CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT02868034Updated May 17, 2023Results posted

Optimization of Spinal Manipulative Therapy Protocols

A Phase 2 interventional study of SMT and Mobilizing Exercises in Low Back Pain, sponsored by University of Utah. Completed at 2 sites in 2 countries. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 60 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2023-05-17.

Sponsored by University of Utah · Phase 2, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
273
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 60 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Research on spinal manipulative therapy for individuals with low back pain has been hampered by a lack of understanding of which of the physiologic effects produced by spinal manipulation are related to clinical benefit, and how these effects can be used to optimize treatment outcomes. Prior research has identified physiologic effects that relate to the clinical benefits from spinal manipulation treatment. The goal of this project is to examine strategies to use these effects to identify optimized treatment protocols. The results of this project will provide critical information for future clinical trials related to spinal manipulation.

Read the detailed description

Low back pain (LBP) is a common and costly condition. Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a common mind body intervention for individuals with LBP. Although SMT for LBP has been examined in numerous clinical studies, the literature on SMT remains unclear and even contradictory as to the effectiveness of this treatment. Studies that have supported SMT have generally found relatively small treatment effects. Many reasons have been offered for the inconsistent research literature and small effect sizes of SMT. A primary rationale offered is that the SMT protocols used in clinical research are not optimal, primarily due to a lack of understanding of the underlying mechanisms explaining the clinical benefits of SMT realized by some patients with LBP.

The prior work of this research team has identified two mechanisms explaining the therapeutic effects of SMT. These effects are a reduction in spinal stiffness and improved activation of the lumbar multifidus muscle. This research has also developed accurate, non-invasive methods to measure these effects and their response to SMT. The model identifying these two mechanisms has been validated in a second patient sample.

The overall goal of this proposal is to optimize SMT treatment protocols for patients with LBP. The optimization strategy in this study will evaluate SMT combined with other treatments known to modulate the same signals that underlie the clinical effects of SMT assessing both mechanistic (stiffness, lumbar multifidus activation) and patient-centered (function and pain) outcomes. This project will use innovative methodology to efficiently evaluate the effects of various individual treatment components towards an overall effect; identifying which components are contributing to the target outcomes and which, if any, may be discarded. All participants will be provided 2 sessions of SMT, and then will be randomized to a treatment group for an additional 3 weeks using a factorial design and stratified by responder status in order to evaluate different combinations of intervention components (muscle activation exercise, spinal mobilizing exercise, additional SMT) that work on the same pathways that modulate the same effects (spinal stiffness and muscle activation). Outcomes will include spinal stiffness and muscle activation measures as well as patient-reported outcomes assessed at baseline, and after 1 week, 4 weeks and 3 months. Results of this project will provide optimized SMT protocols that will be ready for application in future randomized controlled trials examining the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT.

02

Conditions studied

  • Low Back Pain

Keywords

  • Low Back Pain
  • Spinal Manipulation
  • Exercise
03

In context

Back Pain

2,373 studies on the registry are indexed under Back Pain; 284 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 273 is above the median of 60 across 1,941 interventional studies indexed under Back Pain.

Browse Back Pain studies →

Lead sponsor

University of Utah is the lead sponsor of 969 studies on the registry; 178 are open to participants now.

Of its 107 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 62 (58%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 60 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

I. Pain between the 12th rib and buttocks with or without symptoms into one or both legs, which, in the opinion of the examiner, originate from the lumbar region.

II. Age 18 - 60 years

III. Oswestry disability score > 20%

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

I. Prior surgery to the lumbosacral spine

II. Currently pregnant

III. Currently receiving mind-body or exercise treatment for LBP from a healthcare provider (e.g., chiropractic, physical therapy, massage therapy, etc.)

IV. Neurogenic signs including any of the following: positive ipsi- or contra-lateral straight leg raise test; reflex, sensory, or strength deficit in a pattern consistent with lumbar nerve root compression

05

Study design

Phase
Phase 2
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Factorial assignment
Masking
Double (Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
273 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    SMT Only

    Patients receive 2 sessions on SMT during week 1, no additional treatment.

    Behavioral: SMT

  • Experimental
    SMT extended

    2 sessions of SMT in week 1 and 6 additional sessions of SMT during weeks 2-4.

    Behavioral: SMT · Behavioral: SMT extended

  • Experimental
    SMT with Activation Exercises

    2 sessions of SMT during week 1 and 6 additional sessions of lumbar multifidus activating exercises during weeks 2-4.

    Behavioral: SMT · Behavioral: Activation Exercises

  • Experimental
    SMT with Mobilizing Exercises

    2 sessions of SMT during week 1; 6 sessions of spinal mobilizing exercises during weeks 2-4.

    Behavioral: SMT · Behavioral: Mobilizing Exercises

  • Experimental
    SMT with Mobilizing and Activation Exercises

    2 sessions of SMT during week 1; 6 sessions of lumbar multifidus activating exercises and spinal mobilizing exercises during weeks 2-4.

    Behavioral: SMT · Behavioral: Mobilizing Exercises · Behavioral: Activation Exercises

  • Experimental
    SMT extended with Mobilizing Exercises

    2 sessions of SMT during week 1; 6 sessions of SMT and spinal mobilizing exercises during weeks 2-4.

    Behavioral: SMT · Behavioral: Mobilizing Exercises · Behavioral: SMT extended

  • Experimental
    SMT extended with Activation Exercises

    2 sessions of SMT during week 1; 6 sessions of SMT and lumbar multifidus activating exercises during weeks 2-4.

    Behavioral: SMT · Behavioral: Activation Exercises · Behavioral: SMT extended

  • Experimental
    SMT extended with Activation and Mobilizing Exercises

    2 sessions of SMT during week 1; 6 sessions of SMT, multifidus activating and spinal mobilizing exercises during weeks 2-4.

    Behavioral: SMT · Behavioral: Mobilizing Exercises · Behavioral: Activation Exercises · Behavioral: SMT extended

Interventions

  • BehavioralSMT

    All patients receive 2 SMT sessions in the first week. The subject is supine. The clinician stands opposite the side to be manipulated and side-bends the subject away from the side to manipulate. The side to be manipulated is the more painful. If the subject cannot identify a more painful side the clinician selects a side. The clinician rotates the subject, and delivers a high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) thrust to the pelvis in a posterior/inferior direction. The clinician notes if a cavitation (ie, a "pop") occurred. If it does, SMT treatment is complete. If no cavitation occurs, the subject is repositioned and SMT is performed again. If no cavitation occurs on the second attempt, the clinician manipulates the opposite side. A maximum of 2 attempts per side is permitted. If no cavitation is noted by that time, SMT treatment is complete. Substitution with a side-posture HVLA technique is allowed if the preferred technique is not possible due to subject preference or comfort.

    Also known as: Spinal Manipulative Therapy

  • BehavioralMobilizing Exercises

    Mobilizing exercises will include a program of repeated movements progressing into end-ranges of spinal flexion and/or extension shown in past studies to improve ROM and reduce spinal stiffness. Patients will be instructed in mid-range exercises and will be further assessed for a directional preference. A directional preference is present if movement in a particular direction decreases LBP intensity or causes symptoms to centralize towards the midline. If a subject has a directional preference he or she will be prescribed exercises specifically in that direction along with mid-range exercise. Otherwise the subject will be assigned exercises moving into either flexion or extension based on the clinician's discretion. Subjects will perform their prescribed exercises at treatment sessions and will be instructed to perform the exercises daily on other days.

  • BehavioralActivation Exercises

    Activation exercises are designed to facilitate use of the lumbar multifidus muscle. Exercises will begin with isometric multifidus contractions in different positions with clinician feedback and exercises to isometrically co-contract the multifidus and deep abdominal muscles. Subjects will also perform lumbar extensor strengthening exercises shown to produce 20%-50% of multifidus maximum voluntary contraction. Subjects will continue to perform isometric exercises throughout treatment. Subjects will perform their prescribed exercises at treatment sessions and will be instructed to perform the exercises daily on other days.

  • BehavioralSMT extended

    This treatment involves 6 additional SMT sessions. Each SMT session is conducted as described previously.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Spinal Stiffness

    Spinal stiffness is assessed with the VerteTrack device that applies a vertical load along the lumbar spine of a prone participant. The indenter houses a sensor to provide continuous, real-time quantification of spinal deformation in response to a defined load. Stiffness was determined as the ratio of the maximum applied force to the resultant displacement in N/mm. Higher numbers indicate greater amounts of stiffness.

    Time frame: Assessed at Phase II Baseline, 4 weeks, 12 weeks. 4 weeks and 12 weeks reported. Phase II baseline values were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean for analyses.

  2. Multifidus Activation

    Multifidus activation was measured with brightness-mode ultrasound images using a 60mm, 2-5 MHz curvilinear array. Images are acquired with the multifidus at rest and during submaximal contraction. Three images in each state are acquired and averaged. Muscle activation is calculated as the change in thickness at rest and submaximal contraction and expressed as a percentage change. Greater numbers indicate higher muscle activation.

    Time frame: Assessed at Phase II Baseline, 4 weeks, 12 weeks. 4 weeks and 12 weeks reported. Phase II baseline values were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean for analyses.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Oswestry Disability Index

    The Oswestry Disability Index measures back pain-related disability. The scale contains 10 items with a minimum score of zero and maximum score of 100. Higher numbers indicate more disability. There are no subscales.

    Time frame: Assessed at Phase II Baseline, 4 weeks, 12 weeks. 4 weeks and 12 weeks reported. Phase II baseline values were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean for analyses.

  2. Pain Intensity

    A 0-10 numeric pain rating is used to assess pain intensity. The minimum score is zero, maximum score is 10. Higher numbers indicate greater pain intensity. There are no subscales.

    Time frame: Assessed at Phase II Baseline, 4 weeks, 12 weeks. 4 weeks and 12 weeks reported. Phase II baseline values were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean for analyses.

07

Results

Posted May 17, 2023

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestonePhase II - SMT OnlyPhase II - SMT ExtendedPhase II - SMT With Activation ExercisesPhase II - SMT With Mobilizing ExercisesPhase II - SMT With Mobilizing and Activation ExercisesPhase II - SMT Extended With Mobilizing ExercisesPhase II - SMT Extended With Activation ExercisesPhase II - SMT Extended With Activation and Mobilizing Exercises
Started3029303130293032
Completed2223262724262426
Not completed86446366

Outcome measures

PrimarySpinal Stiffness

Spinal stiffness is assessed with the VerteTrack device that applies a vertical load along the lumbar spine of a prone participant. The indenter houses a sensor to provide continuous, real-time quantification of spinal deformation in response to a defined load. Stiffness was determined as the ratio of the maximum applied force to the resultant displacement in N/mm. Higher numbers indicate greater amounts of stiffness.

Time frame:
Assessed at Phase II Baseline, 4 weeks, 12 weeks. 4 weeks and 12 weeks reported. Phase II baseline values were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean for analyses.
Reported as:
Mean · N/mm
Spinal Stiffness
N/mmSMT Treatment ComponentMobilizing Exercise ComponentActivating Exercise Component
Spinal Stiffness measure at 4 weeks6.20 (5.98 to 6.41)6.28 (6.07 to 6.48)6.10 (5.90 to 6.31)
Spinal Stiffness measure at 12 weeks6.07 (5.85 to 6.28)6.16 (5.96 to 6.37)6.06 (5.85 to 6.27)
Statistical analysis
  • SMT Treatment Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): -0.02 · 97.5% CI -0.26 to 0.22A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used
  • SMT Treatment Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): -0.17 · 97.5% CI -0.43 to 0.09A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used
  • Mobilizing Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): 0.14 · 97.5% CI -0.11 to 0.38A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used
  • Mobilizing Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): 0.03 · 97.5% CI -0.23 to 0.29A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used
  • Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): -0.20 · 97.5% CI -0.45 to 0.04A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used
  • Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): -0.19 · 97.5% CI -0.45 to 0.07A negative value indicates greater change when the component was used
  • Mobilizing Exercise Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: -0.17 · 97.5% CI -0.66 to 0.32
  • Mobilizing Exercise Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: -0.10 · 97.5% CI -0.62 to 0.42
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: 0.13 · 97.5% CI -0.36 to 0.62
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: 0.50 · 97.5% CI -0.02 to 1.02
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Mobilizing Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: -0.17 · 97.5% CI -0.66 to 0.32
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Mobilizing Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: 0.39 · 97.5% CI -0.13 to 0.91
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Mobilizing Exercise Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · 3-way interaction relative mean dif.: 0.25 · 97.5% CI -0.24 to 0.74
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Mobilizing Exercise Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · 3-way interaction relative mean dif.: 0.40 · 97.5% CI -0.12 to 0.92
PrimaryMultifidus Activation

Multifidus activation was measured with brightness-mode ultrasound images using a 60mm, 2-5 MHz curvilinear array. Images are acquired with the multifidus at rest and during submaximal contraction. Three images in each state are acquired and averaged. Muscle activation is calculated as the change in thickness at rest and submaximal contraction and expressed as a percentage change. Greater numbers indicate higher muscle activation.

Time frame:
Assessed at Phase II Baseline, 4 weeks, 12 weeks. 4 weeks and 12 weeks reported. Phase II baseline values were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean for analyses.
Reported as:
Mean · percentage
Multifidus Activation
percentageSMT Treatment ComponentMobilizing Exercise ComponentActivating Exercise Component
Multifidus Activation 4 weeks12.10 (10.20 to 14.0)12.42 (10.56 to 14.28)12.0 (10.09 to 13.84)
Multifidus Activation 12 weeks12.20 (10.28 to 14.12)12.74 (10.87 to 14.62)12.10 (10.22 to 13.97)
Statistical analysis
  • SMT Treatment Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): -0.57 · 97.5% CI -2.67 to 1.52Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.
  • SMT Treatment Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): -0.37 · 97.5% CI -2.76 to 2.02A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used
  • Mobilizing Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): 0.06 · 97.5% CI -2.03 to 2.16A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used
  • Mobilizing Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): 0.71 · 97.5% CI -1.68 to 3.11A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used
  • Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): -0.85 · 97.5% CI -2.94 to 1.25A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used
  • Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): -0.57 · 97.5% CI -2.97 to 1.82A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used
  • Mobilizing Exercise Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: 0.80 · 97.5% CI -3.39 to 4.99
  • Mobilizing Exercise Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: -0.68 · 97.5% CI -5.47 to 4.11
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: -1.56 · 97.5% CI -5.75 to 2.63
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: 1.42 · 97.5% CI -3.37 to 6.21
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Mobilizing Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: -0.44 · 97.5% CI -4.63 to 3.75
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Mobilizing Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: 2.01 · 97.5% CI -2.77 to 6.80
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Mobilizing Exercise Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · 3-way interaction relative mean dif.: -0.18 · 97.5% CI -4.37 to 4.01
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Mobilizing Exercise Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · 3-way interaction relative mean dif.: 0.56 · 97.5% CI -4.22 to 5.35
SecondaryOswestry Disability Index

The Oswestry Disability Index measures back pain-related disability. The scale contains 10 items with a minimum score of zero and maximum score of 100. Higher numbers indicate more disability. There are no subscales.

Time frame:
Assessed at Phase II Baseline, 4 weeks, 12 weeks. 4 weeks and 12 weeks reported. Phase II baseline values were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean for analyses.
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Oswestry Disability Index
units on a scaleSMT Treatment ComponentMobilizing Exercise ComponentActivating Exercise Component
Oswestry 4 week outcomes21.74 (19.23 to 24.25)21.64 (19.18 to 24.1)21.15 (18.7 to 23.61)
Oswestry 12 week outcomes19.73 (17.05 to 22.42)18.97 (16.33 to 21.62)18.02 (15.38 to 20.66)
Statistical analysis
  • SMT Treatment Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): -1.16 · 97.5% CI -4.0 to 1.68A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used
  • SMT Treatment Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): -0.20 · 97.5% CI -3.46 to 3.07A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used
  • Mobilizing Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): -1.36 · 97.5% CI -4.2 to 1.48A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used
  • Mobilizing Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): -1.72 · 97.5% CI -4.99 to 1.55A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used
  • Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): -2.34 · 97.5% CI -5.18 to 0.50A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used
  • Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): -3.62 · 97.5% CI -6.89 to -0.35A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used
  • Mobilizing Exercise Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: 3.24 · 97.5% CI -2.45 to 8.92
  • Mobilizing Exercise Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: 4.34 · 97.5% CI -2.19 to 10.87
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: 0.57 · 97.5% CI -5.12 to 6.25
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: -0.67 · 97.5% CI -7.20 to 5.87
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Mobilizing Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: 4.64 · 97.5% CI -1.04 to 10.32
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Mobilizing Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: 1.49 · 97.5% CI -5.04 to 8.02
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Mobilizing Exercise Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · 3-way interaction relative mean dif.: -0.86 · 97.5% CI -6.54 to 4.82
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Mobilizing Exercise Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · 3-way interaction relative mean dif.: 0.04 · 97.5% CI -6.50 to 6.57
SecondaryPain Intensity

A 0-10 numeric pain rating is used to assess pain intensity. The minimum score is zero, maximum score is 10. Higher numbers indicate greater pain intensity. There are no subscales.

Time frame:
Assessed at Phase II Baseline, 4 weeks, 12 weeks. 4 weeks and 12 weeks reported. Phase II baseline values were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean for analyses.
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Pain Intensity
units on a scaleSMT Treatment ComponentMobilizing Exercise ComponentActivating Exercise Component
Pain intensity rating 4 weeks3.13 (2.76 to 3.51)2.98 (2.61 to 3.34)3.13 (2.76 to 3.49)
Pain intensity rating 12 weeks3.10 (2.69 to 3.51)2.97 (2.56 to 3.37)2.96 (2.56 to 3.37)
Statistical analysis
  • SMT Treatment Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): -0.14 · 97.5% CI -0.60 to 0.32A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used
  • SMT Treatment Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): 0.08 · 97.5% CI -0.44 to 0.61A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used
  • Mobilizing Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): -0.46 · 97.5% CI -0.92 to 0.0A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used
  • Mobilizing Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): -0.18 · 97.5% CI -0.70 to 0.34A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used
  • Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): -0.16 · 97.5% CI -0.62 to 0.30A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used
  • Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Mean difference (final values): -0.19 · 97.5% CI -0.71 to 0.33A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used
  • Mobilizing Exercise Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: 0.38 · 97.5% CI -0.54 to 1.30
  • Mobilizing Exercise Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: 0.45 · 97.5% CI -0.60 to 1.49
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: 0.12 · 97.5% CI -0.80 to 1.04
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: 0.23 · 97.5% CI -0.81 to 1.28
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Mobilizing Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: 0.89 · 97.5% CI -0.03 to 1.81
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Mobilizing Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · Interaction relative mean difference: -0.02 · 97.5% CI -1.07 to 1.02
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Mobilizing Exercise Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · 3-way interaction relative mean dif.: 0.71 · 97.5% CI -0.21 to 1.63
  • SMT Treatment Component vs Mobilizing Exercise Component vs Activating Exercise Component · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.025 · 3-way interaction relative mean dif.: 0.0 · 97.5% CI -1.05 to 1.04

Adverse events

Collected over Adverse events were collected over the 12 week period from baseline to final assessment including both Phase I and Phase II (post-randomization). Events reported by Phase II treatment group may have occurred at any point over the 12-week study period. Among the 32 participants who withdrew before randomization, 4 participants reported 5 adverse events. All events were an increase in symptoms of back pain, spasm or stiffness.. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
No Further Treatment0/30 (0%)0/30 (0%)3/30 (10%)
Extended SMT0/29 (0%)0/29 (0%)8/29 (27.6%)
Activating Exercise Component Only0/30 (0%)0/30 (0%)9/30 (30%)
Mobilizing Exercise Component Only0/31 (0%)0/31 (0%)10/31 (32.3%)
SMT With Activating Exercise Component0/30 (0%)0/30 (0%)12/30 (40%)
SMT With Mobilizing Exercise Component0/29 (0%)0/29 (0%)7/29 (24.1%)
Activating Exercise and Mobilizing Exercise Components0/30 (0%)0/30 (0%)5/30 (16.7%)
SMT With Activating Exercise and Mobilizing Exercise Components0/32 (0%)0/32 (0%)13/32 (40.6%)
Most frequent other events
Most frequent other events
EventNo Further TreatmentExtended SMTActivating Exercise Component OnlyMobilizing Exercise Component OnlySMT With Activating Exercise ComponentSMT With Mobilizing Exercise ComponentActivating Exercise and Mobilizing Exercise ComponentsSMT With Activating Exercise and Mobilizing Exercise Components
Increased low back symptoms from treatmentMusculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders3/307/298/3010/3110/307/294/3012/32
AccidentInjury, poisoning and procedural complications0/300/290/300/311/300/290/303/32
Surgical proceduresSurgical and medical procedures0/301/291/300/310/300/291/300/32
Reinjured Low BackMusculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders0/300/290/301/311/300/291/301/32

Baseline characteristics

315 individuals provided consent and 273 met all eligibility criteria and enrolled in Phase I. Of these 32 (11.7%) withdrew during treatment phase I, leaving 241 participants who completed the 1-week assessment and were randomized to receive additional treatment components in Phase II. The Phase II baseline information is provided.

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Phase II - No Further TreatmentPhase II - Extended SMT OnlyPhase II - Activating Exercise Component OnlyPhase II - Mobilizing Exercise Component OnlyPhase II i SMT and Activating Exercise ComponentPhase II - - SMT With Mobilizing Exercise ComponentPhase II - Activating Exercise and Mobilizing Exercise ComponentsPhase II - SMT With Mobilizing Exercise and Activating ExerciseTotal
Phase II baseline age42.6 ± 11.536.3 ± 9.841.1 ± 12.638.1 ± 10.541.2 ± 13.740.4 ± 1240.5 ± 10.538.8 ± 12.339.9 ± 11.8
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Phase II - No Further TreatmentPhase II - Extended SMT OnlyPhase II - Activating Exercise Component OnlyPhase II - Mobilizing Exercise Component OnlyPhase II i SMT and Activating Exercise ComponentPhase II - - SMT With Mobilizing Exercise ComponentPhase II - Activating Exercise and Mobilizing Exercise ComponentsPhase II - SMT With Mobilizing Exercise and Activating ExerciseTotal
Phase II - Baseline Sex — Female1820201918151618144
Phase II - Baseline Sex — Male12910121214141497
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Phase II - No Further TreatmentPhase II - Extended SMT OnlyPhase II - Activating Exercise Component OnlyPhase II - Mobilizing Exercise Component OnlyPhase II i SMT and Activating Exercise ComponentPhase II - - SMT With Mobilizing Exercise ComponentPhase II - Activating Exercise and Mobilizing Exercise ComponentsPhase II - SMT With Mobilizing Exercise and Activating ExerciseTotal
Hispanic or Latino1343360020
Not Hispanic or Latino2825262827213032217
Unknown or Not Reported110002004
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Phase II - No Further TreatmentPhase II - Extended SMT OnlyPhase II - Activating Exercise Component OnlyPhase II - Mobilizing Exercise Component OnlyPhase II i SMT and Activating Exercise ComponentPhase II - - SMT With Mobilizing Exercise ComponentPhase II - Activating Exercise and Mobilizing Exercise ComponentsPhase II - SMT With Mobilizing Exercise and Activating ExerciseTotal
American Indian or Alaska Native300000014
Asian2354223425
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander000000000
Black or African American111011207
White2219192124212525176
More than one race1123220213
Unknown or Not Reported1533130016
Chronic LBP
Chronic LBP(Participants)Phase II - No Further TreatmentPhase II - Extended SMT OnlyPhase II - Activating Exercise Component OnlyPhase II - Mobilizing Exercise Component OnlyPhase II i SMT and Activating Exercise ComponentPhase II - - SMT With Mobilizing Exercise ComponentPhase II - Activating Exercise and Mobilizing Exercise ComponentsPhase II - SMT With Mobilizing Exercise and Activating ExerciseTotal
Count of participants2422232526202122183
Oswestry
Oswestry(units on a scale)Phase II - No Further TreatmentPhase II - Extended SMT OnlyPhase II - Activating Exercise Component OnlyPhase II - Mobilizing Exercise Component OnlyPhase II i SMT and Activating Exercise ComponentPhase II - - SMT With Mobilizing Exercise ComponentPhase II - Activating Exercise and Mobilizing Exercise ComponentsPhase II - SMT With Mobilizing Exercise and Activating ExerciseTotal
Mean35.7 ± 11.836.1 ± 17.733.9 ± 10.030.6 ± 8.636.3 ± 11.529.1 ± 9.532.7 ± 9.338.6 ± 12.034.4 ± 11.8
Pain intensity
Pain intensity(units on a scale)Phase II - No Further TreatmentPhase II - Extended SMT OnlyPhase II - Activating Exercise Component OnlyPhase II - Mobilizing Exercise Component OnlyPhase II i SMT and Activating Exercise ComponentPhase II - - SMT With Mobilizing Exercise ComponentPhase II - Activating Exercise and Mobilizing Exercise ComponentsPhase II - SMT With Mobilizing Exercise and Activating ExerciseTotal
Mean4.4 ± 1.54.9 ± 2.04.8 ± 1.54.4 ± 1.74.5 ± 1.54.4 ± 1.74.5 ± 1.64.9 ± 1.74.6 ± 1.7
Multifidus Activation
Multifidus Activation(percentage increase in thickness)Phase II - No Further TreatmentPhase II - Extended SMT OnlyPhase II - Activating Exercise Component OnlyPhase II - Mobilizing Exercise Component OnlyPhase II i SMT and Activating Exercise ComponentPhase II - - SMT With Mobilizing Exercise ComponentPhase II - Activating Exercise and Mobilizing Exercise ComponentsPhase II - SMT With Mobilizing Exercise and Activating ExerciseTotal
Mean11.4 ± 9.59.5 ± 9.413.6 ± 11.411.6 ± 8.514.2 ± 10.910.7 ± 9.110.0 ± 8.911.6 ± 8.211.2 ± 9.3

1 further baseline measures are reported on the registry.

08

Study locations

2 sites
  • University of Utah, Department of Physical Therapy
    Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, United States
  • University of Alberta
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Fritz JM, Sharpe JA, Lane E, Santillo D, Greene T, Kawchuk G. Optimizing treatment protocols for spinal manipulative therapy: study protocol for a randomized trial. Trials. 2018 Jun 4;19(1):306. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2692-6. PubMed 29866131 ↗

Study documents

  • Protocol and statistical analysis plan · May 23, 2018

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on May 17, 2023, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02868034
Lead sponsor
University of Utah
Collaborators
University of Alberta
Responsible party
Julie Fritz (Professor, University of Utah) — Principal investigator
First posted
Aug 16, 2016
Start date
Feb 22, 2017
Primary completion
Jan 12, 2019
Completion
Jan 12, 2019
Results posted
May 17, 2023
Last update
May 17, 2023

Study contacts

Julie M Fritz, PhD, PT
principal investigator · University of Utah

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Apr 2023. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion