Dataset Information

Efficacy of manual therapy on psychological status and pain in patients with neck pain. A randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To compare the effectiveness of Maitland versus Mulligan mobilization techniques on pain, functional disability, and psychological status in patients with neck pain.

Methods

Forty-four patients with nonspecific neck pain were randomly assigned to the Maitland group (n=22 patients received Maitland therapy [central or unilateral postero-anterior pressure] for 2 sessions/week for 3 weeks) and Mulligan group (n=22 patients received Mulligan sustained natural apophyseal glides for 2 sessions/week for 3 weeks). This study was conducted at the Rehabilitation Clinic, King Abdulaziz Hospital, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia between December 2016 to May 2017. The outcome measures were the numeric pain rating scale score, neck disability index score, beck depression inventory score, State-trait anxiety inventory score, fear avoidance beliefs questionnaire, and pain catastrophic scale results. The independent t-test, Shapiro-Wilk test, and paired t-test were used in data analysis.

Results

There were significant improvements in mean values of the numeric pain rating scale, neck disability index, beck depression inventory, state-trait anxiety inventory scores, and pain catastrophic scale results after the interventions in both groups (p less than 0.05, all except fear avoidance beliefs results in mulligan group p greater than 0.05), and there were no significant differences in mean values between the groups (p greater than 0.05). Conclusion. In patients with nonspecific neck pain, Maitland and Mulligan mobilization techniques have positive effects on neck pain, functional disability, and selected psychological features with no significant difference between them.

SUBMITTER: Alansari SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7989325 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundNeck pain is a highly prevalent medical condition that incurs substantial social burden. Although manual therapy is widely used for treatment of neck pain, the body of evidence supporting its effectiveness and safety is not conclusive. The aim of this study is to examine the effect, safety, and cost-effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy, a traditional Korean manual therapy for treatment of various musculoskeletal complaints.Methods/designThis study is the protocol for a two-armed parallel, assessor-blinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. A total 108 patients with chronic neck pain (time to onset ≥ 3 months, numeric rating scale [NRS] of neck pain ≥ 5) will be recruited at five Korean medicine hospital sites. Participants will be allotted to one of two groups (n = 54, respectively): the Chuna manual therapy group, and the usual care (conventional physical therapy and medication treatment) group. Ten sessions of Chuna manual therapy or usual care will be administered twice a week for five weeks. Since the study design does not permit patient or physician blinding, the outcome assessor and statistician will be blinded. The primary outcome will be the visual analogue scale (VAS) of neck pain at 5 weeks after randomization. Secondary outcomes include the VAS of radiating arm pain, NRS of neck pain and radiating arm pain, Vernon-Mior neck disability index (NDI), Northwick Park neck pain questionnaire (NPQ), EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D), EQ-VAS, patient global impression of change (PGIC), economic evaluation, adverse effects, and drug consumption. Follow-up outcome assessments will be conducted at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after randomization.DiscussionThis study will evaluate the comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy and usual care on chronic neck pain. Adverse events, and costs and effectiveness (utility) data will be evaluated to assess safety and exploratory cost-effectiveness (economic evaluation). This study aims to provide evidence on the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy.Trial registrationClinical Research Information Service (CRIS), KCT0002732 . Registered on 13 March 2018. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03294785 . Registered on 27 September 2017.

Project description:BackgroundManual 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsThis 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.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01765751 (Registration Date 30 May 2012).