The Effectiveness of Spinal, Diaphragmatic, and Specific Stabilization Exercise Manual Therapy and Respiratory-Related Interventions in Patients with Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tatsios PI
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9316964 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Cervical stabilization exercises are frequently used to reduce pain, maximize function, and improve physical impairments for people with nonspecific neck pain. We conducted a single arm study to evaluate the effects of a home-based cervical stabilization exercise program for university violin players with nonspecific neck pain who frequently assume an asymmetrical neck posture and activate their superficial cervical flexors to stabilize the violin. Twenty violin players with nonspecific neck pain from university symphony orchestras participated in this study. All participants received assessments twice before the intervention and once immediately after a 6-week cervical stabilization exercise program. No significant differences were found between the two pretests before the intervention. After the intervention, the Numeric Rating Scale, the Neck Disability Index, the craniocervical flexion test, muscle endurance tests, cervical range of motion (all directions except flexion) tests, and cervicocephalic relocation tests (flexion and left rotation) showed improvements. The forward head posture indicated by the craniovertebral angle also slightly improved. The results of this single arm study suggest that cervical stabilization exercise is feasible and has the potential to improve physical health for collegiate violin players with nonspecific neck pain.
| S-EPMC7432242 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5106317 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8280970 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA central element in the current debate about best practice management of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is the efficacy of targeted versus generic (non-targeted) treatment. Many clinicians and researchers believe that tailoring treatment to NSLBP subgroups positively impacts on patient outcomes. Despite this, there are no systematic reviews comparing the efficacy of targeted versus non-targeted manual therapy and/or exercise. This systematic review was undertaken in order to determine the efficacy of such targeted treatment in adults with NSLBP.MethodMEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, AMED and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were electronically searched, reference lists were examined and citation tracking performed. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials of targeted manual therapy and/or exercise for NSLPB that used trial designs capable of providing robust information on targeted treatment (treatment effect modification) for the outcomes of activity limitation and pain. Included trials needed to be hypothesis-testing studies published in English, Danish or Norwegian. Method quality was assessed using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group.ResultsFour high-quality randomized controlled trials of targeted manual therapy and/or exercise for NSLBP met the inclusion criteria. One study showed statistically significant effects for short-term outcomes using McKenzie directional preference-based exercise. Research into subgroups requires much larger sample sizes than traditional two-group trials and other included studies showed effects that might be clinically important in size but were not statistically significant with their samples sizes.ConclusionsThe clinical implications of these results are that they provide very cautious evidence supporting the notion that treatment targeted to subgroups of patients with NSLBP may improve patient outcomes. The results of the studies included in this review are too patchy, inconsistent and the samples investigated are too small for any recommendation of any treatment in routine clinical practice to be based on these findings. The research shows that adequately powered controlled trials using designs capable of providing robust information on treatment effect modification are uncommon. Considering how central the notion of targeted treatment is to manual therapy principles, further studies using this research method should be a priority for the clinical and research communities.
| S-EPMC2873245 | biostudies-literature
Project description:High-intensity training (HIT) improves rehabilitation outcomes such as functional disability and physical performance in several chronic disorders. Promising results were also found in chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP). However, the impact of different exercise modes on HIT effectiveness in CNSLBP remains unclear. Therefore, this study evaluated the effectiveness of various HIT exercise modes and compared differences between these modes, on pain intensity, disability, and physical performance, as a therapeutic intervention for persons with CNSLBP. In a randomized comparative trial, consisting of a 12-week program, persons with CNSLBP were divided into four HIT groups, i.e., cardiorespiratory interval training coupled with either general resistance training, core strength training, combined general resistance and core strength training, or mobility exercises. Before and after the program, the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Modified Oswestry Disability Index (MODI), and Patient Specific Functioning Scale (PSFS) were recorded, and a cardiopulmonary exercise test (VO2max, cycling time) and isometric trunk strength test (maximum muscle torque) were performed. Eighty participants (mean age: 44.0 y, 34 males) were included. Improvements were found within all groups after the HIT programs and ranged from -39 to -57% on the NPRS, +27 to +64% on the MODI, +38 to +89% on the PSFS, +7 to +14% on VO2max, and +11 to +18% on cycling time. No differences between groups were found. High-intensity cardiorespiratory interval training improves CNSLBP rehabilitation outcomes when performed with other HIT exercise modes or mobility exercises. Hence, when setting up an exercise therapy program in CNSLBP rehabilitation, various HIT modes can be considered as therapy modalities.
| S-EPMC7465397 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6736423 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Nonspecific chronic spinal pain is a common problem within the chronic pain population and is characterized by high social, economic and personal impact. To date, therapists are still struggling in adequately treating these types of patients, as seen in the small and short-term benefits of frequently applied primary care treatments. It is remarkable that despite the well-documented presence of abnormalities in central nociceptive processing in nonspecific chronic spinal pain patients, the implementation of this knowledge in clinical practice is still nearly non-existent.This paper provides the treatment protocol used in a large randomized controlled trial that aimed to assess the effectiveness of a modern neuroscience approach compared to usual care evidence-based physiotherapy. This comprehensive pain neuroscience treatment program combines pain neuroscience education and cognition-targeted exercise therapy.Based on previous small-scaled studies, this treatment protocol is expected to normalize central alterations by addressing central nervous system dysfunctions, psychological factors, as well as peripheral dysfunctions in a broader biopsychosocially-driven framework.
| S-EPMC5628368 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To test the effectiveness of a high-dose home exercise/telerehabilitation program for manual wheelchair users who have a spinal cord injury (SCI) by determining whether the intervention would reduce pain and increase function, as we hypothesized.A pre-post trial with outcomes measured at 3 time points: baseline, postintervention (12wk), and follow-up (>24 wk).Subjects performed an exercise program at their homes using telerehabilitation for therapist monitoring of technique and exercise advancement. Baseline and postintervention data were collected at a motion analysis laboratory in a tertiary medical center.A convenience sample of manual wheelchair users (N=16, 3 women; average age, 41y; average time in a wheelchair, 16y) with shoulder pain (average pain duration, 9y) and mechanical impingement signs on physical examination.A 12-week home exercise program of rotator cuff and scapular stabilization exercises was given to each participant. The program included a high dose of 3 sets of 30 repetitions, 3 times weekly, and regular physical therapist supervision via videoconferencing.Primary outcomes of pain and function were measured with the Wheelchair User's Shoulder Pain Index (WUSPI), Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) Index, and Shoulder Rating Questionnaire (SRQ). Secondary outcomes of strength were measured with isometric strength tests of scapulothoracic and glenohumeral muscles, and a static fatigue test of the lower trapezius.Pain was reduced and function improved after the intervention. There was a significant main effect for pain and function between the 3 time points based on the Friedman signed-ranked test, WUSPI (?(2)2=5.10, P=.014), DASH Index (?(2)2=5.41, P=.012), and SRQ (?(2)2=23.71, P?.001). Wilcoxon signed-rank tests demonstrated that isometric strength measurements of the serratus anterior and scapular retractors increased after the exercise intervention ([t=2.42, P=.04] and [t=4.67, P=.003], respectively). Muscle impulse produced by the lower trapezius during a fatigue task also improved (t=2.2, P=.02). No differences were measured in isometric strength for the lower trapezius, glenohumeral rotators, and abductors between the baseline and 12-week time points.A high-dose scapular stabilizer and rotator cuff strengthening program using telerehabilitation for supervision holds promise for shoulder pain treatment in manual wheelchair users with SCI. Additional work is needed to determine the effectiveness compared with other interventions, as well as the potential for earlier intervention to prevent development of shoulder pain.
| S-EPMC4182115 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Neck pain is a global burdensome problem, with a large proportion of neck pain cases becoming chronic. Although physical exercise is a commonly prescribed treatment, the evidence on the effectiveness of isolated exercise interventions remains limited. Traditional pairwise randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses are limited in only comparing two interventions. This protocol describes the design of a network meta-analysis, which enables a comparative investigation of all physical exercise interventions for which RCTs are available. We aim to systematically compare the effectiveness of different types of physical exercise in people with chronic non-specific neck pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Nine electronic databases (AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, MEDLINE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, PsycINFO, Scopus and SPORTDiscus) were searched for RCTs from inception to 12 March 2019. Titles and abstract firstly, and full-text papers secondly, will be screened by two reviewers. Data will be extracted by two reviewers. The primary outcome measure is effectiveness of the intervention. Methodological quality of included studies will be assessed by two reviewers using the PEDro scale. The overall quality of evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, which has been adapted for network meta-analyses. The available evidence will be summarised using a network diagram. A contribution matrix will be presented to allow assessment of direct and indirect evidence. Forest plots will be constructed to visualise effects of all included exercise interventions. Pairwise effect sizes will be calculated by including all evidence available in the network. Effect measures for treatments that have not been compared in a pairwise RCT can be compared indirectly by contrasting effect sizes of comparisons with a common comparator. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This work synthesises evidence from previously published studies and does not require ethics review or approval. A manuscript describing the findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019126523.
| S-EPMC7239534 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIncreasing evidence has shown benefits of spinal manipulations in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS). There is scarcity regarding medium term effects of spinal manual therapy on outcome measures in PFPS patients. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of local exercise therapy and spinal manual therapy for knee pain, function and maximum voluntary peak force (MVPF) velocity of the quadriceps in PFPS patients.MethodsForty-three patients with PFPS were randomly assigned to a local exercise or spinal manual therapy group. The local exercise group received six sessions (one session per week) of supervised training of the knee-and hip muscles with mobilization of the patellofemoral joint. The spinal manual therapy group received six interventions (one intervention per week) of high velocity low thrust manipulations at the thoracolumbar region, sacroiliac joint, and/or hip. All patients were also asked to do home exercises. Maximum, minimum and current pain were measured using the visual analogue scale. Function was assessed with the anterior knee pain scale (AKPS) and MPFV was recorded using a Biodex System 3 dynamometer. Patients were assessed before intervention, after 6 weeks of intervention and after 6 weeks of follow-up. Between-group differences at assessments were analysed by way of analysis of covariance with Bonferroni correction.ResultsPain and functionality improved more following spinal manipulative therapy than local exercise therapy. After 6 weeks of intervention the between-group difference (local versus spinal) for maximal pain was 23.4 mm [95% CI: 9.3, 37.6; effect size (ES): 1.04] and - 12.4 [95% CI: - 20.2, - 4.7; ES: 1.00] for the AKPS. At 6 weeks of follow-up the between-group difference for maximal pain was 18.7 mm [95% CI: 1.4, 36.0; ES: 0.68] and - 11.5 [95% CI: - 19.9, - 3.3; ES: - 0.87] for the AKPS.ConclusionsThis study suggests that spinal manual therapy is more effective than local exercise therapy in improving pain and function in patients with PFPS in the medium term. We suggest for future research to investigate whether combining local exercise therapy and spinal manual therapy is more effective than either single intervention on its own. This clinical trial study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee METC Z under registration number NL57207.096. and registered retrospectively in ClinicalTrials.gov PRS with registration ID number NCT04748692 on the 10th of February 2021.
| S-EPMC8126114 | biostudies-literature