Dataset Information

The effect of osteopathic medicine on pain in musicians with nonspecific chronic neck pain: a randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT:

Background:

Nonspecific 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.

Methods:

In 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.

Results:

Altogether, 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?Conclusions: The 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 registration:

WHO 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.

SUBMITTER: Rotter G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7734566 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:ImportanceOsteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is frequently offered to people with nonspecific low back pain (LBP) but never compared with sham OMT for reducing LBP-specific activity limitations.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of standard OMT vs sham OMT for reducing LBP-specific activity limitations at 3 months in persons with nonspecific subacute or chronic LBP.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective, parallel-group, single-blind, single-center, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial recruited participants with nonspecific subacute or chronic LBP from a tertiary care center in France starting February 17, 2014, with follow-up completed on October 23, 2017. Participants were randomly allocated to interventions in a 1:1 ratio. Data were analyzed from March 22, 2018, to December 5, 2018.InterventionsSix sessions (1 every 2 weeks) of standard OMT or sham OMT delivered by nonphysician, nonphysiotherapist osteopathic practitioners.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations at 3 months as measured by the self-administered Quebec Back Pain Disability Index (score range, 0-100). Secondary outcomes were mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations; mean changes in pain and health-related quality of life; number and duration of sick leaves, as well as number of LBP episodes at 12 months; and consumption of analgesics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs at 3 and 12 months. Adverse events were self-reported at 3, 6, and 12 months.ResultsOverall, 200 participants were randomly allocated to standard OMT and 200 to sham OMT, with 197 analyzed in each group; the median (range) age at inclusion was 49.8 (40.7-55.8) years, 235 of 394 (59.6%) participants were women, and 359 of 393 (91.3%) were currently working. The mean (SD) duration of the current LBP episode was 7.5 (14.2) months. Overall, 164 (83.2%) patients in the standard OMT group and 159 (80.7%) patients in the sham OMT group had the primary outcome data available at 3 months. The mean (SD) Quebec Back Pain Disability Index scores for the standard OMT group were 31.5 (14.1) at baseline and 25.3 (15.3) at 3 months, and in the sham OMT group were 27.2 (14.8) at baseline and 26.1 (15.1) at 3 months. The mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations at 3 months was -4.7 (95% CI, -6.6 to -2.8) and -1.3 (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.6) for the standard OMT and sham OMT groups, respectively (mean difference, -3.4; 95% CI, -6.0 to -0.7; P = .01). At 12 months, the mean difference in mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations was -4.3 (95% CI, -7.6 to -1.0; P = .01), and at 3 and 12 months, the mean difference in mean reduction in pain was -1.0 (95% CI, -5.5 to 3.5; P = .66) and -2.0 (95% CI, -7.2 to 3.3; P = .47), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in other secondary outcomes. Four and 8 serious adverse events were self-reported in the standard OMT and sham OMT groups, respectively, though none was considered related to OMT.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of patients with nonspecific subacute or chronic LBP, standard OMT had a small effect on LBP-specific activity limitations vs sham OMT. However, the clinical relevance of this effect is questionable.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02034864.

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.

Project description:ImportanceThe incidence rate of neck pain is increasing worldwide, and the disease is associated with a high social burden. Manual therapy has been widely applied in the treatment of neck pain, but a high-quality, pragmatic randomized clinical trial for this treatment has not been conducted to date.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy with that of usual care for patients with chronic neck pain.Design, setting, and participantsA multicenter, assessor-blinded, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial was conducted between October 18, 2017, and June 28, 2019. This intention-to-treat analysis included 108 patients with chronic neck pain persisting for at least 3 months; patients were recruited from 5 hospitals in Korea.InterventionsTen sessions (2 sessions per week for 5 weeks) of Chuna manual therapy or usual care (electrotherapy and oral medication) were conducted.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was the difference in visual analog scale (VAS) score for chronic neck pain between baseline and 5 weeks after randomization.ResultsThis randomized clinical trial recruited 108 patients (mean [SD] age, 38.4 [9.3] years; 73 women [67.6%]). Fifty-four patients were allocated to the Chuna therapy group, and 54 received usual care. At 5 weeks after randomization, manual therapy showed statistically superior results compared with usual care in terms of pain (difference in chronic neck pain VAS, 16.8 mm; 95% CI, 10.1-23.5 mm), function (difference in Neck Disability Index, 8.6%; 95% CI, 4.2%-13.1%), and quality of life (difference in the European Quality of Life-5 Dimension 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) scores, -0.07 points; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.02 points). Regarding the 1-year cumulative values measured using area under the curve analyses, superior outcomes were attained in the manual therapy group in terms of the numerical rating scale for chronic neck pain (1.3 points; 95% CI, 0.5-2.0 points), Neck Disability Index (6.7%; 95% CI, 2.5%-10.9%), Neck Pain Questionnaire (7.4%; 95% CI, 2.3%-12.6%), and EQ-5D-5L scores (-0.03 points; -0.07 to 0.00 points).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, for patients with chronic neck pain, Chuna manual therapy was more effective than usual care in terms of pain and functional recovery at 5 weeks and 1 year after randomization. These results support the need to consider recommending manual therapies as primary care treatments for chronic neck pain.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03294785.