Efficacy of Manual and Manipulative Therapy in the Perception of Pain and Cervical Motion in Patients With Tension-Type Headache: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial

Espí-López, Gemma Victoria; Gómez–Conesa, Antonia

doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2014.01.004

Cited by 32 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, there were no clear differences between the treatment arms during the 1 year follow-up regarding care seeking for their back/neck pain; the proportion that had not sought additional care the presiding three months at the 12 months follow-up was the same (61 %) in all three treatment arms. The findings from this study are similar to findings in some previous studies [ 5 , 30 , 31 ]. In a recent Cochrane systematic review Gross et al concluded that manipulation and mobilization provide similar effect for neck pain in mediate/short/intermediate-term follow-up [ 5 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Three combinations of manual therapy techniques within naprapathy in the treatment of neck and/or back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Paanalahti

Nordin

Höijer

et al. 2016

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundManual therapy as spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, stretching and massage are common treatment methods for neck and back pain. The objective was to compare the treatment effect on pain intensity, pain related disability and perceived recovery from a) naprapathic manual therapy (spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, stretching and massage) to b) naprapathic manual therapy without spinal manipulation and to c) naprapathic manual therapy without stretching for male and female patients seeking care for back and/or neck pain.MethodParticipants were recruited among patients, ages 18–65, seeking care at the educational clinic of Naprapathögskolan - the Scandinavian College of Naprapathic Manual Medicine in Stockholm. The patients (n = 1057) were randomized to one of three treatment arms a) manual therapy (i.e. spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, stretching and massage), b) manual therapy excluding spinal manipulation and c) manual therapy excluding stretching. The primary outcomes were minimal clinically important improvement in pain intensity and pain related disability. Treatments were provided by naprapath students in the seventh semester of eight total semesters. Generalized estimating equations and logistic regression were used to examine the association between the treatments and the outcomes.ResultsAt 12 weeks follow-up, 64 % had a minimal clinically important improvement in pain intensity and 42 % in pain related disability. The corresponding chances to be improved at the 52 weeks follow-up were 58 % and 40 % respectively. No systematic differences in effect when excluding spinal manipulation and stretching respectively from the treatment were found over 1 year follow-up, concerning minimal clinically important improvement in pain intensity (p = 0.41) and pain related disability (p = 0.85) and perceived recovery (p = 0.98). Neither were there disparities in effect when male and female patients were analyzed separately.ConclusionThe effect of manual therapy for male and female patients seeking care for neck and/or back pain at an educational clinic is similar regardless if spinal manipulation or if stretching is excluded from the treatment option.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN92249294

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Three combinations of manual therapy techniques within naprapathy in the treatment of neck and/or back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Paanalahti

Nordin

Höijer

et al. 2016

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One RCT had a low RoB for all methodological items, [21] 4 studies had 1 high RoB domain. [19–21,23] All studies had low risk in allocation concealment. [18–23] Three RCT had high risk for incomplete outcome data because some patients did not adhere to treatment for various reasons.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of physical therapy on the suboccipital area of patients with tension-type headache

Jiang

Li²,

Wei

et al. 2019

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There has been a lot of research on physical therapy for tension-type headaches. However, the efficacy of physical therapy on the suboccipital region remains unclear. Objective: To establish the effectiveness of physical therapy on the suboccipital area of patients with tension-type headache. Methods: Databases including Cochrane Library, Medline/Pubmed, CNKI, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched. After independent study selection by 2 authors, data were extracted and collected independently. On 1 hand, authors compared the treatment of the suboccipital area with control group. On the other hand, the efficacy of several physical therapy techniques on the suboccipital region was compared. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook. RevMan 5.3 software was used for data analysis. The primary outcome measures were the cervical range of motion, the visual analog scale, and headache disability inventory. Results: Six randomized controlled trials with a total of 505 participants were included. Suboccipital soft-tissue inhibition technique (SIT) + occiput-atlas-axis global manipulation (OAA) was more effective than SIT in increasing craniocervical extension at 4 weeks post-treatment, the overall mean differences (MD) was 3.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.89–6.34). There was no difference at 8 weeks post-treatment (MD 2.38, 95% CI −1.02 to 5.78, P = .17). SIT was more effective than SIT + OAA in increasing cervical flexion at 4-week post-treatment (MD −3.36, 95% CI −6.65 to −0.05). SIT + OAA was more effective than SIT on decreasing intensity of pain at 4-week post-treatment (MD −0.91, 95% CI −1.78 to −0.04), but no difference at 8-week (MD −0.43, 95% CI −1.18 to 0.33, P = .27). SIT + OAA was more effective than SIT in reducing the functional score of the headache disability inventory at 4-week post-treatment (MD −4.47, 95% CI −8.44 to −0.50). These results may indicate that the SIT + OAA combined therapy is more effective in short term (4-week), no major difference in longer term (8-week). Conclusion: Combined therapy may be more suitable for the treatment of tension-type headache.

show abstract

“…Screenings test cervical spine 42,71,[73][74][75]79 Abbreviations: CAS, color analog scale; DC/TMD, diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders; GAD-7, generalised anxiety disorder scale; JFL, jaw functional limitation; MFIQ, mandibular function impairment questionnaire; PHQ, patient health questionnaire; PPT, pain pressure threshold; PPT, pressure pain threshold; TMJ, temporomandibular joint; TrP, trigger point; VAS, visual analog scale.…”

Section: Fonseca Anamnestic Index 60mentioning

confidence: 99%

International consensus on the most useful assessments used by physical therapists to evaluate patients with temporomandibular disorders: A Delphi study

Piekartz¹,

Schwiddessen²,

Reineke³

et al. 2020

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To identify assessment tools used to evaluate patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) considered to be clinically most useful by a panel of international experts in TMD physical therapy (PT). Methods:A Delphi survey method administered to a panel of international experts in TMD PT was conducted over three rounds from Results: Twenty-three experts (completion rate: 23/25) completed all three rounds of the survey for three clinical test categories: 1) questionnaires, 2) pain screening tools and 3) physical examination tests. The following was the consensus-based decision regarding the identification of the clinically most useful assessments. (1) Four of 9 questionnaires were identified: Jaw Functional Limitation (JFL-8), Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia for Temporomandibular disorders (TSK/TMD) and the neck disability index (NDI). (2) Three of 8 identified pain screening tests: visual analog scale (VAS), numeric pain rating scale (NRS) and pain during mandibular movements. (3) Eight of 18 identified physical examination tests: physiological temporomandibular joint (TMJ) movements, trigger point (TrP) palpation of the masticatory muscles, TrP palpation away from the masticatory system, accessory movements, articular palpation, noise detection during movement, manual screening of the cervical spine and the Neck Flexor Muscle Endurance Test. Conclusion: After three rounds in this Delphi survey, the results of the most used assessment tools by TMD PT experts were established. They proved to be founded on test construct, test psychometric properties (reliability/validity) and expert preference for test clusters. A concordance with the screening tools of the diagnostic criteria of TMD consortium was noted. Findings may be used to guide policymaking purposes and future diagnostic research. K E Y W O R D S assessments, delphi study, physical therapy, TMD | 687 PIEKARTZ ET Al.

show abstract

Efficacy of Manual and Manipulative Therapy in the Perception of Pain and Cervical Motion in Patients With Tension-Type Headache: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial

Cited by 32 publications

References 24 publications

Three combinations of manual therapy techniques within naprapathy in the treatment of neck and/or back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Three combinations of manual therapy techniques within naprapathy in the treatment of neck and/or back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Effectiveness of physical therapy on the suboccipital area of patients with tension-type headache

International consensus on the most useful assessments used by physical therapists to evaluate patients with temporomandibular disorders: A Delphi study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About