Lower spinal postural variability during laptop-work in subjects with cervicogenic headache compared to healthy controls.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mingels S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7933416 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Patients with cervicogenic headache (CeH) showed lower spinal postural variability (SPV). In a next step, the complex character of such SPV needs to be analysed. Therefore, variables influencing SPV need to be explored. A non-randomized repeated-measure design was applied to analyse relations between biopsychosocial variables and SPV within a CeH-group (n = 18), 29-51 years, and matched control-group (n = 18), 26-52 years. Spinal postural variability, expressed by standard deviations, was deducted from 3D-Vicon motion analysis of habitual spinal postures (degrees). Interactions between SPV and pain processing, lifestyle, psychosocial characteristics were analysed. Pain processing characteristics included symptoms of central sensitization (Central Sensitization Inventory), (extra)-cephalic pressure pain thresholds (kPa/cm2/s). Lifestyle characteristics included sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index), physical activity, screen-time, sedentary-time (hours a week), position (cm) and inclination (degrees) of the laptop (= desk-setup). Psychosocial characteristics included degree of depression, anxiety and stress (Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21), impact of headache on quality of life (Headache Impact Test-6). Spinal postural variability related significantly to intrinsic (stress, anxiety, extra-cephalic pressure pain thresholds, sleep-duration) and extrinsic (desk-setup, screen-time) variables in the CeH-group. In the control-group, SPV related significantly to extra-cephalic pressure pain thresholds. Spinal postural variability related to diverse variables in the CeH-group compared to the control-group. More research is needed into a possible causal relationship and its clinical implication.
| S-EPMC8253805 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cervicogenic headache is a disabling headache where pharmacological management have limited effect. Thus, non-pharmacological management is warranted. Our objective was therefore to investigate the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy versus placebo (sham manipulation) and control (continued usual but non-manual management) for cervicogenic headache in a prospective 3-armed single-blinded, placebo, randomized controlled trial of 17 months' duration.Nineteen participants were equally randomized into the three groups, and 12 participants completed the randomized controlled trial. Headache frequency improved at all time points in the chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy and the placebo group. Headache index improved in the chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy group at all time points, while it improved at 6 and 12 months' follow-up in the placebo group. The control group remained unchanged during the whole study period. Adverse events were few, mild and transient. Blinding was concealed throughout the RCT. Thus, our results suggest that manual-therapy might be a safe treatment option for participants with cervicogenic headache, but data need to be confirmed in a randomized controlled trial with sufficient sample size and statistical power. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01687881, 11 September 2012.
| S-EPMC5525198 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cervicogenic headache is a prevalent and costly pain condition commonly treated by chiropractors. There is evidence to support the effectiveness for spinal manipulation, but the dose of treatment required to achieve maximal relief remains unknown. The purpose of this paper is to describe the methodology for a randomized controlled trial evaluating the dose-response of spinal manipulation for chronic cervicogenic headache in an adult population.This is a mixed-methods, two-site, prospective, parallel groups, observer-blind, randomized controlled trial conducted at university-affiliated research clinics in the Portland, OR and Minneapolis, MN areas. The primary outcome is patient reported headache frequency. Other outcomes include self-reported headache intensity, disability, quality of life, improvement, neck pain intensity and frequency, satisfaction, medication use, outside care, cervical motion, pain pressure thresholds, health care utilization, health care costs, and lost productivity. Qualitative interviews are also conducted to evaluate patients' expectations of treatment.With growing concerns regarding the costs and side effects of commonly used conventional treatments, greater numbers of headache sufferers are seeking other approaches to care. This is the first full-scale randomized controlled trial assessing the dose-response of spinal manipulation therapy on outcomes for cervicogenic headache. The results of this study will provide important evidence for the management of cervicogenic headache in adults.ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01530321).
| S-EPMC4898300 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND CONTEXT:The optimal number of visits for the care of cervicogenic headache (CGH) with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is unknown. PURPOSE:The present study aimed to identify the dose-response relationship between visits for SMT and chronic CGH outcomes and to evaluate the efficacy of SMT by comparison with a light-massage control. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING:This is a two-site, open-label randomized controlled trial. PATIENT SAMPLE:Participants were 256 adults with chronic CGH. OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome was days with CGH in the previous 4 weeks evaluated at the 12- and 24-week primary end points. Secondary outcomes included CGH days at remaining end points, pain intensity, disability, perceived improvement, medication use, and patient satisfaction. METHODS:Participants were randomized to four dose levels of chiropractic SMT: 0, 6, 12, or 18 sessions. They were treated three times per week for 6 weeks and received a focused light-massage control at sessions when SMT was not assigned. Linear dose effects and comparisons with the no-manipulation control group were evaluated at 6, 12, 24, 39, and 52 weeks. The present study was funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (R01AT006330) and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01530321). The authors declare no conflicts of interest. RESULTS:A linear dose-response was observed for all follow-ups, a reduction of approximately 1 CGH day/4 weeks per additional 6 SMT visits (p<.05); a maximal effective dose could not be determined. Cervicogenic headache days/4 weeks were reduced from about 16 to 8 for the highest and most effective dose of 18 SMT visits. Mean differences in CGH days/4 weeks between 18 SMT visits and control were -3.3 (p=.004) and -2.9 (p=.017) at the primary end points, and were similar in magnitude at the remaining end points (p<.05). Differences between other SMT doses and control were smaller in magnitude (p>.05). Cervicogenic headache intensity showed no important improvement nor differed by dose. Other secondary outcomes were generally supportive of the primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS:There was a linear dose-response relationship between SMT visits and days with CGH. For the highest and most effective dose of 18 SMT visits, CGH days were reduced by half and about 3 more days per month than for the light-massage control.
