Dataset Information

Approaches to cervical spine mobilization for neck pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Lagoutaris C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7672847 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Approaches to cervical spine mobilization for neck pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

Lagoutaris Claire C Sullivan Justin J Hancock Michelle M Leaver Andrew M AM

Chiropractic & manual therapies 20201118 1

<h4>Study design</h4>Pilot randomized controlled trial.<h4>Background</h4>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 rand ...[more]

PMID: 33203458

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Acupuncture is increasingly being used for many conditions including chronic neck pain. However the evidence remains inconclusive, indicating the need for further well-designed research. The aim of this study was to conduct a pilot randomised controlled parallel arm trial, to establish key features required for the design and implementation of a large-scale trial on acupuncture for chronic neck pain. METHODS: Patients whose GPs had diagnosed neck pain were recruited from one general practice, and randomised to receive usual GP care only, or acupuncture (up to 10 treatments over 3 months) as an adjunctive treatment to usual GP care. The primary outcome measure was the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ) at 3 months. The primary analysis was to determine the sample size for the full scale study. RESULTS: Of the 227 patients with neck pain identified from the GP database, 28 (12.3%) consenting patients were eligible to participate in the pilot and 24 (10.5%) were recruited to the trial. Ten patients were randomised to acupuncture, receiving an average of eight treatments from one of four acupuncturists, and 14 were randomised to usual GP care alone. The sample size for the full scale trial was calculated from a clinically meaningful difference of 5% on the NPQ and, from this pilot, an adjusted standard deviation of 15.3%. Assuming 90% power at the 5% significance level, a sample size of 229 would be required in each arm in a large-scale trial when allowing for a loss to follow-up rate of 14%. In order to achieve this sample, one would need to identify patients from databases of GP practices with a total population of 230,000 patients, or approximately 15 GP practices roughly equal in size to the one involved in this study (i.e. 15,694 patients). CONCLUSION: This pilot study has allowed a number of recommendations to be made to facilitate the design of a large-scale trial, which in turn will help to clarify the existing evidence base on acupuncture for neck pain.

Project description:Manual cervical distraction (MCD) is a traction-based therapy performed with a manual contact over the cervical region producing repeating cycles while patients lie prone. This study evaluated a traction force-based minimal intervention for use as an attention-touch control in clinical trials of MCD for patients with chronic neck pain.We conducted a mixed-methods, pilot randomized clinical trial in adults with chronic neck pain. Participants were allocated to three traction force ranges of MCD: low force/minimal intervention (0-20 N), medium force (21-50 N), or high force (51-100 N). Clinicians delivered five treatments over two weeks consisting of three sets of five cycles of MCD at the C5 vertebra and occiput. Traction forces were measured at each treatment. Patient-reported outcomes included a pain visual analogue scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ), and adverse effects. A qualitative interview evaluated treatment group allocation perceptions.We randomized 48 participants, allocating an average of five each month. Forty-five participants completed the trial with three participants lost to follow-up. Most participants were women (65%) and white (92%) with a mean (SD) age of 46.8 (12.5) years. Mean traction force values were within the prescribed force ranges for each group at the C5 and occiput levels. Neck pain VAS demonstrated a benefit for high traction force MCD compared to the low force group [adjusted mean difference 15.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6 to 29.7]. Participants in the medium traction force group demonstrated improvements in NDI compared to the low force group (adjusted mean difference 3.0; 95% CI 0.1 to 5.9), as did participants in the high traction force group (adjusted mean difference 2.7; 95% CI -0.1 to 5.6). CEQ favored the high force group. Most low force participants correctly identified their treatment allocation in the qualitative interview. No serious adverse events were documented.This pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of a clinical trial protocol and the utility of a traction-based, minimal intervention as an attention-touch control for future efficacy trials of MCD for patients with neck pain.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01765751 (Registration Date 30 May 2012).

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aims to provide evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of abdominal acupuncture for neck pain.MethodsThis randomized, patient and assessor-blind, sham-controlled trial was conducted at a Chinese medicine center in Hong Kong between November 2014 and March 2016. A total of 154 eligible participants (age range, 18-65 years) with neck pain were randomly assigned to receive abdominal (n = 77) or non-penetrating sham abdominal (sham group; n = 77) acupuncture. Each participant was administered treatment over six sessions by Registered Chinese Medicine Practitioners, in accordance with a standardized protocol. The primary outcome was mean improvement in neck pain disability scores evaluated by the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ). Secondary outcomes included intensity of neck pain and health-related quality-of-life measures. The outcomes were assessed at baseline and at 2 and 6 weeks from baseline. Patients in the abdominal acupuncture group received additional follow-up evaluation at 14 weeks from baseline. Outcomes were evaluated by intention-to-treat analysis.ResultsAll participants provided informed consent for treatment and follow-up evaluation. Patients who received abdominal acupuncture exhibited greater improvement in NPQ scores than those who received sham treatment at both 2 and 6 weeks from baseline (intergroup mean differences, -5.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.48 to -2.03; P = 0.008 and -8.65; 95% CI, -12.13 to -5.16; P < 0.001, respectively). The improvement in NPQ scores in the abdominal acupuncture group was even more significant at 14 weeks from baseline. Patients in the abdominal acupuncture group also exhibited significantly greater improvements in intensity of neck pain and a few quality-of-life measures than those in the sham abdominal acupuncture group, without any serious adverse events.ConclusionThese findings suggest that abdominal acupuncture is an effective alternative treatment for neck pain.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR-TRC-14004932.

Project description:BackgroundTo investigate the feasibility and effect of a multimodal program for improving chronic cervicogenic headache (CGH) via the addition of sagittal cervical spine alignment correction.DesignPilot, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial.Participants60 patients with CGH, straightening of the cervical lordosis, and forward head posture (FHP) were randomly assigned using permuted-block randomization either to a control (n = 30) or an experimental group (n = 30).InterventionsSubjects in both groups received a multimodal program where the denneroll cervical spine extension traction orthotic was added to the experimental group only. Feasibility was assessed through recruitment rate, compliance rate, adherence rate, safety, and global satisfaction in addition to clinical outcome measures: FHP distance, cervical lordosis, headache frequency, headache disability inventory (HDI), headache impact test-6 (HIT-6), and daily defined dose (DDD). Evaluations were performed at: baseline, 10 weeks, 1 year follow up, and 2-year follow up. The assessor was blind to group allocation for all measured outcomes.ResultsThe recruitment rate was 60%, 78 % out of them completed the entire study. The recruited participants complied with 98% of the required visits. No adverse events were recorded and greater overall satisfaction with the interventions was reported. Greater improvements were found for the experimental group's cervical lordosis (f = 259.9, P< < .001) and FHP (f = 142.5, P< < .001). At 10 weeks, both groups showed equal improvements in CGH outcomes: headache frequency (P = 0.07), HDI (P = 0.07), HIT-6 (P = .2), and DDD (P = .3). In contrast, at the 1-year and 2-year follow up, between group differences were found for all CGH outcomes, P < .00, indicating greater improvement in the experimental group.ConclusionThe results indicated feasibility for recruitment rate, compliance rate, exercise session adherence, safety, and global satisfaction. At 1-year and 2-year follow-up, the addition of the denneroll orthotic device revealed positive influence on CGH management outcomes.Trial registrationThe trial was retrospectively registered with the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR201605001650300).

Dataset Information

Approaches to cervical spine mobilization for neck pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Approaches to cervical spine mobilization for neck pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets