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

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.

Comparison of Short-Term Effects of Different Spinal Manipulations in Patients with Chronic Non-Specific Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Spinal manipulations for chronic non-specific neck pain (CNNP) include cervical, cervicothoracic junction, and thoracic spine (CCT) manipulations as well as upper cervical spine (UCS) manipulations. This study aimed to compare the short-term effects of UCS manipulation versus a combination of CCT spine manipulations on pain intensity, disability, and cervical range of motion (CROM) in CNNP patients. In a private physiotherapy clinic, 186 participants with CNNP were randomly assigned to either the UCS (n = 93) or CCT (n = 93) manipulation groups. Neck pain, disability, and CROM were measured before and one week after the intervention. No significant differences were found between the groups regarding pain intensity and CROM. However, there was a statistically significant difference in neck disability, with the CCT group showing a slightly greater decrease (CCT: 16.9 ± 3.8 vs. UCS: 19.5 ± 6.8; p = 0.01). The findings suggest that a combination of manipulations in the CCT spine results in a slightly more pronounced decrease in self-perceived disability compared to UCS manipulation in patients with CNNP after one week. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of pain intensity or CROM.