Dataset Information

Effects of Instrumental, Manipulative and Soft Tissue Approaches for the Suboccipital Region in Subjects with Chronic Mechanical Neck Pain. A Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT: The INYBI is an instrument used to release the suboccipital myofascial area. There is scarce evidence of its efficacy. A randomized controlled, double-blinded, longitudinal and prospective trial was performed. Ninety-six subjects (aged 29.47 ± 5.16 years) (70 women) with chronic neck pain were randomly assigned to the manual suboccipital inhibition technique (MSIT), instrumental suboccipital inhibition (INYBI) or the INYBI plus upper cervical manipulation technique (INYBI + UCMT) groups and received two sessions with a week interval between them. The Neck Disability Index was used before the first intervention and two weeks after the second intervention. Pre- and post-measurements were taken on both intervention days for pressure pain threshold of the upper trapezius and suboccipital muscles, self-perceived pain and cervical range of motion. In spite of a significant general improvement in time that was found for the three groups for all of the outcome measurements (p < 0.05 in all cases), no between-groups differences were found (p > 0.05 in all cases), with the exception of self-perceived pain for left rotation (p = 0.024), with the MSIT group showing the lower improvement. However, the higher degree of within-group improvements was found for the INYBI + UCMT group. It was concluded that the myofascial release therapy in the suboccipital area is effective in patients with chronic neck pain, either through a manual application or by means of the INYBI tool. Moreover, the addition of craniocervical manipulation achieved the higher within-group improvements, but with no statistical significance.

SUBMITTER: Arjona Retamal JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8392061 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMechanical neck pain is a highly prevalent problem in primary healthcare settings. Many of these patients have restricted mobility of the cervical spine. Several manual techniques have been recommended for restoring cervical mobility, but their effectiveness in these patients is unknown. The aim of the present study is to compare the effectiveness of two types of specific techniques of the upper neck region: the pressure maintained suboccipital inhibition technique (PMSIT) and the translatory dorsal glide mobilization (TDGM) C0-C1 technique, as adjuncts to a protocolized physiotherapy treatment of the neck region in subjects with chronic mechanical neck pain and rotation deficit in the upper cervical spine.MethodsA randomized, prospective, double-blind (patient and evaluator) clinical trial. The participants (n = 78) will be randomly distributed into three groups. The Control Group will receive a protocolized treatment for 3 weeks, the Mobilization Group will receive the same protocolized treatment and 6 sessions (2 per week) of the TDGM C0-C1 technique, and the Pressure Group will receive the same protocolized treatment and 6 sessions (2 per week) of the PMSIT technique. The intensity of pain (VAS), neck disability (NDI), the cervical range of motion (CROM), headache intensity (HIT-6) and the rating of clinical change (GROC scale) will be measured. The measurements will be performed at baseline, post-treatment and 3 months after the end of treatment, by the same physiotherapist blinded to the group assigned to the subject.DiscussionWe believe that an approach including manual treatment to upper cervical dysfunction will be more effective in these patients. Furthermore, the PMSIT technique acts mostly on the musculature, while the TDGM technique acts on the joint. We expect to clarify which component is more effective in improving the upper cervical mobility.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02832232 . Registered on July 13th, 2016.

Project description:BackgroundRecent experimental research has suggested that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) may reduce pain through modulation of the ascending pain signals and/or the central pain-regulating mechanisms. People with persistent neck pain (NP) have also been found to have disturbances in autonomic nervous system (ANS) regulation. A common way to study the ANS is to measure heart rate variability (HRV). It is not known whether deviations in HRV are related to changes in pain perception or to the treatment response to SMT. Commonly, an individual in pain will experience pain reduction when exposed to a second pain stimulus, a mechanism known as conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Patients with persistent pain have been found to have a reduced CPM reaction. It is not known whether this is predictive of treatment response to SMT. The aim of the study is to examine the effects of SMT on HRV and pain. Further, a secondary aim is to test whether a CPM test can be used to predict treatment response in a population of patients with recurrent and persistent NP.Method/designA multicentre randomized controlled clinical trial will be carried out in multidisciplinary primary care clinics. This setting is chosen to minimize bias resulting from patient preference for the treatment modality and provider. The subjects are either self-referred or referred from other health care practitioners locally. The treatment modalities are two well-known interventions for NP; SMT and stretching exercises compared to stretching exercises alone. HRV will be measured using a portable heart monitor. The subjective pain experience will be investigated by assessing pain intensity and the affective quality of pain. CPM will be measured with a standardized cold pressor test. Measurements will be performed three times during a 2-week treatment series.DiscussionThe study will utilize normal clinical procedures, which should aid the transferability and external validity of the results. The study will provide knowledge regarding the underlying mechanisms of the effects of SMT. Furthermore, the study will examine whether a CPM test is predictive of treatment outcome in a population of patients with recurrent and persistent NP.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03576846 . Registered on 3 July 2018.

Project description:BACKGROUND CONTEXT:Chronic neck pain is a prevalent and disabling condition among older adults. Despite the large burden of neck pain, little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of commonly used treatments. PURPOSE:This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of home exercise and advice (HEA), spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) plus HEA, and supervised rehabilitative exercise (SRE) plus HEA. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING:Cost-effectiveness analysis conducted alongside a randomized clinical trial (RCT) was performed. PATIENT SAMPLE:A total of 241 older adults (?65 years) with chronic mechanical neck pain comprised the patient sample. OUTCOME MEASURES:The outcome measures were direct and indirect costs, neck pain, neck disability, SF-6D-derived quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a 1-year time horizon. METHODS:This work was supported by grants from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (#F32AT007507), National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (#P60AR062799), and Health Resources and Services Administration (#R18HP01425). The RCT is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT00269308). A societal perspective was adopted for the primary analysis. A healthcare perspective was adopted as a sensitivity analysis. Cost-effectivenesswas a secondary aim of the RCT which was not powered for differences in costs or QALYs. Differences in costs and clinical outcomes were estimated using generalized estimating equations and linear mixed models, respectively. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were calculated to assess the uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness estimates. RESULTS:Total costs for SMT+HEA were 5% lower than HEA (mean difference: -$111; 95% confidence interval [CI] -$1,354 to $899) and 47% lower than SRE+HEA (mean difference: -$1,932; 95% CI -$2,796 to -$1,097). SMT+HEA also resulted in a greater reduction of neck pain over the year relative to HEA (0.57; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.92) and SRE+HEA (0.41; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.76). Differences in disability and QALYs favored SMT+HEA. The probability that adding SMT to HEA is cost-effective at willingness to pay thresholds of $50,000 to $200,000 per QALY gained ranges from 0.75 to 0.81. If adopting a health-care perspective, costs for SMT+HEA were 66% higher than HEA (mean difference: $515; 95% CI $225 to $1,094), resulting in an ICER of $55,975 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION:On average, SMT+HEA resulted in better clinical outcomes and lower total societal costs relative to SRE+HEA and HEA alone, with a 0.75 to 0.81 probability of cost-effectiveness for willingness to pay thresholds of $50,000 to $200,000 per QALY.

Project description:Neck pain poses enormous individual and societal costs worldwide. Spinal manipulative therapy and Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug treatment are frequently used despite a lack of compelling efficacy data. This protocol describes a multicentre 4-arm, clinical placebo randomized controlled trial (RCT), investigating the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) versus sham CSMT, ibuprofen, and placebo medicine for acute neck pain. This superiority study will employ parallel groups, featuring a 1:1:1:1 allocation ratio. We will randomize 320 participants equally into four groups: CSMT, sham CSMT, ibuprofen, or placebo medicine. CSMT groups are single-blinded, while the medicine groups are double-blinded. Data will be collected at baseline (Day 0), during treatment and post-treatment. The primary endpoint will assess the difference in mean pain intensity from Day 0 to Day 14 on a numeric rating scale 0-10; the CSMT group is compared to sham CSMT, ibuprofen, and placebo medicine groups, respectively. Secondary endpoints will assess mean pain intensity and mean duration at different time points, and adverse events, blinding success, and treatment satisfaction, including comparison between ibuprofen and placebo medicine. Power calculation is based on a mean neck pain rating of 5 at Day 0, with standard deviation of 1 in all groups. Mean pain reduction at Day 14 is expected to be 60% in the CSMT group, 40% in sham CSMT and ibuprofen groups, and 20% in the placebo medicine group. A linear mixed model will compare the mean values for groups with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. P values below 0.017 will be considered statistically significant. All analyses will be conducted blinded from group allocation. This RCT aims towards the highest research standards possible for manual-therapy RCTs owing to its two placebo arms. If CSMT and/or ibuprofen proves to be effective, it will provide evidence-based support for CSMT and/or ibuprofen for acute neck pain. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05374057. EU Clinical Trials Register: EudraCT number: 2021-005483-21.

Project description:STUDY DESIGN:Pilot randomized controlled trial. BACKGROUND:Better understanding of the relative effectiveness of different approaches to cervical spine mobilization has been identified as a research priority in manual therapy practice. Two distinct approaches to the practice of mobilization have emerged in recent years, based on different reasoning models for selection of mobilization techniques. The objective of this pilot study was to assess feasibility aspects for a future randomized clinical trial by exploring short-term pain and disability outcomes after a single treatment with pragmatic versus prescriptive approaches to cervical mobilization for people with recent-onset neck pain at 48-h follow-up after randomization. METHODS:Twenty adults with a new episode of mechanical neck pain were randomly allocated to either pragmatic or prescriptive mobilization intervention groups. The pragmatic group received a single treatment of cervical mobilization with the technique, target segment, and grade selected by their treating therapist. The prescriptive group received a single treatment of standardized mobilization with techniques similar to a previous mobilization clinical trial. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment rates, randomization audit and completion of treatment and follow-up per protocol. The primary clinical outcome of interest was disability level measured at 48-h follow-up after randomization. RESULTS:Recruitment rates were approximately 2.5 participants per week and 100% of eligible participants were deemed suitable for treatment with cervical mobilization. There was sufficient variety in the range of pragmatic treatments selected and the data collection process imposed minimal burden on participants. CONCLUSIONS:Our results provide supporting evidence for the feasibility of a future larger scale randomized clinical trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616000446460). Registered 6th April 2016. https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=370448&isReview=true.

Project description:BackgroundRecurrent or persistent neck pain affects a vast number of people globally, leading to reduced quality of life and high societal costs. Clinically, it is a difficult condition to manage, and treatment effect sizes are often moderate at best. Activity and manual therapy are first-line treatment options in current guidelines. We aimed to investigate the combination of home stretching exercises and spinal manipulative therapy in a multicentre randomized controlled clinical trial, carried out in multidiscipline ary primary care clinics.MethodsThe treatment modalities utilized were spinal manipulative therapy and home stretching exercises compared to home stretching exercises alone. Both groups received 4 treatments for 2 weeks. The primary outcome was pain, where the subjective pain experience was investigated by assessing pain intensity (NRS - 11) and the quality of pain (McGill Pain Questionnaire). Neck disability and health status were secondary outcomes, measured using the Neck Disability Indexthe EQ-5D, respectively. One hundred thirty-one adult subjects were randomized to one of the two treatment groups. All subjects had experienced persistent or recurrent neck pain the previous 6 months and were blinded to the other group intervention. The clinicians provided treatment for subjects in both group and could not be blinded. The researchers collecting data were blinded to treatment allocation, as was the statistician performing data analyses. An intention-to-treat analysis was used.ResultsSixty-six subjects were randomized to the intervention group, and sixty-five to the control group. For NRS - 11, a B-coefficient of - 0,01 was seen, indication a 0,01 improvement for the intervention group in relation to the control group at each time point with a p-value of 0,305. There were no statistically significant differences between groups for any of the outcome measures.ConclusionBased on the current findings, there is no additional treatment effect from adding spinal manipulative therapy to neck stretching exercises over 2 weeks for patients with persistent or recurrent neck pain.Trial registrationThe trial was registered 03/07/2018 at ClinicalTrials.gov , registration number: NCT03576846.

Dataset Information

Effects of Instrumental, Manipulative and Soft Tissue Approaches for the Suboccipital Region in Subjects with Chronic Mechanical Neck Pain. A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets