The effect of massage technique plus thoracic manipulation versus thoracic manipulation on pain and neural tension in mechanical neck pain: a randomized controlled trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Puntumetakul R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6382488 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC6373960 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesNeck 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsThere 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.DiscussionThese 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.
| S-EPMC4461717 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsThoracic spine manipulation (TSM) increases the thoracic spine's range of motion (ROM), effectively reducing pain intensity and disability in patients with mechanical neck pain. We aimed to determine the effect of TSM on neck pain intensity and functional impairment in patients classified under the "mobility" category in Childs' classification.MethodsIn this randomized controlled trial, patients with mechanical neck pain who met the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to either the TSM (n = 21) or sham manipulation (n = 20) group. The primary outcomes were pain during neck rotation and subjective improvement assessed using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and Global Rating of Change (GROC), respectively. The secondary outcomes were NPRS at rest, disability (assessed using the Neck Disability Index [NDI]), and ROM of the cervical and thoracic spine rotation. Outcome measurements were performed at baseline, immediately after treatment, 1 week after treatment, and at the 4-week follow-up. Linear mixed models were used to analyze the NPRS, NDI, and ROM. The GROC was analyzed using a chi-square test for the percentage recording ≥+4; the means of each group were compared using an unpaired t-test.ResultsThe NPRS with neck rotation, neck and thoracic ROM, and NDI showed significant interactions between the groups. The NPRS with neck rotation was significantly lower in the TSM group than in the sham group at all time points after the treatment (p < 0.001). There was no difference between the groups in the proportion showing moderate (≥+4) improvement according to the GROC; however, there was a significant difference in the mean values (p = 0.013).ConclusionIncorporating TSM into treatment protocols may improve clinical outcomes in patients with neck pain, potentially leading to better pain management and functional recovery. Therefore, physiotherapists should consider TSM as a viable and effective intervention to improve patient outcomes in neck pain rehabilitation.
| S-EPMC11362835 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6831903 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite the growing popularity of massage, its effectiveness for treating neck pain remains unclear, largely because of the poor quality of research. A major deficiency of previous studies has been their use of low "doses" of massage that massage therapists consider inadequate. Unfortunately, the number of minutes per massage session, sessions per week, or weeks of treatment necessary for massage to have beneficial or optimal effects are not known. This study is designed to address these gaps in our knowledge by determining, for persons with chronic neck pain: 1) the optimal combination of number of treatments per week and length of individual treatment session, and 2) the optimal number of weeks of treatment.In this study, 228 persons with chronic non-specific neck pain will be recruited from primary health care clinics in a large health care system in the Seattle area. Participants will be randomized to a wait list control group or 4 weeks of treatment with one of 5 different dosing combinations (2 or 3 30-min treatments per week or 1, 2, or 3 60-min treatments per week). At the end of this 4-week primary treatment period, participants initially receiving each of the 5 dosing combinations will be randomized to a secondary treatment period of either no additional treatment or 6 weekly 60-min massages. The primary outcomes, neck-related dysfunction and pain, will be assessed by blinded telephone interviewers 5, 12, and 26 weeks post-randomization. To better characterize the trajectory of treatment effects, these interview data will be supplemented with outcomes data collected by internet questionnaire at 10, 16, 20 and 39 weeks. Comparisons of outcomes for the 6 groups during the primary treatment period will identify the optimal weekly dose, while comparisons of outcomes during the secondary treatment period will determine if 10 weeks of treatment is superior to 4 weeks.A broad dosing schedule was included in this trial. If adherence to any of these doses is poor, those doses will be discontinued.This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, with the ID number of NCT01122836
| S-EPMC3546891 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC4215099 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This trial was designed to evaluate the optimal dose of massage for individuals with chronic neck pain.We recruited 228 individuals with chronic nonspecific neck pain from an integrated health care system and the general population, and randomized them to 5 groups receiving various doses of massage (a 4-week course consisting of 30-minute visits 2 or 3 times weekly or 60-minute visits 1, 2, or 3 times weekly) or to a single control group (a 4-week period on a wait list). We assessed neck-related dysfunction with the Neck Disability Index (range, 0-50 points) and pain intensity with a numerical rating scale (range, 0-10 points) at baseline and 5 weeks. We used log-linear regression to assess the likelihood of clinically meaningful improvement in neck-related dysfunction (?5 points on Neck Disability Index) or pain intensity (?30% improvement) by treatment group.After adjustment for baseline age, outcome measures, and imbalanced covariates, 30-minute treatments were not significantly better than the wait list control condition in terms of achieving a clinically meaningful improvement in neck dysfunction or pain, regardless of the frequency of treatments. In contrast, 60-minute treatments 2 and 3 times weekly significantly increased the likelihood of such improvement compared with the control condition in terms of both neck dysfunction (relative risk = 3.41 and 4.98, P = .04 and .005, respectively) and pain intensity (relative risk = 2.30 and 2.73; P = .007 and .001, respectively).After 4 weeks of treatment, we found multiple 60-minute massages per week more effective than fewer or shorter sessions for individuals with chronic neck pain. Clinicians recommending massage and researchers studying this therapy should ensure that patients receive a likely effective dose of treatment.
| S-EPMC3948757 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveMyofascial trigger points (MTrPs) are focal disruptions in the skeletal muscle that can refer pain to the head and reproduce the pain patterns of tension-type HA (TTH). The present study applied massage focused on MTrPs of patients with TTH in a placebo-controlled, clinical trial to assess efficacy on reducing headache (HA) pain.MethodsFifty-six patients with TTH were randomized to receive 12 massage or placebo (detuned ultrasound) sessions over 6 weeks, or to wait-list. Trigger point release massage focused on MTrPs in cervical musculature. HA pain (frequency, intensity, and duration) was recorded in a daily HA diary. Additional outcome measures included self-report of perceived clinical change in HA pain and pressure-pain threshold at MTrPs in the upper trapezius and suboccipital muscles.ResultsFrom diary recordings, group differences across time were detected in HA frequency (P=0.026), but not for intensity or duration. Post hoc analysis indicated that HA frequency decreased from baseline for both massage (P<0.0003) and placebo (P=0.013), but no difference was detected between massage and placebo. Patient report of perceived clinical change was greater reduction in HA pain for massage than placebo or wait-list groups (P=0.002). Pressure-pain threshold improved in all muscles tested for massage only (all P's<0.002).DiscussionTwo findings from this study are apparent: (1) MTrPs are important components in the treatment of TTH, and (2) TTH, like other chronic conditions, is responsive to placebo. Clinical trials on HA that do not include a placebo group are at risk for overestimating the specific contribution from the active intervention.
| S-EPMC4286457 | biostudies-literature
Project description:DesignRandomized clinical trial.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness of seated thoracic manipulation versus targeted supine thoracic manipulation on cervical spine pain and flexion range of motion (ROM). There is evidence that thoracic spine manipulation is an effective treatment for patients with cervical spine pain. This evidence includes a variety of techniques to manipulate the thoracic spine. Although each of them is effective, no research has compared techniques to determine which produces the best outcomes.MethodsA total of 39 patients with cervical spine pain were randomly assigned to either a seated thoracic manipulation or targeted supine thoracic manipulation group. Pain and flexion ROM measures were taken before and after the intervention.ResultsPain reduction (post-treatment-pre-treatment) was significantly greater in those patients receiving the targeted supine thoracic manipulation compared to the seated thoracic manipulation (P<0.05). Although not significant, we did observe greater improvement in flexion ROM in the targeted supine thoracic manipulation group. The results of this study indicate that a targeted supine thoracic manipulation may be more effective in reducing cervical spine pain and improving cervical flexion ROM than a seated thoracic manipulation. Future studies should include a variety of patients and physical therapists (PTs) to validate our findings.
| S-EPMC4017802 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives: Massage therapy has been proposed for painful conditions, but it can be difficult to understand the breadth and depth of evidence, as various painful conditions may respond differently to massage. The authors conducted an evidence mapping process and generated an "evidence map" to visually depict the distribution of evidence available for massage and various pain indications to identify gaps in evidence and to inform future research priorities. Design: The authors searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for systematic reviews reporting pain outcomes for massage therapy. The authors assessed the quality of each review using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) criteria. The authors used a bubble plot to depict the number of included articles, pain indication, effect of massage for pain, and strength of findings for each included systematic review. Results: The authors identified 49 systematic reviews, of which 32 were considered high quality. Types of pain frequently included in systematic reviews were cancer pain, low back pain, and neck pain. High quality reviews concluded that there was low strength of evidence of potential benefits of massage for labor, shoulder, neck, low back, cancer, arthritis, postoperative, delayed onset muscle soreness, and musculoskeletal pain. Reported attributes of massage interventions include style of massage, provider, co-interventions, duration, and comparators, with 14 high-quality reviews reporting all these attributes in their review. Conclusion: Prior reviews have conclusions of low strength of evidence because few primary studies of large samples with rigorous methods had been conducted, leaving evidence gaps about specific massage type for specific pain. Primary studies often do not provide adequate details of massage therapy provided, limiting the extent to which reviews are able to draw conclusions about characteristics such as provider type.
| S-EPMC6533778 | biostudies-literature