Clinical practice guideline on the use of manipulation or mobilization in the treatment of adults with mechanical neck disorders

Are there differences between a real C0-C1 mobilization and a sham technique in function and pressure pain threshold in patients with chronic neck pain and upper cervical restriction? A randomised controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic neck pain is one of the main reasons for visiting a healthcare professional. In recent years, it has been shown that upper cervical restriction may be a factor involved in neck pain.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the immediate effects of a real cervical mobilization technique versus a sham cervical mobilization technique in patients with chronic neck pain and upper cervical restriction.

METHODS

This was a randomised, controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Twenty-eight patients with chronic neck pain were recruited and divided into two groups (14 = real cervical mobilization; 14 = sham mobilization). Both groups received a single 5-minute treatment session. Upper cervical range motion, flexion-rotation test, deep cervical activation and pressure pain threshold were measured.

RESULTS

In the between-groups comparison, statistically significant differences were found in favour of the real cervical mobilization group in upper cervical extension (p= 0.003), more restricted side of flexion-rotation test (p< 0.001) and less restricted side of flexion-rotation test (p= 0.007) and in the pressure pain threshold of the right trapezius (p= 0.040) and right splenius (p= 0.049). No differences in deep muscle activation were obtained.

CONCLUSION

The real cervical mobilization group generates improvements in upper cervical spine movement and pressure pain threshold of right trapezius and right splenius compared to the sham group in patients with chronic neck pain and upper cervical restriction.

Definition and classification for adverse events following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization: A scoping review

Introduction

Spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization are interventions used by many healthcare providers to manage musculoskeletal conditions. Although there are many reports of adverse events (or undesirable outcomes) following such interventions, there is no common definition for an adverse event or clarity on any severity classification. This impedes advances of patient safety initiatives and practice. This scoping review mapped the evidence of adverse event definitions and classification systems following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization for musculoskeletal conditions in adults.

Methods

An electronic search of the following databases was performed from inception to February 2021: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ICL, PEDro, Cochrane Library, Open Grey and Open Theses and Dissertations. Studies including adults (18 to 65 years old) with a musculoskeletal condition receiving spinal or peripheral joint manipulation or mobilization and providing an adverse event definition and/or classification were included. All study designs of peer-reviewed publications were considered. Data from included studies were charted using a standardized data extraction form and synthesised using narrative analysis.

Results

From 8248 identified studies, 98 were included in the final synthesis. A direct definition for an adverse event and/or classification system was provided in 69 studies, while 29 provided an indirect definition and/or classification system. The most common descriptors to define an adverse event were causality, symptom severity, onset and duration. Twenty-three studies that provided a classification system described only the end anchors (e.g., mild/minor and/or serious) of the classification while 26 described multiple categories (e.g., moderate, severe).

Conclusion

A vast array of terms, definition and classification systems were identified. There is no one common definition or classification for adverse events following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization. Findings support the urgent need for consensus on the terms, definition and classification system for adverse events related to these interventions.

The effect of lumbar spine manipulation on pain and disability in Achilles tendinopathy. A case report

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Cervical and thoracic spine manipulation has been found to reduce tendon pain and disability in lateral epicondylalgia and rotator cuff tendinopathy. Based on these findings, the application of lumbar spine manipulation may also provide similar improvements in Achilles tendinopathy (AT). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of lumbar spine manipulation on pain and disability in a patient experiencing AT.

CASE DESCRIPTION

A 44 years old male ex-football player presented with a 20-year history of persistent Achilles tendon pain (ATP) consistent with AT diagnosis. The patient attended 12 treatment sessions receiving a high-velocity, low amplitude lumbar spine manipulation. Outcome measures were collected at baseline, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 3 months and 6 months and included pain in visual analogue scale, the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Score, the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles questionnaire. Pressure pain threshold was also assessed using an electronic pressure algometer.

OUTCOMES

Improvement in all outcome measures was noted 6-months post intervention. Outcome measures indicated substantial improvements in both the patient's pain and disability. The patient was able to perform activities of daily living without difficulties, suggesting higher level of function and quality of life at 6-months post initial evaluation.

CONCLUSION

These findings have demonstrated the positive effects of lumbar spine manipulation on ATP and disability. Further studies, specifically clinical trials investigating the effect of lumbar spine manipulation or combining this technique with exercises and functional activities are suggested.

Methodological Quality of Physical Therapy Guidelines and Their Suitability for Adaptation: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can be characterized to the extent that they specifically address physical therapists and mainly contain recommendations for physical therapist interventions. The primary aim of this study was to identify existing physical therapy CPGs regardless of medical condition, with a secondary aim of assessing their methodological quality to determine whether they are potentially suitable for adaptation.

METHODS

Systematic searches of the Medline and Physiotherapy Evidence Database were performed (August 2019), and the websites of World Confederation for Physical Therapy members were screened (September 2019). Only CPGs published in German or English were included. Two independent reviewers screened records according to previously defined inclusion criteria. Information was extracted regarding country of origin, year of publication, and clinical subject area addressed. Four independent reviewers assessed the quality of physical therapy CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation instrument. A descriptive data analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-five CPGs met the inclusion criteria; 46% (16/35) of the included CPGs were from the United States, and 31% (11/35) were from the Netherlands. Assessment using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation tool resulted in the following domain scores, presented as median percentage (interquartile range): domain 1 (scope and purpose), 76 (63-92); domain 2 (stakeholder involvement), 63 (55-76); domain 3 (rigor of development), 67 (53-75); domain 4 (clarity of presentation), 74 (67-77); domain 5 (applicability), 44 (30-57); and domain 6 (editorial independence), 52 (35-66).

CONCLUSIONS

In general, the methodological quality of the included CPGs was moderate to good. Possibilities of adapting recommendations from existing CPGs should be considered with the development of new physical therapy CPGs.

IMPACT STATEMENT

This study can raise awareness of existing physical therapy CPGs and can support their application by physical therapists. Further, the study can support decisions on adapting existing CPGs with the planning of new physical therapy CPGs.

Physical therapist clinical reasoning and classification inconsistencies in headache disorders: a United States survey

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the decision-making processes of physical therapists relating to evaluation and categorization of patients with headaches, including consistency with criteria proposed by the International Headache Society (IHS).Methods: A national online survey was distributed in cooperation with the Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy of the American Physical Therapy Association. Three hypothetical patient case vignettes featuring headache disorders were used as assessment instruments. Additionally, data on physical therapist education, clinical experience, manual therapy training, self-efficacy, and familiarity & consistency with IHS criteria were collected. Physical therapist identification and valuation of clinical features of headache disorders were also examined in the decision-making processes.Results: Among the 384 respondents, 32.3% classified the tension-type headache case consistent with IHS criteria. The cervicogenic and migraine headache cases were classified at 54.8% and 41.7% consistent with IHS categories, respectively. Experienced clinicians and those with formal manual training categorized patient presentations with greater consistency. Clinician familiarity with IHS classification criteria was low with 73.6% collectively somewhat and not familiar, while 26.4% of physical therapists were self-described as very or moderately familiar.Discussion: Clinicians' headache categorization was significantly affected by symptom misattribution and weighting of individual examination findings. Weighting by practitioners of clinical features varied markedly with greatest emphasis being placed on detailed manual examination procedures, including passive intervertebral movements. Inconsistencies in valuation of clinical features in headache categorization suggest a need for further formal education in physical therapy educational curricula and in post-graduate education, including of IHS criteria and classification.Level of Evidence: 2a.

Management of pain in patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD): challenges and solutions

Thanks to advances in neuroscience, biopsychosocial models for diagnostics and treatment (including physical, psychological, and pharmacological therapies) currently have more clinical support and scientific growth. At present, a conservative treatment approach prevails over surgery, given it is less aggressive and usually results in satisfactory clinical outcomes in mild–moderate temporomandibular disorder (TMD). The aim of this review is to evaluate the recent evidence, identify challenges, and propose solutions from a clinical point of view for patients with craniofacial pain and TMD. The treatment we propose is structured in a multi-modal approach based on a biobehavioral approach that includes medical, physiotherapeutic, psychological, and dental treatments. We also propose a new biobehavioral model regarding pain perception and motor behavior for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with painful TMD.

What are the risks of manual treatment of the spine? A scoping review for clinicians

Background

Communicating to patients the risks of manual treatment to the spine is an important, but challenging element of informed consent. This scoping review aimed to characterise and summarise the available literature on risks and to describe implications for clinical practice and research.

Method

A methodological framework for scoping reviews was followed. Systematic searches were conducted during June 2017. The quantity, nature and sources of literature were described. Findings of included studies were narratively summarised, highlighting key clinical points.

Results

Two hundred and fifty articles were included. Cases of serious adverse events were reported. Observational studies, randomised studies and systematic reviews were also identified, reporting both benign and serious adverse events.Benign adverse events were reported to occur commonly in adults and children. Predictive factors for risk are unclear, but for neck pain patients might include higher levels of neck disability or cervical manipulation. In neck pain patients benign adverse events may result in poorer short term, but not long term outcomes.Serious adverse event incidence estimates ranged from 1 per 2 million manipulations to 13 per 10,000 patients. Cases are reported in adults and children, including spinal or neurological problems as well as cervical arterial strokes. Case-control studies indicate some association, in the under 45 years age group, between manual interventions and cervical arterial stroke, however it is unclear whether this is causal. Elderly patients have no greater risk of traumatic injury compared with visiting a medical practitioner for neuro-musculoskeletal problems, however some underlying conditions may increase risk.

Conclusion

Existing literature indicates that benign adverse events following manual treatments to the spine are common, while serious adverse events are rare. The incidence and causal relationships with serious adverse events are challenging to establish, with gaps in the literature and inherent methodological limitations of studies. Clinicians should ensure that patients are informed of risks during the consent process. Since serious adverse events could result from pre-existing pathologies, assessment for signs or symptoms of these is important. Clinicians may also contribute to furthering understanding by utilising patient safety incident reporting and learning systems where adverse events have occurred.

Effects of cervical manipulation on pain, grip force control, and upper extremity muscle activity: a randomized controlled trial

Objectives

Individuals with neck pain experience disrupted grip force control when performing manipulative tasks. Manipulative physical therapy might decrease pain and change the activity of surrounding muscles; however, its effect on upper limb motor control remains undetermined. This study aims to analyze the effects of cervical manipulation on pressure pain threshold (PPT), upper extremity muscle activity along with grip force control in individuals with neck pain.

Methods

Thirty subjects with neck pain were instructed to grasp and lift an object before and after cervical (n = 15) or sham (n = 15) manipulation. The patients' PPT, electromyographic (EMG) activity of the upper extremity/scapular muscles, and grip force control were analyzed before and after one session of manipulation.

Results

No significant differences were found in the grip force control, PPT and EMG activity variables between groups.

Discussion

These results suggest that a single session of cervical manipulation may not modify upper limb motor control, more specifically grip force control and EMG activity, in patients with cervical pain. Future studies should investigate potential changes in grip force control in patients with different features of neck pain and/or by applying long-term treatment.

Level of Evidence

1b.

Effects of Cervical High-Velocity Low-Amplitude Techniques on Range of Motion, Strength Performance, and Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Review

BACKGROUND

Cervical high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation technique is among the oldest and most frequently used chiropractic manual therapy, but the physiologic and biomechanics effects were not completely clear.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to describe the effects of cervical HVLA manipulation techniques on range of motion, strength, and cardiovascular performance.

METHODS/DESIGN

A systematic search was conducted of the electronic databases from January 2000 to August 2016: PubMed (n = 131), ScienceDirect (n = 101), Scopus (n = 991), PEDro (n = 33), CINAHL (n = 884), and SciELO (n = 5). Two independent reviewers conducted the screening process to determine article eligibility. The intervention that included randomized controlled trials was thrust, or HVLA, manipulative therapy directed to the cervical spine. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The initial search rendered 2145 articles. After screening titles and abstracts, 11 articles remained for full-text review.

RESULTS

The review shows that cervical HVLA manipulation treatment results in a large effect size (d > 0.80) on increasing cervical range of motion and mouth opening. In patients with lateral epicondylalgia, cervical HVLA manipulation resulted in increased pain-free handgrip strength, with large effect sizes (1.44 and 0.78, respectively). Finally, in subjects with hypertension the blood pressure seemed to decrease after cervical HVLA manipulation. Higher quality studies are needed to develop a stronger evidence-based foundation for HVLA manipulation techniques as a treatment for cervical conditions.

Adverse effects as a consequence of being the subject of orthopaedic manual therapy training, a worldwide retrospective survey

BACKGROUND

Physical therapists (PTs) use a range of manual therapy techniques developed to an advanced level through postgraduate orthopaedic manipulative physical therapy (OMPT) programmes. The aim of this study was to describe the adverse effects experienced by students after having techniques performed on them as part of their OMPT training.

DESIGN

A descriptive online survey of current students and recent graduates (≤5 years)m of OMPT programmes across the 22 Member Organisations of the International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by 1640 respondents across 22 countries (1263 graduates, 377 students. Some 60% of respondents reported never having experienced adverse effects during their manual therapy training. Of the 40% who did, 66.4% reported neck pain, 50.9% headache and 32% low back pain. Most reports of neck pain started after a manipulation and/or mobilisation, of which 53.4% lasted ≤24 h, 38.1% > 24 h but <3 months and 13.7% still experienced neck pain to date. A small percentage of respondents (3.3%) reported knowing of a fellow student experiencing a major adverse effect.

CONCLUSION

Mild to moderate adverse effects after practising manual therapy techniques are commonly reported, but usually resolve within 24 h. However, this survey has identified the reported occurrence of major adverse effects that warrant further investigation.

The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a widely used manual treatment, but many reviews exist with conflicting conclusions about the safety of SMT. We performed an overview of reviews to elucidate and quantify the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with SMT.

METHODS

We searched five electronic databases from inception to December 8, 2015. We included reviews on any type of studies, patients, and SMT technique. Our primary outcome was SAEs. Quality of the included reviews was assessed using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). Since there were insufficient data for calculating incidence rates of SAEs, we used an alternative approach; the conclusions regarding safety of SMT were extracted for each review, and the communicated opinion were judged by two reviewers independently as safe, harmful, or neutral/unclear. Risk ratios (RRs) of a review communicating that SMT is safe and meeting the requirements for each AMSTAR item, were calculated.

RESULTS

We identified 283 eligible reviews, but only 118 provided data for synthesis. The most frequently described adverse events (AEs) were stroke, headache, and vertebral artery dissection. Fifty-four reviews (46%) expressed that SMT is safe, 15 (13%) expressed that SMT is harmful, and 49 reviews (42%) were neutral or unclear. Thirteen reviews reported incidence estimates for SAEs, roughly ranging from 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 250,000,000 manipulations. Low methodological quality was present, with a median of 4 of 11 AMSTAR items met (interquartile range, 3 to 6). Reviews meeting the requirements for each of the AMSTAR items (i.e. good internal validity) had a higher chance of expressing that SMT is safe.

CONCLUSIONS

It is currently not possible to provide an overall conclusion about the safety of SMT; however, the types of SAEs reported can indeed be significant, sustaining that some risk is present. High quality research and consistent reporting of AEs and SAEs are needed.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42015030068 .

Manual and Instrument Applied Cervical Manipulation for Mechanical Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 2 different cervical manipulation techniques for mechanical neck pain (MNP).

METHODS

Participants with MNP of at least 1 month's duration (n = 65) were randomly allocated to 3 groups: (1) stretching (control), (2) stretching plus manually applied manipulation (MAM), and (3) stretching plus instrument-applied manipulation (IAM). MAM consisted of a single high-velocity, low-amplitude cervical chiropractic manipulation, whereas IAM involved the application of a single cervical manipulation using an (Activator IV) adjusting instrument. Preintervention and postintervention measurements were taken of all outcomes measures. Pain was the primary outcome and was measured using visual analogue scale and pressure pain thresholds. Secondary outcomes included cervical range of motion, hand grip-strength, and wrist blood pressure. Follow-up subjective pain scores were obtained via telephone text message 7 days postintervention.

RESULTS

Subjective pain scores decreased at 7-day follow-up in the MAM group compared with control (P = .015). Cervical rotation bilaterally (ipsilateral: P = .002; contralateral: P = .015) and lateral flexion on the contralateral side to manipulation (P = .001) increased following MAM. Hand grip-strength on the contralateral side to manipulation (P = .013) increased following IAM. No moderate or severe adverse events were reported. Mild adverse events were reported on 6 occasions (control, 4; MAM, 1; IAM, 1).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that a single cervical manipulation is capable of producing immediate and short-term benefits for MNP. The study also demonstrates that not all manipulative techniques have the same effect and that the differences may be mediated by neurological or biomechanical factors inherent to each technique.

Mechanism of Action of Spinal Mobilizations: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence regarding the mechanism of action of mobilizations.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Spinal mobilizations-low velocity passive oscillatory movements-reduce spinal pain in some patient subgroups. Identifying patients likely to respond remains a challenge since mobilizations' mechanism(s) of action are unclear.

METHODS

Medline, Web of Science, Cinahl, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched for relevant studies. Reference lists of included studies were hand searched. Studies were included if the intervention was passive spinal mobilizations, participants were symptomatic, and outcomes evaluated possible mechanisms of action. Methodological quality was independently assessed by two assessors using a modified Cochrane Back Review Group tool.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies were included in the review. Four were classified high risk, 14 moderate risk, and four low risk of bias. Commonest methodological limitations were lack of participant blinding, adequate randomization and allocation concealment, and sample size calculation. Evidence suggests that spinal mobilizations cause neurophysiological effects resulting in hypoalgesia (local and/or distal to mobilization site), sympathoexcitation, and improved muscle function. Mobilizations have no effect on temperature pain threshold. Three of four studies reported reduction in spinal stiffness, heterogeneous in location and timing. There is limited evidence (one study in each case) to suggest that mobilizations produce increased nociceptive flexion reflex threshold, improved posture, decreased concentration of substance P in saliva, and improved sway index measured in cervical extension. Evidence does not support an effect on segmental vertebral movement. Two studies investigated correlations between hypoalgesia and mechanism: one found a correlation with sympathoexcitatory changes, whereas the other found no correlation with change in stiffness.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest involvement of an endogenous pain inhibition system mediated by the central nervous system, although this is yet to be investigated directly. There is limited evidence regarding other possible mechanisms.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

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.

Acute effects of single and multiple level thoracic manipulations on chronic mechanical neck pain: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Thoracic spine manipulation has become a popular alternative to local cervical manipulative therapy for mechanical neck pain. This study investigated the acute effects of single-level and multiple-level thoracic manipulations on chronic mechanical neck pain (CMNP).

METHODS

Forty-eight patients with CMNP were randomly allocated to single-level thoracic manipulation (STM) at T6-T7 or multiple-level thoracic manipulation (MTM), or to a control group (prone lying). Cervical range of motion (CROM), visual analog scale (VAS), and the Thai version of the Neck Disability Index (NDI-TH) scores were measured at baseline, and at 24-hour and at 1-week follow-up.

RESULTS

At 24-hour and 1-week follow-up, neck disability and pain levels were significantly (P<0.05) improved in the STM and MTM groups compared with the control group. CROM in flexion and left lateral flexion were increased significantly (P<0.05) in the STM group when compared with the control group at 1-week follow-up. The CROM in right rotation was increased significantly after MTM compared to the control group (P<0.05) at 24-hour follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences in neck disability, pain level at rest, and CROM between the STM and MTM groups.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that both single-level and multiple-level thoracic manipulation improve neck disability, pain levels, and CROM at 24-hour and 1-week follow-up in patients with CMNP.

WITHDRAWN: Non-invasive physical treatments for chronic/recurrent headache

This review is out of date, but is correct at the date of publication. The review has been withdrawn from The Cochrane Library, but readers can still access previous versions in the 'Other versions' tab. The original author team is preparing three new protocols which will serve to update and replace this review: Manual treatment and spinal rehabilitative exercise for the prevention of migraine attacks in adults, Manual treatment and spinal rehabilitative exercise for the prevention of TTH in adults, and Manual treatment and spinal rehabilitative exercise for the prevention of cervicogenic headaches in adults. For further information, please contact the PaPaS CRG (details here ).

July 2017

At July 2017, the series of three new reviews intended to replace this review were withdrawn as they were not able to be completed within the available editorial resource.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of conditions related to traffic collisions: a systematic review by the OPTIMa Collaboration

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the methodological quality and synthesize recommendations of evidence-based guidelines for the management of common traffic injuries.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a systematic review and best evidence synthesis of guidelines on musculoskeletal injuries, psychological disorders and mild traumatic brain injuries (MTBI) from 1995 to 2012. Independent reviewers critically appraised eligible guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) criteria.

RESULTS

We retrieved 9863 citations. Of those, 16 guidelines were eligible for critical appraisal and eight were scientifically admissible (four targeting whiplash-associated disorders (WAD), one addressing anxiety and three addressing MTBI). The inadmissible guidelines had inadequate literature searches, inexplicit links between evidence and recommendations, and ambiguous recommendations. The literature used to develop most of the admissible guidelines was outdated. Major recommendations included: (1) Advice, education and reassurance for all conditions; (2) Exercise, return-to-activity, mobilization/manipulation, analgesics and avoiding collars for WAD; (3) Psychological first aid, pharmacotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy as first-line interventions for anxiety; and (4) Monitoring for complications, discharge criteria, advice upon discharge from the emergency room and post-discharge care for MTBI.

CONCLUSION

Fifty percent of appraised guidelines were scientifically admissible, but most need updating. Most guidelines focus on WAD and MTBI. Few guidelines make comprehensive recommendations on a wide range of consequences from traffic collisions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION

The core components of a program of care designed to manage common traffic injuries (whiplash-associated disorders - WAD, anxiety and mild traumatic brain injuries) should include advice, education and reassurance. Depending on the condition, the following specific interventions should be considered: (1) WAD: exercise, early return to activity, mobilization/manipulation, analgesics and avoidance of collars; (2) Anxiety: psychological first aid, pharmacotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy; and (3) Mild traumatic brain injuries: use of specific discharge criteria (including no factors warranting hospital admission and support structures for subsequent care), education upon discharge from emergency room and post-discharge care (e.g. monitoring for complications, gradual return to normal activity based on tolerance of individual). The methodological quality of guidelines varies greatly; therefore, guideline developers need to adhere to established methodological standards and conform to the evaluation criteria outlined in the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

Electrotherapy for neck pain

BACKGROUND

Neck pain is common, disabling and costly. The effectiveness of electrotherapy as a physiotherapeutic option remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005 and previously updated in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review assessed the short, intermediate and long-term effects of electrotherapy on pain, function, disability, patient satisfaction, global perceived effect, and quality of life in adults with neck pain with and without radiculopathy or cervicogenic headache.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, CINAHL, and ICL, without language restrictions, from their beginning to August 2012; handsearched relevant conference proceedings; and consulted content experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in any language, investigating the effects of electrotherapy used primarily as unimodal treatment for neck pain. Quasi-RCTs and controlled clinical trials were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We were unable to statistically pool any of the results, but we assessed the quality of the evidence using an adapted GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty small trials (1239 people with neck pain) containing 38 comparisons were included. Analysis was limited by trials of varied quality, heterogeneous treatment subtypes and conflicting results. The main findings for reduction of neck pain by treatment with electrotherapeutic modalities were as follows.Very low quality evidence determined that pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF) and repetitive magnetic stimulation (rMS) were more effective than placebo, while transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) showed inconsistent results.Very low quality evidence determined that PEMF, rMS and TENS were more effective than placebo.Low quality evidence (1 trial, 52 participants) determined that permanent magnets (necklace) were no more effective than placebo (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.27, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.82, random-effects model).Very low quality evidence showed that modulated galvanic current, iontophoresis and electric muscle stimulation (EMS) were not more effective than placebo.There were four trials that reported on other outcomes such as function and global perceived effects, but none of the effects were of clinical importance. When TENS, iontophoresis and PEMF were compared to another treatment, very low quality evidence prevented us from suggesting any recommendations. No adverse side effects were reported in any of the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We cannot make any definite statements on the efficacy and clinical usefulness of electrotherapy modalities for neck pain. Since the evidence is of low or very low quality, we are uncertain about the estimate of the effect. Further research is very likely to change both the estimate of effect and our confidence in the results. Current evidence for PEMF, rMS, and TENS shows that these modalities might be more effective than placebo. When compared to other interventions the quality of evidence was very low thus preventing further recommendations.Funding bias should be considered, especially in PEMF studies. Galvanic current, iontophoresis, EMS, and a static magnetic field did not reduce pain or disability. Future trials on these interventions should have larger patient samples, include more precise standardization, and detail treatment characteristics.

The effects of thoracic manipulation versus mobilization for chronic neck pain: a randomized controlled trial pilot study

[Purpose] To investigate effects of thoracic manipulation versus mobilization on chronic neck pain. [Methods] Thirty-nine chronic neck pain subjects were randomly assigned to single level thoracic manipulation, single level thoracic mobilization, or a control group. The cervical range of motion (CROM) and pain ratings (using a visual analog scale: VAS) were measured before, immediately after and at a 24-hour follow-up. [Results] Thoracic manipulation significantly decreased VAS pain ratings and increased CROM in all directions in immediate and 24-hour follow-ups. The thoracic mobilization group significantly increased in CROM in most directions at immediate follow-up and right and left rotational directions at the 24-hour follow-up. Comparisons between groups revealed the CROM for the manipulation group to increase significantly more than for control subjects in most directions at immediate follow-up and flexion, left lateral flexion and left rotation at the 24-hour follow-up. The CROM for the thoracic mobilization group significantly increased in comparison to the control group in flexion at immediate follow-up and in flexion and left rotation at the 24-hour follow-up. [Conclusion] The study demonstrated reductions in VAS pain ratings and increases in CROM at immediate and 24-hour follow-ups from both single level thoracic spine manipulation and thoracic mobilization in chronic neck pain.

Validation of a novel sham cervical manipulation procedure

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

No clinical trial of spinal manipulation for chronic neck pain (NP), for either single or multiple intervention session(s), has used an effective manual sham-manipulation control group.

PURPOSE

Validate a practical sham cervical high-velocity low-amplitude spinal manipulation.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Randomized experimental validation study in an institutional clinical research laboratory.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Eligible subjects were males and females, 18 to 60 years of age with mechanical NP (as defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain Classification) of at least 3 months' duration. Subjects with arm pain, any pathologic cause of NP, or any contraindication to spinal manipulation were excluded.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the patient's self-report or registration of group allocation after treatment. Secondary outcomes were numerical rating scale-101 for NP, range of motion (ROM; by goniometer), and tenderness (by pressure algometry).

METHODS

Eligible subjects were randomly allocated to one of two groups: real cervical manipulation (RM) or sham cervical manipulation (SM). All subjects were given two procedures in sequence, either RM+SM or SM+SM. Immediately after the two procedures, subjects were asked to register any pain experienced during the procedures and to identify their treatment group allocation. Force-time profiles were recorded during all procedures. Secondary clinical outcome measures were obtained at baseline, 5 and 15 minutes after the intervention, including ROM, self-report of pain, and local spinous process tenderness. Data for each variable were summarized and tested for normality in distribution. Summary statistics were obtained for each variable and statistically tested.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven subjects were randomized. Data from 64 subjects (32 per group) were available for analysis. There were no significant differences between the groups at baseline. One adverse event occurred in the "real" group, which was a mild posttreatment pain reaction lasting less than 24 hours. In the RM group, 50% of subjects incorrectly registered their treatment allocation; in the sham group, 53% did so. For the SM group, none of the procedures resulted in cavitation, whereas in the RM group, 87% of procedures resulted in cavitation. There were no significant changes between groups on pain, tenderness, or ROM. Force-time profiles of the RM and SM procedures demonstrated fidelity with significant differences between components as intended.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel sham procedure has been shown to be effective in masking subjects to group allocation and to be clinically inert with respect to common outcomes in the immediate posttreatment stage. Further research on serial applications and for multiple operators is warranted.

Immediate effects of bilateral grade III mobilization of the talocrural joint on the balance of elderly women

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the immediate effects of a single treatment session of bilateral grade III mobilization of the talocrural joint on the balance of elderly women.

METHODS

Thirty-two elderly women (age, 65-80 years) with low physical activity levels completed balance evaluation using baropodometry, the Functional Reach Test and the Timed Up and Go Test, and plantar flexion and dorsiflexion range of motion (ROM), before and immediately after the mobilization (n = 16) or sham (n = 16). Each subject was submitted to a total of twelve 30-second grade III mobilizations, 6 for each ankle, in a single treatment session.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found for intragroup and intergroup comparisons in the balance of elderly women during the following evaluations: Functional Reach Test (P = .851), Timed Up and Go Test (P = .653), anteroposterior oscillation with eyes opened (P = .333) and with eyes closed (P = .652), and mediolateral oscillation with eyes opened (P = .486) and with eyes closed (P = .602). In addition, no significant difference was observed in right (P = .881) and left (P = .060) plantar flexion ROM and in right (P = .540) and left (P = .341) dorsiflexion ROM.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that a single session of bilateral grade III mobilization of the talocrural joint does not immediately improve balance and ROM in elderly women with low physical activity levels.

Avoidable costs of physical treatments for chronic back, neck and shoulder pain within the Spanish National Health Service: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Back, neck and shoulder pain are the most common causes of occupational disability. They reduce health-related quality of life and have a significant economic impact. Many different forms of physical treatment are routinely used. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost of physical treatments which, despite the absence of evidence supporting their effectiveness, were used between 2004 and 2007 for chronic and non-specific neck pain (NP), back pain (BP) and shoulder pain (SP), within the Spanish National Health Service in the Canary Islands (SNHSCI).

METHODS

Chronic patients referred from the SNHSCI to private physical therapy centres for NP, BP or SP, between 2004 and 2007, were identified. The cost of providing physical therapies to these patients was estimated. Systematic reviews (SRs) and clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for NP, BP and SP available in the same period were searched for and rated according to the Oxman and AGREE criteria, respectively. Those rated positively for ≥70% of the criteria, were used to categorise physical therapies as Effective; Ineffective; Inconclusive; and Insufficiently Assessed. The main outcome was the cost of physical therapies included in each of these categories.

RESULTS

8,308 chronic cases of NP, 4,693 of BP and 5,035 of SP, were included in this study. Among prescribed treatments, 39.88% were considered Effective (physical exercise and manual therapy with mobilization); 23.06% Ineffective; 13.38% Inconclusive, and 23.66% Insufficiently Assessed. The total cost of treatments was € 5,107,720. Effective therapies accounted for € 2,069,932.

CONCLUSIONS

Sixty percent of the resources allocated by the SNHSCI to fund physical treatment for NP, BP and SP in private practices are spent on forms of treatment proven to be ineffective, or for which there is no evidence of effectiveness.

Interaction between Trigger Points and Joint Hypomobility: A Clinical Perspective

The relationship between muscle trigger points (TrPs) and joint hypomobility is frequently recognized by clinicians. Among different manual therapies aimed at inactivating muscle TrPs, ischemic compression and spinal manipulation have shown moderately strong evidence for immediate pain relief. Reduction of joint mobility appears related to local muscles innervated from the segment, which suggests that muscle and joint impairments may be indivisible and related disorders in pain patients. Two clinical studies have investigated the relationship between the presence of muscle TrPs and joint hypomobility in patients with neck pain. Both studies reported that all patients exhibited segmental hypo-mobility at C3-C4 zygapophyseal joint and TrPs in the upper trapezius, sternocleidomastoid, or levator scapulae muscles. There are several theories that have discussed the relationship between TrP and joint hypomobility. First, increased tension of the taut muscular bands associated with a TrP and facilitation of motor activity can maintain displacement stress on the joint. Alternatively, it may be that the abnormal sensory input from the joint hypomobility may reflexively activate TrPs. It is also conceivable that TrPs provide a nociceptive barrage to the dorsal horn neurons and facilitate joint hypomobility. There is scientific evidence showing change in muscle sensitivity in muscle TrP after spinal manipulation, which suggests that clinicians should include treatment of joint hypomobility in the management of TrPs. Nevertheless, the order in which these muscle and joint impairments should be treated is not known and requires further investigation.

The effect of an analgesic mobilization technique when applied at symptomatic or asymptomatic levels of the cervical spine in subjects with neck pain: a randomized controlled trial

The purpose of this single-blinded, randomized controlled trial was to compare the effects of a manual treatment technique on neck pain and movement sensation when applied in different segments of the cervical spine. Consecutive patients with neck pain (n=126) were recruited and randomly allocated to two groups (A or B). Group A received a single 4-minute pain-alleviating traction at the most symptomatic zygopophyseal joint of the cervical segment, where movement was correlated with pain. Group B received the same treatment 3 segments away from the concordant segment. Pain intensity and sensation of movement were assessed with a numeric rating scale (NRS). Statistical analysis included a t-test for paired and unpaired samples. Pre- and post-test findings demonstrated significant improvements in both types of mobilization although there was no significant difference between the two groups. Similar results have been reported in the literature for cervical manipulation. The findings of this study question the necessity of precise symptom localization tests for a pain treatment. however, limitations of the study prevent generalization of these results.

Chronic mechanical neck pain in adults treated by manual therapy: a systematic review of change scores in randomized controlled trials of a single session

We report a systematic analysis of group change scores of subjects with chronic neck pain not due to whiplash and without headache or arm pain, in randomized clinical trials of a single session of manual therapy. A comprehensive literature search of clinical trials of chronic neck pain treated with manual therapies up to December 2006 was conducted. Trials that scored above 60% on the PEDro Scale were included. Change scores were analyzed for absolute, percentage change and effect size (ES) whenever possible. Nine trials were identified: 6 for spinal manipulation, 4 for spinal mobilization or non-manipulative manual therapy (2 overlapping trials), and 1 trial using ischemic compression. No trials were identified for massage therapy or manual traction. Four manipulation trials (five groups) reported mean immediate changes in 100-mm VAS of -18.94 (9.28) mm. ES for these changes ranged from .33 to 2.3. Two mobilization trials reported immediate VAS changes of -11.5 and -4 mm (ES of .36 and .22, respectively); one trial reported no difference in immediate pain scores versus sham mobilization. The ischemic compression study showed statistically significant immediate decreases in 100-mm pain VAS (average = -14.6 mm). There is moderate-to-high quality evidence that immediate clinically important improvements are obtained from a single session of spinal manipulation. The evidence for mobilization is less substantial, with fewer studies reporting smaller immediate changes. There is insufficient evidence for ischemic compression to draw conclusions. There is no evidence for a single session of massage or manual traction for chronic neck pain.

Relative effectiveness and adverse effects of cervical manipulation, mobilisation and the activator instrument in patients with sub-acute non-specific neck pain: results from a stopped randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Neck pain of a mechanical nature is a common complaint seen by practitioners of manual medicine, who use a multitude of methods to treat the condition. It is not known, however, if any of these methods are superior in treatment effectiveness. This trial was stopped due to poor recruitment. The purposes of this report are (1) to describe the trial protocol, (2) to report on the data obtained from subjects who completed the study, (3) to discuss the problems we encountered in conducting this study.

METHODS

A pragmatic randomised clinical trial was undertaken. Patients who met eligibility criteria were randomised into three groups. One group was treated using specific segmental high velocity low amplitude manipulation (diversified), another by specific segmental mobilisation, and a third group by the Activator instrument. All three groups were also treated for any myofascial distortions and given appropriate exercises and advice. Participants were treated six times over a three-week period or until they reported being pain free. The primary outcome measure for the study was Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC); secondary outcome measures included the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36v2), the neck Bournemouth Questionnaire, and the numerical rating scale for pain intensity. Participants also kept a diary of any pain medication taken and noted any perceived adverse effects of treatment. Outcomes were measured at four points: end of treatment, and 3, 6, and 12 months thereafter.

RESULTS

Between January 2007 and March 2008, 123 patients were assessed for eligibility, of these 47 were considered eligible, of which 16 were allocated to manipulation, 16 to the Activator instrument and 15 to the mobilisation group. Comparison between the groups on the PGIC adjusted for baseline covariants did not show a significant difference for any of the endpoints. Within group analyses for change from baseline to the 12-month follow up for secondary outcomes were significant for all groups on the Bournemouth Questionnaire and for pain, while the mobilisation group had a significant improvement on the PCS and MCS subscales of the SF-36v2. Finally, there were no moderate, severe, or long-lasting adverse effects reported by any participant in any group.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the small sample size must be taken into consideration, it appears that all three methods of treating mechanical neck pain had a long-term benefit for subacute neck pain, without moderate or serious adverse events associated with any of the treatment methods. There were difficulties in recruiting subjects to this trial. This pragmatic trial should be repeated with a larger sample size.

Manual therapy with or without physical medicine modalities for neck pain: a systematic review

Manual therapy interventions are often used with or without physical medicine modalities to treat neck pain. This review assessed the effect of 1) manipulation and mobilisation, 2) manipulation, mobilisation and soft tissue work, and 3) manual therapy with physical medicine modalities on pain, function, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), and global perceived effect (GPE) in adults with neck pain. A computerised search for randomised trials was performed up to July 2009. Two or more authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Pooled relative risk (RR) and standardised mean differences (SMD) were calculated when possible. We included 19 trials, 37% of which had a low risk of bias. Moderate quality evidence (1 trial, 221 participants) suggested mobilisation, manipulation and soft tissue techniques decrease pain and improved satisfaction when compared to short wave diathermy, and that this treatment combination paired with advice and exercise produces greater improvements in GPE and satisfaction than advice and exercise alone for acute neck pain. Low quality evidence suggests a clinically important benefit favouring mobilisation and manipulation in pain relief [1 meta-analysis, 112 participants: SMD -0.34(95% CI: -0.71, 0.03), improved function and GPE (1 trial, 94 participants) for participants with chronic cervicogenic headache when compared to a control at intermediate and long term follow-up; but no difference when used with various physical medicine modalities.

Manual therapy and exercise for neck pain: A systematic review

Manual therapy is often used with exercise to treat neck pain. This cervical overview group systematic review update assesses if manual therapy, including manipulation or mobilisation, combined with exercise improves pain, function/disability, quality of life, global perceived effect, and patient satisfaction for adults with neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radiculopathy. Computerized searches were performed to July 2009. Two or more authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Pooled relative risk (pRR) and standardized mean differences (pSMD) were calculated. Of 17 randomized controlled trials included, 29% had a low risk of bias. Low quality evidence suggests clinically important long-term improvements in pain (pSMD-0.87(95% CI:-1.69,-0.06)), function/disability, and global perceived effect when manual therapy and exercise are compared to no treatment. High quality evidence suggests greater short-term pain relief [pSMD-0.50(95% CI:-0.76,-0.24)] than exercise alone, but no long-term differences across multiple outcomes for (sub)acute/chronic neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache. Moderate quality evidence supports this treatment combination for pain reduction and improved quality of life over manual therapy alone for chronic neck pain; and suggests greater short-term pain reduction when compared to traditional care for acute whiplash. Evidence regarding radiculopathy was sparse. Specific research recommendations are made.

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.

Cervical spine mobilisation forces applied by physiotherapy students

OBJECTIVES

Postero-anterior (PA) mobilisation is commonly used in cervical spine treatment and included in physiotherapy curricula. The manual forces that students apply while learning cervical mobilisation are not known. Quantifying these forces informs the development of strategies for learning to apply cervical mobilisation effectively and safely. This study describes the mechanical properties of cervical PA mobilisation techniques applied by students, and investigates factors associated with force application.

PARTICIPANTS

Physiotherapy students (n=120) mobilised one of 32 asymptomatic subjects.

METHODS

Students applied Grades I to IV central and unilateral PA mobilisation to C2 and C7 of one asymptomatic subject. Manual forces were measured in three directions using an instrumented treatment table. Spinal stiffness of mobilised subjects was measured at C2 and C7 using a device that applied a standard oscillating force while measuring this force and its concurrent displacement. Analysis of variance was used to determine differences between techniques and grades, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to calculate the inter- and intrastudent repeatability of forces, and linear regression was used to determine the associations between applied forces and characteristics of students and mobilised subjects.

RESULTS

Mobilisation forces increased from Grades I to IV (highest mean peak force, Grade IV C7 central PA technique: 63.7N). Interstudent reliability was poor [ICC(2,1)=0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.43], but intrastudent repeatability of forces was somewhat better (0.83, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.86). Higher applied force was associated with greater C7 stiffness, increased frequency of thumb pain, male gender of the student or mobilised subject, and a student being earlier in their learning process. Lower forces were associated with greater C2 stiffness.

CONCLUSION

This study describes the cervical mobilisation forces applied by students, and the characteristics of the student and mobilised subject associated with these forces. These results form a basis for the development of strategies to provide objective feedback to students learning to apply cervical mobilisation.

Electrotherapy for neck pain

BACKGROUND

Neck pain is common, disabling and costly. The effectiveness of electrotherapy as a physiotherapeutic option remains unclear. This update replaces our 2005 Cochrane review on this topic.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether electrotherapy improves pain, disability, patient satisfaction, and global perceived effect in adults with neck pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computer-assisted searches of: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, CINAHL, and ICL, without language restrictions, from their beginning to December 2008; handsearched relevant conference proceedings; consulted content experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in any language, investigating the effects of electrotherapy, used primarily as unimodal treatment for neck pain. Quasi-RCTs and controlled clinical trials were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two authors independently conducted citation identification, study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. We were unable to statistically pool any of the results, but assessed the quality of the evidence using an adapted GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen small trials (1043 people with neck pain) with 23 comparisons were included. Analysis was limited by trials of varied quality, heterogeneous treatment subtypes and conflicting results. The main findings for reduction of neck pain by treatment with electrotherapeutic modalities are:Very low quality evidence that pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF), repetitive magnetic stimulation (rMS) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) are more effective than placebo.Low quality evidence that permanent magnets (necklace) are not more effective than placebo.Very low quality evidence that modulated galvanic current, iontophoresis and electric muscle stimulation (EMS) are not more effective than placebo.There were only four trials that reported on other outcomes such as function and global perceived effects, but none were of clinical importance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We cannot make any definite statements on the efficacy and clinical usefulness of electrotherapy modalities for neck pain. Since the quality of evidence is low or very low, we are uncertain about the estimate of the effect. Further research is very likely to change both the estimate of effect and our confidence in the results. Current evidence for PEMF, rMS, and TENS shows that these modalities might be more effective than placebo but not other interventions. Funding bias should be considered, especially in PEMF studies. Galvanic current, iontophoresis, electric muscle stimulation(EMS), and static magnetic field did not reduce pain or disability. Future trials on these interventions should have larger patient samples and include more precise standardization and description of all treatment characteristics.

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.

Acute neck pain: Cervical spine range of motion and position sense prior to and after joint mobilization

Despite the relatively high prevalence of cervical spine pain, the efficacy of treatment procedures is limited. In the current study, range of motion and proprioception was assessed prior to and after specific cervical spine mobilisation techniques. A 44-year-old male office worker presented with a history of cervical pain of 1 day duration. He had woken with pain, stiffness and a loss of range of motion. Examination findings indicated pain to be at C5-6 on the left side. Measurement of maximal three-dimensional cervical motion was undertaken using a Zebris system. A position matching task tested the individual's ability to actively reposition their head and neck. The treatment undertaken involved grade III down-slope mobilisations on the left side at C5-6 and C6-7 in supine lying. This technique was then progressed by placing the subject in an upright sitting position, and sustained natural apophyseal glides were performed at C6. Immediately following the treatment, the patient reported a considerable decrease in pain, less difficulty in movement and reduced stiffness. Motion analyses showed the most marked percentage improvements in range of motion after treatment were in flexion (55%), extension (35%), left rotation (56%), and left lateral flexion (22%). Ipsilateral lateral flexion with axial rotation was also notably improved following treatment. No change in proprioceptive ability was found following the treatment. The findings showed that the application of standardised specific mobilisation techniques led to substantial improvements in the range of motion and the restitution of normal coupled motion.

Efficacy of manipulation for non-specific neck pain of recent onset: design of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Manipulation is a common treatment for non-specific neck pain. Neck manipulation, unlike gentler forms of manual therapy such as mobilisation, is associated with a small risk of serious neurovascular injury and can result in stroke or death. It is thought however, that neck manipulation provides better results than mobilisation where clinically indicated. There is long standing and vigorous debate both within and between the professions that use neck manipulation as well as the wider scientific community as to whether neck manipulation potentially does more harm than good. The primary aim of this study is to determine whether neck manipulation provides more rapid resolution of an episode of neck pain than mobilisation.

METHODS/DESIGN

182 participants with acute and sub-acute neck pain will be recruited from physiotherapy, chiropractic and osteopathy practices in Sydney, Australia. Participants will be randomly allocated to treatment with either manipulation or mobilisation. Randomisation will occur after the treating practitioner decides that manipulation is an appropriate treatment for the individual participant. Both groups will receive at least 4 treatments over 2 weeks. The primary outcome is number of days taken to recover from the episode of neck pain. Cox regression will be used to compare survival curves for time to recovery for the manipulation and mobilisation treatment groups.

DISCUSSION

This paper presents the rationale and design of a randomised controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of neck manipulation and neck mobilisation for acute and subacute neck pain.

Comparison of the effectiveness of a behavioural graded activity program and manual therapy in patients with sub-acute neck pain: Design of a randomized clinical trial

The objective is to present the design of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a behavioural graded activity programme compared with manual therapy in patients with sub-acute neck pain. Sub-acute is defined as pain existing for 4-12 weeks. The behavioural graded activity programme is a time-contingent increase in activities from baseline towards pre-determined goals. Manual therapy consists mainly of specific spinal mobilization techniques and exercises. The primary outcomes are global perceived effect and functional status. Secondary outcomes are kinesiophobia, distress, coping, depression and somatization. The intensity and persistence of the pain and its interference with activities are also assessed. Direct and indirect costs are measured by means of cost diaries. Measurements take place at baseline and 6 and 12 weeks after randomization. To assess the long-term effect, measurements will also take place after 6 and 12 months. Finally some challenges are discussed concerning the use of a behavioural graded activity programme, manual therapy and outcomes.

Physical therapy treatment dose for nontraumatic neck pain: a comparison between 2 patient groups

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

To classify patients with nonacute, nontraumatic neck pain according to the dominant impairment of spinal function, and to determine whether there were differences in the amount of treatment sessions required (treatment dose) to achieve a significant change in the patients disorder.

BACKGROUND

Classification of patients with mechanical neck pain may be an important process in optimizing treatment prescription and evaluating treatment response. However, patient classification has not been used to consider possible differences in the amount of treatment sessions (treatment dose) required to achieve a significant change in the neck pain disorder.

METHODS AND MEASURES

Ninety-two patients with nonacute, nontraumatic neck pain were classified into 2 groups, according to the dominant impairment of spinal function. Of the 77 patients who completed treatment, 63 (82%) were classified as having a "movement disorder," while the remainder was classified into a "loading disorder" group. Physical therapists who were blinded to the patient classification provided multimodal physical therapy treatment as considered appropriate and the patients were discharged when the optimal treatment response had been achieved.

RESULTS

There was no difference in pain intensity or global disability level between the groups at baseline. Both groups achieved a significant improvement in neck pain and disability following treatment, and there was no significant difference between groups in the magnitude of the treatment response. The number of treatment sessions received by the loading group (mean +/- SD, 7.3 +/- 4.5) was significantly lower than the number received by the movement group (mean +/- SD, 11.5 +/- 5.9; 95% CI: -7.6 to -0.8; P<.01). Patients in the loading group were 2.4 times as likely to be discharged at any particular treatment session (95% CI: 1.1 to 4.1, P<.005) compared to those in the movement group.

CONCLUSION

For patients with nontraumatic neck pain, classification according to impairment of spinal function may be a useful indicator of the number of physical therapy treatment sessions required to achieve a significant treatment response.

Impact of continuing education interventions on clinical outcomes of patients with neck pain who received physical therapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Physical therapists frequently attend continuing education courses with the goal of providing better care, yet the effectiveness of continuing education for improving outcomes has not been examined.

SUBJECTS

Data were obtained for all eligible patients (n=1,365; mean age=42.1 years, SD=14.0 years; 69.9% female) with a chief complaint of neck pain who were treated in 13 physical therapy clinics over a 24-month period. Disability data (Neck Disability Index scores) from the initial and final therapy sessions were recorded from clinical databases.

METHODS

Thirty-four of 57 physical therapists employed within the 13 clinics attended a 2-day continuing education course. Eleven of the 34 attendees also participated in an ongoing clinical improvement project for patients with neck pain. Clinical outcomes were compared in the pre- and post-course periods for therapists attending or not attending the course, and for therapists participating or not participating in the ongoing project.

RESULTS

There were no differences in clinical outcomes based on attendance at the continuing education course. There was an interaction between time and participation in the ongoing project, such that participants achieved greater change in disability after the course. The percentage of patients achieving at least the minimum detectable amount of change in disability with treatment increased significantly for participants after the course.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Attendance at a 2-day continuing education course was not associated with improvement in clinical outcomes, but participation in an ongoing improvement project did result in greater clinical improvement for patients with neck pain. Further investigation of educational methods to improve clinical outcomes is needed. These results suggest that traditional continuing education formats may not be effective for improving patient care.

A systematic review of conservative treatments for acute neck pain not due to whiplash

OBJECTIVE

To identify the evidence base of clinical trials of conservative treatments for acute neck pain not due to whiplash injury.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A comprehensive literature search was performed in MEDLINE, CINHAHL, AMED, MANTIS, Index to Chiropractic Literature, Alt HealthWatch, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry, and several EBSCO Information Services databases. Systematic retrieval and evaluation procedures were used.

RESULTS

The search generated 1980 citations. Four trials (5 publications) were accepted according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Three trials used a form of spinal manual therapy. One of these trials used only one manipulation and reported immediate effects on pain, with real manipulation producing significantly greater pain reduction than control procedure. The other 2 of these trials reported on outcomes over 1 to 3 weeks. In 1 trial, the group receiving manipulation showed significantly greater pain reduction at 1 week than did the group receiving only medication. In the other trial, the group receiving transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation had a significantly greater level of pain reduction at 3 weeks. In the fourth trial, exercise was compared to passive physiotherapy; however, outcomes were not reported until 6 and 12 months, so the results cannot be compared to the natural history of acute neck pain not due to whiplash.

CONCLUSION

There is limited evidence of the benefit of spinal manipulation and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in the treatment of acute neck pain not due to whiplash injury. There is a dearth of high-quality clinical trials of conservative treatments for this condition.

Comparative effectiveness of manipulation, mobilisation and the activator instrument in treatment of non-specific neck pain: a systematic review

Background

Neck pain is a common problem and different forms of manual therapy are used in its treatment. The purpose of this systematic review was to critically appraise the literature that directly compared manipulation, mobilisation and the Activator instrument for non-specific neck pain.

Methods

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, MANTIS and CINAHL) were searched from their inception to October 2005 for all English language randomised clinical trials that directly compared manipulation, mobilisation and the Activator instrument. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to select the studies and these studies were then evaluated using validated criteria.

Results

Five such studies were identified. The methodological quality was mostly poor. Findings from the studies were mixed and no one therapy was shown to be more effective than the others.

Conclusion

Further high quality research has to be done before a recommendation can be made as to the most effective manual method for non-specific neck pain.

Bone Setting for Prolonged Neck Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

To study the natural history of prolonged neck pain and the effectiveness of bone setting as its treatment.

METHODS

A randomized clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment and 1-year follow-up was completed. Forty-two working-aged patients with nonspecific neck pain for at least 1 month and no contraindications to manipulative therapies were recruited. They were randomly allocated into 5 weekly sessions of bone setting provided by 2 experienced folk healers (22 patients) or follow-up without therapy (20 patients). The primary outcomes were neck mobility after the 5-week therapy period and the Million scales modified for neck pain at 5 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months after baseline. Secondary outcomes included self-rated improvement and pain drawing at 5 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months after baseline, Beck depression scales at 5 weeks and 12 months after baseline, and sick leaves, additional therapies, and pain medication during 1 year after baseline.

RESULTS

At baseline, neck pain was reported constant or increasing by 51% and episodic by 49% of the patients with mean duration of symptoms of 4.3 years for the bone setting and 8.4 years for the control group. Seventy-eight percent of the patients participated in the clinical measurements at 5 weeks, and 90% returned the questionnaires after 1 year. The cervical mobility of the bone setting patients increased 29% in the frontal, 23% in the sagittal, and 16% in the horizontal plane, whereas the figures for the control group were -1.4%, 1.0%, and 3.0%, respectively. The mean Million index of the bone setting group (50.6 mm at baseline) was 18.5 mm at 5 weeks, 21.2 mm at 3 months, 22.9 mm at 6 months, and 14.2 mm at 1 year. The figures for the control group were 53.2 mm at baseline, and 4.0, 6.2, 5.4, and 5.5 mm at the corresponding follow-up points. After 1 year, improvement was reported by 80% of the bone setting and 28% of the control patients.

CONCLUSION

In this study, manual therapy had a measurable effect on the mobility of cervical spine at 5 weeks and an effect on pain that lasted for at least half a year.

Immediate effects of thoracic manipulation in patients with neck pain: a randomized clinical trial

Mechanical neck pain is a common occurrence in the general population resulting in a considerable economic burden. Often physical therapists will incorporate manual therapies directed at the cervical spine including joint mobilization and manipulation into the management of patients with cervical pain. Although the effectiveness of mobilization and manipulation of the cervical spine has been well documented, the small inherent risks associated with these techniques has led clinicians to frequently utilize manipulation directed at the thoracic spine in this patient population. It is hypothesized that thoracic spine manipulation may elicit similar therapeutic benefits as cervical spine manipulation while minimizing the magnitude of risk associated with the cervical technique. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to investigate the immediate effects of thoracic spine manipulation on perceived pain levels in patients presenting with neck pain. The results suggest that thoracic spine manipulation results in immediate analgesic effects in patients with mechanical neck pain. Further studies are needed to determine the effects of thoracic spine manipulation in patients with neck pain on long-term outcomes including function and disability.