Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 21, Issue 7, pp 1250–1256 | Cite as

Can we predict response to the McKenzie method in patients with acute low back pain? A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

  • Charles SheetsEmail author
  • Luciana A. C. Machado
  • Mark Hancock
  • Chris Maher
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate whether patients’ treatment preferences, characteristics, or symptomatic response to assessment moderated the effect of the McKenzie method for acute low back pain (LBP).

Methods

This study involved a secondary analysis of a previous RCT on the effect of adding the McKenzie method to the recommended first-line care for patients with acute non-specific LBP. 148 patients were randomized to the First-line Care Group (recommended first-line care alone) or the McKenzie Group (McKenzie method in addition to the first-line care) for a 3-week course of treatment. The primary outcome was pain intensity at 3 weeks. The ability of six patient characteristics to identify those who respond best to McKenzie method was assessed using interaction terms in linear regression models.

Results

The six investigated potential effect modifiers for response to the McKenzie method did not predict a more favorable response to this treatment. None of the point estimates for effect modification met our pre-specified criterion of clinical importance of a 1 point greater improvement in pain. For five of the six predictors, the 95% CI did not include our criterion for meaningful clinical improvement.

Conclusion

We were unable to find any clinically useful effect modifiers for patients with acute LBP receiving the McKenzie method.

Keywords

McKenzie Classification Low back pain Treatment effect Physiotherapy 

Notes

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Foster NE et al (1999) Management of nonspecific low back pain by physiotherapists in Britain and Ireland. A descriptive questionnaire of current clinical practice. Spine 24(13):1332–1342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gracey JH, McDonough SM, Baxter GD (2002) Physiotherapy management of low back pain: a survey of current practice in Northern Ireland. Spine 27(4):406–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Battie MC et al (1994) Managing low back pain: attitudes and treatment preferences of physical therapists. Phys Ther 74(3):219–226PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McKenzie R, May S (2003) The lumbar spine: mechanical diagnosis & therapy, 2nd edn. Spinal Publications, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clare HA, Adams R, Maher CG (2004) A systematic review of efficacy of McKenzie therapy for spinal pain. Aust J Physiother 50(4):209–216PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Machado LA et al (2006) The McKenzie method for low back pain: a systematic review of the literature with a meta-analysis approach. Spine 31(9):E254–E262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cherkin DC et al (1998) A comparison of physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, and provision of an educational booklet for the treatment of patients with low back pain. N Engl J Med 339(15):1021–1029PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Machado LA et al (2010) The effectiveness of the McKenzie method in addition to first-line care for acute low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med 8:10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kent P, Keating JL (2005) Classification in nonspecific low back pain: what methods do primary care clinicians currently use? Spine 30(12):1433–1440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fritz JM (2009) Clinical prediction rules in physical therapy: coming of age? J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 39(3):159–161PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Salmond SS (2008) Randomized controlled trials: methodological concepts and critique. Orthop Nurs 27(2):116–122 (quiz 123–124)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Machado LA et al (2005) The McKenzie Method for the management of acute non-specific low back pain: design of a randomised controlled trial [ACTRN012605000032651]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 6:50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Vet HCW et al (2002) Episodes of low back pain: a proposal for uniform definitions to be used in research. Spine 27(21):2409–2416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McKenzie R (2006) Treat your own back. Spinal Publications, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sun X et al (2010) Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses. BMJ 340:117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hancock MJ et al (2009) Can rate of recovery be predicted in patients with acute low back pain? Development of a clinical prediction rule. Eur J Pain 13(1):51–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    George SZ, Fritz JM (2005) The centralization phenomenon and fear-avoidance beliefs as prognostic factors for acute low back pain—authors’ response. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 35(12):845–847Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Donelson R et al (1991) Pain response to sagittal end-range spinal motion. A prospective, randomized, multicentered trial. Spine 16(6 Suppl):S206–S212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kalauokalani D et al (2001) Lessons from a trial of acupuncture and massage for low back pain: patient expectations and treatment effects. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(13):1418–1424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weeks DL (2007) The regression effect as a neglected source of bias in nonrandomized intervention trials and systematic reviews of observational studies. Eval Health Prof 30(3):254–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mintken PE et al (2010) Some factors predict successful short-term outcomes in individuals with shoulder pain receiving cervicothoracic manipulation: a single-arm trial. Phys Ther 90(1):26–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stanton TR et al (2010) Critical appraisal of clinical prediction rules that aim to optimize treatment selection for musculoskeletal conditions. Phys Ther 90(6):843–854PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brookes ST et al (2001) Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives. Health Technol Assess 5(33):1–56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    King M et al (2005) Conceptual framework and systematic review of the effects of participants’ and professionals’ preferences in randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess 9(35):1–186; iii–ivGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stewart MJ et al (2008) Patient and clinician treatment preferences do not moderate the effect of exercise treatment in chronic whiplash-associated disorders. Eur J Pain 12(7):879–885PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moffett JK et al (1999) Randomised controlled trial of exercise for low back pain: clinical outcomes, costs, and preferences. BMJ 319(7205):279–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bialosky JE, Bishop MD, Cleland JA (2010) Individual expectation: an overlooked, but pertinent, factor in the treatment of individuals experiencing musculoskeletal pain. Phys Ther 90(9):1345–1355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    George SZ, Robinson ME (2010) Preference, expectation, and satisfaction in a clinical trial of behavioral interventions for acute and sub-acute low back pain. J Pain 11(11):1074–1082PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Smeets RJEM et al (2008) Treatment expectancy and credibility are associated with the outcome of both physical and cognitive-behavioral treatment in chronic low back pain. Clin J Pain 24(4):305–315. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e318164aa75 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mondloch MV, Cole DC, Frank JW (2001) Does how you do depend on how you think you’ll do? A systematic review of the evidence for a relation between patients’ recovery expectations and health outcomes. CMAJ 165(2):174–179PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hancock MJ et al (2009) Can predictors of response to NSAIDs be identified in patients with acute low back pain? Clin J Pain 25(8):659–665PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Creel AH et al (2005) An assessment of willingness to participate in a randomized trial of arthroscopic knee surgery in patients with osteoarthritis. Contemp Clin Trials 26(2):169–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles Sheets
    • 1
    Email author
  • Luciana A. C. Machado
    • 2
  • Mark Hancock
    • 3
  • Chris Maher
    • 4
  1. 1.Duke University Health SystemDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Departamento de Medicina Preventiva SocialUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil
  3. 3.Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of SydneyLidcombeAustralia
  4. 4.The George Institute, University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations