Manual therapy compared with physical therapy in patients with non-specific neck pain: a randomized controlled trial

Cervicogenic dizziness is dizziness triggered by movement or positioning of the cervical spine and is often accompanied by neck pain or stiffness. This is a prospective, pragmatic, assessor-blind, randomized controlled trial aimed at testing the efficacy and safety of adjuvant Chuna Manual Therapy (CMT) in patients with cervicogenic dizziness under usual care treatments. Fifty patients with cervicogenic dizziness will be randomly allocated to CMT or usual care (UC) groups in a 1 : 1 ratio. Extensive screening procedures, including examinations for central nervous system problems and nystagmus, will be applied to exclude other dizziness-inducing disorders. The eligible participants will receive 12 sessions of CMT plus UC or only UC over 6 weeks. CMT includes mandatory and discretionary techniques, whereas UC includes electrotherapy, thermotherapy, and patient education. The efficacy will be evaluated primarily as Dizziness Handicap Inventory score. The severity and frequency of dizziness, the level of neck pain or stiffness, and the cervical range of motion will also be evaluated. Safety will be assessed by adverse events. The data will be statistically analyzed at p<0.05. Trial Registration. This trial was registered with Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS) in Korea, KCT0002565, on 29 November 2017, https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/search_result_st01_kren.jsp?seq=9610&ltype=&rtype=.

Download Full-text

The long-term effects of naprapathic manual therapy on back and neck pain - Results from a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽

10.1186/1471-2474-11-26 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Eva Skillgate ◽

Tony Bohman ◽

Lena W Holm ◽

Eva Vingård ◽

Lars Alfredsson

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trial ◽

Neck Pain ◽

Manual Therapy ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Long Term Effects ◽

Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial ◽

Randomized Controlled

Download Full-text

Is a combined programme of manual therapy and exercise more effective than usual care in patients with non-specific chronic neck pain? A randomized controlled trial

Clinical Rehabilitation ◽

10.1177/0269215519876675 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 33 (12) ◽

pp. 1908-1918 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Lucia Domingues ◽

Fernando Manuel Pimentel-Santos ◽

Eduardo Brazete Cruz ◽

Ana Cristina Sousa ◽

Ana Santos ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trial ◽

Neck Pain ◽

Usual Care ◽

Pain Intensity ◽

Manual Therapy ◽

Rating Scale ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Chronic Neck Pain ◽

Randomized Controlled

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a combined intervention of manual therapy and exercise (MET) versus usual care (UC), on disability, pain intensity and global perceived recovery, in patients with non-specific chronic neck pain (CNP). Design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: Outpatient care units. Subjects: Sixty-four non-specific CNP patients were randomly allocated to MET ( n = 32) or UC ( n = 32) groups. Interventions: Participants in the MET group received 12 sessions of mobilization and exercise, whereas the UC group received 15 sessions of usual care in physiotherapy. Main measures: The primary outcome was disability (Neck Disability Index). The secondary outcomes were pain intensity (Numeric Pain Rating Scale) and global perceived recovery (Patient Global Impression Change). Patients were assessed at baseline, three weeks, six weeks (end of treatment) and at a three-month follow-up. Results: Fifty-eight participants completed the study. No significant between-group difference was observed on disability and pain intensity at baseline. A significant between-group difference was observed on disability at three-week, six-week and three-month follow-up (median (P25–P75): 6 (3.25–9.81) vs. 15.5 (11.28–20.75); P < 0.001), favouring the MET group. Regarding pain intensity, a significant between-group difference was observed at six-week and three-month follow-up (median (P25–P75): 2 (1–2.51) vs. 5 (3.33–6); P < 0.001), with superiority of effect in MET group. Concerning the global perceived recovery, a significant between-group difference was observed only at the three-month follow-up ( P = 0.001), favouring the MET group. Conclusion: This study’s findings suggest that a combination of manual therapy and exercise is more effective than usual care on disability, pain intensity and global perceived recovery.

Download Full-text