previous reports on the association between pain experience, fear-avoidance beliefs, distress, and disability in chronic LBP, and extend the findings to patients at an early stage of acute LBP.     

Effectiveness of device-based therapy for conservative management of low back pain

[Purpose] Device based therapy for low back pain (LBP) involves quantitative assessment of muscle strength, resistance and lumbar motion and tailoring the rehabilitation protocol based on this objective assessment. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of device based therapy for LBP. [Subjects and Methods] In this retrospective study, clinical data of 235 patients who underwent device-based physiotherapy for low back pain was reviewed. Pre and post-treatment outcome measures for pain (visual analogue scale or VAS score), disability (Oswestry disability index) and functional ability were compared to determine effectiveness of device-based physiotherapy at the end of 6 weeks of treatment. [Results] All outcome measures including VAS Score and mean Oswestry Disability Score showed significant improvement at the end of 6 weeks of device-based physical therapy. Before treatment, 73% of patients had moderate to severe disability which reduced to 28% after treatment. [Conclusion] Device-based therapy is effective in relieving pain, improving function and reducing disability in patients with low back pain in the short term. Device-based therapy may help to objectively evaluate the function of the spine and paraspinal muscles and help the therapist tailor treatment accordingly.Key words: Low back pain, Device-based therapy, Disability     

Quantitative sensory testing changes in the successful management of chronic low back pain

Individuals with chronic low back pain (LBP) represent a significant percentage of patients in physical therapy practice. The clinical pattern often includes diffuse pain and a variety of sensory complaints, making categorization difficult and leading to diagnoses such as non-specific LBP. Objective measures of sensory changes through quantitative sensory testing may help identify central sensitization of nociceptive pathways in this population. Identification of these somatosensory changes may contribute to clinical decision making and patient management. The purpose of this case report is to present objective evaluation findings, including altered somatosensation, in a patient with a 2-year history of LBP, and to describe changes in function and quantitative sensory testing with successful management.     

Prognostic factors for poor recovery in acute whiplash patients

The objective of our prospective inception cohort study was to identify prognostic factors for poor recovery in patients with whiplash-associated disorders grade 1 or 2 who still had neck pain and accompanying complaints 2 weeks after the accident. The study was carried out in a primary health care setting in The Netherlands and included 125 patients. The primary outcome measure was functional recovery defined in terms of neck pain intensity or work disability without medication use. The secondary outcome measures included neck pain intensity, work disability and sick leave. The outcomes were assessed at 4, 12 and 52 weeks after the accident. Prognostic factors were identified by logistic regression analyses. One year after the injury, 64% of the patients were recovered. Factors related to poor recovery were female gender, a low level of education, high initial neck pain, more severe disability, higher levels of somatisation and sleep difficulties. Neck pain intensity and work disability proved to be the most consistent predictors for poor recovery. The accuracy of the predictions of the prognostic models was high, meaning that the models adequately distinguished patients with poor recovery from those regarded as recovered. These findings add to the growing body of evidence, indicating that socio-demographic, physical and psychological factors affect short- and long-term outcome after whiplash injury. Our findings also indicate that care providers can easily identify patients at risk for poor recovery with a visual analogue scale for initial pain intensity and work-related activities.     

Producing Clinically Meaningful Reductions in Disability: A Causal Mediation Analysis of a Patient Education Intervention

Patient education is recommended as first-line care for low back pain (LBP), although its efficacy for providing clinically meaningful reductions in disability has been questioned. One way to improve treatment effects is to identify and improve targeting of treatment mechanisms. We conducted a pre-planned causal mediation analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of patient education for patients with acute LBP. 202 patients who had fewer than six-weeks’ duration of LBP and were at high-risk of developing chronic LBP completed two, one-hour treatment sessions of either intensive patient education, or placebo patient education. 189 participants provided data for the outcome self-reported disability at three-months and the mediators, pain self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing, and back beliefs at one-week post treatment. This causal mediation analysis found that pain catastrophizing (mediated effect, -0.64; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], -1.31 to -0.15) and back beliefs (mediated effect, -0.51; 95% CI, -1.15 to -0.02) partly explained the effect of patient education on disability but pain self-efficacy did not (mediated effect, -0.40; 95% CI -1.13 to 0.28). Considering the mediator-outcome relationship, patient education would need to induce an 8 point difference on the pain self-efficacy questionnaire (0-60); an 11 point difference on the back beliefs questionnaire (9-45); and a 21 point difference on the pain catastrophizing scale (0-52) to achieve a minimally clinically important difference of 2 points on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (0-24).PerspectiveUnderstanding the mechanisms of patient education can inform how this treatment can be adapted to provide clinically meaningful reductions in disability. Our findings suggest that adapting patient education to better target back beliefs and pain self-efficacy could result in clinically meaningful reductions in disability whereas the role of pain catastrophizing in acute LBP is less clear.     

Quantitative sensory testing changes in the successful management of chronic low back pain

Abstract

Individuals with chronic low back pain (LBP) represent a significant percentage of patients in physical therapy practice. The clinical pattern often includes diffuse pain and a variety of sensory complaints, making categorization difficult and leading to diagnoses such as non-specific LBP. Objective measures of sensory changes through quantitative sensory testing may help identify central sensitization of nociceptive pathways in this population. Identification of these somatosensory changes may contribute to clinical decision making and patient management. The purpose of this case report is to present objective evaluation findings, including altered somatosensation, in a patient with a 2-year history of LBP, and to describe changes in function and quantitative sensory testing with successful management.     

The influence of physical exercise on behavioral habits,kinesiophobia, and disability in people with low back pain: A retrospective cross-sectional study

IntroductionPhysical exercise improves physical fitness and health, helping to reduce pain and prevent low back pain. This study aims to compare the intensity of low back pain (LBP), behavioral habits, and the level of disability and kinesiophobia among exercising and non-exercising subjects with LBP.MethodsConsecutive sample of 102 individuals was divided into exercising group (EG) and non-exercising group (NEG). The data was extracted from the answers to the questionnaires Back Pain and Body Posture Evaluation Instrument (BackPEI-A), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Fear-avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ-Brazil). For statistical analysis, the chi-square test was used, α ≤ 0.05.ResultsBoth groups presented predominance of mild to moderate pain intensity and absence of kinesiophobia in the practice of physical activity, with no statistically significant difference. However, there was significant difference between the groups for the risk of occurrence of LBP and for levels of incapacity and kinesiophobia related to work.ConclusionExercising individuals appear to present with a lower risk for occurrence of LBP, lower level of disability, and absence of work-related kinesiophobia.     

Second Prize: The effectiveness of physical modalities among patients with low back pain randomized to chiropractic care: findings from the UCLA low back pain study

BACKGROUND: Although chiropractors often use physical modalities with spinal manipulation, evidence that modalities yield additional benefits over spinal manipulation alone is lacking. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to estimate the net effect of physical modalities on low back pain (LBP) outcomes among chiropractic patients in a managed-care setting. METHODS: Fifty percent of the 681 patients participating in a clinical trial of LBP treatment strategies were randomized to chiropractic care with physical modalities (n = 172) or without physical modalities (n = 169). Subjects were followed for 6 months with assessments at 2, 4, and 6 weeks and at 6 months. The primary outcome variables were average and most severe LBP intensity in the past week, assessed with numerical rating scales (0-10), and low back-related disability, assessed with the 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. RESULTS: Almost 60% of the subjects had baseline LBP episodes of more than 3 months' duration. The 6-month follow-up was 96%. The adjusted mean differences between groups in improvements in average and most severe pain and disability were clinically insignificant at all follow-up assessments. Clinically relevant improvements in average pain and disability were more likely in the modalities group at 2 and 6 weeks, but this apparent advantage disappeared at 6 months. Perceived treatment effectiveness was greater in the modalities group. CONCLUSIONS: Physical modalities used by chiropractors in this managed-care organization did not appear to be effective in the treatment of patients with LBP, although a small short-term benefit for some patients cannot be ruled out.     

An empirical investigation of the ‘Biopsychosocial Disease Consequence Model’: Psychological impairment,disability and handicap in chronic pain patients

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of personality characteristics, depression and personality disorders in predicting disability status in pain patients one year later. Method: Subjects were 250 volunteer chronic pain patients. The baseline evaluation consisted of the Karolinska Scales of Personality and psychiatric evaluation of depression and personality disorders using standardized diagnostic instruments. Disability status was assessed by insurance record review one year after the evaluation. Results: The results suggest that baseline personality traits and psychopathology (i.e. depression or personality disorders) were not useful predictors of disability status in pain patients with one-year follow-up. Conclusions: These data suggest that personality characteristics and psychopathology are probably not important disability predictors in chronic pain patients.     

Trajectories of pain and disability in older adults with acute low back pain: Longitudinal data of the BACE-Brazil cohort

BackgroundAlthough the literature describes a favorable course of low back pain (LBP) in adults, little information is available for older adults. LBP is prevalent and complex in older adults, and the analysis of its trajectories may contribute to the improvement of therapeutic approaches.ObjectiveTo describe pain and disability trajectories in older adults with a new episode of LBP.MethodsOlder adults (n = 542), aged >55 years with a new episode of nonspecific LBP, were followed for 12 months in a prospective cohort. Pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale) and disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) were assessed at baseline and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Latent class growth analysis (LCGA) was used to model pain and disability scores over time. Baseline biopsychosocial characteristics were compared using one-way analysis of variance or Chi-square test (α=0.05).ResultsThe LCGA identified three and four trajectories in the pain and disability courses, respectively. Trajectories with low, intermediate, or high scores over time were defined. Worse biopsychosocial status at baseline was associated with worst prognosis over 12 months. Low educational level, physical inactivity, poor mobility, recent falls, worse fall self-efficacy, presence of depressive symptoms, more kinesiophobia, greater number of comorbidities, and the presence of other LBP-associated complaints were found in older adults with severe and persistent symptoms.ConclusionThe trajectories allow the identification of clusters with similar clinical prognoses in older adults with a new episode of LPB. In practice, excessive treatments and unnecessary tests can be avoided, while more accurate and targeted interventions can be implemented.     

Acute low back pain: pain-related fear and pain catastrophizing influence physical performance and perceived disability

Pain-related fear and pain catastrophizing are associated with disability and actual performance in chronic pain patients. In acute low back pain (LBP), little is known about the prediction of actual performance or perceived disability by pain-related fear and pain catastrophizing. This experimental, cross-sectional study aimed at examining whether pain-related fear and pain catastrophizing were associated with actual performance and perceived disability. Ninety six individuals with an episode of acute LBP performed a dynamic lifting task to measure actual performance. Total lifting time was used as outcome measure. The results show that pain-related fear, as measured with the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, was the strongest predictor of this physical task. Using the Roland Disability Questionnaire as a measure of perceived disability, both pain-related fear and pain catastrophizing, as measured with the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, were significantly predictive of perceived disability and more strongly than pain intensity was. The results of the current study suggest that pain-related fear is an important factor influencing daily activities in individuals suffering an episode of acute LBP. The study results have important clinical implications, especially in the development of preventive strategies for chronic LBP.     

Does personality or psychopathology predict disability in chronic pain patients?

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of personality characteristics, depression and personality disorders in predicting disability status in pain patients one year later.

Method: Subjects were 250 volunteer chronic pain patients. The baseline evaluation consisted of the Karolinska Scales of Personality and psychiatric evaluation of depression and personality disorders using standardized diagnostic instruments. Disability status was assessed by insurance record review one year after the evaluation.

Results: The results suggest that baseline personality traits and psychopathology (i.e. depression or personality disorders) were not useful predictors of disability status in pain patients with one-year follow-up.

Conclusions: These data suggest that personality characteristics and psychopathology are probably not important disability predictors in chronic pain patients.     

One-year trend in pain and disability relief recall in acute and chronic ambulatory low back pain patients.

Clinicians use patients' recall of pain and disability relief as indicators of therapeutic effectiveness. Recall can change over time, however, and is influenced by factors other than true relief, including current health status. We have determined the trend in the relative contribution of current pain/disability and actual relief (current-baseline score) to relief recall over the course of 1 year. Self-referred patients (n=1182) seeking treatment from primary-care medical doctors and chiropractors in community-based clinics were asked to record present pain and disability, as well as perceived relief at five follow-up time points from 2 weeks to 12 months after initial consultation for acute and chronic low back pain (LBP). Multiple regression analysis was performed at each time point and over the five follow-up time points. We found a clear logarithmic time trend of increasing dependence of pain relief recall on present pain (P<0.0001) and a concomitant pattern of decreasing dependence on actual pain relief (P<0.0001). The patterns are fairly consistent for acute and chronic patients. The principal independent predictor of perceived pain/disability relief appears to be present pain/disability with actual relief playing a smaller role at all time points (P<0.0001) except for disability relief recall at 2 weeks (P=0.103). The findings are robust in LBP sufferers. Complaint characteristics including LBP chronicity, sciatica, LBP history, and comorbidity; psychosocial variables including stress, depression, and well being; sociodemographics; and treating provider type are not important independent predictors of pain and disability relief recall in ambulatory LBP patients. Perceived relief is too weakly related to present pain and disability to be accurate enough for use as a clinical assessment tool for individual patients. Physicians may need to use objective relief data to give the patient a realistic idea of actual improvement.     

Are prognostic indicators for poor outcome different for acute and chronic low back pain consulters in primary care?

Few studies have investigated whether prognostic indicators, which contribute to the transition from acute to chronic low back pain (LBP), are also those which contribute to continuing persistence of chronic LBP. We compared the contribution of physical, psychological and social indicators to predicting disability after one year between consulters with LBP of less than 3 months duration and more than 3 months duration. Data from two large prospective cohort studies of consecutive patients consulting with LBP in general practices were merged, providing complete data for 258 cases with acute/subacute LBP and 668 cases with chronic LBP at 12 months follow-up. There were significant differences between the two LBP groups in baseline characteristics and clinical course of disability, assessed by Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, during the year of follow-up. Adjusted associations between potential prognostic indicators and disability at 12 months were carried out in the two LBP subgroups. The final multivariable regression models showed that being non-employed, having widespread pain, a high level of Chronic Pain Grade, and catastrophising were the strongest prognostic indicators for disability at 12 months in both LBP groups. Fear of pain was significantly associated with disability in chronic LBP. Importantly, beyond baseline disability, the effect size of the other prognostic indicators for poor outcome was rather low. These findings must continue to challenge researchers to identify useful early predictors of outcome in persons with disabling back pain, as screening and targeted treatment approaches are dependent upon prognostic indicators with clinical significance.     

Development and proof of concept of a blended physiotherapeutic intervention for patients with non-specific low back pain

ObjectiveTo develop a blended physiotherapeutic intervention for patients with non-specific low back pain (e-Exercise LBP) and evaluate its proof of concept.DesignFocus groups with patients, physiotherapists, and eHealth and LBP experts were conducted to investigate values according to the development of e-Exercise LBP. Proof of concept was evaluated in a multicentre study.SettingDutch primary care physiotherapy practices (n = 21 therapists).ParticipantsAdults with non-specific LBP (n = 41).Interventione-Exercise LBP was developed based on clinical LBP guidelines and the focus groups, using the Center for eHealth Research Roadmap. Face-to-face physiotherapy sessions were integrated with a web application consisting of 12 information lessons, video-supported exercises and a physical activity module with the option to gradually increase individuals’ level of physical activity. The intervention could be tailored to patients’ risk of persistent disabling LBP, according to the STarT Back Screening Tool.Main outcome measuresFunctional disability, pain, physical activity, sedentary behaviour and fear-avoidance beliefs, measured at baseline and 12 weeks.ResultsAfter 12 weeks, improvements were found in functional disability [Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: mean difference (MD) ?12.2/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.3 to 16.1], pain (Numeric Pain Rating Scale: MD ?2.8/10; 95% CI 2.1 to 3.6), subjective physical activity (Short Questionnaire to Assess Health Enhancing Physical Activity: MD 11.5 minutes/day; 95% CI ?47.8 to 24.8) and objective sedentary behaviour (ActiGraph: MD ?23.0 minutes/day; 95% CI ?8.9 to 55.0). Small improvements were found in objective physical activity and fear-avoidance beliefs. The option to gradually increase physical activity was activated for six patients (15%). On average, patients received seven face-to-face sessions alongside the web application.ConclusionsThe results of this study provide the first indication of the effectiveness of e-Exercise LBP, particularly for disability and pain among patients with LBP. Future studies will focus on end-user experiences and (cost-) effectiveness.     

Headache disability in orofacial pain patients

OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively examine the reported history of and the disability caused by headaches in patients presenting for evaluation and treatment of orofacial pain. BACKGROUND: More than 81% of patients with the chief complaint of pain in the orofacial region concomitantly report pain in other body locations. Among the comorbidities frequently reported with orofacial pain are a variety of different headaches types, including migraines, tension type headaches, and chronic daily headaches. The extent of the disability caused by those headache complaints in a large patient population is unknown. METHODS: The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) is administered to all patients as a part of the initial assessment at the Orofacial Pain Center. This investigation is retrospectively examined the reported history of and the disability caused by headaches in patients who presented for evaluation and treatment of orofacial pain in the Orofacial Pain Center, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, between the dates of 1 September 2003 and 1 December 2004. RESULTS: In the present study 261 (61.3%) patients reported a headache complaint and 100 (38%) fulfilled the criteria for migraine with or without aura. MIDAS scores were reported by 55.3% of 426 patients with the mean score of 23.68. There were no significant differences in MIDAS scores in relation to the presence or absence of an intracapsular disorder. Patients with masticatory and/or cervical myalgia demonstrated significantly higher MIDAS scores when compared to patients without myalgia. CONCLUSIONS: These findings clearly demonstrate the necessity for evaluation of headache and related disability in orofacial pain patients.     

Clinical assessment of low-back-pain treatment outcomes in athletes

PATIENT SCENARIO: A 21-year-old male rodeo athlete complains of acute low back pain (LBP) after a bareback event. The athlete wishes to compete in a rodeo event in 4 d. CLINICAL OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT: Given the questionable validity and reliability of traditional clinical examination techniques for LBP, a treatment subgroup classification system combined with clinical outcomes assessment provides greater insight into suitable clinical interventions and patient response to treatment. Four LBP treatment subgroups based on the patient's clinical presentation and symptoms have been established: manipulation, stabilization, specific exercise, and traction. Manipulation subgroup research has produced a valid clinical prediction rule (CPR). The Visual Analog Scale, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index (ODI), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, Short Form 36 (SF-36), and Global Rating of Change Scale are valid, reliable, and responsive outcomes instruments with established values for minimum clinically important difference (MCID). These instruments document important changes in disablement and health-related quality of life in patients with low back injury, as well as demonstrate treatment outcomes. CLINICAL DECISION MAKING: On examination the athlete presents with moderate pain and disability as measured by the NRS, ODI, and SF-36 and meets all 5 criteria for the manipulation subgroup, indicating a high likelihood of success with manipulative therapy when following the guidelines presented in the CPR. Expected outcomes values, based on MCID values, were met after 1 treatment. Preferred outcomes, based on physical activity requirements for sport, were met on day 4. CLINICAL BOTTOM LINE: LBP generators are difficult to establish using traditional clinical examination techniques. The combined use of clinical criteria, using an LBP subgroup system, and baseline outcomes measures should guide treatment. Benchmarks should be guided by established MCID values for each instrument.