Dataset Information

A preliminary study comparing the use of cervical/upper thoracic mobilization and manipulation for individuals with mechanical neck pain.

ABSTRACT: Neck pain is routinely managed using manual therapy (MT) to the cervical and thoracic spines. While both mobilizations and manipulations to these areas have been shown to reduce neck pain, increase cervical range of motion, and reduce disability, the most effective option remains elusive. The purpose of this preliminary trial was to compare the pragmatic use of cervical and thoracic mobilizations vs. manipulation for mechanical neck pain.This trial included 20 patients with mechanical neck pain. Each patient was randomized to receive either mobilization or manipulation to both the cervical and thoracic spines during their plan of care. Within-group analyses were made with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and between-group analyses were made with Mann-Whitney U.There were no between-group differences for any of the dependent variables including cervical active range of motion (CAROM) (P?=?0.18), deep cervical flexion (DCF) endurance (P?=?0.06), numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) (P?=?0.26), the neck disability index (NDI, P?=?0.33), patient-specific functional scale (PSFS, P?=?0.20), or the global rating of change (GROC) scale (P?=?0.94). Within-group results were significant for all outcome variables (P<0.001) from initial evaluation to discharge for both groups.These findings were consistent with other trials previously conducted that applied the MT techniques in a pragmatic fashion, but varied from previous trials where the treatment was standardized. A larger experimental study is necessary to further examine the differences between mobilization and manipulation for neck pain.

SUBMITTER: Griswold D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4461717 | biostudies-literature | 2015 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A preliminary study comparing the use of cervical/upper thoracic mobilization and manipulation for individuals with mechanical neck pain.

Griswold David D Learman Ken K O'Halloran Bryan B Cleland Josh J

The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy 20150501 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>Neck pain is routinely managed using manual therapy (MT) to the cervical and thoracic spines. While both mobilizations and manipulations to these areas have been shown to reduce neck pain, increase cervical range of motion, and reduce disability, the most effective option remains elusive. The purpose of this preliminary trial was to compare the pragmatic use of cervical and thoracic mobilizations vs. manipulation for mechanical neck pain.<h4>Methods</h4>This trial included 20 ...[more]

PMID: 26109828

Similar Datasets

Project description:Although commonly utilized interventions, no studies have directly compared the effectiveness of cervical and thoracic manipulation to mobilization and exercise in individuals with cervicogenic headache (CH). The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of manipulation to mobilization and exercise in individuals with CH.One hundred and ten participants (n = 110) with CH were randomized to receive both cervical and thoracic manipulation (n = 58) or mobilization and exercise (n = 52). The primary outcome was headache intensity as measured by the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Secondary outcomes included headache frequency, headache duration, disability as measured by the Neck Disability Index (NDI), medication intake, and the Global Rating of Change (GRC). The treatment period was 4 weeks with follow-up assessment at 1 week, 4 weeks, and 3 months after initial treatment session. The primary aim was examined with a 2-way mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA), with treatment group (manipulation versus mobilization and exercise) as the between subjects variable and time (baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks and 3 months) as the within subjects variable.The 2X4 ANOVA demonstrated that individuals with CH who received both cervical and thoracic manipulation experienced significantly greater reductions in headache intensity (p < 0.001) and disability (p < 0.001) than those who received mobilization and exercise at a 3-month follow-up. Individuals in the upper cervical and upper thoracic manipulation group also experienced less frequent headaches and shorter duration of headaches at each follow-up period (p < 0.001 for all). Additionally, patient perceived improvement was significantly greater at 1 and 4-week follow-up periods in favor of the manipulation group (p < 0.001).Six to eight sessions of upper cervical and upper thoracic manipulation were shown to be more effective than mobilization and exercise in patients with CH, and the effects were maintained at 3 months.NCT01580280 April 16, 2012.

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.

Dataset Information

A preliminary study comparing the use of cervical/upper thoracic mobilization and manipulation for individuals with mechanical neck pain.

Publications

A preliminary study comparing the use of cervical/upper thoracic mobilization and manipulation for individuals with mechanical neck pain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets