Dataset Information

The immediate effects of thoracic transverse mobilization in patients with the primary complaint of mechanical neck pain: a pilot study.

ABSTRACT: Posterior-to-anterior (PA) vertebral mobilization to the thoracic spine has been studied as an intervention for neck pain. Our purpose was to explore effects of a different mobilization technique, transverse vertebral pressure, on cervical range of motion (ROM) and pain when applied to the thoracic spine among participants with neck pain.A single-blinded quasi-experimental study with a one-group pretest-posttest design. A transverse group consisted of 21 participants whose neck pain increased with active movements. A non-intervention group of 20 asymptomatic participants was included simply to ensure rater blinding. The treatment group received Grades IV to IV+ transverse mobilizations at T1 through T4 bilaterally. Measurements taken immediately after intervention included pre/post cervical ROM, distant pressure pain threshold (PPT), and a numerical pain rating scale (NPRS). Analysis utilized t-tests and ordinal counterparts.The transverse group demonstrated significant gains in extension and bilateral rotation (P?0.005) but not flexion or side-bend. A total of 57% of mobilized participants reported clinically meaningful decreased pain (P<0.001). Seven participants exceeded the PPT MDC95 of 0.36 kg/cm(2). The non-intervention group had no significant changes in ROM or NPRS scores.After 8 minutes of transverse mobilization to the upper thoracic spine, significant gains in cervical extension and bilateral rotation, and decreased pain scores were found. There were no adverse effects. Unlike other mobilization studies, PPT changes at a remote site were statistically but not clinically meaningful. Findings suggest that transverse mobilization would be a productive topic for controlled clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: McGregor C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4215099 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The immediate effects of thoracic transverse mobilization in patients with the primary complaint of mechanical neck pain: a pilot study.

McGregor CIndy C Boyles Robert R Murahashi Laura L Sena Tanya T Yarnall Robert R

The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy 20141101 4

<h4>Objective</h4>Posterior-to-anterior (PA) vertebral mobilization to the thoracic spine has been studied as an intervention for neck pain. Our purpose was to explore effects of a different mobilization technique, transverse vertebral pressure, on cervical range of motion (ROM) and pain when applied to the thoracic spine among participants with neck pain.<h4>Methods</h4>A single-blinded quasi-experimental study with a one-group pretest-posttest design. A transverse group consisted of 21 partici ...[more]

PMID: 25395827

Similar Datasets

Project description:STUDY DESIGN:Pilot randomized controlled trial. BACKGROUND:Better understanding of the relative effectiveness of different approaches to cervical spine mobilization has been identified as a research priority in manual therapy practice. Two distinct approaches to the practice of mobilization have emerged in recent years, based on different reasoning models for selection of mobilization techniques. The objective of this pilot study was to assess feasibility aspects for a future randomized clinical trial by exploring short-term pain and disability outcomes after a single treatment with pragmatic versus prescriptive approaches to cervical mobilization for people with recent-onset neck pain at 48-h follow-up after randomization. METHODS:Twenty adults with a new episode of mechanical neck pain were randomly allocated to either pragmatic or prescriptive mobilization intervention groups. The pragmatic group received a single treatment of cervical mobilization with the technique, target segment, and grade selected by their treating therapist. The prescriptive group received a single treatment of standardized mobilization with techniques similar to a previous mobilization clinical trial. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment rates, randomization audit and completion of treatment and follow-up per protocol. The primary clinical outcome of interest was disability level measured at 48-h follow-up after randomization. RESULTS:Recruitment rates were approximately 2.5 participants per week and 100% of eligible participants were deemed suitable for treatment with cervical mobilization. There was sufficient variety in the range of pragmatic treatments selected and the data collection process imposed minimal burden on participants. CONCLUSIONS:Our results provide supporting evidence for the feasibility of a future larger scale randomized clinical trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616000446460). Registered 6th April 2016. https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=370448&isReview=true.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the role of thoracic spine manipulation (TSM) on pain and disability in the management of mechanical neck pain (MNP).Data sourcesElectronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, Pedro, Embase, AMED, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched in January 2018.Study selectionEligible studies were completed RCTs, written in English, had at least 2 groups with one group receiving TSM, had at least one measure of pain or disability, and included patients with MNP of any duration. The search identified 1717 potential articles, with 14 studies meeting inclusion criteria.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsMethodological quality was evaluated independently by two authors using the guidelines published by the Cochrane Collaboration. Pooled analyses were analyzed using a random-effects model with inverse variance methods to calculate mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals for pain (VAS 0-100mm, NPRS 0-10pts; 0 = no pain) and disability (NDI and NPQ 0-100%; 0 = no disability).ResultsAcross the included studies, there was increased risk of bias for inadequate provider and participant blinding. The GRADE approach demonstrated an overall level of evidence ranging from very low to moderate. Meta-analysis that compared TSM to thoracic or cervical mobilization revealed a significant effect favoring the TSM group for pain (MD -13.63; 95% CI: -21.79, -5.46) and disability (MD -9.93; 95% CI: -14.38, -5.48). Meta-analysis that compared TSM to standard care revealed a significant effect favoring the TSM group for pain (MD -13.21; 95% CI: -21.87, -4.55) and disability (MD -11.36; 95% CI: -18.93, -3.78) at short-term follow-up, and a significant effect for disability (MD -4.75; 95% CI: -6.54, -2.95) at long-term follow-up. Meta-analysis that compared TSM to cervical spine manipulation revealed a non-significant effect (MD 3.43; 95% CI: -7.26, 14.11) for pain without a distinction between immediate and short-term follow-up.LimitationsThe greatest limitation in this systematic review was the heterogeneity among the studies making it difficult to assess the true clinical benefit, as well as the overall level of quality of evidence.ConclusionsTSM has been shown to be more beneficial than thoracic mobilization, cervical mobilization, and standard care in the short-term, but no better than cervical manipulation or placebo thoracic spine manipulation to improve pain and disability.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42017068287.

Project description:BackgroundSedentary lifestyle, age-related degenerative changes or traumatic injuries leads to cervical spine structural mal-alignment, which results in neck pain and other symptoms. Various therapeutic exercises and manual techniques have been proven to be beneficial in terms of managing these symptoms. This study aimed to determine the combined effects of cervical mobilization and post-isometric relaxation (PIR) technique on managing neck pain, cervical side flexion range of motion, and functional limitation in participants with mechanical neck pain linked with myofascial trigger points.MethodsThis study followed a 2-arm, parallel-group, pretest-posttest randomized comparative design. Thirty participants with mechanical neck pain associated with myofascial trigger points aged 30.87 ± 4.45 years were randomly allocated to Groups 1 and 2. Group 1 received conventional intervention, PIR, and cervical mobilization techniques while Group 2 received conventional intervention and PIR technique only. Neck pain, muscle tenderness, cervical range of motion, and functional limitations were assessed using a visual analog scale, pressure pain threshold (PPT), goniometer, and neck disability index (NDI) questionnaire, respectively at baseline on day 1 and post-intervention on day 7, 14, and 21. Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Mann-Whitney U test evaluated within-group and between-group analyses, respectively. Statistical significance was established at a 95% confidence interval, indicated by P < .05.ResultsSignificant differences (95% confidence interval [CI], P < .05) were observed within each group for all the outcomes scores when compared to the baselines across multiple time points. Significant variations were observed between the groups when comparing visual analog scale and NDI scores at weeks 1, 2, and 3 post-interventions. In contrast, insignificant differences (95% CI, P > .05) were observed for side flexion range of motion and PPT compared at weeks 1, 2, and 3 post-interventions except for PPT at week 3 post-intervention (95% CI, P < .05). Additionally, Cohen d test revealed the superiority of group 1 over group 2 in reducing pain and functional limitations and improving cervical side flexion range of motion and PPT.ConclusionThe combination of cervical mobilization and Post-isometric relaxation techniques was discovered to effectively alleviate neck pain and enhance functional abilities when contrasted with the application of post-isometric relaxation alone in patients with mechanical neck pain linked with myofascial trigger points.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Acupuncture is increasingly being used for many conditions including chronic neck pain. However the evidence remains inconclusive, indicating the need for further well-designed research. The aim of this study was to conduct a pilot randomised controlled parallel arm trial, to establish key features required for the design and implementation of a large-scale trial on acupuncture for chronic neck pain. METHODS: Patients whose GPs had diagnosed neck pain were recruited from one general practice, and randomised to receive usual GP care only, or acupuncture (up to 10 treatments over 3 months) as an adjunctive treatment to usual GP care. The primary outcome measure was the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ) at 3 months. The primary analysis was to determine the sample size for the full scale study. RESULTS: Of the 227 patients with neck pain identified from the GP database, 28 (12.3%) consenting patients were eligible to participate in the pilot and 24 (10.5%) were recruited to the trial. Ten patients were randomised to acupuncture, receiving an average of eight treatments from one of four acupuncturists, and 14 were randomised to usual GP care alone. The sample size for the full scale trial was calculated from a clinically meaningful difference of 5% on the NPQ and, from this pilot, an adjusted standard deviation of 15.3%. Assuming 90% power at the 5% significance level, a sample size of 229 would be required in each arm in a large-scale trial when allowing for a loss to follow-up rate of 14%. In order to achieve this sample, one would need to identify patients from databases of GP practices with a total population of 230,000 patients, or approximately 15 GP practices roughly equal in size to the one involved in this study (i.e. 15,694 patients). CONCLUSION: This pilot study has allowed a number of recommendations to be made to facilitate the design of a large-scale trial, which in turn will help to clarify the existing evidence base on acupuncture for neck pain.

Project description:Background contextSpinal manipulation (SM) is a common treatment for neck and back pain, theorized to mechanically affect the spine leading to therapeutic mechanical changes. The link between specific mechanical effects and clinical improvement is not well supported. SM's therapeutic action may instead be partially mediated within the central nervous system.PurposeTo introduce brain-based models of pain for spinal pain and manual therapy research, characterize the distributed central mechanisms of SM, and advance the preliminary validation of brain-based models as potential clinical biomarkers of pain.Study designSecondary analysis of two functional magnetic resonance imaging studies investigating the effect of thoracic SM on pain-related brain activity: A non-controlled, non-blinded study in healthy volunteers (Study 1, n = 10, 5 females, and mean age = 31.2 ± 10.0 years) and a randomized controlled study in participants with acute to subacute neck pain (Study 2, n = 24, 16 females, mean age = 38.0 ± 15.1 years).MethodsFunctional magnetic resonance imaging was performed during noxious mechanical stimulation of the right index finger cuticle pre- and post-intervention. The effect of SM on pain-related activity was studied within brain regions defined by the Neurologic Pain Signature (NPS) that are predictive of physical pain.ResultsIn Study 1, evoked mechanical pain (p < 0.001) and NPS activation (p = 0.010) decreased following SM, and the changes in evoked pain and NPS activation were correlated (rRM2 = 0.418, p = 0.016). Activation within the NPS subregions of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC, p = 0.012) and right secondary somatosensory cortex/operculum (rS2_Op, p = 0.045) also decreased following SM, and evoked pain was correlated with dACC activity (rRM2 = 0.477, p = 0.019). In Study 2, neck pain (p = 0.046) and NPS (p = 0.033) activation decreased following verum but not sham SM. Associations between evoked pain, neck pain, and NPS activation, were not significant and less clear, possibly due to inadequate power, methodological limitations, or other confounding factors.ConclusionsThe findings provide preliminary evidence that SM may alter the processing of pain-related brain activity within specific pain-related brain regions and support the use of brain-based models as clinical biomarkers of pain.

Dataset Information

The immediate effects of thoracic transverse mobilization in patients with the primary complaint of mechanical neck pain: a pilot study.

Publications

The immediate effects of thoracic transverse mobilization in patients with the primary complaint of mechanical neck pain: a pilot study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets