Dose Response for Chiropractic Care of Chronic Cervicogenic Headache and Associated Neck Pain: A Randomized Pilot Study

The majority of clinical trials assessing mobilization and manipulation for neck pain lack a pragmatic approach: a systematic review of 174 trials

BACKGROUND

Disorders of the cervical spine are some of the costliest musculoskeletal conditions to manage globally. Joint mobilization and manipulation have been shown to be an effective treatment for neck pain. However, the generalizability and clinical translation depends on the nature of the trial designs that inform its use. The extent to which randomized control trials (RCTs) assessing manual therapy treatments for cervical spine disorders fall on the efficacy (explanatory) -effectiveness (pragmatic) spectrum often informs how the findings are translated into clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to determine where RCTs of manual therapy for neck disorders fall on the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum.

METHODS

A search of three electronic databases including PubMed, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were completed for trials published from inception to May 2023. RCTs in which joint mobilization or manipulation were used to treat cervical spine disorders were assessed on the effectiveness-efficacy spectrum using the Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool and risk of bias using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

RESULTS

A total of 174 trials met eligibility. RITES domain two trial setting (71.3% vs 16.1%), domain three flexibility of intervention(s) (62.1% vs 23%), and domain four clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention(s) (51.7% vs 29.3%) all favored efficacy over effectiveness. Domain one participant characteristic(s) had a slightly greater emphasis on effectiveness compared to efficacy (36.8% vs 44.8%). Most studies (96%) had at least some risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Over half of the RCTs assessing the treatment effect of joint mobilization and manipulation for neck pain favor efficacy (explanatory) over effectiveness (pragmatic) designs. Future RCTs on this topic should consider a greater emphasis on pragmatic trial design components in order to better reflect real-world translation to clinical practice.

Physical Therapist Interventions to Reduce Headache Intensity, Frequency, and Duration in Patients With Cervicogenic Headache: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of physical therapist interventions on the intensity, frequency, and duration of headaches, as well as on the quality of life of patients with cervicogenic headache.

METHODS

The following databases were searched up to October 2022: Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Web of Science, Pubmed, and Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of physical therapist interventions on adults with cervicogenic headache were included. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and the Confidence in Network Meta-analysis web app. Synthesis methods were conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook.

RESULTS

Of the 28 identified reports, 23 were included in the quantitative synthesis. Manipulation plus dry needling was the highest-ranked intervention to reduce the short-term headache intensity (mean difference [MD] = -4.87; 95% CI = -8.51 to -1.24) and frequency (MD = -3.09; 95% CI = -4.93 to -1.25) when compared to a control intervention. Other high-ranked and clinically effective interventions (when compared to a control intervention) were muscle-energy technique plus exercise (MD = 4.37; 95% CI = -8.01 to -0.74), as well as soft tissue techniques plus exercise (MD = -3.01; 95% CI = -5.1 to -0.92) to reduce short-term headache intensity, and dry needling plus exercise (MD = -2.92; 95% CI = -4.73 to -1.11) to reduce short-term headache frequency. These results were based on a low certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSION

The 4 most highly ranked interventions can be considered in clinical practice. However, no conclusive recommendation can be made due to the low certainty of evidence.

IMPACT

Combined interventions such as spinal joint manipulation plus dry needling and muscle-energy technique or soft tissue techniques or dry needling plus exercises seem to be the best interventions to reduce short-term cervicogenic headache intensity and/or frequency.

Dosing of lumbar spinal manipulative therapy and its association with escalated spine care: A cohort study of insurance claims

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between three distinct spinal manipulative therapy dose groups and escalated spine care by analyzing insurance claims from a cohort of patients with low back pain.

METHODS

We compared three distinct spinal manipulative therapy dose groups (low = 1 SMT visits, moderate = 2-12 SMT visits, high = 13+ SMT visits), to a control group (no spinal manipulative therapy) regarding the outcome of escalated spine care. Escalated spine care procedures include imaging studies, injection procedures, emergency department visits, surgery, and opioid medication use. Propensity score matching was performed to address treatment selection bias. Modified Poisson regression modeling was used to estimate the relative risk of spine care escalation among three spinal manipulative therapy doses, adjusting for age, sex, retrospective risk score and claim count.

RESULTS

83,025 claims were categorized into 11,114 unique low back pain episodes; 8,137 claims had 0 spinal manipulative therapy visits, with the remaining episodes classified as low dose (n = 404), moderate dose (n = 1,763) or high dose (n = 810). After propensity score matching, 5,348 episodes remained; 2,454 had 0 spinal manipulative therapy visits with the remaining episodes classified as low dose (n = 404), moderate dose (n = 1,761), or high dose (n = 729). The estimated relative risk (vs no spinal manipulative therapy) for any escalated spine care was 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.38, 0.55, p <0.001), 0.58 (95% confidence interval 0.53, 0.63, p <0.001), and 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.95, 1.13, p = 0.461) for low, moderate, and high dose spinal manipulative therapy groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For claims associated with initial episodes of low back pain, low and moderate dose spinal manipulative therapy groups were associated with a 55% and 42% reduction, respectively, in the relative risk of any escalated spine care.

Blood Pressure Change After Celery Juice Ingestion in a Hypertensive Elderly Male

Objective

The purpose of this study was to describe the response to the inclusion of celery juice in the diet of an elderly hypertensive patient with neck pain.

Clinical Features

A 74-year-old man presented with neck pain and a history of hypertension as diagnosed by his primary care provider. He had attempted different medications for his hypertension, but he reported that they gave him the side effect of chest discomfort. His initial physical examination blood pressure measurement was 150/80 mmHg.

Intervention and Outcome

Interventions included daily intake of celery juice over 6 months, which was approved by his medical doctor's nurse. For his neck pain, chiropractic grade mobilization to the restricted segments of the cervical spine was given over 14 in-office visits. There were no weight changes, addition of exercise, or other lifestyle changes reported. At the end of his care, his blood pressure measured 118/82 mmHg.

Conclusion

This elderly patient responded positively to the inclusion of celery juice and chiropractic care after 6 months.

Spinal manipulation and perineural electrical dry needling in patients with cervicogenic headache: a multicenter randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, and exercise are commonly used in individuals with cervicogenic headache (CH). Dry needling is being increasingly used in the management of CH. However, questions remain about the effectiveness of these therapies and how they compare to each other.

PURPOSE

The present study aims to compare the combined effects of spinal manipulation and dry needling with spinal mobilization and exercise on pain and disability in individuals with CH.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Randomized, multicenter, parallel-group trial.

PATIENT SAMPLE

One hundred forty-two patients (n=142) with CH from 13 outpatient clinics in 10 different states were recruited over a 36-month period.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was headache intensity as measured by the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes included headache frequency and duration, disability (Neck Disability Index), medication intake, and the Global Rating of Change (GROC). Follow-up assessments were taken at 1 week, 4 weeks, and 3 months.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive upper cervical and upper thoracic spinal manipulation plus electrical dry needling (n=74) or upper cervical and upper thoracic spinal mobilization and exercise (n=68). In addition, the mobilization group also received a program of craniocervical and peri-scapular resistance exercises; whereas, the spinal manipulation group also received up to eight sessions of perineural electrical dry needling. The treatment period for both groups was 4 weeks. The trial was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02373605). Drs Dunning, Butts and Young are faculty within the AAMT Fellowship and teach postgraduate courses in spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, dry needling, exercise and differential diagnosis. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest. None of the authors received any funding for this study.

RESULTS

The 2 × 4 analysis of covariance revealed that individuals with CH who received thrust spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling experienced significantly greater reductions in headache intensity (F=23.464; p<.001), headache frequency (F=13.407; p<.001), and disability (F=10.702; p<.001) than those who received nonthrust mobilization and exercise at a 3-month follow-up. Individuals in the spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling group also experienced shorter duration of headaches (p<.001) at 3 months. Based on the cutoff score of ≥+5 on the GROC, significantly (X²=54.840; p<.001) more patients (n=57, 77%) within the spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling group achieved a successful outcome compared to the mobilization and exercise group (n=10, 15%) at 3-month follow-up. Between-groups effect sizes were large (0.94<standardized mean score difference<1.25) in all outcomes in favor of the spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling group at 3 months. In addition, significantly (X²=29.889; p<.001) more patients in the spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling group (n=49, 66%) completely stopped taking medication for their pain compared to the spinal mobilization and exercise group (n=14, 21%) at 3 months.

CONCLUSION

Upper cervical and upper thoracic high-velocity low-amplitude thrust spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling were shown to be more effective than nonthrust mobilization and exercise in patients with CH, and the effects were maintained at 3 months.

Spinal Manipulation and Select Manual Therapies: Current Perspectives

Touch is fundamental to the doctor-patient relationship. Touch can produce neuromodulatory effects that mitigate pain and put patients at ease. Touch begins with a confident handshake and continues throughout the physical examination. Touching patients where they hurt is a clear indication that a provider understands their complaint. Touch often continues as a function of treatment. This article updates evidence surrounding human touch and addresses mechanisms of action for manual therapy, the impact of manual therapy on pain management, health care conditions for which manual therapy may be beneficial, treatment plans with dose-response evidence, and the impact of manual therapy on the health care system.

Spinal manipulation frequency and dosage effects on clinical and physiological outcomes: a scoping review

Introduction

The burden of musculoskeletal disorders increases every year, with low back and neck pain being the most frequently reported conditions for seeking manual therapy treatment. In recent years, manual therapy research has begun exploring the dose-response relationship between spinal manipulation treatment characteristics and both clinical and physiological response to treatment.

Objective

The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and appraise the current state of scientific knowledge regarding the effects of spinal manipulation frequency and dosage on both clinical and physiological responses.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted to identify all available studies pertaining to our research question. Retrieved papers were screened using a 2-phase method, a selective sorting with titles and abstracts. Potentially relevant studies were read, and data was extracted for all included studies. Randomized control trials were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for quality assessment.

Results

The search yielded 4854 publications from which 32 were included for analysis. Results were sorted by dosage or frequency outcomes, and divided into human or animal studies. Animal studies mainly focused on dosage and evaluated physiological outcomes only. Studies investigating spinal manipulation dosage effects involved both human and animal research, and showed that varying thrust forces, or thrust durations can impact vertebral displacement, muscular response amplitude or muscle spindle activity. Risk of bias analysis indicated only two clinical trials assessing frequency effects presented a low risk of bias. Although trends in improvement were observed and indicated that increasing the number of SM visits in a short period of time (few weeks) decreased pain and improve disability, the differences between the studied treatment frequencies, were often not statistically significant and therefore not clinically meaningful.

Conclusion

The results of this study showed that SM dosage and frequency effects have been mostly studied over the past two decades. Definitions for these two concepts however differ across studies. Overall, the results showed that treatment frequency does not significantly affect clinical outcomes during and following a SM treatment period. Dosage effects clearly influence short-term physiological responses to SM treatment, but relationships between these responses and clinical outcomes remains to be investigated.

Analysis of the chief complaints of older patients seeking chiropractic care at a teaching clinic and potential implications for clinical education

OBJECTIVE:

To describe the chief complaints of people older than 65 years who seek chiropractic care at a chiropractic teaching clinic and assess the case mix available at the clinic.

METHODS:

One hundred patient files were included in this study. Patient files were included if the patient was older than 65 years when he or she initiated care at the teaching clinic. Data on age, sex, and chief complaints were recorded.

RESULTS:

Of the patients included in this study, 55% were female. The mean age of patients was 69.5 years, with an age range of 65-88 years. The most common chief complaint was low back pain, with 45% of patients reporting this as their chief complaint. The second most prevalent complaint was neck pain, followed by patients seeking care with no presenting complaints (14%) and patients with extremity complaints (8%). Groin pain, hip pain, balance problems, headaches, and visceral complaints were also reported.

CONCLUSION:

The most common reasons that older patients presented for chiropractic care were for back and neck pain. The case mix was considered similar to practices in the country.

Dose-response and efficacy of spinal manipulation for care of cervicogenic headache: a dual-center randomized controlled trial

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.

Predictive factors for reporting adverse events following spinal manipulation in randomized clinical trials - secondary analysis of a systematic review

While spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is recommended for the treatment of spinal disorders, concerns exist about adverse events associated with the intervention. Adequate reporting of adverse events in clinical trials would allow for more accurate estimations of incidence statistics through meta-analysis. However, it is not currently known if there are factors influencing adverse events reporting following SMT in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Thus our objective was to investigate predictive factors for the reporting of adverse events in published RCTs involving SMT. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for RCTs involving SMT. Domains of interest included: sample size; publication date relative to the 2010 CONSORT statement; risk of bias; the region treated; and number of intervention sessions. 7398 records were identified, of which 368 articles were eligible for inclusion. A total of 140 (38.0%) articles reported on adverse events. Articles were more likely to report on adverse events if they possessed larger sample sizes, were published after the 2010 CONSORT statement, had a low risk of bias and involved multiple intervention sessions. The region treated was not a significant predictor for reporting on adverse events. Predictors for reporting on adverse events included larger sample size, publication after the 2010 CONSORT statement, low risk of bias and trials involving multiple intervention sessions. We recommend that researchers focus on developing robust methodologies and participant follow-up regimens for RCTs involving SMT.

Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for cervicogenic headache: a single-blinded, placebo, randomized controlled trial

Objective

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.

Results

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

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13104-017-2651-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Dose-response of spinal manipulation for cervicogenic headache: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS/DESIGN

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.

DISCUSSION

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.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01530321).

Mobilization and Manipulation of the Cervical Spine in Patients with Cervicogenic Headache: Any Scientific Evidence?

Cervical mobilization and manipulation are frequently used to treat patients diagnosed with cervicogenic headache (CEH); however, there is conflicting evidence on the efficacy of these manual therapy techniques. The purpose of this review is to investigate the effects of cervical mobilization and manipulation on pain intensity and headache frequency, compared to traditional physical therapy interventions in patients diagnosed with CEH. A total of 66 relevant studies were originally identified through a review of the literature, and the 25 most suitable articles were fully evaluated via a careful review of the text. Ultimately, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria: (1) randomized controlled trial (RCT) or open RCT; the study contained at least two separate groups of subjects that were randomly assigned either to a cervical spine mobilization or manipulation or a group that served as a comparison; (2) subjects must have had a diagnosis of CEH; (3) the treatment group received either spinal mobilization or spinal manipulation, while the control group received another physical therapy intervention or placebo control; and (4) the study included headache pain and frequency as outcome measurements. Seven of the 10 studies had statistically significant findings that subjects who received mobilization or manipulation interventions experienced improved outcomes or reported fewer symptoms than control subjects. These results suggest that mobilization or manipulation of the cervical spine may be beneficial for individuals who suffer from CEH, although heterogeneity of the studies makes it difficult to generalize the findings.

Upper cervical and upper thoracic manipulation versus mobilization and exercise in patients with cervicogenic headache: a multi-center randomized clinical trial

Background

Although commonly utilized interventions, no studies have directly compared the effectiveness of cervical and thoracic manipulation to mobilization and exercise in individuals with cervicogenic headache (CH). The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of manipulation to mobilization and exercise in individuals with CH.

Methods

One hundred and ten participants (n = 110) with CH were randomized to receive both cervical and thoracic manipulation (n = 58) or mobilization and exercise (n = 52). The primary outcome was headache intensity as measured by the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Secondary outcomes included headache frequency, headache duration, disability as measured by the Neck Disability Index (NDI), medication intake, and the Global Rating of Change (GRC). The treatment period was 4 weeks with follow-up assessment at 1 week, 4 weeks, and 3 months after initial treatment session. The primary aim was examined with a 2-way mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA), with treatment group (manipulation versus mobilization and exercise) as the between subjects variable and time (baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks and 3 months) as the within subjects variable.

Results

The 2X4 ANOVA demonstrated that individuals with CH who received both cervical and thoracic manipulation experienced significantly greater reductions in headache intensity (p < 0.001) and disability (p < 0.001) than those who received mobilization and exercise at a 3-month follow-up. Individuals in the upper cervical and upper thoracic manipulation group also experienced less frequent headaches and shorter duration of headaches at each follow-up period (p < 0.001 for all). Additionally, patient perceived improvement was significantly greater at 1 and 4-week follow-up periods in favor of the manipulation group (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Six to eight sessions of upper cervical and upper thoracic manipulation were shown to be more effective than mobilization and exercise in patients with CH, and the effects were maintained at 3 months.

Trial registration

NCT01580280 April 16, 2012.

Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for cervicogenic headache: a study protocol of a single-blinded placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial

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

Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment

BACKGROUND

Manipulation and mobilisation are commonly used to treat neck pain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of manipulation or mobilisation alone compared wiith those of an inactive control or another active treatment on pain, function, disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults experiencing neck pain with or without radicular symptoms and cervicogenic headache (CGH) at immediate- to long-term follow-up. When appropriate, to assess the influence of treatment characteristics (i.e. technique, dosage), methodological quality, symptom duration and subtypes of neck disorder on treatment outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

Review authors searched the following computerised databases to November 2014 to identify additional studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to find relevant studies. We updated this search in June 2015, but these results have not yet been incorporated.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken to assess whether manipulation or mobilisation improves clinical outcomes for adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and applied Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods (very low, low, moderate, high quality). We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 51 trials (2920 participants, 18 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus control; 34 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus another treatment, 1 trial had two comparisons). Cervical manipulation versus inactive control: For subacute and chronic neck pain, a single manipulation (three trials, no meta-analysis, 154 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) relieved pain at immediate- but not short-term follow-up. Cervical manipulation versus another active treatment: For acute and chronic neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 446 participants, ranged from moderate to high quality) produced similar changes in pain, function, quality of life (QoL), global perceived effect (GPE) and patient satisfaction when compared with multiple sessions of cervical mobilisation at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. For acute and subacute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation were more effective than certain medications in improving pain and function at immediate- (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality) and long-term follow-up (one trial, 181 participants, moderate quality). These findings are consistent for function at intermediate-term follow-up (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality). For chronic CGH, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 125 participants, low quality) may be more effective than massage in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 65 participants, very low quality) may be favoured over transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain reduction at short-term follow-up. For acute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 20 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than thoracic manipulation in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Thoracic manipulation versus inactive control: Three trials (150 participants) using a single session were assessed at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. At short-term follow-up, manipulation improved pain in participants with acute and subacute neck pain (five trials, 346 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.86 to -0.66) and improved function (four trials, 258 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.40, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.55) in participants with acute and chronic neck pain. A funnel plot of these data suggests publication bias. These findings were consistent at intermediate follow-up for pain/function/quality of life (one trial, 111 participants, low quality). Thoracic manipulation versus another active treatment: No studies provided sufficient data for statistical analyses. A single session of thoracic manipulation (one trial, 100 participants, moderate quality) was comparable with thoracic mobilisation for pain relief at immediate-term follow-up for chronic neck pain. Mobilisation versus inactive control: Mobilisation as a stand-alone intervention (two trials, 57 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) may not reduce pain more than an inactive control. Mobilisation versus another active treatment: For acute and subacute neck pain, anterior-posterior mobilisation (one trial, 95 participants, very low quality) may favour pain reduction over rotatory or transverse mobilisations at immediate-term follow-up. For chronic CGH with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, multiple sessions of TMJ manual therapy (one trial, 38 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than cervical mobilisation in improving pain/function at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. For subacute and chronic neck pain, cervical mobilisation alone (four trials, 165 participants, ranged from low to very low quality) may not be different from ultrasound, TENS, acupuncture and massage in improving pain, function, QoL and participant satisfaction at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. Additionally, combining laser with manipulation may be superior to using manipulation or laser alone (one trial, 56 participants, very low quality).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although support can be found for use of thoracic manipulation versus control for neck pain, function and QoL, results for cervical manipulation and mobilisation versus control are few and diverse. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Research designed to protect against various biases is needed. Findings suggest that manipulation and mobilisation present similar results for every outcome at immediate/short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple cervical manipulation sessions may provide better pain relief and functional improvement than certain medications at immediate/intermediate/long-term follow-up. Since the risk of rare but serious adverse events for manipulation exists, further high-quality research focusing on mobilisation and comparing mobilisation or manipulation versus other treatment options is needed to guide clinicians in their optimal treatment choices.

Cost analysis related to dose-response of spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: outcomes from a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this analysis is to report the incremental costs and benefits of different doses of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

We randomized 400 patients with chronic LBP to receive a dose of 0, 6, 12, or 18 sessions of SMT. Participants were scheduled for 18 visits for 6 weeks and received SMT or light massage control from a doctor of chiropractic. Societal costs in the year after study enrollment were estimated using patient reports of health care use and lost productivity. The main health outcomes were the number of pain-free days and disability-free days. Multiple regression was performed on outcomes and log-transformed cost data.

RESULTS

Lost productivity accounts for most societal costs of chronic LBP. Cost of treatment and lost productivity ranged from $3398 for 12 SMT sessions to $3815 for 0 SMT sessions with no statistically significant differences between groups. Baseline patient characteristics related to increase in costs were greater age (P = .03), greater disability (P = .01), lower quality-adjusted life year scores (P = .01), and higher costs in the period preceding enrollment (P < .01). Pain-free and disability-free days were greater for all SMT doses compared with control, but only SMT 12 yielded a statistically significant benefit of 22.9 pain-free days (P = .03) and 19.8 disability-free days (P = .04). No statistically significant group differences in quality-adjusted life years were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

A dose of 12 SMT sessions yielded a modest benefit in pain-free and disability-free days. Care of chronic LBP with SMT did not increase the costs of treatment plus lost productivity.

Five-week outcomes from a dosing trial of therapeutic massage for chronic neck pain

PURPOSE

This trial was designed to evaluate the optimal dose of massage for individuals with chronic neck pain.

METHODS

We recruited 228 individuals with chronic nonspecific neck pain from an integrated health care system and the general population, and randomized them to 5 groups receiving various doses of massage (a 4-week course consisting of 30-minute visits 2 or 3 times weekly or 60-minute visits 1, 2, or 3 times weekly) or to a single control group (a 4-week period on a wait list). We assessed neck-related dysfunction with the Neck Disability Index (range, 0-50 points) and pain intensity with a numerical rating scale (range, 0-10 points) at baseline and 5 weeks. We used log-linear regression to assess the likelihood of clinically meaningful improvement in neck-related dysfunction (≥5 points on Neck Disability Index) or pain intensity (≥30% improvement) by treatment group.

RESULTS

After adjustment for baseline age, outcome measures, and imbalanced covariates, 30-minute treatments were not significantly better than the wait list control condition in terms of achieving a clinically meaningful improvement in neck dysfunction or pain, regardless of the frequency of treatments. In contrast, 60-minute treatments 2 and 3 times weekly significantly increased the likelihood of such improvement compared with the control condition in terms of both neck dysfunction (relative risk = 3.41 and 4.98, P = .04 and .005, respectively) and pain intensity (relative risk = 2.30 and 2.73; P = .007 and .001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

After 4 weeks of treatment, we found multiple 60-minute massages per week more effective than fewer or shorter sessions for individuals with chronic neck pain. Clinicians recommending massage and researchers studying this therapy should ensure that patients receive a likely effective dose of treatment.

Medicare's demonstration of expanded coverage for chiropractic services: limitations of the demonstration and an alternative direct cost estimate

OBJECTIVE

The purposes of this study were to examine the direct costs associated with Medicare's 2005-2007 "Demonstration of Expanded Coverage of Chiropractic Services" (Demonstration) and their drivers, to explore practice pattern variation during the Demonstration, and to describe scenarios of cost implications had provider behavior and benefit coverage been different.

METHODS

Using Medicare Part B data from April 1, 2005, and March 31, 2007, and 2004 Rural Urban Continuum Codes, we conducted a retrospective analysis of traditionally reimbursed and expanded chiropractic services provided to patients aged 65 to 99 years who had a neuromusculoskeletal condition. We compared chiropractic care costs, supply, and utilization patterns for the 2-year periods before, during, and after the Demonstration for 5 Chicago area counties that participated in the Demonstration to those for 6 other county aggregations-urban or rural counties that participated in the Demonstration; were designated comparison counties during the Demonstration; or were neither participating nor comparison counties during the Demonstration.

RESULTS

When compared with other groups, doctors of chiropractic in 1 region (Chicago area counties) billed more aggressively for expanded services and were reimbursed significantly more for traditionally reimbursed chiropractic services provided before, during, and after the Demonstration. Costs would have been substantially lower had doctors of chiropractic in this 1 region had responded similarly to those in other demonstration counties.

CONCLUSION

We found widespread geographic variation in practice behavior and patterns. Our findings suggest that Medicare might reduce the risk of accelerated costs associated with the introduction of a new benefit by applying appropriate limits to the frequency of use and overall costs of those benefits, particularly in highly competitive markets.

Analysis of scientific truth status in controlled rehabilitation trials

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Systematic reviews, meta-analyses and clinical guidelines (reviews) are intended to inform clinical practice, and in this sense can be thought of as scientific truthmakers. High-quality controlled trials should align to this truth, and method quality markers should predict truth status. We sought to determine in what way controlled trial quality relates to scientific truth, and to determine predictive utility of trial quality and bibliographic markers.

METHOD

A sample of reviews in rehabilitation medicine was examined. Two scientific truth dimensions were established based on review outcomes. Quality and bibliographic markers were extracted from associated trials for use in a regression analysis of their predictive utility for trial truth status. Probability analysis was undertaken to examine judgments of future trial truth status.

RESULTS

Of the 93 trials included in contemporaneous reviews, overall, n = 45 (48%) were true. Randomization was found more in true trials than false trials in one truth dimension (P = 0.03). Intention-to-treat analysis was close to significant in one truth dimension (P = 0.058), being more commonly used in false trials. There were no other significant differences in quality or bibliographic variables between true and false trials. Regression analysis revealed no significant predictors of trial truth status. Probability analysis reported that the reasonable chance of future trials being true was between 2 and 5%, based on a uniform prior.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings are at odds with what is considered gold-standard research methods, but in line with previous reports. Further work should focus on scientific dynamics within healthcare research and evidence-based practice constructs.

Comparing Once- versus Twice-Weekly Yoga Classes for Chronic Low Back Pain in Predominantly Low Income Minorities: A Randomized Dosing Trial

Background. Previous studies have demonstrated that once-weekly yoga classes are effective for chronic low back pain (cLBP) in white adults with high socioeconomic status. The comparative effectiveness of twice-weekly classes and generalizability to racially diverse low income populations are unknown. Methods. We conducted a 12-week randomized, parallel-group, dosing trial for 95 adults recruited from an urban safety-net hospital and five community health centers comparing once-weekly (n = 49) versus twice-weekly (n = 46) standardized yoga classes supplemented by home practice. Primary outcomes were change from baseline to 12 weeks in pain (11-point scale) and back-related function (23-point modified Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire). Results. 82% of participants were nonwhite; 77% had annual household incomes <$40,000. The sample's baseline mean pain intensity [6.9 (SD 1.6)] and function [13.7 (SD 5.0)] reflected moderate to severe back pain and impairment. Pain and back-related function improved within both groups (P < 0.001). However, there were no differences between once-weekly and twice-weekly groups for pain reduction [-2.1 (95% CI -2.9, -1.3) versus -2.4 (95% CI -3.1, -1.8), P = 0.62] or back-related function [-5.1 (95% CI -7.0, -3.2) versus -4.9 (95% CI -6.5, -3.3), P = 0.83]. Conclusions. Twelve weeks of once-weekly or twice-weekly yoga classes were similarly effective for predominantly low income minority adults with moderate to severe chronic low back pain. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01761617.

Conservative physical therapy management for the treatment of cervicogenic headache: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of conservative physical therapy management of cervicogenic headache (CGH).

INTRODUCTION

CGH affects 22-25% of the adult population with females being four times more affected than men. CGHs are thought to arise from musculoskeletal impairments in the neck with symptoms most commonly consisting of suboccipital neck pain, dizziness, and lightheadedness. Currently, both invasive and non-invasive techniques are available to address these symptoms; however, the efficacy of non-invasive treatment techniques has yet to be established.

METHODS

Computerized searches of CINAHL, ProQuest, PubMed, MEDLINE, and SportDiscus, were performed to obtain a qualitative analysis of the literature. Inclusion criteria were: randomized controlled trial design, population diagnosed with CGH using the International Headache Society classification, at least one baseline measurement and one outcomes measure, and assessment of a conservative technique. Physiotherapy evidence-based database scale was utilized for quality assessment.

RESULTS

One computerized database search and two hand searches yielded six articles. Of the six included randomized controlled trials, all were considered to be of 'good quality' utilizing the physiotherapy evidence-based database scale. The interventions utilized were: therapist-driven cervical manipulation and mobilization, self-applied cervical mobilization, cervico-scapular strengthening, and therapist-driven cervical and thoracic manipulation. With the exception of one study, all reported reduction in pain and disability, as well as improvement in function.

CONCLUSION

Calculated effect sizes allowed comparison of intervention groups between studies. A combination of therapist-driven cervical manipulation and mobilization with cervico-scapular strengthening was most effective for decreasing pain outcomes in those with CGH.

What are the clinical criteria justifying spinal manipulative therapy for neck pain?- a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Manipulation and mobilization are used to treat neck pain. However, little is known about the diagnostic criteria used to determine the need for manipulation in cases of neck pain. The primary aim of this study was to determine what diagnostic criteria are used to identify which neck pain sufferers should receive spinal manipulation or mobilization.

DESIGN

We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCT) involving mobilization or manipulation for neck pain. A data extraction pro forma was developed and trialled before two independent assessors extracted data sets from each RCT. A descriptive analysis was undertaken.

RESULTS

Thirty RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Acute and chronic "Mechanical" neck pain was the most common (43%) diagnosis at recruitment to the RCTs but some (10%) included patients with cervicogenic headache. Clinical criteria were used to determine the need for neck manipulation in over half (63%) of the RCTs. This usually involved exclusion of serious conditions, manual examination for tenderness on palpation, and/or altered vertebral motion in the neck or upper thoracic region which are known to lack validity. The remainder of the RCTs did not report a diagnostic strategy. All RCTs lacked detail descriptions of diagnostic criteria or interventions used.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review highlights the absence of reliable and valid diagnostic protocols to determine the need for spinal manipulation in persons presenting with non-serious, idiopathic, or whiplash-associated (grade II) neck pain. Guidelines requiring the reporting of valid diagnostic criteria are needed to improve the quality of RCTs concerning manual therapy.

Relationship between Biomechanical Characteristics of Spinal Manipulation and Neural Responses in an Animal Model: Effect of Linear Control of Thrust Displacement versus Force, Thrust Amplitude, Thrust Duration, and Thrust Rate

High velocity low amplitude spinal manipulation (HVLA-SM) is used frequently to treat musculoskeletal complaints. Little is known about the intervention's biomechanical characteristics that determine its clinical benefit. Using an animal preparation, we determined how neural activity from lumbar muscle spindles during a lumbar HVLA-SM is affected by the type of thrust control and by the thrust's amplitude, duration, and rate. A mechanical device was used to apply a linear increase in thrust displacement or force and to control thrust duration. Under displacement control, neural responses during the HVLA-SM increased in a fashion graded with thrust amplitude. Under force control neural responses were similar regardless of the thrust amplitude. Decreasing thrust durations at all thrust amplitudes except the smallest thrust displacement had an overall significant effect on increasing muscle spindle activity during the HVLA-SMs. Under force control, spindle responses specifically and significantly increased between thrust durations of 75 and 150 ms suggesting the presence of a threshold value. Thrust velocities greater than 20-30 mm/s and thrust rates greater than 300 N/s tended to maximize the spindle responses. This study provides a basis for considering biomechanical characteristics of an HVLA-SM that should be measured and reported in clinical efficacy studies to help define effective clinical dosages.

Manipulative therapies for infantile colic

BACKGROUND

Infantile colic is a common disorder, affecting around one in six families, and in 2001 was reported to cost the UK National Health Service in excess of £65 million per year (Morris 2001). Although it usually remits by six months of age, there is some evidence of longer-term sequelae for both children and parents.Manipulative therapies, such as chiropractic and osteopathy, have been suggested as interventions to reduce the severity of symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the results of studies designed to address efficacy or effectiveness of manipulative therapies (specifically, chiropractic, osteopathy and cranial manipulation) for infantile colic in infants less than six months of age.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched following databases: CENTRAL (2012, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1948 to April Week 3 2012), EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 17), CINAHL (1938 to April 2012), PsycINFO (1806 to April 2012), Science Citation Index (1970 to April 2012), Social Science Citation Index (1970 to April 2012), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (1990 to April 2012) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Social Science & Humanities (1970 to April 2012). We also searched all available years of LILACS, PEDro, ZETOC, WorldCat, TROVE, DART-Europe, ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP (May 2012), and contacted over 90 chiropractic and osteopathic institutions around the world. In addition, we searched CentreWatch, NRR Archive and UKCRN in December 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials evaluating the effect of chiropractic, osteopathy or cranial osteopathy alone or in conjunction with other interventions for the treatment of infantile colic.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

In pairs, five of the review authors (a) assessed the eligibility of studies against the inclusion criteria, (b) extracted data from the included studies and (c) assessed the risk of bias for all included studies. Each article or study was assessed independently by two review authors. One review author entered the data into Review Manager software and the team's statistician (PP) reviewed the chosen analytical settings.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six studies for inclusion in our review, representing a total of 325 infants. There were three further studies that we could not find information about and we identified three other ongoing studies. Of the six included studies, five were suggestive of a beneficial effect and one found no evidence that manipulative therapies had any beneficial effect on the natural course of infantile colic. Tests for heterogeneity imply that there may be some underlying difference between this study and the other five.Five studies measured daily hours of crying and these data were combined, suggesting that manipulative therapies had a significant effect on infant colic - reducing average crying time by one hour and 12 minutes per day (mean difference (MD) -1.20; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.89 to -0.51). This conclusion is sustained even when considering only studies with a low risk of selection bias (sequence generation and allocation concealment) (MD -1.24; 95% CI -2.16 to -0.33); those with a low risk of attrition bias (MD -1.95; 95% CI -2.96 to -0.94), or only those studies that have been published in the peer-reviewed literature (MD -1.01; 95% CI -1.78 to -0.24). However, when combining only those studies with a low risk of performance bias (parental 'blinding'), the improvement in daily crying hours was not statistically significant (MD -0.57; 95% CI -2.24 to 1.09).One study considered whether the reduction in crying time was clinically significant. This found that a greater proportion of parents of infants receiving a manipulative therapy reported clinically significant improvements than did parents of those receiving no treatment (reduction in crying to less than two hours: odds ratio (OR) 6.33; 95% CI 1.54 to 26.00; more than 30% reduction in crying: OR 3.70; 95% CI 1.15 to 11.86).Analysis of data from three studies that measured 'full recovery' from colic as reported by parents found that manipulative therapies did not result in significantly higher proportions of parents reporting recovery (OR 11.12; 95% CI 0.46 to 267.52).One study measured infant sleeping time and found manipulative therapy resulted in statistically significant improvement (MD 1.17; 95% CI 0.22 to 2.12).The quality of the studies was variable. There was a generally low risk of selection bias but only two of the six studies were evaluated as being at low risk of performance bias, three at low risk of detection bias and one at low risk of attrition bias.One of the studies recorded adverse events and none were encountered. However, with only a sample of 325 infants, we have too few data to reach any definitive conclusions about safety.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The studies included in this meta-analysis were generally small and methodologically prone to bias, which makes it impossible to arrive at a definitive conclusion about the effectiveness of manipulative therapies for infantile colic.The majority of the included trials appeared to indicate that the parents of infants receiving manipulative therapies reported fewer hours crying per day than parents whose infants did not, based on contemporaneous crying diaries, and this difference was statistically significant. The trials also indicate that a greater proportion of those parents reported improvements that were clinically significant. However, most studies had a high risk of performance bias due to the fact that the assessors (parents) were not blind to who had received the intervention. When combining only those trials with a low risk of such performance bias, the results did not reach statistical significance. Further research is required where those assessing the treatment outcomes do not know whether or not the infant has received a manipulative therapy.There are inadequate data to reach any definitive conclusions about the safety of these interventions.

Manual therapies for cervicogenic headache: a systematic review

This paper systematically reviewed randomized clinical trials (RCT) assessing the efficacy of manual therapies for cervicogenic headache (CEH). A total of seven RCTs were identified, i.e. one study applied physiotherapy ± temporomadibular mobilization techniques and six studies applied cervical spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). The RCTs suggest that physiotherapy and SMT might be an effective treatment in the management of CEH, but the results are difficult to evaluate, since only one study included a control group that did not receive treatment. Furthermore, the RCTs mostly included participant with infrequent CEH. Future challenges regarding CEH are substantial both from a diagnostic and management point of view.

Patient education for neck pain

BACKGROUND

Neck disorders are common, disabling, and costly. The effectiveness of patient education strategies is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the short- to long-term effects of therapeutic patient education (TPE) strategies on pain, function, disability, quality of life, global perceived effect, patient satisfaction, knowledge transfer, or behaviour change in adults with neck pain associated with whiplash or non-specific and specific mechanical neck pain with or without radiculopathy or cervicogenic headache.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched computerised bibliographic databases (inception to 11 July 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCT) investigating the effectiveness of TPE for acute to chronic neck pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Paired independent review authors conducted selection, data abstraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessment. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and standardised mean differences (SMD). Heterogeneity was assessed; no studies were pooled.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 15 selected trials, three were rated low risk of bias. Three TPE themes emerged.Advice focusing on activation: There is moderate quality evidence (one trial, 348 participants) that an educational video of advice focusing on activation was more beneficial for acute whiplash-related pain when compared with no treatment at intermediate-term [RR 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.06)] but not long-term follow-up [0.89 (95% CI, 0.65 to 1.21)]. There is low quality evidence (one trial, 102 participants) that a whiplash pamphlet on advice focusing on activation is less beneficial for pain reduction, or no different in improving function and global perceived improvement from generic information given out in emergency care (control) for acute whiplash at short- or intermediate-term follow-up. Low to very low quality evidence (nine trials using diverse educational approaches) showed either no evidence of benefit or difference for varied outcomes. Advice focusing on pain & stress coping skills and workplace ergonomics: Very low quality evidence (three trials, 243 participants) favoured other treatment or showed no difference spanning numerous follow-up periods and disorder subtypes.  Low quality evidence (one trial, 192 participants) favoured specific exercise training for chronic neck pain at short-term follow-up.Self-care strategies: Very low quality evidence (one trial, 58 participants) indicated that self-care strategies did not relieve pain for acute to chronic neck pain at short-term follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

With the exception of one trial, this review has not shown effectiveness for educational interventions, including advice to activate, advice on stress-coping skills, workplace ergonomics and self-care strategies. Future research should be founded on sound adult learning theory and learning skill acquisition.

Evidence-based guidelines for the chiropractic treatment of adults with headache

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this manuscript is to provide evidence-informed practice recommendations for the chiropractic treatment of headache in adults.

METHODS

Systematic literature searches of controlled clinical trials published through August 2009 relevant to chiropractic practice were conducted using the databases MEDLINE; EMBASE; Allied and Complementary Medicine; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; Manual, Alternative, and Natural Therapy Index System; Alt HealthWatch; Index to Chiropractic Literature; and the Cochrane Library. The number, quality, and consistency of findings were considered to assign an overall strength of evidence (strong, moderate, limited, or conflicting) and to formulate practice recommendations.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles met inclusion criteria and were used to develop recommendations. Evidence did not exceed a moderate level. For migraine, spinal manipulation and multimodal multidisciplinary interventions including massage are recommended for management of patients with episodic or chronic migraine. For tension-type headache, spinal manipulation cannot be recommended for the management of episodic tension-type headache. A recommendation cannot be made for or against the use of spinal manipulation for patients with chronic tension-type headache. Low-load craniocervical mobilization may be beneficial for longer term management of patients with episodic or chronic tension-type headaches. For cervicogenic headache, spinal manipulation is recommended. Joint mobilization or deep neck flexor exercises may improve symptoms. There is no consistently additive benefit of combining joint mobilization and deep neck flexor exercises for patients with cervicogenic headache. Adverse events were not addressed in most clinical trials; and if they were, there were none or they were minor.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that chiropractic care, including spinal manipulation, improves migraine and cervicogenic headaches. The type, frequency, dosage, and duration of treatment(s) should be based on guideline recommendations, clinical experience, and findings. Evidence for the use of spinal manipulation as an isolated intervention for patients with tension-type headache remains equivocal.

Spinal manipulations for the treatment of migraine: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials

Aims: The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of spinal manipulations as a treatment for migraine headaches.

Method: Seven databases were searched from inception to November 2010. All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating spinal manipulations performed by any type of healthcare professional for treating migraine headaches in human subjects were considered. The selection of studies, data extraction and validation were performed independently by two reviewers.

Results: Three RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Their methodological quality was mostly poor and ranged between 1 and 3 on the Jadad scale. Two RCTs suggested no effect of spinal manipulations in terms of Headache Index or migraine duration and disability compared with drug therapy, spinal manipulation plus drug therapy, or mobilization. One RCT showed significant improvements in migraine frequency, intensity, duration and disability associated with migraine compared with detuned interferential therapy. The most rigorous RCT demonstrated no effect of chiropractic spinal manipulation compared with mobilization or spinal manipulation by medical practitioner or physiotherapist on migraine duration or disability.

Conclusions: Current evidence does not support the use of spinal manipulations for the treatment for migraine headaches.

An independent review of NCCAM-funded studies of chiropractic

To promote an independent and critical evaluation of 11 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of chiropractic funded by the National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). Electronic searches were conducted to identify all relevant RCTs. Key data were extracted and the risk of bias of each study was determined. Ten RCTs were included, mostly related to chiropractic spinal manipulation for musculoskeletal problems. Their quality was frequently questionable. Several RCTs failed to report adverse effects and the majority was not described in sufficient detail to allow replication. The criticism repeatedly aimed at NCCAM seems justified, as far as their RCTs of chiropractic is concerned. It seems questionable whether such research is worthwhile.

Physical examination and self-reported pain outcomes from a randomized trial on chronic cervicogenic headache

OBJECTIVE

Objective 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.

METHODS

This 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.

RESULTS

At 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).

CONCLUSIONS

Cervical 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.

Adverse events associated with the use of cervical manipulation and mobilization for the treatment of neck pain in adults: a systematic review

Adverse events (AE) are a concern for practitioners utilizing cervical manipulation or mobilization. While efficacious, these techniques are associated with rare but serious adverse events. Five bibliographic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro, AMED, EMBASE) and the gray literature were searched from 1998 to 2009 for any AE associated with cervical manipulation or mobilization for neck pain. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective or cross-sectional observational studies were included. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection, method quality assessment and data abstraction. Pooled relative risks (RR) were calculated. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane system, a modified Critical Appraisal Skills Program form and the McHarm scale to assess the reporting of harms. Seventeen of 76 identified citations resulted in no major AE. Two pooled estimates for minor AE found transient neurological symptoms [RR 1.96 (95% CI: 1.09-3.54) p < 0.05]; and increased neck pain [RR 1.23 (95% CI: 0.85-1.77) p > .05]. Forty-four studies (58%) were excluded for not reporting AE. No definitive conclusions can be made due to a small number of studies, weak association, moderate study quality, and notable ascertainment bias. Improved reporting of AE in manual therapy trials as recommended by the CONSORT statement extension on harms reporting is warranted.

Dose response and efficacy of spinal manipulation for chronic cervicogenic headache: a pilot randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials suggest that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is efficacious for care of cervicogenic headache (CGH). The effect of SMT dose on outcomes has not been studied.

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of two doses of SMT and two doses of light massage (LM) for CGH.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Eighty patients with chronic CGH.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Modified Von Korff pain and disability scales for CGH and neck pain (minimum clinically important difference=10 on 100-point scale), number of headaches in the last 4 weeks, and medication use. Data were collected every 4 weeks for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was the CGH pain scale.

METHODS

Participants were randomized to either 8 or 16 treatment sessions with either SMT or a minimal LM control. Patients were treated once or twice per week for 8 weeks. Adjusted mean differences (AMD) between groups were computed using generalized estimating equations for the longitudinal outcomes over all follow-up time points (profile) and using regression modeling for individual time points with baseline characteristics as covariates and with imputed missing data.

RESULTS

For the CGH pain scale, comparisons of 8 and 16 treatment sessions yielded small dose effects: |AMD|</=5.6. There was an advantage for SMT over the control: AMD=-8.1 (95% confidence interval=-13.3 to -2.8) for the profile, -10.3 (-18.5 to -2.1) at 12 weeks, and -9.8 (-18.7 to -1.0) at 24 weeks. For the higher dose patients, the advantage was greater: AMD=-11.9 (-19.3 to -4.6) for the profile, -14.2 (-25.8 to -2.6) at 12 weeks, and -14.4 (-26.9 to -2.0) at 24 weeks. Patients receiving SMT were also more likely to achieve a 50% improvement in pain scale: adjusted odds ratio=3.6 (1.6 to 8.1) for the profile, 3.1 (0.9 to 9.8) at 12 weeks, and 3.1 (0.9 to 10.3) at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes showed similar trends favoring SMT. For SMT patients, the mean number of CGH was reduced by half.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically important differences between SMT and a control intervention were observed favoring SMT. Dose effects tended to be small.

Manipulation or mobilisation for neck pain

BACKGROUND

Manipulation and mobilisation are often used, either alone or combined with other treatment approaches, to treat neck pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess if manipulation or mobilisation improves pain, function/disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and global perceived effect in adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radicular findings.

SEARCH STRATEGY

CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 3) and MEDLINE, EMBASE, Manual Alternative and Natural Therapy, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were updated to July 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials on manipulation or mobilisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Pooled relative risk and standardised mean differences (SMD) were calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 trials (1522 participants).Cervical Manipulation for subacute/chronic neck pain : Moderate quality evidence suggested manipulation and mobilisation produced similar effects on pain, function and patient satisfaction at intermediate-term follow-up. Low quality evidence showed manipulation alone compared to a control may provide short- term relief following one to four sessions (SMD pooled -0.90 (95%CI: -1.78 to -0.02)) and that nine or 12 sessions were superior to three for pain and disability in cervicogenic headache. Optimal technique and dose need to be determined.Thoracic Manipulation for acute/chronic neck pain : Low quality evidence supported thoracic manipulation as an additional therapy for pain reduction (NNT 7; 46.6% treatment advantage) and increased function (NNT 5; 40.6% treatment advantage) in acute pain and favoured a single session of thoracic manipulation for immediate pain reduction compared to placebo for chronic neck pain (NNT 5, 29% treatment advantage).Mobilisation for subacute/chronic neck pain: In addition to the evidence noted above, low quality evidence for subacute and chronic neck pain indicated that 1) a combination of Maitland mobilisation techniques was similar to acupuncture for immediate pain relief and increased function; 2) there was no difference between mobilisation and acupuncture as additional treatments for immediate pain relief and improved function; and 3) neural dynamic mobilisations may produce clinically important reduction of pain immediately post-treatment. Certain mobilisation techniques were superior.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cervical manipulation and mobilisation produced similar changes. Either may provide immediate- or short-term change; no long-term data are available. Thoracic manipulation may improve pain and function. Optimal techniques and dose are unresolved. Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.

An epidemiological examination of the subluxation construct using Hill's criteria of causation

BACKGROUND

Chiropractors claim to locate, analyze and diagnose a putative spinal lesion known as subluxation and apply the mode of spinal manipulation (adjustment) for the correction of this lesion.

AIM

The purpose of this examination is to review the current evidence on the epidemiology of the subluxation construct and to evaluate the subluxation by applying epidemiologic criteria for it's significance as a causal factor.

METHODS

The databases of PubMed, Cinahl, and Mantis were searched for studies using the keywords subluxation, epidemiology, manipulation, dose-response, temporality, odds ratio, relative risk, biological plausibility, coherence, and analogy.

RESULTS

The criteria for causation in epidemiology are strength (strength of association), consistency, specificity, temporality (temporal sequence), dose response, experimental evidence, biological plausibility, coherence, and analogy. Applied to the subluxation all of these criteria remain for the most part unfulfilled.

CONCLUSION

There is a significant lack of evidence to fulfill the basic criteria of causation. This lack of crucial supportive epidemiologic evidence prohibits the accurate promulgation of the chiropractic subluxation.

Patient education for neck pain with or without radiculopathy

BACKGROUND

Neck disorders are common, disabling, and costly. The effectiveness of patient education strategies is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether patient education strategies, either alone or in combination with other treatments, are of benefit for pain, function, global perceived effect, quality of life, or patient satisfaction, in adults with neck pain with and without radiculopathy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerized bibliographic databases were searched from their start up to May 31, 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies were quasi or randomized trials (RCT) investigating the effectiveness of patient education strategies for neck disorder.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Paired independent review authors carried out study selection, data abstraction, and methodological quality assessment. Relative risk and standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated. The appropriateness of combining studies was assessed on clinical and statistical grounds. Because of differences in intervention type or disorder, no studies were considered appropriate to pool.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 10 selected trials, two (20%) were rated high quality. Advice was assessed as follows:Eight trials of advice focusing on activation compared to no treatment or to various active treatments, including therapeutic exercise, manual therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy, showed either inferiority or no difference for pain, spanning a full range of follow-up periods and disorder types. When compared to rest, two trials that assessed acute whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) showed moderate evidence of no difference for various forms of advice focusing on activation. Two trials studying advice focusing on pain & stress coping skills found moderate evidence of no benefit for pain in chronic mechanical neck disorder (MND) at intermediate/long-term follow-up. One trial compared the effects of ' traditional neck school ' to no treatment, yielding limited evidence of no benefit for pain at intermediate-term follow-up in mixed acute/subacute/chronic neck pain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review has not shown effectiveness for educational interventions in various disorder types and follow-up periods, including advice to activate, advice on stress coping skills, and 'neck school'. In future research, further attention to methodological quality is necessary. Studies of multimodal interventions should consider study designs, such as factorial designs, that permit discrimination of the specific educational components.

Patient education for neck pain with or without radiculopathy

BACKGROUND

Neck disorders are common, disabling, and costly. The effectiveness of patient education strategies is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether patient education strategies, either alone or in combination with other treatments, are of benefit for pain, function, global perceived effect, quality of life, or patient satisfaction, in adults with neck pain with and without radiculopathy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerized bibliographic databases were searched from their start up to May 31, 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies were quasi or randomized trials (RCT) investigating the effectiveness of patient education strategies for neck disorder.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Paired independent review authors carried out study selection, data abstraction, and methodological quality assessment. Relative risk and standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated. The appropriateness of combining studies was assessed on clinical and statistical grounds. Because of differences in intervention type or disorder, no studies were considered appropriate to pool.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 10 selected trials, two (20%) were rated high quality. Advice was assessed as follows:Eight trials of advice focusing on activation compared to no treatment or to various active treatments, including therapeutic exercise, manual therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy, showed either inferiority or no difference for pain, spanning a full range of follow-up periods and disorder types. When compared to rest, two trials that assessed acute whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) showed moderate evidence of no difference for various forms of advice focusing on activation.Two trials studying advice focusing on pain & stress coping skills found moderate evidence of no benefit for pain in chronic mechanical neck disorder (MND) at intermediate/long-term follow-up.One trial compared the effects of 'traditional neck school' to no treatment, yielding limited evidence of no benefit for pain at intermediate-term follow-up in mixed acute/subacute/chronic neck pain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review has not shown effectiveness for educational interventions in various disorder types and follow-up periods, including advice to activate, advice on stress coping skills, and 'neck school'. In future research, further attention to methodological quality is necessary. Studies of multimodal interventions should consider study designs, such as factorial designs, that permit discrimination of the specific educational components.

Chronic disease self-management program for low back pain in the elderly

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of Stanford's Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (CDSMP) for chronic low back pain (LBP) in older Americans.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Community-based program offered at 12 locations.

SUBJECTS

Community-dwelling seniors (n = 109) aged 60 and older with chronic LBP of mechanical origin.

METHODS

Patients were randomly allocated to the CDSMP or to a 6-month, wait-list control group. The program included one 2.5-hour session per week for 6 weeks. Outcomes evaluated at 6 months included 100-point modified Von Korff pain and disability scales; days with pain and disability; SF-36 general health, energy-fatigue, and emotional well-being scales; 2 scales from the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale, self-care attitudes/behaviors, and health services utilization.

RESULTS

For pain at 6 months, the primary outcome, the adjusted mean difference between the program and control, was -1.0 (P = .835). There was a sizable advantage for the program in disability averaged over the course of the entire 6-month study (-9.2, P = .027), but not at the 6-month follow-up (-5.8, P = .278). There was an interaction between intervention and baseline disability days favoring the program for higher baseline values (P = .007). The CDSMP affected emotional well-being (7.6, P = .037) and energy-fatigue (5.1, P = .274). There were no differences for self-efficacy, pain days, and general health.

CONCLUSION

There was no advantage for the CDSMP over a wait-list control for improving pain, general health, self-efficacy, and self-care attitudes in older Americans with chronic LBP. A benefit was suggested for emotional well-being, fatigue, functional disability, and days with disability.

The Effect of Chiropractic Adjustments on Movement Time: A Pilot Study Using Fitts Law

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of chiropractic adjustments on movement time using Fitts Law.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Ten patients from a private chiropractic practice participated. Participants in the treatment group received high-velocity, low-amplitude chiropractic adjustments to areas of joint dysfunction (chiropractic subluxation). A nonintervention group was used to control for improvement resulting from time and practice effects. Movement time was measured as participants moved a cursor onto a target appearing on a computer screen. A range of target widths and target distances were used to vary the index of difficulty.

RESULTS

All participants in the experimental group had significantly improved movement times following spinal adjustments compared with only 1 participant in the control group. The average improvement in movement time for the experimental group was 183 ms, a 9.2% improvement, whereas the average improvement in movement time for the control group was 29 ms, a 1.7% improvement. The difference (improvement) scores after the intervention were significantly greater for the chiropractic group compared with the control group as measured by a 2-tailed independent samples t test (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study demonstrated a significant improvement in movement time with chiropractic care. These results suggest that spinal adjustments may influence motor behavior.