• Audrey Y M T Murphy, Edwin R van Teijlingen, and Mary O Gobbi.
• Epidemiology Group, Department of Public Health, University of Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD Aberdeen, UK.
• J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2006 Sep 1; 29 (7): 576-81, 581.e1-2.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to report clinical treatment recommendations for low back pain (LBP) based on 5 international guidelines and best evidence from the Cochrane database of systematic reviews.MethodsFive LBP guidelines available in English language were appraised, including 4 studies published since the seminal work by Koes et al (Spine 2001;26:2504-5213). The guidelines were examined for treatment recommendations concerning nonspecific LBP and guideline quality with application of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation instrument. Secondly, a systematic literature search for reviews and randomized controlled trials was conducted using a modified version of the search strategy recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. Two systematic reviews were identified.ResultsAccording to best evidence from review of the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, there remains a lack of consensus regarding reported efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy for the treatment of nonspecific LBP. Furthermore, the guidelines reviewed in the present study have not changed significantly with respect to treatment recommendations for nonspecific LBP since the original review, and there is inconsistency between the guidelines regarding optimal time to introduce spinal manipulation to treat nonspecific LBP.ConclusionTreatment recommendations for nonspecific LBP, particularly spinal manipulation, remain inconclusive. Guideline developers need to consider guidelines in neighboring countries and reach consensus on how evidence is graded and incorporated into guidelines. Guidelines should continue to be regularly updated to incorporate new evidence and methods of grading the evidence.

9 keywords...

hide…