Dataset Information

The outcomes of manipulation or mobilization therapy compared with physical therapy or exercise for neck pain: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Study Design?Systematic review. Study Rationale?Neck pain is a prevalent condition. Spinal manipulation and mobilization procedures are becoming an accepted treatment for neck pain. However, data on the effectiveness of these treatments have not been summarized. Objective?To compare manipulation or mobilization of the cervical spine to physical therapy or exercise for symptom improvement in patients with neck pain. Methods?A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed, the National Guideline Clearinghouse Database, and bibliographies of key articles, which compared spinal manipulation or mobilization therapy with physical therapy or exercise in patients with neck pain. Articles were included based on predetermined criteria and were appraised using a predefined quality rating scheme. Results?From 197 citations, 7 articles met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were no differences in pain improvement when comparing spinal manipulation to exercise, and there were inconsistent reports of pain improvement in subjects who underwent mobilization therapy versus physical therapy. No disability improvement was reported between treatment groups in studies of acute or chronic neck pain patients. No functional improvement was found with manipulation therapy compared with exercise treatment or mobilization therapy compared with physical therapy groups in patients with acute pain. In chronic neck pain subjects who underwent spinal manipulation therapy compared to exercise treatment, results for short-term functional improvement were inconsistent. Conclusion?The data available suggest that there are minimal short- and long-term treatment differences in pain, disability, patient-rated treatment improvement, treatment satisfaction, health status, or functional improvement when comparing manipulation or mobilization therapy to physical therapy or exercise in patients with neck pain. This systematic review is limited by the variability of treatment interventions and lack of standardized outcomes to assess treatment benefit.

SUBMITTER: Schroeder J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3699243 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The outcomes of manipulation or mobilization therapy compared with physical therapy or exercise for neck pain: a systematic review.

Schroeder Josh J Kaplan Leon L Fischer Dena J DJ Skelly Andrea C AC

Evidence-based spine-care journal 20130401 1

Study Design Systematic review. Study Rationale Neck pain is a prevalent condition. Spinal manipulation and mobilization procedures are becoming an accepted treatment for neck pain. However, data on the effectiveness of these treatments have not been summarized. Objective To compare manipulation or mobilization of the cervical spine to physical therapy or exercise for symptom improvement in patients with neck pain. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed, the Nat ...[more]

PMID: 24436697

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used by patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain; however, questions remain around efficacy, dosing, and safety, as well as how these approaches compare to other therapies. OBJECTIVES:Based on published trials, to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic nonspecific neck pain. STUDY DESIGN:A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. METHODS:We identified studies published between January 2000 and September 2017, by searching multiple electronic databases, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation and/or mobilization therapies to sham, no treatment, each other, and other active therapies, or when combined as multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias by using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. When possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project was funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under award number U19AT007912 and ultimately used to inform an appropriateness panel. RESULTS:A total of 47 randomized trials (47 unique trials in 53 publications) were included in the systematic review. These studies were rated as having low risk of bias and included a total of 4,460 patients with nonspecific chronic neck pain who were being treated by a practitioner using various types of manipulation and/or mobilization interventions. A total of 37 trials were categorized as unimodal approaches and involved thrust or nonthrust compared with sham, no treatment, or other active comparators. Of these, only 6 trials with similar intervention styles, comparators, and outcome measures/timepoints were pooled for meta-analysis at 1, 3, and 6 months, showing a small effect in favor of thrust plus exercise compared to an exercise regimen alone for a reduction in pain and disability. Multimodal approaches appeared to be effective at reducing pain and improving function from the 10 studies evaluated. Health-related quality of life was seldom reported. Some 22/47 studies did not report or mention adverse events. Of the 25 that did, either no or minor events occurred. LIMITATIONS:The current evidence is heterogeneous, and sample sizes are generally small. CONCLUSIONS:Studies published since January 2000 provide low-moderate quality evidence that various types of manipulation and/or mobilization will reduce pain and improve function for chronic nonspecific neck pain compared to other interventions. It appears that multimodal approaches, in which multiple treatment approaches are integrated, might have the greatest potential impact. The studies comparing to no treatment or sham were mostly testing the effect of a single dose, which may or may not be helpful to inform practice. According to the published trials reviewed, manipulation and mobilization appear safe. However, given the low rate of serious adverse events, other types of studies with much larger sample sizes would be required to fully describe the safety of manipulation and/or mobilization for nonspecific chronic neck pain. KEY WORDS:Chronic neck pain, nonspecific, chiropractic, manipulation, mobilization, systematic review, meta-analysis, appropriateness.

Project description:BACKGROUND CONTEXT:Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used to benefit patients with chronic low back pain. However, questions remain about their efficacy, dosing, safety, and how these approaches compare with other therapies. PURPOSE:The present study aims to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic low back pain. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING:This is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. OUTCOME MEASURES:The present study measures self-reported pain, function, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. METHODS:We identified studies by searching multiple electronic databases from January 2000 to March 2017, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation or mobilization therapies with sham, no treatment, other active therapies, and multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Where possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project is funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under Award Number U19AT007912. RESULTS:Fifty-one trials were included in the systematic review. Nine trials (1,176 patients) provided sufficient data and were judged similar enough to be pooled for meta-analysis. The standardized mean difference for a reduction of pain was SMD=-0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.09, p=.004; I2=57% after treatment; within seven trials (923 patients), the reduction in disability was SMD=-0.33, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.03, p=.03; I2=78% for manipulation or mobilization compared with other active therapies. Subgroup analyses showed that manipulation significantly reduced pain and disability, compared with other active comparators including exercise and physical therapy (SMD=-0.43, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.00; p=.05, I2=79%; SMD=-0.86, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.45; p<.0001, I2=46%). Mobilization interventions, compared with other active comparators including exercise regimens, significantly reduced pain (SMD=-0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.04; p=.01; I2=0%) but not disability (SMD=-0.10, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.07; p=.25; I2=21%). Studies comparing manipulation or mobilization with sham or no treatment were too few or too heterogeneous to allow for pooling as were studies examining relationships between dose and outcomes. Few studies assessed health-related quality of life. Twenty-six of 51 trials were multimodal studies and narratively described. CONCLUSION:There is moderate-quality evidence that manipulation and mobilization are likely to reduce pain and improve function for patients with chronic low back pain; manipulation appears to produce a larger effect than mobilization. Both therapies appear safe. Multimodal programs may be a promising option.

Project description:BackgroundChronic low back pain (CLBP) is a common and often disabling musculoskeletal condition. Yoga has been proven to be an effective therapy for chronic low back pain. However, there are still controversies about the effects of yoga at different follow-up periods and compared with other physical therapy exercises.ObjectiveTo critically compare the effects of yoga for patients with chronic low back pain on pain, disability, quality of life with non-exercise (e.g. usual care, education), physical therapy exercise.MethodsThis study was registered in PROSPERO, and the registration number was CRD42020159865. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of online databases included PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase which evaluated effects of yoga for patients with chronic low back pain on pain, disability, and quality of life were searched from inception time to November 1, 2019. Studies were eligible if they assessed at least one important outcome, namely pain, back-specific disability, quality of life. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included randomized controlled trials. The continuous outcomes were analyzed by calculating the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) according to whether combining outcomes measured on different scales or not.ResultsA total of 18 randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. Yoga could significantly reduce pain at 4 to 8 weeks (MD = -0.83, 95% CI = -1.19 to -0.48, p<0.00001, I2 = 0%), 3 months (MD = -0.43, 95% CI = -0.64 to -0.23, p<0.0001, I2 = 0%), 6 to 7 months (MD = -0.56, 95% CI = -1.02 to -0.11, p = 0.02, I2 = 50%), and was not significant in 12 months (MD = -0.52, 95% CI = -1.64 to 0.59, p = 0.36, I2 = 87%) compared with non-exercise. Yoga was better than non-exercise on disability at 4 to 8 weeks (SMD = -0.30, 95% CI = -0.51 to -0.10, p = 0.003, I2 = 0%), 3 months (SMD = -0.31, 95% CI = -0.45 to -0.18, p<0.00001, I2 = 30%), 6 months (SMD = -0.38, 95% CI = -0.53 to -0.23, p<0.00001, I2 = 0%), 12 months (SMD = -0.33, 95% CI = -0.54 to -0.12, p = 0.002, I2 = 9%). There was no significant difference on pain, disability compared with physical therapy exercise group. Furthermore, it suggested that there was a non-significant difference on physical and mental quality of life between yoga and any other interventions.ConclusionThis meta-analysis provided evidence from very low to moderate investigating the effectiveness of yoga for chronic low back pain patients at different time points. Yoga might decrease pain from short term to intermediate term and improve functional disability status from short term to long term compared with non-exercise (e.g. usual care, education). Yoga had the same effect on pain and disability as any other exercise or physical therapy. Yoga might not improve the physical and mental quality of life based on the result of a merging.

Project description:ObjectivesResearch suggests that attendance by physical therapists at continuing education (CE) targeting the management of low back pain (LBP) and neck pain does not result in positive impacts on clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine if therapists attending a self-paced 3-hour online Pain Neuroscience Education (PNE) program was associated with any observed changes to patient outcomes and also clinical practice.MethodsParticipants were 25 different physical therapists who treated 3,705 patients with low back pain (LBP) or neck pain before and after they had completed an online PNE CE course. Change in outcomes measures of pain and disability at discharge were compared for the patients treated before and after the therapist training. Clinical practice patterns of the therapists, including total treatment visits, duration of care, total units billed, average units billed per visit, percentage of 'active' billing units and percentage of 'active and manual' billing units, were also compared for the patient care episodes before and after the therapist training.ResultsThere was no significant difference for change in pain scores at discharge for patients treated after therapist CE training compared to those treated before regardless of the condition (LBP or neck pain). However, patients with LBP who were treated after therapist CE training did report greater improvement in their disability scores. Also after CE training, for each episode of care, therapists tended to use less total visits, billed fewer units per visit, and billed a greater percentage of more 'active' and 'active and manual' billing units.DiscussionAttending an online 3-hour CE course on PNE resulted in improved disability scores for patients with LBP, but not for those with neck pain. Changes in clinical behavior by the therapists included using less visits, billing fewer total units, and shifting to more active and manual therapy interventions. Further prospective studies with control groups should investigate the effect of therapist CE on patient outcomes and clinical practice.

Project description:Purpose: To evaluate the effects of physical exercise on neck and shoulder muscle strength and pain in military pilots. Method: Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched studies published up to April 1, 2022. Studies that met the screening criteria were included in the final meta-analysis. We calculated neck and shoulder maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVICs), prevalence of pain, and pain intensity. Heterogeneity was explored by subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Result: A total of 15 studies with 907 participants were included. In the exercise group, muscle strength was significantly increased in four directions of neck motion: flexion (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.08-0.82), extension (SMD = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.27-1.00), right lateral flexion (Rtflx) (SMD = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94), and left lateral flexion (Ltflx) (SMD = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.09-0.91). Subgroup analysis showed that fighter pilots, strength plus endurance training, and a follow-up period <20 weeks exhibited more significant muscle strength improvements than helicopter pilots, simple strength training, and a follow-up period ≥20 weeks. Overall, the pooled odds ratio (OR) for the effect of physical exercise on the prevalence of neck pain was not statistically significant (I2 = 60%). Sensitivity analysis revealed that the heterogeneity was restored after removing each of two studies (I2 = 47%), and the pooled OR was statistically significant (OR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.94, or OR = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.24-0.91). Furthermore, compared with observational studies (OS), the reduction in the prevalence of neck pain was more significant in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (OR = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.18-0.78). No significant differences in the effects of exercise on shoulder muscle strength and neck and shoulder pain intensity were observed. Conclusion: Physical exercise can improve neck muscle strength in military pilots. After removing studies that may be the source of heterogeneity, exercise showed a protective effect on neck pain, especially in RCTs. The conclusion that exercise had no effects on shoulder muscle strength and pain intensity should be taken with caution.

Dataset Information

The outcomes of manipulation or mobilization therapy compared with physical therapy or exercise for neck pain: a systematic review.

Publications

The outcomes of manipulation or mobilization therapy compared with physical therapy or exercise for neck pain: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets