Dataset Information

Global Postural Reeducation in patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain: cross-over analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the effects of Global Postural Reeducation (GPR) with Manual Therapy (MT) in participants with chronic nonspecific neck pain (NP).

Methods

Pre- and post-treatment analysis of cross-over data from an RCT was done. Seventy-eight subjects with chronic nonspecific NP aged 18 to 80 years completed the trial. The group who had received GPR crossed-over to MT and the previous MT group received GPR for 9 sessions once or twice a week. Measures were assessed at pre-treatment and post-treatment. Outcome measures included pain intensity [Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)], disability (Neck Disability Index), cervical Range of Motion (ROM), and kinesiophobia [Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK)].

Results

GPR targeted to crossed-over participants produced greater improvements in pain [Diff=-8.6; 95%CI=(-13.3; -3.8)], disability [Diff=-1.5; 95%CI=-2.8; -0.1], kinesiophobia [Diff=-1.8; 95%CI=(-3.2; -0.3)], and flexion/extension neck ROM [Diff=5.6; 95%CI=(1.8; 9.3)] at post-treatment compared to the MT group. When evaluating clinical improvement, by means of Minimal Clinically Important Differences, we found that GPR relevantly reduced neck disability with respect to MT [OR=2.13; 95% CI=(1.05; 4.35)], whereas the improvement of pain did not differ between groups [OR=1.84; 95%CI=0.85; 3.99)].

Conclusions

These results within the crossed-over group confirm previous findings from an RCT with the same sample. Sequence of treatment (GPR-to-MT vs MT-to-GPR) does not seem to weaken the greater effects of GPR compared to MT approach for chronic NP. Our findings suggest that GPR can induce hypoalgesic effects, reduce disability and kinesiophobia, and improve flexion/extension in neck ROM.

SUBMITTER: Pillastrini P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7682157 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Global Postural Reeducation in patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain: cross-over analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

Pillastrini Paolo P Banchelli Federico F Guccione Andrew A Di Ciaccio Emanuele E Violante Francesco Saverio FS Brugnettini Monia M Vanti Carla C

La Medicina del lavoro 20180201 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the effects of Global Postural Reeducation (GPR) with Manual Therapy (MT) in participants with chronic nonspecific neck pain (NP).<h4>Methods</h4>Pre- and post-treatment analysis of cross-over data from an RCT was done. Seventy-eight subjects with chronic nonspecific NP aged 18 to 80 years completed the trial. The group who had received GPR crossed-over to MT and the previous MT group received GPR for 9 sessions once or twice a week. Measures were assessed at pre-tre ...[more]

PMID: 29405174

Similar Datasets

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: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: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.

Project description:Study designRandomized cross-over study.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare exercise, the criterion standard, to the postural garment PosturePlusForce in the management of nonspecific cervical pain in women. We also analyzed both interventions with regards to baseline posture, use of pharmacological pain relievers, compliance, and comfort.Summary of background dataThe prevalence of neck pain has increased during the last decade, preferentially affecting women. Those suffering from this condition may manifest a decrease in quality of life and inability to work. Consistent recommendations highlight the importance of exercise and posture for neck pain improvement.MethodsA total of 32 female health care professionals with cervical pain (≥3 on the visual analogue scale) entered the trial. Participants were allocated to either performing exercises or wearing the postural garment. The cross-over between interventions was separated by a 3-month washout period. Primary outcomes included pain intensity and posture. Secondary outcomes comprised cervical pain-related disability, psychological factors, physical activity, global perceived effect of treatment, and garment comfort. Treatment compliance, medication use, and adverse events were also recorded.ResultsBoth interventions showed a significant improvement in pain in subjects with an adherence >60%. However, in participants with dorsal hyperkyphosis (>45°), the garment demonstrated a greater reduction in pain than exercise (P = 0.019). Additionally, those wearing the garment needed fewer pain relievers than those performing exercises (P = 0.007). Compliance was >50% for both interventions and comfort was contingent on season.ConclusionIn our study, PosturePlusForce showed, at least, a similar effect on pain to exercise, although those with dorsal hyperkyphosis exhibited a greater reduction in pain and related variables with the garment. Pain relievers were less required by those wearing PosturePlusForce than by those performing the exercises.Level of Evidence: 1.

Dataset Information

Global Postural Reeducation in patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain: cross-over analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Global Postural Reeducation in patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain: cross-over analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets