Low back pain of mechanical origin: randomised comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient treatment.

MRC Epidemiology and Medical Care Unit, Northwick Park Hospital, Harrow, Middlesex.

OBJECTIVE--To compare chiropractic and hospital outpatient treatment for managing low back pain of mechanical origin. DESIGN--Randomised controlled trial. Allocation to chiropractic or hospital management by minimisation to establish groups for analysis of results according to initial referral clinic, length of current episode, history, and severity of back pain. Patients were followed up for up two years. SETTING--Chiropractic and hospital outpatient clinics in 11 centres. PATIENTS--741 Patients aged 18-65 who had no contraindications to manipulation and who had not been treated within the past month. INTERVENTIONS--Treatment at the discretion of the chiropractors, who used chiropractic manipulation in most patients, or of the hospital staff, who most commonly used Maitland mobilisation or manipulation, or both. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Changes in the score on the Oswestry pain disability questionnaire and in the results of tests of straight leg raising and lumbar flexion. RESULTS--Chiropractic treatment was more effective than hospital outpatient management, mainly for patients with chronic or severe back pain. A benefit of about 7% points on the Oswestry scale was seen at two years. The benefit of chiropractic treatment became more evident throughout the follow up period. Secondary outcome measures also showed that chiropractic was more beneficial. CONCLUSIONS--For patients with low back pain in whom manipulation is not contraindicated chiropractic almost certainly confers worthwhile, long term benefit in comparison with hospital outpatient management. The benefit is seen mainly in those with chronic or severe pain. Introducing chiropractic into NHS practice should be considered.

A comparison of health care costs for chiropractic and medical patients.

School of Business Administration, Oakland University, Rochester, MI 48309-4401.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the health care costs of patients who have received chiropractic treatment for common neuromusculoskeletal disorders with those treated solely by medical and osteopathic physicians. DESIGN: Retrospective statistical analysis of 2 yr of claims data on various categories of utilization and insurance payments for a large national sample of patients. SETTING: Ambulatory and inpatient care. PATIENTS: A total of 395,641 patients with one or more of 493 neuromusculoskeletal ICD-9 codes. OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital admission rates and 10 categories of insurance payments. RESULTS: Nearly one-fourth of patients were treated by chiropractors. Patients receiving chiropractic care experienced significantly lower health care costs as represented by third party payments in the fee-for-service sector. Total cost differences on the order of $1,000 over the 2-yr period were found in the total sample of patients as well as in subsamples of patients with specific disorders. The lower costs are attributable mainly to lower inpatient utilization. The cost differences remain statistically significant after controlling for patient demographics and insurance plan characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Although work is in progress to control for possible variations in case mix and to compare outcomes in addition to costs, these preliminary results suggest a significant cost-saving potential for users of chiropractic care. The results also suggest the need to reexamine insurance practices and programs that restrict chiropractic coverage relative to medical coverage.