<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/rss.css" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
    xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:extra="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
    xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
    <channel rdf:about="http://www.om-pc.com/feeds/mostaccessed/journal?quantity=&amp;format=rss&amp;version=">
        <title>Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care - Most accessed articles</title>
        <link>http://www.om-pc.com</link>
        <description>The most accessed research articles published by Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care</description>
        <dc:date>2010-03-19T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.om-pc.com/content/2/1/6" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.om-pc.com/content/3/1/4" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.om-pc.com/content/3/1/9" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.om-pc.com/content/2/1/7" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.om-pc.com/content/4/1/2" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.om-pc.com/content/3/1/1" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.om-pc.com/content/1/1/10" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.om-pc.com/content/4/1/3" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.om-pc.com/content/3/1/7" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.om-pc.com/content/1/1/14" />
                            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
                 <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </channel>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.om-pc.com/content/2/1/6">
        <title>The somatically preoccupied patient in primary care: use of attachment theory to strengthen physician-patient relationships
</title>
        <description>Background:
Individuals with somatic preoccupation constitute a substantial number of primary care patients. Somatically preoccupied patients are challenging to primary care physicians for several reasons including patient complaints consuming a great deal of physician time, expense to diagnose and treat and strain on the physician-patient relationship. This paper examines and discusses how disruptions in early attachment relationships such as often occurs when a female is a victim of child sexual abuse may result in somatic preoccupation in adulthood.Treatment utilizing attachment theoryAttachment theory provides a useful framework for primary care physicians to conceptualize somatic preoccupation. Utilization and containment techniques grounded in an understanding of attachment dynamics aid the physician in developing a sound physician-patient relationship. Successfully engaging the patient in treatment prevents misunderstandings that frequently derail medical care for somatically preoccupied patients.</description>
        <link>http://www.om-pc.com/content/2/1/6</link>
                <dc:creator>Robert Miller</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care 2008, null:6</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2008-04-29T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1750-4732-2-6</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1750-4732-2-6-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1750-4732</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>6</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2008-04-29T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.om-pc.com/content/3/1/4">
        <title>Spinal and sacroiliac assessment and treatment techniques used by osteopathic physicians in the United States</title>
        <description>Background:
Osteopathic manipulative medicine texts and educators advocate a range of approaches for physical assessment and treatment, but little is known about their use by osteopathic physicians in the United States.
Methods:
A web-based survey using a 5-point Likert scale was developed and e-mailed to 777 practicing osteopathic physician members of the American Academy of Osteopathy. Responses in the &quot;frequently&quot; and &quot;always&quot; categories were combined for reporting purposes. Friedman tests were used to analyze the reported usage of each item. The effect of gender was analyzed using Mann-Whitney tests.
Results:
One hundred seventy-one osteopathic physicians completed the survey (22%). For the assessment of spinal somatic dysfunction, paraspinal tissue texture (98%), transverse process asymmetry (89%), and tenderness (85%) were most commonly reported. Myofascial release (78%), soft tissue technique (77%), and patient self-stretches (71%) were most commonly used for treatment of the spine. For assessment of pelvic landmark asymmetry, the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS, 87%), sacral base (82%), posterior superior iliac spine (81%), sacral sulci (78%), iliac crests (77%), and inferior lateral angle of the sacrum (74%) were commonly palpated. For assessment of sacroiliac joint motion, ASIS compression (68%) was most commonly used. Sacroiliac pain provocation tests were also employed although their use was less common than asymmetry or motion tests. Muscle energy (70%), myofascial release (67%), patient self-stretches (66%), osteopathy in the cranial field (59%), muscle strengthening exercises (58%), soft tissue technique (58%), and articulatory technique (53%) were most commonly used for treatment of the pelvis and sacroiliac. The effect of gender was significant for many of the treatment procedures, with females using more soft tissue and muscle energy and males more high-velocity techniques. The majority of respondents document the types of osteopathic manipulative techniques used (83%), document somatic dysfunction with Fryette nomenclature (64%), and bill for osteopathic manipulative treatment (92%).
Conclusion:
Respondents reported the use of a broad range of assessment and treatment approaches. Results suggest a higher use of myofascial release and cranial technique and lower use of high-velocity techniques in this group of physicians compared to previous studies.</description>
        <link>http://www.om-pc.com/content/3/1/4</link>
                <dc:creator>Gary Fryer</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Christopher Morse</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jane Johnson</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care 2009, null:4</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-04-14T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1750-4732-3-4</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1750-4732-3-4-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1750-4732</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>4</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-04-14T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.om-pc.com/content/3/1/9">
        <title>The immediate effect of individual manipulation techniques on pulmonary function measures in persons with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease</title>
        <description>Background:
The use of manipulation has long been advocated in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but few randomized controlled clinical trials have measured the effect of manipulation on pulmonary function. In addition, the effects of individual manipulative techniques on the pulmonary system are poorly understood. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the immediate effects of four osteopathic techniques on pulmonary function measures in persons with COPD relative to a minimal-touch control protocol.
Methods:
Persons with COPD aged 50 and over were recruited for the study. Subjects received five, single-technique treatment sessions: minimal-touch control, thoracic lymphatic pump (TLP) with activation, TLP without activation, rib raising, and myofascial release. There was a 4-week washout period between sessions. Protocols were given in random order until all five techniques had been administered. Pulmonary function measures were obtained at baseline and 30-minutes posttreatment. For the actual pulmonary function measures and percent predicted values, Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to test within-technique changes from baseline. For the percent change from baseline, Friedman tests were used to test for between-technique differences.
Results:
Twenty-five subjects were enrolled in the study. All four tested osteopathic techniques were associated with adverse posttreatment changes in pulmonary function measures; however, different techniques changed different measures. TLP with activation increased posttreatment residual volume compared to baseline, while TLP without activation did not. Side effects were mild, mostly posttreatment chest wall soreness. Surprisingly, the majority of subjects believed they could breathe better after receiving osteopathic manipulation.
Conclusion:
In persons with COPD, TLP with activation, TLP without activation, rib raising, and myofascial release mildly worsened pulmonary function measures immediately posttreatment relative to baseline measurements. The activation component of the TLP technique appears to increase posttreatment residual volume. Despite adverse changes in pulmonary function measures, persons with COPD subjectively reported they benefited from osteopathic manipulation.</description>
        <link>http://www.om-pc.com/content/3/1/9</link>
                <dc:creator>Donald Noll</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jane Johnson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Robert Baer</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Eric Snider</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care 2009, null:9</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-10-08T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1750-4732-3-9</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1750-4732-3-9-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1750-4732</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>9</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-10-08T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.om-pc.com/content/2/1/7">
        <title>Osteopathic manipulative treatment and its relationship to autonomic nervous system activity as demonstrated by heart rate variability: a repeated measures study</title>
        <description>Background:
The relationship between osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) and the autonomic nervous system has long been acknowledged, but is poorly understood. In an effort to define this relationship, cervical myofascial release was used as the OMT technique with heart rate variability (HRV) as a surrogate for autonomic activity. This study quantifies that relationship and demonstrates a cause and effect.
Methods:
Seventeen healthy subjects, nine males and eight females aged 19&#8211;50 years from the faculty, staff, and students at Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences College of Osteopathic Medicine, acted as their own controls and received interventions, administered in separate sessions at least 24 hours apart, of cervical myofascial OMT, touch-only sham OMT, and no-touch control while at a 50-degree head-up tilt. Each group was dichotomized into extremes of autonomic activity using a tilt table. Comparisons were made between measurements taken at tilt and those taken at pre- and post-intervention in the horizontal.The variance of the spectral components of HRV, expressed as frequencies, measured the response to change in position of the subjects. Normalized low frequency (LF) and high frequency (HF) values, including LF/HF ratio, were calculated and used to determine the effect of position change on HRV.
Results:
Predominantly parasympathetic responses were observed with subjects in the horizontal position, while a 50-degree tilt provided a significantly different measure of maximum sympathetic tone (p &lt; 0.001). Heart rate changed in all subjects with change in position; respirations remained constant. When OMT was performed in a sympathetic environment (tilt), a vagal response was produced that was strong enough to overcome the sympathetic tone. There was no HRV difference between sham and control in either the horizontal or tilt positions.
Conclusion:
The vagal response produced by the myofascial release procedure in the maximally stimulated sympathetic environment could only have come from the application of the OMT. This demonstrates the association between OMT and the autonomic nervous system. The lack of significance between control and sham in all positions indicates that HRV may be a useful method of developing sham controls in future studies of OMT.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov NCT00516984.</description>
        <link>http://www.om-pc.com/content/2/1/7</link>
                <dc:creator>Charles Henley</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Douglas Ivins</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Miriam Mills</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Frances Wen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Bruce Benjamin</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care 2008, null:7</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2008-06-05T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1750-4732-2-7</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1750-4732-2-7-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1750-4732</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>7</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2008-06-05T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.om-pc.com/content/4/1/2">
        <title>Efficacy of osteopathic manipulation as an adjunctive treatment for hospitalized patients with pneumonia:  a randomized controlled trial</title>
        <description>Background:
The Multicenter Osteopathic Pneumonia Study in the Elderly (MOPSE) is a registered, double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial designed to assess the efficacy of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) as an adjunctive treatment in elderly patients with pneumonia.
Methods:
406 subjects aged &#8805; 50 years hospitalized with pneumonia at 7 community hospitals were randomized using concealed allocation to conventional care only (CCO), light-touch treatment (LT), or OMT groups. All subjects received conventional treatment for pneumonia. OMT and LT groups received group-specific protocols for 15 minutes, twice daily until discharge, cessation of antibiotics, respiratory failure, death, or withdrawal from the study. The primary outcomes were hospital length of stay (LOS), time to clinical stability, and a symptomatic and functional recovery score.
Results:
Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (n = 387) found no significant differences between groups. Per-protocol (PP) analysis (n = 318) found a significant difference between groups (P = 0.01) in LOS. Multiple comparisons indicated a reduction in median LOS (95% confidence interval) for the OMT group (3.5 [3.2-4.0] days) versus the CCO group (4.5 [3.9-4.9] days), but not versus the LT group (3.9 [3.5-4.8] days). Secondary outcomes of duration of intravenous antibiotics and treatment endpoint were also significantly different between groups (P = 0.05 and 0.006, respectively). Duration of intravenous antibiotics and death or respiratory failure were lower for the OMT group versus the CCO group, but not versus the LT group.
Conclusions:
ITT analysis found no differences between groups. PP analysis found significant reductions in LOS, duration of intravenous antibiotics, and respiratory failure or death when OMT was compared to CCO. Given the prevalence of pneumonia, adjunctive OMT merits further study.</description>
        <link>http://www.om-pc.com/content/4/1/2</link>
                <dc:creator>Donald Noll</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Brian Degenhardt</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Thomas Morley</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Francis Blais</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Kari Hortos</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Kendi Hensel</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jane Johnson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>David Pasta</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Scott Stoll</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care 2010, null:2</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-03-19T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1750-4732-4-2</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1750-4732-4-2-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1750-4732</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>2</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-03-19T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.om-pc.com/content/3/1/1">
        <title>A review of the benefits and risks of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the management of mild-to-moderate osteoarthritis</title>
        <description>This review is intended to provide physicians with an overview of the benefits and risks associated with the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the management of their patients with mild-to-moderate osteoarthritis (OA). New information on the inflammatory component of OA and the cardiovascular (CV) risk associated with cyclooxygenase (COX)-2-specific inhibitors has prompted efforts to revise the current recommendations for the use of NSAIDs in the treatment of patients with OA. Clinical studies have shown that naproxen and ibuprofen are significantly more effective at reducing OA pain than is acetaminophen, the traditional first-line therapy, which has no apparent anti-inflammatory activity in the joints. The theoretical advantage of COX-2-specific inhibitors in reducing gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity has been demonstrated by clinical studies. GI complications can be reduced by using lower NSAID doses for the shortest duration or with a concomitant proton-pump inhibitor. All prescription NSAIDs carry a black box warning regarding CV risks; these risks vary among the NSAIDs. While ibuprofen and diclofenac are associated with an increased CV risk, naproxen was associated with a neutral CV risk relative to placebo. Ibuprofen, but not naproxen, attenuates the antiplatelet effects of aspirin. An understanding of the risks and benefits is important when choosing an NSAID. An exhaustive search of the medical literature since 1990 was conducted using the words &quot;ibuprofen,&quot; &quot;naproxen,&quot; &quot;COX-2-specific NSAIDs,&quot; &quot;nonspecific NSAIDs,&quot; &quot;low-dose aspirin,&quot; and &quot;nonprescription dosage.&quot; Databases searched included MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCISEARCH. This article provides primary care physicians with the information needed to assist them in making more informed decisions in managing patients experiencing mild-to-moderate OA pain.</description>
        <link>http://www.om-pc.com/content/3/1/1</link>
                <dc:creator>A Mark Fendrick</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Bruce Greenberg</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care 2009, null:1</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-01-06T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1750-4732-3-1</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1750-4732-3-1-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1750-4732</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>1</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-01-06T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.om-pc.com/content/1/1/10">
        <title>Avian influenza: an osteopathic component to treatment</title>
        <description>Avian influenza is an infection caused by the H5N1 virus. The infection is highly contagious among birds, and only a few known cases of human avian influenza have been documented. However, healthcare experts around the world are concerned that mutation or genetic exchange with more commonly transmitted human influenza viruses could result in a pandemic of avian influenza. Their concern remains in spite of the fact that the first United States vaccine against the H5N1 virus was recently approved. Under these circumstances the fear is that a pandemic of avian influenza could result in the kind of mortality that was seen with the Spanish influenza pandemic of 1918&#8211;1919, where the number of deaths was estimated to be as high as 40 million people.Retrospective data gathered by the American Osteopathic Association shortly after the 1918&#8211;1919 influenza pandemic have suggested that osteopathic physicians (DOs), using their distinctive osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) methods, observed significantly lower morbidity and mortality among their patients as compared to those treated by allopathic physicians (MDs) with standard medical care available at the time. In light of the limited prevention and treatment options available, it seems logical that a preparedness plan for the treatment of avian influenza should include these OMT procedures, provided by DOs and other healthcare workers capable of being trained to perform these therapeutic interventions. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the characteristics of avian influenza, describe the success of DOs during the 1918&#8211;1919 Spanish influenza pandemic, describe the evidence base for the inclusion of OMT as part of the preparedness plan for the treatment of avian influenza, and describe some of the specific OMT procedures that could be utilized as part of the treatment protocol for avian influenza patients.</description>
        <link>http://www.om-pc.com/content/1/1/10</link>
                <dc:creator>Raymond Hruby</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Keasha Hoffman</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care 2007, null:10</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2007-07-09T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1750-4732-1-10</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1750-4732-1-10-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1750-4732</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>10</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2007-07-09T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.om-pc.com/content/4/1/3">
        <title>Osteopathic manipulative treatment for pneumonia </title>
        <description>The pneumonias due to infection continue to be a meaningful threat to the health and viability of persons, particularly those in high risk groups: children, the aged and the debilitated. Noll and colleagues provide us with the results of a well-designed and well-executed multi-institutional controlled clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) in the treatment of pneumonia. The data obtained indicate that by intention-to-treat analysis, the addition of OMT to conventional care did not improve the designated outcomes when compared to conventional care only. A disappointing but important finding. However, by per-protocol analysis, the addition of OMT or of light touch decreased length of hospital stay, the duration of intravenous antibiotics and the incidence of respiratory failure and death relative to conventional care only. Further study is called for to explain these surprising results.Meeting the need for randomized clinical trials of the role and efficacy of OMT is a responsibility of high priority for the osteopathic profession in this age of evidence-based medicine. The American Osteopathic Association (AOA) needs to consider reinstating a dues-generated financial set-aside both to increase its support of osteopathic research and to initiate a program of physician-investigator career development awards to recruit and help establish osteopathic clinical investigators in a career in translational and clinical research.</description>
        <link>http://www.om-pc.com/content/4/1/3</link>
                <dc:creator>Murray Goldstein</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care 2010, null:3</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-03-19T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1750-4732-4-3</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1750-4732-4-3-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1750-4732</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>3</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-03-19T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.om-pc.com/content/3/1/7">
        <title>Muscle functional magnetic resonance imaging and acute low back pain: a pilot study to characterize lumbar muscle activity asymmetries and examine the effects of osteopathic manipulative treatment</title>
        <description>Background:
Muscle functional magnetic resonance imaging (mfMRI) measures transverse relaxation time (T2), and allows for determination of the spatial pattern of muscle activation. The purposes of this pilot study were to examine whether MRI-derived T2 or side-to-side differences in T2 (asymmetries) differ in low back muscles between subjects with acute low back pain (LBP) compared to asymptomatic controls, and to determine if a single osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) session alters these T2 properties immediately and 48-hours after treatment.
Methods:
Subjects with non-specific acute LBP (mean score on 1-10 visual analog score = 3.02 &#177; 2.81) and asymptomatic controls (n = 9/group) underwent an MRI, and subsequently the LBP subjects received OMT and then underwent another MRI. The LBP subjects reported back for an additional MRI 48-hours following their initial visit. T2 and T2 asymmetry were calculated from regions of interest for the psoas, quadratus lumborum (QL), multifidus, and iliocostalis lumborum/longissimus thoracis (IL/LT) muscles.
Results:
No differences were observed between the groups when T2 was averaged for the left and right side muscles. However, the QL displayed a significantly greater T2 asymmetry in LBP subjects when compared to controls (29.1 &#177; 4.3 vs. 15.9 &#177; 4.1%; p = 0.05). The psoas muscle also displayed a relatively large, albeit non-significant, mean difference (22.7 &#177; 6.9 vs. 9.5 &#177; 2.8%; p = 0.11). In the subjects with LBP, psoas T2 asymmetry was significantly reduced immediately following OMT (25.3 &#177; 6.9 to 6.1 &#177; 1.8%, p = 0.05), and the change in LBP immediately following OMT was correlated with the change in psoas T2 asymmetry (r = 0.75, p = 0.02).
Conclusion:
Collectively, this pilot work demonstrates the feasibility of mfMRI for quantification and localization of muscle abnormalities in patients with acute low back pain. Additionally, this pilot work provides insight into the mechanistic actions of OMT during acute LBP, as it suggests that it may attenuate muscle activity asymmetries of some of the intrinsic low back muscles.</description>
        <link>http://www.om-pc.com/content/3/1/7</link>
                <dc:creator>Brian Clark</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Stevan Walkowski</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Robert Conatser</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>David Eland</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>John Howell</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care 2009, null:7</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-08-27T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1750-4732-3-7</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1750-4732-3-7-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1750-4732</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>7</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-08-27T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.om-pc.com/content/1/1/14">
        <title>Treating anemia of chronic kidney disease in the primary care setting: cardiovascular outcomes and management recommendations</title>
        <description>Anemia is an underrecognized but characteristic feature of chronic kidney disease (CKD), associated with significant cardiovascular morbidity, hospitalization, and mortality. Since their inception nearly two decades ago, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have revolutionized the care of patients with renal anemia, and their use has been associated with improved quality of life and reduced hospitalizations, inpatient costs, and mortality. Hemoglobin targets &#8805;13 g/dL have been linked with adverse events in recent randomized trials, raising concerns over the proper hemoglobin range for ESA treatment. This review appraises observational and randomized studies of the outcomes of erythropoietic treatment and offers recommendations for managing renal anemia in the primary care setting.</description>
        <link>http://www.om-pc.com/content/1/1/14</link>
                <dc:creator>Rebecca Schmidt</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Cheryl Dalton</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care 2007, null:14</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2007-10-02T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1750-4732-1-14</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1750-4732-1-14-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1750-4732</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>14</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2007-10-02T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks" />
    </cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>

