01851nas a2200169   4500000000100000008004100001100001400042700001400056700001500070700001300085245014300098250001500241300001100256490000700267520136100274020004601635       2012                            d1 aSheets C.1 aMacedo L.1 aHancock M.1 aMaher C.00aCan we predict response to the McKenzie method in patients with acute low back pain? A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial  a2011/11/24  a1250-60 v213 a<p>
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether patients' treatment preferences, characteristics, or symptomatic response to assessment moderated the effect of the McKenzie method for acute low back pain (LBP). METHODS: This study involved a secondary analysis of a previous RCT on the effect of adding the McKenzie method to the recommended first-line care for patients with acute non-specific LBP. 148 patients were randomized to the First-line Care Group (recommended first-line care alone) or the McKenzie Group (McKenzie method in addition to the first-line care) for a 3-week course of treatment. The primary outcome was pain intensity at 3 weeks. The ability of six patient characteristics to identify those who respond best to McKenzie method was assessed using interaction terms in linear regression models. RESULTS: The six investigated potential effect modifiers for response to the McKenzie method did not predict a more favorable response to this treatment. None of the point estimates for effect modification met our pre-specified criterion of clinical importance of a 1 point greater improvement in pain. For five of the six predictors, the 95% CI did not include our criterion for meaningful clinical improvement. CONCLUSION: We were unable to find any clinically useful effect modifiers for patients with acute LBP receiving the McKenzie method.
</p>
  a1432-0932 (Electronic)0940-6719 (Linking)