I send out a monthly newsletter to physicians in the area to highlight some relevant research in regards to Physical Therapy and patients that might benefit from a referral to Physical Therapy for certain conditions, so I thought I would share some of them here as well.


Immediate effects of a high-velocity spine manipulation in paraspinal muscles activity of nonspecific chronic low-back pain subjects. Manual therapy. 2010; 15(5): 469-475.

High-velocity spinal manipulation is commonly adopted for treating chronic low-back pain (CLBP) and has been associated with changes in muscle activity, but the evidence is controversial. The aim of this study was to analyze the immediate effects of high-velocity spine manipulation on paraspinal activity during flexion–extension trunk movements. EMG activity during the static relaxation phase was significantly reduced following intervention for the manipulation group but not for the control group. The extension-phase EMG activity was also reduced after manipulation, but the flexion-phase EMG levels remained unchanged. Accordingly, the percent changes in FRR and ERR were significantly larger for the manipulation group compared to the control.

The results suggest that a high-velocity spinal manipulation is able to acutely reduce abnormal EMG activity during the full-flexion static phase and activation during the extension phase.

Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized, Clinical Trial Comparing Group-Based Multidisciplinary Biopsychosocial Rehabilitation and Intensive Individual Therapist-Assisted Back Muscle Strengthening Exercises Spine; 1 March 2010 - Volume 35 - Issue 5 - pp 469-476

Both a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation program and an intensive individual therapist-assisted back muscle strengthening exercise program used in Denmark have been reported to be effective for the treatment of CLBP.

Results: Of the 286 patients, 14 patients did not start treatment. Of the remaining patients, 25 (9%) dropped out of therapy. The 2 groups were comparable regarding baseline characteristic. After treatment, significant improvements were observed with regard to pain, disability, and most of the quality of life dimensions. These effects were sustained over the 24-month follow-up period. There were some statistically significant differences between the 2 groups relating to secondary end points, Roland-Morris disability questionnaire, and in the MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey the “physical functioning” dimension and the “physical component summary.”

Conclusion: Both groups showed long-term improvements in pain and disability scores, with only minor statistically significant differences between the 2 groups. The minor outcome difference in favor of the group-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation program is hardly of clinical interest for individual patients.