Dataset Information

Is pharmacologic treatment better than neural mobilization for cervicobrachial pain? A randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT: Purpose: This study aim was to compare the effectiveness of the median nerve neural mobilization (MNNM) and cervical lateral glide (CLG) intervention versus oral ibuprofen (OI) in subjects who suffer cervicobrachial pain (CP). Methods: This investigation was a, multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial (NCT02595294; NCT02593721). A number of 105 individuals diagnosed with CP were enrolled in the study and treated in 2 different medical facilities from July to November 2015. Participants were recruited and randomly assigned into 3 groups of 35 subjects. Intervention groups received MNNM or CLG neurodynamic treatments, and the (active treatment) control group received an OI treatment for 6 weeks. Primary outcome was pain intensity reported through the Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRSP). Secondary outcomes were physical function involving the affected upper limb using the Quick DASH scale, and ipsilateral cervical rotation (ICR) using a cervical range of motion (CROM) device. Assessments were performed before and 1 hour after treatment for NRSP (baseline, 3 and 6 weeks) and CROM (baseline and 6 weeks), as well as only 1 assessment for Quick DASH (baseline and 6 weeks). Results: Repeated-measures ANOVA intergroup statistically significant differences were shown for CP intensity (F(2,72) = 22.343; P < .001; Eta2 = 0.383) and Quick DASH (F(2,72) = 15.338; P < .001; Eta2 = 0.299), although not for CROM (F(2,72) = 1.434; P = .245; Eta2 = 0.038). Indeed, Bonferroni´s correction showed statistically significant differences for CP intensity (P < .01; 95% CI = 0.22 - 3.26) and Quick DASH reduction (P < .01; 95% CI = 8.48 - 24.67) in favor of the OI treatment at all measurement moments after baseline. Conclusions: OI pharmacologic treatment may reduce pain intensity and disability with respect to neural mobilization (MNNM and CLG) in patients with CP during six weeks. Nevertheless, the non-existence of between-groups ROM differences and possible OI adverse effects should be considered.

SUBMITTER: Calvo-Lobo C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5859768 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is pharmacologic treatment better than neural mobilization for cervicobrachial pain? A randomized clinical trial.

Calvo-Lobo César C Unda-Solano Francisco F López-López Daniel D Sanz-Corbalán Irene I Romero-Morales Carlos C Palomo-López Patricia P Seco-Calvo Jesús J Rodríguez-Sanz David D

International journal of medical sciences 20180308 5

<b>Purpose:</b> This study aim was to compare the effectiveness of the median nerve neural mobilization (MNNM) and cervical lateral glide (CLG) intervention versus oral ibuprofen (OI) in subjects who suffer cervicobrachial pain (CP). <b>Methods:</b> This investigation was a, multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial (NCT02595294; NCT02593721). A number of 105 individuals diagnosed with CP were enrolled in the study and treated in 2 different medical facilities from July to Novem ...[more]

PMID: 29559834

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:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of completing a randomized clinical trial (RCT) and examine the preliminary effects of 2 interventions for hip-related groin pain (HRGP).MethodsIn this pilot RCT, patients with HRGP, who were 18 to 40 years old, were randomized (1:1 ratio) to a joint mobilization (JtMob) group or a movement pattern training (MoveTrain) group. Both treatments included 10 supervised sessions and a home exercise program. The goal of JtMob was to reduce pain and improve mobility through peripherally and centrally mediated pain mechanisms. The key element was physical therapist-provided JtMob. The goal of MoveTrain was to reduce hip joint stresses by optimizing the biomechanics of patient-specific tasks. The key element was task-specific instruction to correct abnormal movement patterns displayed during tasks. Primary outcomes were related to future trial feasibility. The primary effectiveness outcome was the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Examiners were blinded to group; patients and treatment providers were not. Data collected at baseline and immediately after treatment were analyzed with analysis of covariance using a generalized linear model in which change was the dependent variable and baseline was the covariate. The study was modified due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.ResultsThe COVID-19 pandemic affected participation; 127 patients were screened, 33 were randomized (18 to the JtMob group and 15 to the MoveTrain group), and 29 (88%) provided posttreatment data. Treatment session adherence was 85%, and home exercise program component adherence ranged from 71 to 86%. Both groups demonstrated significant mean within-group improvements of ≥5 points on Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score scales. There were no between-group differences in effectiveness outcomes.ConclusionsA large RCT to assess the effects of JtMob and MoveTrain for patients with HRGP may be feasible. Preliminary findings suggested that JtMob or MoveTrain may result in improvements in patient-reported pain and activity limitations.ImpactThe COVID-19 pandemic interfered with participation, but a randomized controlled trial may be feasible. Modification may be needed if the trial is completed during future pandemics.

Project description:Importance:Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common reasons for seeking medical care. Manual therapy is a common treatment of LBP, yet few studies have directly compared the effectiveness of thrust (spinal manipulation) vs nonthrust (spinal mobilization) techniques. Objective:To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization at reducing pain and disability compared with a placebo control group (sham cold laser) in a cohort of young adults with chronic LBP. Design, Setting, and Participants:This single-blinded (investigator-blinded), placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial with 3 treatment groups was conducted at the Ohio Musculoskeletal and Neurological Institute at Ohio University from June 1, 2013, to August 31, 2017. Of 4903 adult patients assessed for eligibility, 4741 did not meet inclusion criteria, and 162 patients with chronic LBP qualified for randomization to 1 of 3 treatment groups. Recruitment began on June 1, 2013, and the primary completion date was August 31, 2017. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2017, to January 20, 2020. Interventions:Participants received 6 treatment sessions of (1) spinal manipulation, (2) spinal mobilization, or (3) sham cold laser therapy (placebo) during a 3-week period. Main Outcomes and Measures:Coprimary outcome measures were the change from baseline in Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) score over the last 7 days and the change in disability assessed with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater disability) 48 to 72 hours after completion of the 6 treatments. Results:A total of 162 participants (mean [SD] age, 25.0 [6.2] years; 92 women [57%]) with chronic LBP (mean [SD] NPRS score, 4.3 [2.6] on a 1-10 scale, with higher scores indicating greater pain) were randomized. Fifty-four participants were randomized to the spinal manipulation group, 54 to the spinal mobilization group, and 54 to the placebo group. There were no significant group differences for sex, age, body mass index, duration of LBP symptoms, depression, fear avoidance, current pain, average pain over the last 7 days, and self-reported disability. At the primary end point, there was no significant difference in change in pain scores between spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization (0.24 [95% CI, -0.38 to 0.86]; P?=?.45), spinal manipulation and placebo (-0.03 [95% CI, -0.65 to 0.59]; P?=?.92), or spinal mobilization and placebo (-0.26 [95% CI, -0.38 to 0.85]; P?=?.39). There was no significant difference in change in self-reported disability scores between spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization (-1.00 [95% CI, -2.27 to 0.36]; P?=?.14), spinal manipulation and placebo (-0.07 [95% CI, -1.43 to 1.29]; P?=?.92) or spinal mobilization and placebo (0.93 [95% CI, -0.41 to 2.29]; P?=?.17). Conclusions and Relevance:In this randomized clinical trial, neither spinal manipulation nor spinal mobilization appeared to be effective treatments for mild to moderate chronic LBP. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01854892.

Dataset Information

Is pharmacologic treatment better than neural mobilization for cervicobrachial pain? A randomized clinical trial.

Publications

Is pharmacologic treatment better than neural mobilization for cervicobrachial pain? A randomized clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets