A small number of participants failed to complete the study questionnaires at isolated measurement points, as presented in Tables 2 and 3. At

the end of the 2-week Selleckchem SCH900776 intervention period, the experimental and control groups did not have significantly different scores on the modified Oswestry Disability Index, with a mean between-group difference in change from baseline of 0 points (95% CI –6 to 7). Also at this time, the groups did not differ significantly on the any of the secondary outcomes, as presented in Tables 2 and 3 (individual data are presented in Table 4 on the eAddenda). The percentage of the experimental group using medication for their low back pain at the end of the 2-week intervention (88%, 38/43) was not significantly different from the control group (73%, 32/44), relative risk 1.22 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.50). A significant difference was found in global rating of change between groups immediately following the intervention. The experimental group had a mean rating of 2.9 points (SD 1.1) while the control group had a mean of 3.5 points (SD 1.4). The mean between-group difference was 0.6

points in favour of the experimental group (95% CI 0.1 to 1.1). At the 6-week and 28-week follow-up points, no statistically significant differences were identified for any outcomes, even before Bonferroni correction, as presented in Tables 2 and 3. There was no significant difference in the number of treatments received after the see more 2-week allocated intervention period. The percentage of the experimental group using medication for their low back pain at 6 weeks (83%, 34/41) was not significantly different from the control group (73%3, 0/41), relative

risk 1.13 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.43). There were no adverse effects reported during the trial in either group. This study was the first to examine the treatment of acute low back pain using Strain-Counterstrain techniques. Adding the Strain-Counterstrain intervention did not substantially improve outcomes over exercise therapy alone. The best estimates of the effect of the intervention at the three outcome assessment points were only 2 points or less science on a 100-point scale. However, the upper limits of the 95% CIs around these estimates all still included the pre-specified minimum clinically important difference of 6 points. Therefore it is possible, although unlikely, that further research could identify a clinically worthwhile difference by further refining these estimates. We consider Strain-Counterstrain to be a form of spinal manipulative therapy, because the pelvis, sacrum, and lower limbs are used to position the lumbar and sacral regions passively in degrees of flexion, extension, lateral flexion, and rotation.