Dataset Information

Chuna Manual Therapy vs Usual Care for Patients With Nonspecific Chronic Neck Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The 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.

Objective

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy with that of usual care for patients with chronic neck pain.

Design, setting, and participants

A 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.

Interventions

Ten sessions (2 sessions per week for 5 weeks) of Chuna manual therapy or usual care (electrotherapy and oral medication) were conducted.

Main outcomes and measures

The main outcome was the difference in visual analog scale (VAS) score for chronic neck pain between baseline and 5 weeks after randomization.

Results

This 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 relevance

In 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 registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03294785.

SUBMITTER: Lee J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8280970 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:ImportanceChronic back pain (CBP) is a leading cause of disability, and treatment is often ineffective. Approximately 85% of cases are primary CBP, for which peripheral etiology cannot be identified, and maintenance factors include fear, avoidance, and beliefs that pain indicates injury.ObjectiveTo test whether a psychological treatment (pain reprocessing therapy [PRT]) aiming to shift patients' beliefs about the causes and threat value of pain provides substantial and durable pain relief from primary CBP and to investigate treatment mechanisms.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial with longitudinal functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and 1-year follow-up assessment was conducted in a university research setting from November 2017 to August 2018, with 1-year follow-up completed by November 2019. Clinical and fMRI data were analyzed from January 2019 to August 2020. The study compared PRT with an open-label placebo treatment and with usual care in a community sample.InterventionsParticipants randomized to PRT participated in 1 telehealth session with a physician and 8 psychological treatment sessions over 4 weeks. Treatment aimed to help patients reconceptualize their pain as due to nondangerous brain activity rather than peripheral tissue injury, using a combination of cognitive, somatic, and exposure-based techniques. Participants randomized to placebo received an open-label subcutaneous saline injection in the back; participants randomized to usual care continued their routine, ongoing care.Main outcomes and measuresOne-week mean back pain intensity score (0 to 10) at posttreatment, pain beliefs, and fMRI measures of evoked pain and resting connectivity.ResultsAt baseline, 151 adults (54% female; mean [SD] age, 41.1 [15.6] years) reported mean (SD) pain of low to moderate severity (mean [SD] pain intensity, 4.10 [1.26] of 10; mean [SD] disability, 23.34 [10.12] of 100) and mean (SD) pain duration of 10.0 (8.9) years. Large group differences in pain were observed at posttreatment, with a mean (SD) pain score of 1.18 (1.24) in the PRT group, 2.84 (1.64) in the placebo group, and 3.13 (1.45) in the usual care group. Hedges g was -1.14 for PRT vs placebo and -1.74 for PRT vs usual care (P < .001). Of 151 total participants, 33 of 50 participants (66%) randomized to PRT were pain-free or nearly pain-free at posttreatment (reporting a pain intensity score of 0 or 1 of 10), compared with 10 of 51 participants (20%) randomized to placebo and 5 of 50 participants (10%) randomized to usual care. Treatment effects were maintained at 1-year follow-up, with a mean (SD) pain score of 1.51 (1.59) in the PRT group, 2.79 (1.78) in the placebo group, and 3.00 (1.77) in the usual care group. Hedges g was -0.70 for PRT vs placebo (P = .001) and -1.05 for PRT vs usual care (P < .001) at 1-year follow-up. Longitudinal fMRI showed (1) reduced responses to evoked back pain in the anterior midcingulate and the anterior prefrontal cortex for PRT vs placebo; (2) reduced responses in the anterior insula for PRT vs usual care; (3) increased resting connectivity from the anterior prefrontal cortex and the anterior insula to the primary somatosensory cortex for PRT vs both control groups; and (4) increased connectivity from the anterior midcingulate to the precuneus for PRT vs usual care.Conclusions and relevancePsychological treatment centered on changing patients' beliefs about the causes and threat value of pain may provide substantial and durable pain relief for people with CBP.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03294148.

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:BackgroundEndometriosis is the most common cause of chronic pelvic pain worldwide. Non-surgical treatments are effective for only 30-50% of women and have a significant side effect burden that leads to high discontinuation rates. Surgery can be effective but is expensive and invasive, and symptoms tend to recur within 5 years. There is early evidence that acupuncture may be effective in treating endometriosis-related chronic pelvic pain, showing clinically significant analgesia. Both levels of inflammation and pain processing have been shown to be altered in women with chronic pelvic pain. Acupuncture has been shown to reduce inflammation and change central pain processing in other conditions, but research on women with endometriosis is currently lacking. The aim of this feasibility study is to provide data on recruitment rates, retention, appropriateness of outcome measures, minimal clinically important difference in numeric rated scales for pain and the potential effect of acupuncture on pain processing and markers of inflammation in endometriosis-related CPP.MethodsWe will include women aged 18-45 years with a diagnosis of endometriosis via laparoscopy in the past 5 years. A total of 30 participants will be recruited and randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive acupuncture or usual care. Women in the acupuncture group will receive two 45-min treatment sessions per week for 8 weeks (total of 16 sessions). Women in the usual care group will continue with their current treatment regimen. The primary feasibility outcomes are recruitment rates, retention rates and the safety and acceptability of the intervention; secondary patient-centred outcomes include a change in 0-10 daily pelvic pain ratings, the Endometriosis Health Profile 30 (EHP-30) and changes in conditioned pain modulation, resting and task-related EEG activity and inflammatory markers. Analyses will be performed blind to group allocation.DiscussionThis is a two-armed, assessor blind, randomised controlled feasibility trial. Data will be compared at baseline and trial completion 8 weeks later. Outcomes from this feasibility study will inform a larger, fully powered clinical trial should the treatment show trends for potential effectiveness.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617000053325 (http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12617000053325.aspx).