to the editor: The review of the evidence in the article “Evaluation and Treatment of Acute Low Back Pain” is succinct and laudable.1 However, one implication should be corrected to avoid engendering further confusion on an already hotly debated topic.
In the “SORT: Key Recommendations for Practice” table, Dr. Kinkade accurately states: “Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low back pain may offer some short-term benefits but probably is no more effective than usual medical care.”1 However, the implication that spinal manipulation shows improvements when compared with sham or ineffective treatments, but does not show any benefit when compared with usual care, could be misleading. The articles Dr. Kinkade cited in support of this recommendation clearly show that although spinal manipulation did not yield superior outcomes compared with usual care, it did produce equivalent benefits.2–5
I encourage physicians to review the literature on this topic published in past issues of American Family Physician as well as articles published in other journals. For example, an article in the November 2004 supplement of the JAOA-Journal of the American Osteopathic Association summarizes the results of the three major clinical trials suggesting the potential utility of osteopathic manipulative treatment in acute and chronic low back pain.6
The phrasing in Dr. Kinkade's article could potentially mislead physicians and may prevent physicians who use spinal manipulation in their practices from obtaining reimbursement for this procedure.