A Comparative Study of the Effectiveness of Pharmacopuncture Therapy for Chronic Neck Pain: A Pragmatic, Randomized, Controlled Trial

Background: This two-arm, parallel, pragmatic, multicenter, clinical randomized, controlled trial with a 12-week follow-up period aimed to compare the effectiveness of pharmacopuncture therapy and physical therapy strategies for chronic neck pain. Methods: Eight sessions of pharmacopuncture therapy or physical therapy were administered within 2 weeks. The primary outcome was the visual analogue scale (VAS) score for neck pain. The secondary outcomes were the scores of the Northwick Park questionnaire (NPQ), VAS score for radiating arm pain, numeric rating scale (NRS) for neck and arm bothersomeness, neck disability index (NDI), patient global impression of change (PGIC), 12-item short form health survey (SF-12), and EuroQoL 5-dimension 5-level (EQ-5D-5L) instrument. The protocol was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04035018) and CRIS (KCT0004243). Results: We randomly allocated 101 participants with chronic neck pain to the pharmacopuncture therapy (n = 50) or physical therapy group (n = 51). At the primary endpoint (week 5) the pharmacopuncture therapy group showed significantly superior effects regarding VAS score for neck pain and arm bothersomeness, NRS for neck pain, NDI, NPQ, and PGIC compared with the physical therapy group. These effects were sustained up to 12 weeks after follow-up. Conclusion: Compared with physical therapy, pharmacopuncture therapy had superior effects on the pain and functional recovery of patients with chronic neck pain.

Download Full-text

Traditional physical therapy exercises combined with sensorimotor training: The effects on clinical outcomes for chronic neck pain in a double-blind, randomized controlled trial

Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies ◽

10.1016/j.jbmt.2019.02.016 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 23 (4) ◽

pp. 901-907 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Maryam Saadat ◽

Reza Salehi ◽

Hossein Negahban ◽

Mohammad Jafar Shaterzadeh ◽

Mohammad Mehravar ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trial ◽

Physical Therapy ◽

Neck Pain ◽

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Chronic Neck Pain ◽

Sensorimotor Training ◽

Double Blind ◽

Randomized Controlled

Download Full-text

Cost-Effectiveness of Manual Therapy Versus Physical Therapy In Patients With Sub-Acute and Chronic Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Value in Health ◽

10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.2447 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 18 (7) ◽

pp. A669-A670

Author(s):

JM van Dongen ◽

R Groeneweg ◽

SM Rubinstein ◽

JE Bosmans ◽

RA Oostendorp ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trial ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Physical Therapy ◽

Neck Pain ◽

Manual Therapy ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Chronic Neck Pain ◽

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