| S-EPMC6107442 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cervicogenic headache (CEH) is a secondary headache which affects 1.0-4.6 % of the population. Although the costs are unknown, the health consequences are substantial for the individual; especially considering that they often suffers chronicity. Pharmacological management has no or only minor effect on CEH. Thus, we aim to assess the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) for CEH in a single-blinded placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial (RCT). According to the power calculations, we aim to recruit 120 participants to the RCT. Participants will be randomized into one of three groups; CSMT, placebo (sham manipulation) and control (usual non-manual management). The RCT consists of three stages: 1 month run-in, 3 months intervention and follow-up analyses at the end of intervention and 3, 6 and 12 months. Primary end-point is headache frequency, while headache duration, headache intensity, headache index (frequency × duration × intensity) and medicine consumption are secondary end-points. Primary analysis will assess a change in headache frequency from baseline to the end of intervention and to follow-up, where the groups CSMT and placebo and CSMT and control will be compared. Due to two group-comparisons, the results with p values below 0.025 will be considered statistically significant. For all secondary end-points and analyses, the significance level of 0.05 will be used. The results will be presented with the corresponding p values and 95 % confidence intervals. To our knowledge, this is the first prospective manual therapy three-armed single-blinded placebo-controlled RCT to be conducted for CEH. Current RCTs suggest efficacy in headache frequency, duration and intensity. However a firm conclusion requires clinical single-blinded placebo-controlled RCTs with few methodological shortcomings. The present study design adheres to the recommendations for pharmacological RCTs as far as possible and follows the recommended clinical trial guidelines by the International Headache Society. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01687881, 2 December 2012.
| S-EPMC4679711 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The number needed to treat (NNT) for one participant to benefit is considered a useful, clinically meaningful way of reporting binary outcomes from randomized trials. Analysis of continuous data from our randomized controlled trial has previously demonstrated a significant and clinically important difference favoring spinal manipulation over a light massage control. METHODS:Eighty participants were randomized to receive spinal manipulation or a light massage control (n = 40/group). Improvements in cervicogenic headache pain (primary outcome), disability, and number in prior four weeks were dichotomized into binary outcomes at two thresholds: 30% representing minimal clinically important change and 50% representing clinical success. Groups were compared at 12 and 24-week follow-up using binomial regression (generalized linear models) to compute the adjusted risk difference (RD) between groups and number needed to treat (NNT) after adjusting for baseline differences between groups. Results were compared to logistic regression results. RESULTS:For headache pain, clinically important improvement (30% or 50%) was more likely for spinal manipulation: adjusted RD = 17% to 27% and NNT = 3.8 to 5.8 (p = .005 to .028). Some statistically significant results favoring manipulation were found for headache disability and number. CONCLUSION:Spinal manipulation demonstrated a benefit in terms of a clinically important improvement of cervicogenic headache pain. The use of adjusted NNT is recommended; however, adjusted RD may be easier to interpret than NNT. The study demonstrated how results may depend on the threshold for dichotomizing variables into binary outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NLM identifier NCT00246350.
| S-EPMC2893201 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this article was to present a preliminary model to identify the effects of expectancy of treatment success and the patient-provider encounter (PPE) on outcomes in an open-label randomized trial.MethodsEighty participants with chronic cervicogenic headache (CGH) were randomized to 4 groups: 2 levels of treatment dose (8 or 16) and 2 levels of therapy from a chiropractor (spinal manipulation or light massage). Providers were instructed to have equal enthusiasm for all care. Structural equation modeling with standardized path coefficients (beta) was used in a path analysis to identify the effects of patient expectancy and the PPE on CGH pain. The model included monthly pain from baseline to 12 weeks. Expectancy and PPE were evaluated on Likert scales. The patient-provider encounter was measured as patient perception of chiropractor enthusiasm, confidence, and comfort with care.ResultsBaseline patient expectancy was balanced across groups. The PPE measures were balanced across groups and consistent over the 8-week treatment period. Treatment and baseline pain had the strongest effects on pain outcomes (|beta| = .46-.59). Expectations had little effect on pain (abs value(beta) < .15). The patient-provider encounter had a weak effect on pain (abs value(beta)= .03-.27) and on subsequent confidence in treatment success (abs value(beta)= .09 and .12).ConclusionsEncouraging equipoise in the PPE and balancing expectancy across treatment groups may protect against some confounding related to the absence of blinding in a randomized controlled trial of pain. In this trial, their effects were found to be small relative to the effects of treatment and baseline values.
| S-EPMC2828362 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Headaches have not only medical but also great socioeconomic significance, therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the overall impact of headaches on a patient's life, including their work and work efficiency. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of individual headache types on work and work efficiency. Methods: This research was designed as a cross-sectional study performed by administering a questionnaire among employees. The questionnaire consisted of general questions, questions about headache features, and questions about the impact of headaches on work. Results: Monthly absence from work was mostly represented by migraine sufferers (7.1%), significantly more than with sufferers with tension-type headaches (2.23%; p = 0.019) and other headache types (2.15%; p = 0.025). Migraine sufferers (30.2%) worked in spite of a headache for more than 25 h, which was more frequent than with sufferers from tension-type and other-type headaches (13.4%). On average, headache sufferers reported work efficiency ranging from 66% to 90%. With regard to individual headache types, this range was significantly more frequent in subjects with tension-type headaches, whereas 91-100% efficiency was significantly more frequent in subjects with other headache types. Lower efficiency, i.e., 0-40% and 41-65%, was significantly more frequent with migraine sufferers. Conclusions: Headaches, especially migraines, significantly affect the work and work efficiency of headache sufferers by reducing their productivity. Loss is greater due to reduced efficiency than due to absenteeism.
| S-EPMC7560060 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveAlthough multidimensional interventions including physiotherapy, psychology, and education are generally recommended in managing headache, and to prevent chronification, such approach is lacking in cervicogenic headache (CeH). Therefore, exploring CeH within a biopsychosocial framework is deemed an essential first step.MethodsNon-randomized cross-sectional design to compare pain processing, lifestyle, and psychosocial characteristics between 18 participants with CeH (CeH group) (40.2 ± 10.9 years) and 18 matched controls (control group) (39.2 ± 13.1 years). Pain processing characteristics included degree of central sensitization (Central Sensitization Inventory), and (extra)-cephalic pressure pain thresholds (kPa/cm²/s). Lifestyle characteristics included sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index), physical activity, screen time, and sedentary time (hours a week). Psychosocial characteristics included degree of depression, anxiety and stress (Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21), and quality of life (Headache Impact Test-6).ResultsPain processing characteristics: More (p = .04) participants in the CeH group showed higher degrees of central sensitization compared to the control group. Lower (p < .05) (extra)-cephalic pressure pain thresholds were revealed in the CeH group compared to the control group for each muscle. Lifestyle and psychosocial characteristics: Compared to the control group, sleep quality and headache-related quality of life were worse (p < .0001) in the CeH group. Severe to extreme stress was experienced by more participants in the CeH group (p = .02). Further, significant relations between pain processing and (1) lifestyle characteristics and (2) psychosocial characteristics were seen in the CeH group.ConclusionExploring multidimensional characteristics in CeH exposed relations between pain processing, lifestyle, and psychosocial characteristics. These novel findings fill a gap in the current scientific literature, and highlight the need for outcome research targeting lifestyle and psychosocial factors.
| S-EPMC8553329 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveObjective clinical measures for use as surrogate markers of cervicogenic headache (CGH) pain have not been established. In this analysis, we investigate relationships between objective physical examination (PE) measures with self-reported CGH outcomes.MethodsThis is an exploratory analysis of data generated by attention control PE from an open-label randomized clinical trial. Of 80 subjects, 40 were randomized to 8 treatments (spinal manipulative therapy or light massage control) and 8 PE over 8 weeks. The remaining subjects received no PE. Physical examination included motion palpation of the cervical and upper thoracic regions, active cervical range of motion (ROM) and associated pain, and algometric pain threshold evaluated over articular pillars. Self-reported outcomes included CGH and neck pain and disability, number of CGH headaches, and related disability days. Associations between PE and self-reported outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear models, adjusting for sociodemographic differences and study group.ResultsAt baseline, number of CGH and disability days were strongly associated with cervical active ROM (P < .001 to .037). Neck pain and disability were strongly associated with ROM-elicited pain (P < .001 to .035) but not later in the study. After the final treatment, pain thresholds were strongly associated with week 12 neck pain and disability and CGH disability and disability days (P < or = .001 to .048).ConclusionsCervical ROM was most associated with the baseline headache experience. However, 4 weeks after treatment, algometric pain thresholds were most associated. No one PE measure remained associated with the self-reported headache outcomes over time.
| S-EPMC2917237 | biostudies-literature