Shi-Style Cervical Mobilizations Versus Massage for Cervical Vertigo: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial

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.

Proprioceptive Cervicogenic Dizziness Care Trajectories in Patient Subpopulations: A Scoping Review

Proprioceptive cervicogenic dizziness (PCGD) is the most prevalent subcategory of cervicogenic dizziness. There is considerable confusion regarding this clinical syndrome's differential diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment strategy. Our objectives were to conduct a systematic search to map out characteristics of the literature and of potential subpopulations of PCGD, and to classify accordingly the knowledge contained in the literature regarding interventions, outcomes and diagnosis. A Joanna Briggs Institute methodology-informed scoping review of the French, English, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian literature from January 2000 to June 2021 was undertaken on PsycInfo, Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), All EBM Reviews (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Web of Science and Scopus databases. All pertinent randomized control trials, case studies, literature reviews, meta-analyses, and observational studies were retrieved. Evidence-charting methods were executed by two independent researchers at each stage of the scoping review. The search yielded 156 articles. Based on the potential etiology of the clinical syndrome, the analysis identified four main subpopulations of PCGD: chronic cervicalgia, traumatic, degenerative cervical disease, and occupational. The three most commonly occurring differential diagnosis categories are central causes, benign paroxysmal positional vertigo and otologic pathologies. The four most cited measures of change were the dizziness handicap inventory, visual analog scale for neck pain, cervical range of motion, and posturography. Across subpopulations, exercise therapy and manual therapy are the most commonly encountered interventions in the literature. PCGD patients have heterogeneous etiologies which can impact their care trajectory. Adapted care trajectories should be used for the different subpopulations by optimizing differential diagnosis, treatment, and evaluation of outcomes.

Proprioceptive Cervicogenic Dizziness: A Narrative Review of Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Basic science and clinical evidence suggest that cervical spine disorders can lead to dizziness. The cervical spine has highly developed proprioceptive receptors, whose input information is integrated with the visual and vestibular systems in the central nervous system, acting on the neck and eye muscles to maintain the coordinative motion of the head, eyes, neck, and body through various reflex activities. When the cervical proprioceptive input changes due to the mismatch or conflict between vestibular, visual, and proprioceptive inputs, cervicogenic dizziness may occur. The diagnosis of cervicogenic dizziness can be determined based on clinical features, diagnostic tests, and the exclusion of other possible sources of dizziness. The cervical torsion test appears to be the best diagnostic method for cervicogenic dizziness. Based on the available evidence, we first developed the diagnostic criteria for cervicogenic dizziness. Treatment for cervicogenic dizziness is similar to that for neck pain, and manual therapy is most widely recommended.

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.

Consideration in Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial on Neck Pain to Avoid the Placebo Effect in Analgesic Action

Background: In neck pain treatment, many therapies are focused on etiology, while it is well-known that placebo analgesia is also present in these therapies. The specific efficacy for etiology may be underestimated by ignoring their actual placebo effect. In this study, a logistic regression analysis is used to explore the risk factors causing different placebo responses in patients with neck pain among two RCTs. The probability of the placebo effect is predicted based on these risk factors.

Methods: Trial A and Trial B were similarly designed, randomized, double-/single-blind, placebo-controlled trials in patients treating neck pain with Qishe pill or Shi-style manipulation. Both studies set a placebo pill twice a day or traction for every other day as control. For further analyses on the placebo effect in neck pain management, logistic regression was used to assess subgroup-placebo interactions. The odds ratio assessed a significant influence on the placebo effect.

Results: In this pooled analysis, the total number of patients recruited for these two studies was 284, of which 162 patients received placebo treatment (placebo drug or traction for every other day). No statistically significant differences are found at baseline between the participants with placebo effect and non-placebo effect in the gender, age, and disease duration except in VAS and NDI at the initial time. There are numerically more patients with placebo effect in the shorter disease duration subgroup (< 4 months [76%]), higher initial VAS subgroup (>60 mm [90%]), and worse initial NDI subgroup (>24 [72%]) compared with the gender and age subgroup. An ROC curve is established to assess the model-data fit, which shows an area under the curve of 0.755 and a 95% confidence interval of 0.677–0.830. Participants who show placebo effect after 2 weeks have significantly lower VAS scores after 4 weeks, while there is no significant difference in NDI improvement between the two groups after 4 weeks.

Conclusion: Neck pain patients with shorter disease duration are more likely to overscore their pain severity, because of their less experience in pain perception, tolerance, and analgesia expectation.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the therapeutic management of patients with cervicogenic dizziness

BACKGROUND

Patients with cervicogenic dizziness (CGD) present with dizziness, cervical spine dysfunctions, and postural imbalance, symptoms that can significantly impact their daily functioning.

OBJECTIVES

To provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of patients with CGD.

METHODS

Three databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (last search 15 May 2021). Outcome measures included dizziness, cervical spine, and balance parameters. Cochrane standard methodological procedures were used and included the RoB 2.0 and GRADE. Where possible, RCTs were pooled for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs (n = 898 patients) of high (two RCTs), moderate (five RCTs), and low (six RCTs) methodological quality were analyzed. Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Only three RCTs specified the cause of CGD. They showed inconsistent findings for the effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with traumatic CGD. Manual therapy and manual therapy combined with exercise therapy may reduce CGD, cervical spine, and balance dysfunctions.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate quality of evidence that manual therapy reduces CGD, cervical spine, and balance symptoms. When manual therapy is combined with exercise therapy, the positive effect on CGD, cervical spine, and balance symptoms is even stronger. However, the quality of the evidence here is very low.

The Enduring Controversy of Cervicogenic Vertigo, and Its Place among Positional Vertigo Syndromes

The idea of cervicogenic vertigo (CV) was proposed nearly a century ago, yet despite considerable scrutiny and research, little progress has been made in clarifying the underlying mechanism of the disease, developing a confirmatory diagnostic test, or devising an appropriately targeted treatment. Given the history of this idea, we offer a review geared towards understanding why so many attempts at clarifying it have failed, with specific comments regarding how CV fits into the broader landscape of positional vertigo syndromes, what a successful diagnostic test might require, and some practical advice on how to approach this in the absence of a diagnostic test.

Effect of Electroacupuncture Combined with Guizhi Gegen Decoction on Cervical Vertigo and Its Influence on TCD of Vertebrobasilar Artery, Blood Rheology Indexes, and Quality of Life

Cervical vertigo is a common clinical disease. In this study, we investigated the clinical efficacy of adding the treatment protocol of Gui Zhi Ge Gen Tang and electroacupuncture to the Western medical treatment in cervical vertigo. The results showed that the total effective rate of the study group was higher than that of the control group (P < 0.05). After treatment, the vertigo, headache, neck and shoulder pain, daily life and work, and psychological and social adjustment scores were higher in the study group than in the control group (P < 0.05). LVA, RVA, and VB were higher in the study group than in the control group after treatment (P < 0.05). The whole blood viscosity high cut, whole blood viscosity low cut, and plasma viscosity levels were lower in the study group than in the control group after treatment (P < 0.05). After treatment, PF, RF, RE, BP, GH, VT, SF, MH, and HT were higher in the study group than those before treatment (P < 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions was not statistically significant in the study group compared with the control group (P > 0.05). This means that electroacupuncture combined with Gui Zhi Ge Gen Tang can effectively increase the blood flow velocity of the vertebrobasilar artery in patients with cervical vertigo and improve their blood rheology and quality of life with definite efficacy and high safety.

Acupotomy therapy for cervical vertigo: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acupotomy has been widely used to relieve cervical vertigo (CV). However, the efficacy of acupotomy for CV is uncertain. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the acupotomy for CV.

METHODS

The following electronic databases will be searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for inclusion in the review from inception to April 2020: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Two researchers will independently select studies, collect data, and assess the methodology quality by the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis will be completed by RevMan V.5.3 software.

RESULTS

This systematic review will provide an assessment of the current state of acupotomy for CV, aiming to assess the efficacy and safety of acupotomy for Patients with CV.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review will provide a credible Evidence-based for the clinical treatment of CV with acupotomy.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019134712.