The effect of manual therapy with augmentative exercises for neck pain: a randomised clinical trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Petersen SB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4768378 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The effect of manual therapy with augmentative exercises for neck pain: a randomised clinical trial.
Petersen Shannon Bravo SB Cook Chad C Donaldson Megan M Hassen Amy A Ellis Alyson A Learman Ken K
The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy 20151201 5
<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare the effect of manual therapy (MT) and an augmentative exercise programme (AEP) versus MT and general neck range of motion (ROM) on functional outcomes for patients with neck pain. A secondary objective was to examine changes in self-report measures and quantitative sensory testing (QST) following MT and AEP.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a randomised clinical trial. Seventy-two patients with neck pain were recruited. All patients received a single session of MT. Patients ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness of Maitland versus Mulligan mobilization techniques on pain, functional disability, and psychological status in patients with neck pain.MethodsForty-four patients with nonspecific neck pain were randomly assigned to the Maitland group (n=22 patients received Maitland therapy [central or unilateral postero-anterior pressure] for 2 sessions/week for 3 weeks) and Mulligan group (n=22 patients received Mulligan sustained natural apophyseal glides for 2 sessions/week for 3 weeks). This study was conducted at the Rehabilitation Clinic, King Abdulaziz Hospital, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia between December 2016 to May 2017. The outcome measures were the numeric pain rating scale score, neck disability index score, beck depression inventory score, State-trait anxiety inventory score, fear avoidance beliefs questionnaire, and pain catastrophic scale results. The independent t-test, Shapiro-Wilk test, and paired t-test were used in data analysis.ResultsThere were significant improvements in mean values of the numeric pain rating scale, neck disability index, beck depression inventory, state-trait anxiety inventory scores, and pain catastrophic scale results after the interventions in both groups (p less than 0.05, all except fear avoidance beliefs results in mulligan group p greater than 0.05), and there were no significant differences in mean values between the groups (p greater than 0.05). Conclusion. In patients with nonspecific neck pain, Maitland and Mulligan mobilization techniques have positive effects on neck pain, functional disability, and selected psychological features with no significant difference between them.
| S-EPMC7989325 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe incidence rate of neck pain is increasing worldwide, and the disease is associated with a high social burden. Manual therapy has been widely applied in the treatment of neck pain, but a high-quality, pragmatic randomized clinical trial for this treatment has not been conducted to date.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy with that of usual care for patients with chronic neck pain.Design, setting, and participantsA multicenter, assessor-blinded, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial was conducted between October 18, 2017, and June 28, 2019. This intention-to-treat analysis included 108 patients with chronic neck pain persisting for at least 3 months; patients were recruited from 5 hospitals in Korea.InterventionsTen sessions (2 sessions per week for 5 weeks) of Chuna manual therapy or usual care (electrotherapy and oral medication) were conducted.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was the difference in visual analog scale (VAS) score for chronic neck pain between baseline and 5 weeks after randomization.ResultsThis randomized clinical trial recruited 108 patients (mean [SD] age, 38.4 [9.3] years; 73 women [67.6%]). Fifty-four patients were allocated to the Chuna therapy group, and 54 received usual care. At 5 weeks after randomization, manual therapy showed statistically superior results compared with usual care in terms of pain (difference in chronic neck pain VAS, 16.8 mm; 95% CI, 10.1-23.5 mm), function (difference in Neck Disability Index, 8.6%; 95% CI, 4.2%-13.1%), and quality of life (difference in the European Quality of Life-5 Dimension 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) scores, -0.07 points; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.02 points). Regarding the 1-year cumulative values measured using area under the curve analyses, superior outcomes were attained in the manual therapy group in terms of the numerical rating scale for chronic neck pain (1.3 points; 95% CI, 0.5-2.0 points), Neck Disability Index (6.7%; 95% CI, 2.5%-10.9%), Neck Pain Questionnaire (7.4%; 95% CI, 2.3%-12.6%), and EQ-5D-5L scores (-0.03 points; -0.07 to 0.00 points).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, for patients with chronic neck pain, Chuna manual therapy was more effective than usual care in terms of pain and functional recovery at 5 weeks and 1 year after randomization. These results support the need to consider recommending manual therapies as primary care treatments for chronic neck pain.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03294785.
| S-EPMC8280970 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To determine if a neuroplasticity educational explanation for a manual therapy technique will produce a different outcome compared to a traditional mechanical explanation.Sixty-two patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) were recruited for the study. Following consent, demographic data were obtained as well as pain ratings for low back pain (LBP) and leg pain (Numeric Pain Rating Scale), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), fear-avoidance (Fear-Avoidance-Beliefs Questionnaire), forward flexion (fingertips-to-floor), and straight leg raise (SLR) (inclinometer). Patients were then randomly allocated to receive one of two explanations (neuroplasticity or mechanical), a manual therapy technique to their lumbar spine, followed by post-intervention measurements of LBP, leg pain, forward flexion, and SLR.Sixty-two patients (female 35 [56.5%]), with a mean age of 60.1 years and mean duration of 9.26 years of CLBP participated in the study. There were no statistically significant interactions for LBP (p = .325), leg pain (p = .172), and trunk flexion (p = .818) between the groups, but SLR showed a significant difference in favor of the neuroplasticity explanation (p = .041). Additionally, the neuroplasticity group were 7.2 times (95% confidence interval = 1.8-28.6) more likely to improve beyond the MDC on the SLR than participants in the mechanical group.The results of this study show that a neuroplasticity explanation, compared to a traditional biomechanical explanation, resulted in a measureable difference in SLR in patients with CLBP when receiving manual therapy. Future studies need to explore if the increase in SLR correlated to changes in cortical maps of the low back.
| S-EPMC5810776 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Manual therapy according to the School of Manual Therapy Utrecht (MTU) is a specific type of passive manual joint mobilization. MTU has not yet been systematically compared to other manual therapies and physical therapy. In this study the effectiveness of MTU is compared to physical therapy, particularly active exercise therapy (PT) in patients with non-specific neck pain.Patients neck pain, aged between 18-70 years, were included in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial with a one-year follow-up. Primary outcome measures were global perceived effect and functioning (Neck Disability Index), the secondary outcome was pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale for Pain). Outcomes were measured at 3, 7, 13, 26 and 52 weeks. Multilevel analyses (intention-to-treat) were the primary analyses for overall between-group differences. Additional to the primary and secondary outcomes the number of treatment sessions of the MTU group and PT group was analyzed. Data were collected from September 2008 to February 2011.A total of 181 patients were included. Multilevel analyses showed no statistically significant overall differences at one year between the MTU and PT groups on any of the primary and secondary outcomes. The MTU group showed significantly lower treatment sessions compared to the PT group (respectively 3.1 vs. 5.9 after 7 weeks; 6.1 vs. 10.0 after 52 weeks).Patients with neck pain improved in both groups without statistical significantly or clinically relevant differences between the MTU and PT groups during one-year follow-up.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00713843.
| S-EPMC5408403 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The objective of this study will be to investigate the additional effect of pain neuroscience education program compared to a craniocervical manual therapy and exercises program for pain intensity and disability in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). This study will be a randomized controlled trial comprising a sample of 148 participants. Subjects between 18 and 55 years, both genders, will undergo a screening process to confirm painful TMD by the Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC/TMD), and then the volunteers will be randomized into two groups (G1: pain neuroscience education + craniocervical manual therapy and exercises vs. G2: craniocervical manual therapy and exercises). The volunteers will be recruited at the dentistry clinic. The intervention will be administered twice a week for 6 weeks by a single therapist lasting 1 h per session. The primary outcome will be pain intensity and disability and the secondary outcomes will be pain self-efficacy, kinesiophobia, and global perceived effect of improvement. The participants will be assessed immediately after the last session and at one- and three-month follow-ups. All statistical analyses will be conducted following intention-to-treat principles, and the treatment effects will be calculated using linear mixed models. The results of this study may contribute to understand the additional effect of pain neuroscience education intervention on TMD patients submitted to manual therapy and exercise. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03926767 . Registered on April 29, 2019.
| S-EPMC8419952 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many patients suffer from chronic neck pain following a whiplash injury. A combination of cognitive, behavioural therapy with physiotherapy interventions has been indicated to be effective in the management of patients with chronic whiplash-associated disorders. The objective is to present the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of a combined individual physical and cognitive behavioural-graded activity program on self-reported general physical function, in addition to neck function, pain, disability and quality of life in patients with chronic neck pain following whiplash injury compared with a matched control group measured at baseline and 4 and 12 months after baseline.The design is a two-centre, RCT-study with a parallel group design. Included are whiplash patients with chronic neck pain for more than 6 months, recruited from physiotherapy clinics and an out-patient hospital department in Denmark. Patients will be randomised to either a pain management (control) group or a combined pain management and training (intervention)group. The control group will receive four educational sessions on pain management, whereas the intervention group will receive the same educational sessions on pain management plus 8 individual training sessions for 4 months, including guidance in specific neck exercises and an aerobic training programme. Patients and physiotherapists are aware of the allocation and the treatment, while outcome assessors and data analysts are blinded. The primary outcome measures will be Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF36), Physical Component Summary (PCS). Secondary outcomes will be Global Perceived Effect (-5 to +5), Neck Disability Index (0-50), Patient Specific Functioning Scale (0-10), numeric rating scale for pain bothersomeness (0-10), SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS), TAMPA scale of Kinesiophobia (17-68), Impact of Event Scale (0-45), EuroQol (0-1), craniocervical flexion test (22 mmHg - 30 mmHg), joint position error test and cervical range of movement. The SF36 scales are scored using norm-based methods with PCS and MCS having a mean score of 50 with a standard deviation of 10.The perspectives of this study are discussed, in addition to the strengths and weaknesses.The study is registered in http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01431261.
| S-EPMC3266656 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe underlying mechanisms of non-specific chronic neck pain relapses are not clear, but they could be associated with a deficit and alteration of neck muscles propioception that play a decisive role in cervical joint position, motor control of the head, and postural stability. Numerous treatments for non-specific chronic neck pain have been described in the scientific literature. However, few studies analyze its influence on postural stability, since these alterations are not fully described, and various theories emerge about the reasons that cause it. Our primary aim is to analyze the differences in postural stability, pain, cervical disability, and the relation between them produced by a treatment based on manual therapy and another based on therapeutic exercise.MethodsThe short-term and mid-term changes produced by different therapies on subjects with non-specific chronic neck pain will be studied. The sample will be randomly divided into three groups: manual therapy, therapeutic exercise, and placebo. As dependent variables of the study, we will take (1) Overall Balance Index, measured through a dynamic stabilometric platform; (2) pain, based on the visual analog scale and the Pressure Pain Threshold; (3) cervical disability, through the neck disability index. The findings will be analyzed statistically considering a 5% significance level (p ≤ 0.05).DiscussionOur study aims to provide knowledge about postural stability and its relationship with pain in subjects with non-specific chronic neck pain. Analyzing the results produced by different types of therapy will allow us to draw conclusions about the mechanisms, structural or central, that may elicit these alterations.Trial registrationBrazilian Clinical Trials Registry, RBR-2vj7sw . Registered on 28 November 2018.
| S-EPMC6688373 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChronic neck pain is a highly prevalent condition. Learning a relaxation technique is recommended by numerous guidelines for chronic neck pain. Smartphone apps can provide relaxation exercises; however, their effectiveness, especially in a self-care setting, is unclear.ObjectiveThe aim of this pragmatic randomized trial is to evaluate whether app-based relaxation exercises, including audio-based autogenic training, mindfulness meditation, or guided imagery, are more effective in reducing chronic neck pain than usual care alone.MethodsSmartphone owners aged 18 to 65 years with chronic (>12 weeks) neck pain and the previous week's average neck pain intensity ≥4 on the Numeric Rating Scale (0=no pain to 10=worst possible pain) were randomized into either an intervention group to practice app-based relaxation exercises or a control group (usual care and app for data entry only). For both groups, the follow-up data were collected using app-based diaries and questionnaires. The primary outcome was the mean neck pain intensity during the first 3 months based on daily measurements. Secondary outcomes included neck pain based on weekly measurements, pain acceptance, neck pain-related stress, sick-leave days, pain medication intake, and adherence, which were all measured until the 6-month follow-up. For the primary analysis, analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline neck pain intensity was used.ResultsWe screened 748 participants and enrolled 220 participants (mean age 38.9, SD 11.3 years; mean baseline neck pain 5.7, SD 1.3 points). The mean neck pain intensity in both groups decreased over 3 months; however, no statistically significant difference between the groups was found (intervention: 4.1 points, 95% CI 3.8-4.4; control: 3.8 points, 95% CI 3.5-4.1; group difference: 0.3 points, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.7; P=.23). In addition, no statistically significant between-group differences regarding neck pain intensity after 6 months, responder rate, pain acceptance, pain medication intake, or sick-leave days were observed. There were no serious adverse events that were considered related to the trial intervention. In week 12, only 40% (44/110) of the participants in the intervention group continued to practice the exercises with the app.ConclusionsThe study app did not effectively reduce chronic neck pain or keep the participants engaged in exercising in a self-care setting. Future studies on app-based relaxation interventions should take into account the most recent scientific findings for behavior change techniques.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02019134; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02019134.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.1186/1745-6215-15-490.
| S-EPMC8783271 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecurrent or persistent neck pain affects a vast number of people globally, leading to reduced quality of life and high societal costs. Clinically, it is a difficult condition to manage, and treatment effect sizes are often moderate at best. Activity and manual therapy are first-line treatment options in current guidelines. We aimed to investigate the combination of home stretching exercises and spinal manipulative therapy in a multicentre randomized controlled clinical trial, carried out in multidiscipline ary primary care clinics.MethodsThe treatment modalities utilized were spinal manipulative therapy and home stretching exercises compared to home stretching exercises alone. Both groups received 4 treatments for 2 weeks. The primary outcome was pain, where the subjective pain experience was investigated by assessing pain intensity (NRS - 11) and the quality of pain (McGill Pain Questionnaire). Neck disability and health status were secondary outcomes, measured using the Neck Disability Indexthe EQ-5D, respectively. One hundred thirty-one adult subjects were randomized to one of the two treatment groups. All subjects had experienced persistent or recurrent neck pain the previous 6 months and were blinded to the other group intervention. The clinicians provided treatment for subjects in both group and could not be blinded. The researchers collecting data were blinded to treatment allocation, as was the statistician performing data analyses. An intention-to-treat analysis was used.ResultsSixty-six subjects were randomized to the intervention group, and sixty-five to the control group. For NRS - 11, a B-coefficient of - 0,01 was seen, indication a 0,01 improvement for the intervention group in relation to the control group at each time point with a p-value of 0,305. There were no statistically significant differences between groups for any of the outcome measures.ConclusionBased on the current findings, there is no additional treatment effect from adding spinal manipulative therapy to neck stretching exercises over 2 weeks for patients with persistent or recurrent neck pain.Trial registrationThe trial was registered 03/07/2018 at ClinicalTrials.gov , registration number: NCT03576846.
| S-EPMC8549416 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A model for integrative medicine (IM) adapted to Swedish primary care was previously developed. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of a pragmatic randomised clinical trial to investigate the effectiveness of the IM model versus conventional primary care in the management of patients with non-specific back/neck pain. Specific objectives included the exploration of recruitment and retention rates, patient and care characteristics, clinical differences and effect sizes between groups, selected outcome measures and power calculations to inform the basis of a full-scale trial.Eighty patients with back/neck pain of at least two weeks duration were randomised to the two types of care. Outcome measures were standardised health related quality of life (the eight domains of SF-36) complemented by a set of exploratory "IM tailored" outcomes targeting self-rated disability, stress and well-being (0-10 scales); days in pain (0-14); and the use of analgesics and health care over the last two weeks (yes/no). Data on clinical management were derived from medical records. Outcome changes from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks were used to explore the differences between the groups.Seventy-five percent (80/107) of screened patients in general practice were eligible and feasible to enroll into the trial. Eighty-two percent (36/44) of the integrative and 75% (27/36) of the conventional care group completed follow-up after 16 weeks. Most patients had back/neck pain of at least three months duration. Conventional care typically comprised advice and prescription of analgesics, occasionally complemented with sick leave or a written referral to physiotherapy. IM care generally integrated seven treatment sessions from two different types of complementary therapies with conventional care over ten weeks. The study was underpowered to detect any statistically significant differences between the groups. One SF-36 domain showed a clinically relevant difference between groups that was also supported by a small distribution based effect size, i.e. vitality (-7.3 points, Cohen's d -0.34) which was in favour of IM. There was a clinical trend between groups showing that IM contributed to less use of prescription and non-prescription analgesics (-11.7 and - 9.7 percent units respectively) compared to conventional care. Exploring clinically relevant differences and the SF-36 as the basis for a main outcome measure showed that the sample sizes needed per arm to adequately power a full-scale trial depended on the target domain, i.e. ranging from 60 (vitality) to 339 (role emotion).This pilot study investigated the implementation of IM in the primary care management of non-specific back and neck pain. Recruiting patients and implementing IM in routine clinical practice was feasible. The results warrant further exploration into different perspectives and relevant combinations of outcome measures including the use of health resources, drugs and cost-effectiveness to help understand the relevance of IM in primary care. Future research should prioritize larger scale studies considering variability, pain duration and small to moderate treatment effects.Clinical trials NCT00565942.
| S-EPMC2749805 | biostudies-literature