Dataset Information

Effectiveness of a "Spring Pillow" Versus Education in Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Different types of pillows have been proposed for neck pain, but no previous randomized controlled trial has investigated the effectiveness of a "spring pillow" for adults with chronic nonspecific neck pain. OBJECTIVE:We evaluated the effectiveness of using a pillow made from viscoelastic polyurethane and 60 independent springs compared with an educational intervention in individuals with chronic nonspecific neck pain. DESIGN:This was a randomized controlled trial with crossover study design. SETTING:The setting was the Occupational Medicine Unit, University Hospital, Bologna (Italy). PARTICIPANTS:We recruited 70 adults with chronic nonspecific neck pain, of whom 64 completed the trial. INTERVENTION:Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups. One group used the spring pillow for 4 weeks, and the other group followed educational advice for 4 weeks while continuing to use their own pillows. After 4 weeks of treatment and 4 weeks of washout, groups were crossed over. Pain perceived in the neck, thoracic, and shoulder areas and headache were the primary outcome measures. In addition, disability, sleep quality, subjective improvement, and pillow comfort were assessed. Measures were captured at pretreatment, after 4 weeks, after the 4-week washout period, and 4 weeks after crossover. The mean differences (MD) in outcomes between groups were assessed. RESULTS:Treatment with the spring pillow appeared to reduce neck pain (MD = -8.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -14.7 to -2.6), thoracic pain (MD = -8.4; 95% CI = -15.2 to -1.5), and headache (MD = -16.0; 95% CI = -23.2 to -8.7). Reductions in shoulder pain were not statistically significant between groups (MD = -6.9; 95% CI = -14.1-0.3). Neither the crossover sequence nor the period (first vs second intervention administration) significantly affected the results. LIMITATIONS:Education may not have been the best comparator for the spring pillow; drug consumption, actual pillow use, and the implementation of the educational suggestions as prescribed were not controlled. CONCLUSIONS:Use of the spring pillow in this study was more effective than an educational intervention for improving cervical, thoracic, and head pain. Whether a spring pillow is more effective than other ergonomic pillows remains to be tested.

SUBMITTER: Vanti C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6736423 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of a "Spring Pillow" Versus Education in Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Vanti Carla C Banchelli Federico F Marino Claudia C Puccetti Andrea A Guccione Andrew A AA Pillastrini Paolo P

Physical therapy 20190901 9

<h4>Background</h4>Different types of pillows have been proposed for neck pain, but no previous randomized controlled trial has investigated the effectiveness of a "spring pillow" for adults with chronic nonspecific neck pain.<h4>Objective</h4>We evaluated the effectiveness of using a pillow made from viscoelastic polyurethane and 60 independent springs compared with an educational intervention in individuals with chronic nonspecific neck pain.<h4>Design</h4>This was a randomized controlled tria ...[more]

PMID: 30939188

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNonspecific chronic neck pain (cNP) is common in adult violinists and violists and is often treated with osteopathic medicine (OM), although the effectiveness of this treatment has not been determined to date. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of OM in adult violinists and violists with cNP.MethodsIn a two-armed randomized controlled single-center open trial, adult violinists and violists, including music students, with cNP (⩾12 weeks) were randomized to either five individualized OM sessions (OM group) or to no intervention (control group, CG) in the outpatient clinic for integrative medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. All patients received a musicians' medicine consultation and paracetamol on demand. The primary outcome parameter was the neck pain intensity on a visual analog scale (VAS, 0-100 mm, 0 = no pain, 100 = worst imaginable pain) after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included neck pain disability (Neck Disability Index, NDI, 0-100%) after 12 weeks. The last follow-up visit was after 52 weeks. Statistical analysis included analysis of covariance adjusted for respective baseline value.ResultsAltogether, 62 outpatients were included [OM group (n = 28), CG (n = 34); 81% female; mean age, 41.6 ± 11.1 years; mean baseline neck pain, 55.9 ± 11.6 mm]. After 12 weeks, OM was associated with an improvement in the OM group versus the CG in neck pain on the VAS [14.6 mm (95% confidence interval 8.0; 21.2) versus 40.8 mm (34.7; 46.9), p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.4], and neck pain disability as determined by the NDI [8.8% (6.7; 10.8) versus 17.2% (15.3; 19.1), p < 0.001]. Some improvements were maintained until 52 weeks of follow-up. No serious adverse events were observed.ConclusionsThe results of this study suggest that OM might be effective in reducing pain intensity in adult violinists and violists with nonspecific cNP. Further studies should investigate the efficacy of OM in comparison with a sham procedure and with other effective therapy methods in high-quality multicenter trials.Trial registrationWHO Trial Registration https://apps.who.int/trialsearch/NoAccess.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx by German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00009258, Universal Trial Number (UTN): U1111-1173-5943.

Project description:BackgroundLow back and neck pain are the most common musculoskeletal disorders worldwide, and imply suffering and substantial societal costs, hence effective interventions are crucial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of manual therapy compared with advice to stay active for working age persons with nonspecific back and/or neck pain.MethodsThe two interventions were: a maximum of 6 manual therapy sessions within 6 weeks, including spinal manipulation/mobilization, massage and stretching, performed by a naprapath (index group), respectively information from a physician on the importance to stay active and on how to cope with pain, according to evidence-based advice, at 2 occasions within 3 weeks (control group). A cost-effectiveness analysis with a societal perspective was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial including 409 persons followed for one year, in 2005. The outcomes were health-related Quality of Life (QoL) encoded from the SF-36 and pain intensity. Direct and indirect costs were calculated based on intervention and medication costs and sickness absence data. An incremental cost per health related QoL was calculated, and sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsThe difference in QoL gains was 0.007 (95% CI - 0.010 to 0.023) and the mean improvement in pain intensity was 0.6 (95% CI 0.068-1.065) in favor of manual therapy after one year. Concerning the QoL outcome, the differences in mean cost per person was estimated at - 437 EUR (95% CI - 1302 to 371) and for the pain outcome the difference was - 635 EUR (95% CI - 1587 to 246) in favor of manual therapy. The results indicate that manual therapy achieves better outcomes at lower costs compared with advice to stay active. The sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main results.ConclusionsOur results indicate that manual therapy for nonspecific back and/or neck pain is slightly less costly and more beneficial than advice to stay active for this sample of working age persons. Since manual therapy treatment is at least as cost-effective as evidence-based advice from a physician, it may be recommended for neck and low back pain. Further health economic studies that may confirm those findings are warranted. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56954776. Retrospectively registered 12 September 2006, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN56954776 .

Project description:BackgroundIn this study, the effect of adding a smartphone app to an 8-week global postural reeducation (GPR) on neck pain, endurance, quality of life, and forward head posture (FHP) in patients with chronic neck pain and FHP was evaluated.MethodsSixty male and female office workers (38.5 ± 9.1 years) with chronic neck pain were randomly assigned into three groups: group 1 (GPR+ a smartphone app, n = 20), group 2 (GPR alone, n = 20), and group 3 (the control group, n = 20). The primary outcome was pain and the secondary outcomes were disability, quality of life, endurance, and posture. Pain, disability, endurance, quality of life, and posture were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), neck disability index (NDI), progressive iso-inertial lifting evaluation (PILE) test, quality of life questionnaire (SF-36), and photogrammetry, respectively, at pre-and post-8-week interventions. A one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) has been conducted to statistically analyze the data.ResultsThe GPR+ a smartphone app had statistically significant improvements versus GPR alone in pain (mean difference, - 2.05 ± 0.65, ES (95% CI) - 0.50 (- 1.04 to - 0.01), P = 0.04), disability (difference = 11.5 ± 1.2, ES (95% CI) = 0.31 (0.22 to 0.97), p = 0.033), FHP (difference = 1.6 ± 0.2, ES (95% CI) = 0.31 (0.09 to 0.92), p = 0.047), and endurance (difference = 2 ± 3.3, ES (95% CI) = 0.51 (0.02 to 1.03), p = 0.039). Both of the GPR+ a smartphone app and GPR alone groups had statistically significant differences versus the control group in all outcomes.ConclusionWhen a workplace assessment and management could not be as part of any intervention, adding a smartphone app to GPR for NP may be an appropriate tool to administer a home and work exercise program resulting in elevating pain and disability, as well as improving FHP and endurance.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials using the UMIN-RCT website UMIN000039720 . Retrospectively registered on January 9, 2020.

Project description:BackgroundTelerehabilitation can facilitate multidisciplinary management for people with nonspecific chronic low back pain (NCLBP). It provides health care access to individuals who are physically and economically disadvantaged.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation compared with a clinic-based intervention for people with NCLBP in Nigeria.MethodsA cost-utility analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial from a health care perspective was conducted. Patients with NCLBP were assigned to either telerehabilitation-based McKenzie therapy (TBMT) or clinic-based McKenzie therapy (CBMT). Interventions were carried out 3 times weekly for a period of 8 weeks. Patients' level of disability was measured using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at baseline, week 4, and week 8. To estimate the health-related quality of life of the patients, the ODI was mapped to the short-form six dimensions instrument to generate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Health care resource use and costs were assessed based on the McKenzie extension protocol in Nigeria in 2019. Descriptive and inferential data analyses were also performed to assess the clinical effectiveness of the interventions. Bootstrapping was conducted to generate the point estimate of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsA total of 47 patients (TBMT, n=21 and CBMT, n=26), with a mean age of 47 (SD 11.6) years for telerehabilitation and 50 (SD 10.7) years for the clinic-based intervention, participated in this study. The mean cost estimates of TBMT and CBMT interventions per person were 22,200 naira (US $61.7) and 38,200 naira (US $106), respectively. QALY gained was 0.085 for TBMT and 0.084 for CBMT. The TBMT arm was associated with an additional 0.001 QALY (95% CI 0.001 to 0.002) per participant compared with the CBMT arm. Thus, the ICER showed that the TBMT arm was less costly and more effective than the CBMT arm.ConclusionsThe findings of the study suggested that telerehabilitation for people with NCLBP was cost saving. Given the small number of participants in this study, further examination of effects and costs of the interventions is needed within a larger sample size. In addition, future studies are required to assess the cost-effectiveness of this intervention in the long term from the patient and societal perspective.

Project description:Although current evidence supports the use of dry needling for improving some clinical outcomes in people with neck pain, no previous research explored the effects of dry needling on the central processing of pain and autonomic nervous system in this population. Therefore, this clinical trial aimed to compare the effects of real and sham dry needling on autonomic nervous system function, pain processing as well as clinical and psychological variables in patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain. A double-blinded randomized clinical trial including 60 patients with neck pain was conducted. Patients were randomized to the real needling (n = 30) or sham needling (n = 30) group. Skin conductance (SC), pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), temporal summation (TS), conditioned pain modulation (CPM) as well as pain intensity, related-disability, catastrophism, and kinesiophobia levels were assessed by an assessor blinded to the allocation intervention. The results did not find significant group * time interactions for most outcomes, except for the global percentage of change of SC values (mean: F = 35.90, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.459; minimum: F = 33.99, p = 0.839, ηp2 = 0.371; maximum: F = 24.71, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.037) and PPTs at C5-C6 joint in the same side of needling (F = 9.982; p = 0.003; = 0.147), in favor of the dry needling group. Although the proportion of subjects experiencing moderate to large self-perceived improvement after the intervention was significantly higher (X2 = 8.297; p = 0.004) within the dry needling group (n = 18, 60%) than in the sham needling group (n = 7, 23.3%), both groups experienced similar improvements in clinical and psychological variables. Our results suggested that dry needling applied to patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain produced an immediate decrease in mechanical hyperalgesia at local sites and produced an increase in skin conductance as compared with sham needling. No changes in central pain processing were observed. A single session of sham or real dry needling was similarly effective for decreasing related disability, pain intensity, catastrophism, and kinesiophobia levels. Further studies are needed to better understand the clinical implications of autonomic nervous system activation on central sensitization and pain processing in the long-term after the application of dry needling.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of a "Spring Pillow" Versus Education in Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Publications

Effectiveness of a "Spring Pillow" Versus Education in Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets