Immediate effects of atlanto-occipital joint manipulation on active mouth opening and pressure pain sensitivity in women with mechanical neck pain

Dry needling and upper cervical spinal manipulation in patients with temporomandibular disorder: A multi-center randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of dry needling and upper cervical spinal manipulation with interocclusal splint therapy, diclofenac, and temporomandibular joint (TMJ) mobilization in patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD).

METHODS

One hundred-twenty patients with TMD were randomized to receive six treatment sessions of dry needling plus upper cervical spinal manipulation (n = 62) or interocclusal splint therapy, diclofenac, and joint mobilization to the TMJ (n = 58).

RESULTS

Patients receiving dry needling and upper cervical spinal manipulation experienced significantly greater reductions in jaw pain intensity over the last 7 days (VAS: F = 23.696; p < 0.001) and active pain-free mouth opening (F = 29.902; p < 0.001) than those receiving interocclusal splint therapy, diclofenac, and TMJ mobilization at the 3-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Dry needling and upper cervical spinal manipulation was more effective than interocclusal splint therapy, diclofenac, and TMJ mobilization in patients with TMD.

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.

Associations of Treatment Outcome Expectations and Pain Sensitivity after Cervical Spine Manipulation in Patients with Chronic Non-Specific Neck Pain: A Cohort Study

(1) Background: This cohort study aimed to evaluate the effect of patients' treatment expectations on pain perception changes following manual therapy cervical manipulations in individuals with chronic mechanical neck pain. (2) Methods: Demographic data were collected by 56 subjects who were asked to fill out the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and the Expectations for Treatment Scale (ETS). All patients received one single cervical manipulation, and pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) were measured before and immediately after the manipulation with a digital algometer. (3) Results: A total of 56 patients participated. Most subjects (62.5%) had high treatment expectations according to the ETS scale. Statistically significant increases in PPTs were noted both locally and in remote areas (p < 0.05), with 37.5-48.2% of participants showing clinically significant changes in pain perception. However, no statistically significant correlation was found between high treatment expectations and increased PPTs (p > 0.05). (4) Conclusions: Although a significant reduction in pain perception was observed, it did not correlate with patients' treatment expectations. Future research for further investigation of this hypothesis by comparing real versus sham treatment and exploring additional mechanisms affecting changes in PPTs after cervical manipulations in this population will contribute to a better understanding of the research question.

The effect of lumbar spinal manipulation on biomechanical factors and perceived transient pain during prolonged sitting: a laboratory-controlled cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulation has been shown to affect muscle activity, posture, and pain. To date, no studies have examined the effect of manipulation on biomechanical factors during sitting. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the immediate effect of lumbar spinal manipulation on trunk muscle activation, spine posture and movements, and perceived ratings of transient pain in asymptomatic adults during prolonged office sitting.

METHODS

Twenty healthy adults were recruited for a single laboratory session that included a standardized office sitting/data entry protocol (120 min total, 3 blocks of 40 min). Data were collected between July and August 2012. The first block (baseline) was immediately followed by two experimental blocks. Prior to the start of each experimental block, participants were transferred to a therapy plinth and placed side lying (right side down), and a random presentation of either a control or high velocity low amplitude thrust directed at L4/L5 was delivered. Continuous measures of muscle activity, spine posture, and spine movements were recorded throughout the sitting trials. Perceived transient pain was measured by visual analogue scale at 10-min intervals (including immediately before and after the randomized maneuvers).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in spine or pelvic posture or perceived back pain following either the manipulation or control maneuvers. Significantly reduced muscle activity and increased shifts of the lumbar spine angle were identified in the block following manipulation compared to both baseline and post control blocks.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal manipulation does not appear to have an immediate impact on spine or pelvic posture in healthy adults but does appear to reduce muscle activity and increase spine movement during sitting. Future work should replicate this study with a larger population in a field setting. It may be worthwhile to explore the implication of reduced muscle activation and increased spine movements during prolonged sitting for office workers that receive manipulations or mobilizations during their workday.

INYBI: A New Tool for Self-Myofascial Release of the Suboccipital Muscles in Patients With Chronic Non-Specific Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized, single-blinded (the outcome assessor was unaware of participants' allocation group) controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of myofascial release therapy (MRT) over the suboccipital muscles, compared with self-MRT using a novel device, the INYBI tool, on pain-related outcomes, active cervical mobility, and vertical mouth opening, in adults with chronic non-specific neck pain (NSNP).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

MRT is used to manage chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions, with purported positive effects. The efficacy of self-MRT, compared with MRT, has been scarcely evaluated.

METHODS

Fifty-eight participants (mean age of 34.6 ± 4.7 yrs; range 21-40 yrs; 77.6% females, 22.4% males) with persistent NSNP agreed to participate, and were equally distributed into an INYBI (n = 29) or a control group (n = 29). Both groups underwent a single 5-minutes intervention session. For participants in the control group, MRT of the suboccipital muscles was performed using the suboccipital muscle inhibition technique, while those in the INYBI group underwent a self-MRT intervention using the INYBI device. Primary measurements were taken of pain intensity (visual analogue scale), local pressure pain sensitivity, as assessed with an algometer, and active cervical range-of-movement. Secondary outcomes included pain-free vertical mouth opening. Outcomes were collected at baseline, immediately after intervention and 45 minutes later.

RESULTS

The analysis of variance (ANOVAs) demonstrated no significant between-groups effect for any variable (all, P > 0.05). In the within-groups comparison, all participants significantly improved pain-related outcomes, and showed similar positive changes for mouth opening. Cervical range-of-movement- mainly increased after intervention for participants in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Both, MRT and self-MRT using the INYBI, are equally effective to enhance self-reported pain intensity, and local pressure pain sensitivity in chronic NSNP patients. For cervical mobility, MRT appears to be slighlty superior, compared with the INYBI, to achieve improvements in this population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Immediate and Short-Term Effects of Upper Cervical High-Velocity, Low-Amplitude Manipulation on Standing Postural Control and Cervical Mobility in Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

This study aimed to determine the immediate and short-term effects of a single upper cervical high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation on standing postural control and cervical mobility in chronic nonspecific neck pain (CNSNP). A double-blinded, randomized placebo-controlled trial was performed. Forty-four patients with CNSNP were allocated to the experimental group (n = 22) or control group (n = 22). All participants were assessed before and immediately after the intervention, with a follow-up on the 7th and 15th days. In each evaluation, we assessed global and specific stabilometric parameters to analyze standing postural balance and performed the cervical flexion-rotation test (CFRT) to analyze upper cervical mobility. We obtained statistically significant differences, with a large effect size, in the limited cervical rotation and global stabilometric parameters. Upper cervical HVLA manipulation produced an improvement in the global stabilometric parameters, significantly decreasing the mean values of velocity, surface, path length, and pressure in all assessments (p < 0.001; ƞ 2 p = 0.323–0.856), as well as significantly decreasing the surface length ratio (L/S) on the 7th (−0.219 1/mm; p = 0.008; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.042–0.395) and 15th days (−0.447 1/mm; p < 0.001; 95% CI: 0.265–0.629). Limited cervical rotation values increased significantly immediately after manipulation (7.409°; p < 0.001; 95% CI: 6.131–8.687) and were maintained during follow-up (p < 0.001). These results show that a single upper cervical HVLA manipulation produces an improvement in standing postural control and increases the rotational range of motion (ROM) in the upper cervical spine in patients with CNSNP.

The effect of vibration therapy on neck myofascial trigger points: A randomized controlled pilot study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of low-frequency self-administered vibration therapy into myofascial trigger points in the upper trapezius and levator scapulae on patients with chronic non-specific neck pain.

METHODS

Twenty-eight patients with chronic non-specific neck pain were randomly assigned into a vibration group, receiving 10 self-applied sessions of vibration therapy in the upper trapezius and levator scapulae trigger points; or a control group, receiving no intervention. Self-reported neck pain and disability (Neck Disability Index) and pressure pain threshold were assessed at baseline and after the first, fifth and 10th treatment sessions.

FINDINGS

Significant differences were found in the vibration group when compared to the control group after the treatment period: the vibration group reached lower Neck Disability Index scores (F = 4.74, P = .033, η² = 0.07) and greater pressure pain threshold values (F = 7.56, P = .01, η² = 0.10) than the control group. The vibration group reported a significant reduction in Neck Disability Index scores (χ2 = 19,35, P = .00, Kendall's W = 0.28) and an increase in pressure pain threshold (χ2 = 87,10, P = .00, Kendall's W = 0.73) between the assessment times over the course of the treatment. The mean increase in pressure pain threshold in the vibration group after the 10 sessions was 8.54 N/cm2, while the mean reduction in Neck Disability Index scores was 4.53 points.

INTERPRETATION

Vibration therapy may be an effective intervention for reducing self-reported neck pain and disability and pressure pain sensitivity in patients with chronic non-specific neck pain. This tool could be recommended for people with non-specific neck pain.

Effectiveness of Cervical Spine High-Velocity, Low-Amplitude Thrust Added to Behavioral Education, Soft Tissue Mobilization, and Exercise for People With Temporomandibular Disorder With Myalgia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the immediate and short-term effects of adding cervical spine high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust (HVLAT) to behavioral education, soft tissue mobilization, and a home exercise program on pain and dysfunction for people with a primary complaint of temporomandibular disorder (TMD) with myalgia.

DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

Fifty individuals with TMD were randomly assigned to receive cervical HVLAT or sham manipulation for 4 visits over 4 weeks. Participants in both groups received other treatments, including standardized behavioral education, soft tissue mobilization, and a home exercise program. Primary outcomes included maximal mouth opening, the numeric pain-rating scale, the Jaw Functional Limitation Scale (JFLS), the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia for TMD (TSK-TMD), and a global rating of change (GROC). Self-report and objective measurements were taken at baseline, immediately after initial treatment, and follow-ups of 1 week and 4 weeks. A 2-by-4 mixed-model analysis of variance was used, with intervention group as the between-subjects factor and time as the within-subject factor. Separate analyses of variance were performed for dependent variables, and the hypothesis of interest was the group-by-time interaction.

RESULTS

There was no significant interaction for maximal mouth opening, the numeric pain-rating scale, or secondary measures. There were significant 2-way interactions for the JFLS (d = 0.60) and TSK-TMD (d = 0.80). The HVLAT group had lower fear at 4 weeks and improved jaw function earlier (1 week). The GROC favored the HVLAT group, with significant differences in successful outcomes noted immediately after baseline treatment (thrust, 6/25; sham, 0/25) and at 4 weeks (thrust, 17/25; sham, 10/25).

CONCLUSION

Both groups improved over time; however, differences between groups were small. There were significant differences between groups for the JFLS, TSK-TMD, and GROC. The additive clinical effect of cervical HVLAT to standard care remains unclear for treating TMD. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(8):455-465. Epub 6 Jan 2020. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.9175.

Directed vertebral manipulation is not better than generic vertebral manipulation in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomised trial

QUESTION

In people with chronic low back pain, what is the average effect of directing manipulation at the most painful lumbar level compared with generic manipulation of the spine?

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, a blinded assessor and intention-to-treat analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

148 people with non-specific chronic low back pain with a minimum level of pain intensity of 3 points (measured from 0 to 10 on the Pain Numerical Rating Scale).

INTERVENTIONS

All participants received 10 spinal manipulation sessions over a 4-week period. The experimental group received treatment to the most painful segment of the lower back. The control group received treatment to the thoracic spine.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was pain intensity, measured at the end of the intervention (Week 4). Secondary outcomes were: pain intensity at Weeks 12 and 26; pressure pain threshold at Week 4; and global perceived change since onset and disability, both measured at Weeks 4, 12 and 26.

RESULTS

Each group was randomly allocated 74 participants. Data were collected at all time points for 71 participants (96%) in the experimental group and 72 (97%) in the control group. There were no clinically important between-group differences for pain intensity, disability or global perceived effect at any time point. The estimate of the effect of directing manipulation at the most painful lumbar level, as compared with generic manipulation, on pain intensity was too small to be considered clinically important: MD 0 (95% CI -0.9 to 0.9) at Week 4 and -0.1 (95% CI -1.0 to 0.8) at Week 26.

CONCLUSION

No clinically important differences were observed between directed manipulation and generic manipulation in people with chronic low back pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02883634.

The Effect of High Velocity Low Amplitude Cervical Manipulations on the Musculoskeletal System: Literature Review

In manual therapy, high velocity low amplitude (HVLA) cervical manipulation techniques are frequently used, but often the physiological and biomechanical effects that can be obtained are not completely clear. The techniques are mostly used for the treatment of biomechanical joint dysfunction, but little is yet known about the possibility of using them in order to achieve better performance on healthy subjects. The objective of the study is to describe how cervical manipulation can impact on a musculoskeletal disorder.

A systematic search was carried out on the Pubmed electronic database from the beginning of January to March 2020. Two independent reviewers conducted the screening process through the PRISMA diagram to determine the eligibility of the articles. The inclusion criteria covered randomized controlled trial (RCT) manuscripts published in peer-reviewed journals with individuals of all ages from 2005 to 2020. The included intervention was thrust manipulation or HVLA directed towards the cervical spine region. After reviewing the literature, 21 of 74 articles were considered useful and relevant to the research question.

The results of the research show that HVLA techniques, on subjects with musculoskeletal disorders, are able to influence pain modulation, mobility and strength both in the treated area and at a distance. Cervical manipulations are effective in management of cervicalgia, epicondylalgia, temporomandibular joint disorders and shoulder pain. With regard to results on strength in healthy subjects, given the divergent opinions of the authors, we cannot yet state that manipulation can significantly influence this parameter.

Cervical manipulations can also have risks for the patient if applied when not appropriate but the frequency of complications due to vertebral manipulation are very low. However, the manipulation techniques might be limited by low patients tolerance or the presence of contraindications. In addition, the optimal number of manipulations to be performed and the long-term benefits produced are unknown.

What is the minimal important difference of pain intensity, mandibular function, and headache impact in patients with temporomandibular disorders? Clinical significance analysis of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There are insufficient studies providing Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for outcomes related to temporomandibular disorders (TMD).

OBJECTIVES

(1) To provide the MCID of outcomes related to TMD using the Global Rating of Change Scale (GRCS) as an anchor. (2) To verify which outcomes can predict a moderate or large response to the treatment.

STUDY DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial in subjects with TMD.

METHODS

Sixty-one women with TMD were divided into intervention and control groups. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) of masticatory muscles, Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ), and Craniocervical Flexion Test (CCFT) were collected at baseline and 5-weeks follow-up.

RESULTS

Participants were divided based on their response to the treatment, according to the GRCS. MCID values were provided for subjects that moderately or largely improved to the treatment. MCID was between 0 and 1.90 for orofacial pain, around 2 points for the MFIQ, between 3 and 6.26 points for the HIT-6, around 0.2 kg/cm2 for the PPTs on masticatory muscles, around 2.5 mm for MMO and between 60 and 68 points for CCFT. Orofacial pain and HIT-6 were the most discriminative variables at determining whether patients would largely/moderately improve or would not improve after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The values of MCID could be used as guidance for both clinical practice and research. Pain intensity and headache impact were the most predictive outcomes for improvement of the general health status of women with TMD.

Completeness of the description of manipulation and mobilisation techniques in randomized controlled trials in neck pain; A review using the TiDieR checklist

STUDY DESIGN

A secondary analysis of a systematic review.

BACKGROUND

Manipulations or mobilizations are commonly used interventions in patients with mechanical neck pain. The treatment effects have often been studied in randomized controlled trials (RCT) which are generally considered the gold standard in evaluating the treatment effects, mainly due to its high internal validity. External validity is defined as the extent to which the effects can be generalised to clinical practice. An important prerequisite for this is that interventions used in clinical trials can be replicated in clinical practice. It can be questioned if interventions utilized in randomized controlled trials can be translated into clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

The overall aim of this study is to examine whether the quality of the description of manipulation and mobilization interventions is sufficient for to replication of these interventions in clinical practice.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed. Two independent researchers used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) which is a 12-item checklist for describing the completeness of the interventions.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven articles were included that used manipulation and/or mobilization interventions for patients with mechanical neck pain. None of the articles describe the intervention e.g. all the items on the TIDieR list. Considering item 8 (a-f) of the TIDieR checklist only one article described the used techniques completely.

CONCLUSION

Manipulation or a mobilization interventions are poorly reported in RCTs, which jeopardize the external validity of RCTs, making it difficult for clinicians and researchers to replicate these interventions.

Adding Temporomandibular joint treatments to routine physiotherapy for patients with non-specific chronic neck pain: A randomized clinical study

INTRODUCTION

Neck Pain can be related to the disorders of other adjacent areas such as the Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ). This study aimed to investigate whether there is value in adding TMJ treatments to routine physiotherapy in patients with non-specific chronic neck pain compared with a control group.

METHODS

A randomized, single-blind, clinical study desined including two groups of patients. Group A (20 people) received routine physiotherapy for neck pain and group B (20 people) received TMJ manual therapy plus exercise therapy in addition to routine physiotherapy for neck pain. The Treatment program included six sessions for two days a week over a period of 21 days. Assessments were performed during the first session, in the last session and one month after treatment as a follow-up. Outcome measures included neck range of motion (ROM), neck disability index (NDI) and visual analogue scale (VAS). Before starting the study, the reliability of methods for measuring neck ROM was evaluated.

RESULTS

Participants were 21 women and 19 men. Initially, a pilot study was carried out on the 40 volunteers to assess the reliability of the measurement methods, and the results were acceptable. With both the control group and the intervention group, the indexes showed significant improvement (p < 0.001), although the intervention group showed more improvement (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This result means adding treatments of TMJ to routine neck physiotherapy can magnify the effect of the intervention, a significant change still in evidence at follow up. Moreover, given the clinically important differences, our results for VAS and NDI were acceptable.

Manipulation-induced hypoalgesia in musculoskeletal pain populations: a systematic critical review and meta-analysis

Background

Manipulation-induced hypoalgesia (MIH) represents reduced pain sensitivity following joint manipulation, and has been documented in various populations. It is unknown, however, whether MIH following high-velocity low-amplitude spinal manipulative therapy is a specific and clinically relevant treatment effect.

Methods

This systematic critical review with meta-analysis investigated changes in quantitative sensory testing measures following high-velocity low-amplitude spinal manipulative therapy in musculoskeletal pain populations, in randomised controlled trials. Our objectives were to compare changes in quantitative sensory testing outcomes after spinal manipulative therapy vs. sham, control and active interventions, to estimate the magnitude of change over time, and to determine whether changes are systemic or not.

Results

Fifteen studies were included. Thirteen measured pressure pain threshold, and four of these were sham-controlled. Change in pressure pain threshold after spinal manipulative therapy compared to sham revealed no significant difference. Pressure pain threshold increased significantly over time after spinal manipulative therapy (0.32 kg/cm², CI 0.22–0.42), which occurred systemically. There were too few studies comparing to other interventions or for other types of quantitative sensory testing to make robust conclusions about these.

Conclusions

We found that systemic MIH (for pressure pain threshold) does occur in musculoskeletal pain populations, though there was low quality evidence of no significant difference compared to sham manipulation. Future research should focus on the clinical relevance of MIH, and different types of quantitative sensory tests.

Trial registration

Prospectively registered with PROSPERO (registration CRD42016041963).

The clinical reasoning process in randomized clinical trials with patients with non-specific neck pain is incomplete: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Primarily to evaluate the completeness of the description of the clinical reasoning process in RCTs with patients with non-specific neck pain with an argued or diagnosed cause i.e. an impairment or activity limitation. Secondly, to determine the association between the completeness of the clinical reasoning process and the degree of risk of bias.

DATA SOURCES

Pubmed, Cinahl and PEDro were systematically searched from inception to July 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

RCTs (n = 122) with patients with non-specific neck pain receiving physiotherapy treatment published in English were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extraction included study characteristics and important features of the clinical reasoning process based on the Hypothesis-Oriented Algorithm for Clinicians II (HOAC II)].

DATA SYNTHESIS

Thirty-seven studies (30%) had a complete clinical reasoning process of which 8 (6%) had a 'diagnosed cause' and 29 (24%) had an 'argued cause'. The Spearmans rho association between the extent of the clinical reasoning process and the risk of bias was -0.2.

CONCLUSIONS

In the majority of studies (70%) the described clinical reasoning process was incomplete. A very small proportion (6%) had a 'diagnosed cause'. Therefore, a better methodological quality does not necessarily imply a better described clinical reasoning process.

Chiropractic Manipulation Increases Maximal Bite Force in Healthy Individuals

Recent research has shown that chiropractic spinal manipulation can alter central sensorimotor integration and motor cortical drive to human voluntary muscles of the upper and lower limb. The aim of this paper was to explore whether spinal manipulation could also influence maximal bite force. Twenty-eight people were divided into two groups of 14, one that received chiropractic care and one that received sham chiropractic care. All subjects were naive to chiropractic. Maximum bite force was assessed pre- and post-intervention and at 1-week follow up. Bite force in the chiropractic group increased compared to the control group (p = 0.02) post-intervention and this between-group difference was also present at the 1-week follow-up (p < 0.01). Bite force in the chiropractic group increased significantly by 11.0% (&plusmn;18.6%) post-intervention (p = 0.04) and remained increased by 13.0% (&plusmn;12.9%, p = 0.04) at the 1 week follow up. Bite force did not change significantly in the control group immediately after the intervention (&minus;2.3 &plusmn; 9.0%, p = 0.20), and decreased by 6.3% (&plusmn;3.4%, p = 0.01) at the 1-week follow-up. These results indicate that chiropractic spinal manipulation can increase maximal bite force.

No immediate changes on neural and muscular mechanosensitivity after first rib manipulation in subjects with cervical whiplash: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Upper rib manipulative therapy appears to be effective on primary complaint of shoulder pain, but its efficacy has not been evaluated in subjects with whiplash-associated disorders.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the immediate changes on neural and muscular mechanosensitivity after first-rib manipulation in patients with neck or cervicobrachial pain secondary to cervical whiplash (CW).

METHODS

A single-blind (evaluators were blinded to subject allocation) randomized trial was conducted. Fifty-three (N = 53) subjects, 34.7 (SD 10.8 years; 56.6% females), with cervical or cervicobrachial pain following CW, were distributed into two groups. The experimental group (n = 27) underwent a single first-rib high-velocity low-amplitude manipulation technique, while the control group (n = 26) received a sham placebo intervention. Outcome measures were taken at baseline and immediately after intervention, of the pressure pain threshold over the trigeminal, median and ulnar nerves, and over the area described for the location of tense bands in the upper trapezius, masseter, biceps brachii and triceps brachii muscles.

RESULTS

No significant differences in mechanosensitivity values were observed after intervention in the between-groups comparison (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The use of a sole first-rib thrust technique has no immediate effect on neural or muscular mechanosensitivity, when compared to placebo, in subjects with cervical or cervicobrachial pain after CW.

The efficacy of manual therapy and exercise for treating non-specific neck pain: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To review and update the evidence for different forms of manual therapy (MT) and exercise for patients with different stages of non-specific neck pain (NP).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Cochrane-Register-of-Controlled-Trials, PEDro, EMBASE.

METHOD

A qualitative systematic review covering a period from January 2000 to December 2015 was conducted according to updated-guidelines. Specific inclusion criteria only on RCTs were used; including differentiation according to stages of NP (acute - subacute [ASNP] or chronic [CNP]), as well as sub-classification based on type of MT interventions: MT1 (HVLA manipulation); MT2 (mobilization and/or soft-tissue-techniques); MT3 (MT1 + MT2); and MT4 (Mobilization-with-Movement). In each sub-category, MT could be combined or not with exercise and/or usual medical care.

RESULTS

Initially 121 studies were identified for potential inclusion. Based on qualitative and quantitative evaluation criteria, 23 RCTs were identified for review. Evidence for ASNP: MODERATE-evidence: In favour of (i) MT1 to the cervical spine (Cx) combined with exercises when compared to MT1 to the thoracic spine (Tx) combined with exercises; (ii) MT3 to the Cx and Tx combined with exercise compared to MT2 to the Cx with exercise or compared to usual medical care for pain and satisfaction with care from short to long-term. Evidence for CNP: STRONG-evidence: Of no difference of efficacy between MT2 at the symptomatic Cx level(s) in comparison to MT2 on asymptomatic Cx level(s) for pain and function. MODERATE to STRONG-evidence: In favour of MT1 and MT3 on Cx and Tx with exercise in comparison to exercise or MT alone for pain, function, satisfaction with care and general-health from short to moderate-terms. MODERATE-evidence: In favour (i) of MT1 as compared to MT2 and MT4, all applied to the Cx, for neck mobility, and pain in the very short term; (ii) of MT2 using sof-tissue-techniques to the Cx and Tx or MT3 to the Cx and Tx in comparison to no-treatment in the short-term for pain and disability.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review updates the evidence for MT combined or not with exercise and/or usual medical care for different stages of NP and provides recommendations for future studies. Two majors points could be highlighted, the first one is that combining different forms of MT with exercise is better than MT or exercise alone, and the second one is that mobilization need not be applied at the symptomatic level(s) for improvements of NP patients. These both points may have clinical implications for reducing the risk involved with some MT techniques applied to the cervical spine.

Predictive factors for reporting adverse events following spinal manipulation in randomized clinical trials - secondary analysis of a systematic review

While spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is recommended for the treatment of spinal disorders, concerns exist about adverse events associated with the intervention. Adequate reporting of adverse events in clinical trials would allow for more accurate estimations of incidence statistics through meta-analysis. However, it is not currently known if there are factors influencing adverse events reporting following SMT in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Thus our objective was to investigate predictive factors for the reporting of adverse events in published RCTs involving SMT. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for RCTs involving SMT. Domains of interest included: sample size; publication date relative to the 2010 CONSORT statement; risk of bias; the region treated; and number of intervention sessions. 7398 records were identified, of which 368 articles were eligible for inclusion. A total of 140 (38.0%) articles reported on adverse events. Articles were more likely to report on adverse events if they possessed larger sample sizes, were published after the 2010 CONSORT statement, had a low risk of bias and involved multiple intervention sessions. The region treated was not a significant predictor for reporting on adverse events. Predictors for reporting on adverse events included larger sample size, publication after the 2010 CONSORT statement, low risk of bias and trials involving multiple intervention sessions. We recommend that researchers focus on developing robust methodologies and participant follow-up regimens for RCTs involving SMT.

Effects of Cervical High-Velocity Low-Amplitude Techniques on Range of Motion, Strength Performance, and Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Review

BACKGROUND

Cervical high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation technique is among the oldest and most frequently used chiropractic manual therapy, but the physiologic and biomechanics effects were not completely clear.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to describe the effects of cervical HVLA manipulation techniques on range of motion, strength, and cardiovascular performance.

METHODS/DESIGN

A systematic search was conducted of the electronic databases from January 2000 to August 2016: PubMed (n = 131), ScienceDirect (n = 101), Scopus (n = 991), PEDro (n = 33), CINAHL (n = 884), and SciELO (n = 5). Two independent reviewers conducted the screening process to determine article eligibility. The intervention that included randomized controlled trials was thrust, or HVLA, manipulative therapy directed to the cervical spine. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The initial search rendered 2145 articles. After screening titles and abstracts, 11 articles remained for full-text review.

RESULTS

The review shows that cervical HVLA manipulation treatment results in a large effect size (d > 0.80) on increasing cervical range of motion and mouth opening. In patients with lateral epicondylalgia, cervical HVLA manipulation resulted in increased pain-free handgrip strength, with large effect sizes (1.44 and 0.78, respectively). Finally, in subjects with hypertension the blood pressure seemed to decrease after cervical HVLA manipulation. Higher quality studies are needed to develop a stronger evidence-based foundation for HVLA manipulation techniques as a treatment for cervical conditions.

Effects of cervical mobilization and exercise on pain, movement and function in subjects with temporomandibular disorders: a single group pre-post test

Objective

To investigate the effect of a rehabilitation program based on cervical mobilization and exercise on clinical signs and mandibular function in subjects with temporomandibular disorder (TMD). Material and Methods: Single-group pre-post test, with baseline comparison.

Subjects

Twelve women (22.08±2.23 years) with myofascial pain and mixed TMD according to the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders.

Outcome measures

Subjects were evaluated three times: twice before (baseline phase) and once after intervention. Self-reported pain, jaw function [according to the Mandibular Functional Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ)], pain-free maximum mouth opening (MMO), and pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) of both masseter and temporalis muscles were obtained. Baseline and post-intervention differences were investigated, and effect size was estimated through Cohen’s d coefficient.

Results

Jaw function improved 7 points on the scale after the intervention (P=0.019), and self-reported pain was significantly reduced (P=0.009). Pain-free MMO varied from 32.3±8.8 mm to 38±8.8 mm and showed significant improvement (P=0.017) with moderate effect size when compared to the baseline phase. PPT also increased with moderate effect size, and subjects had the baseline values changed from 1.23±0.2 kg/cm² to 1.4±0.2 kg/cm² in the left masseter (P=0.03), from 1.31±0.28 kg/cm² to 1.51±0.2 kg/cm² in the right masseter (P>0.05), from 1.32±0.2 kg/cm² to 1.46±0.2 kg/cm² in the left temporalis (P=0.047), and from 1.4±0.2 kg/cm² to 1.67±0.3 kg/cm² in the right temporalis (P=0.06).

Conclusions

The protocol caused significant changes in pain-free MMO, self-reported pain, and functionality of the stomatognathic system in subjects with myofascial TMD, regardless of joint involvement. Even though these differences are statistically significant, their clinical relevance is still questionable.

Changes in cervical movement impairment and pain following orofacial treatment in patients with chronic arthralgic temporomandibular disorder with pain: A prospective case series

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of isolated temporomandibular joint (TMJ) manual therapy on pain and range of motion (ROM) of the TMJ and cervical spine including flexion-rotation test (FRT) in people suffering chronic pain arising from chronic arthralgic temporomandibular disorder (TMD). An experienced clinician managed a case series of 12 patients with TMD (mean duration 28.6 months +/- 26.9). The intervention comprised four-weekly sessions of transverse medial accessory TMJ mobilization and advice. Patients were examined prior to and one-week following the intervention period. Outcome measures included jaw disability (JFLS-20), jaw pain measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), maximal mouth opening ROM, cervical ROM including FRT, and pain during cervical movement. A paired t-test revealed significant improvement following the intervention in disability (p < 0.001), VAS pain score at rest (p < 0.001) and at maximum mouth opening (p < 0.001), jaw opening ROM (p < 0.001), FRT ROM to the left (p = 0.024) and right (p = 0.001). In contrast, no significant change was identified for total cervical ROM (p = 0.905). After the intervention, five patients (41.66%) had no pain at rest or at maximal mouth opening, and all had a negative FRT. The effect sizes indicate a moderate to strong, clinically significant effect for all variables apart from total cervical ROM. While a case series cannot identify a cause and effect relationship, these results provide preliminary evidence for the influence of TMJ manual therapy on measures of TMD including pain, as well as upper but not whole cervical movement and associated pain in patients with a diagnosis of TMJ arthralgia.

Spinal manipulation does not affect pressure pain thresholds in the absence of neuromodulators: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Measurement of pressure pain threshold (PPT) is a way to determine one of the many potential treatment effects of spinal manipulative therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how multiple spinal manipulations administered in a single-session affected PPTs at local and distal sites in asymptomatic individuals.

METHODS

Participants were randomly assigned into one of three groups: Group one (n = 18) received a lumbar manipulation followed by a cervical manipulation. Group two (n = 17) received a cervical manipulation followed by a lumbar manipulation. The control group (n = 19) received two bouts of five minutes of rest. At baseline and after each intervention or rest period, each participant's PPTs were obtained using a handheld algometer. The PPTs were tested bilaterally over the lateral epicondyles of the humerus and over the mid-bellies of the upper trapezius, lumbar paraspinal, and the tibialis anterior muscles. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, and its Identifier is NCT02828501.

RESULTS

Repeated-measures ANOVAs and Kruskal-Wallis tests showed no significant within- or between-group differences in PPT. Within-group effect sizes in the changes of PPT ranged from -.48 at the left paraspinal muscles to .24 at the left lateral humeral epicondyle. Statistical power to detect significant differences at α of 0.05 was calculated to be 0.94.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that in young adults who do not have current or recent symptoms of spinal pain, multiple within-session treatments of cervical and lumbar spinal manipulation fail to influence PPTs. Changes in PPT that are observed in symptomatic individuals are likely to be primarily influenced by pain-related neuromodulators rather than by an isolated, mechanical effect of spinal manipulation.

The paradox of sham therapy and placebo effect in osteopathy: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Placebo, defined as "false treatment," is a common gold-standard method to assess the validity of a therapy both in pharmacological trials and manual medicine research where placebo is also referred to as "sham therapy." In the medical literature, guidelines have been proposed on how to conduct robust placebo-controlled trials, but mainly in a drug-based scenario. In contrast, there are not precise guidelines on how to conduct a placebo-controlled in manual medicine trials (particularly osteopathy). The aim of the present systematic review was to report how and what type of sham methods, dosage, operator characteristics, and patient types were used in osteopathic clinical trials and, eventually, assess sham clinical effectiveness.

METHODS

A systematic Cochrane-based review was conducted by analyzing the osteopathic trials that used both manual and nonmanual placebo control. Searches were conducted on 8 databases from journal inception to December 2015 using a pragmatic literature search approach. Two independent reviewers conducted the study selection and data extraction for each study. The risk of bias was evaluated according to the Cochrane methods.

RESULTS

A total of 64 studies were eligible for analysis collecting a total of 5024 participants. More than half (43 studies) used a manual placebo; 9 studies used a nonmanual placebo; and 12 studies used both manual and nonmanual placebo. Data showed lack of reporting sham therapy information across studies. Risk of bias analysis demonstrated a high risk of bias for allocation, blinding of personnel and participants, selective, and other bias. To explore the clinical effects of sham therapies used, a quantitative analysis was planned. However, due to the high heterogeneity of sham approaches used no further analyses were performed.

CONCLUSION

High heterogeneity regarding placebo used between studies, lack of reporting information on placebo methods and within-study variability between sham and real treatment procedures suggest prudence in reading and interpreting study findings in manual osteopathic randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Efforts must be made to promote guidelines to design the most reliable placebo for manual RCTs as a means of increasing the internal validity and improve external validity of findings.

At Completion of a Multidisciplinary Treatment Program, Are Psychophysical Variables Associated with a VAS Improvement of 30% or More, a Minimal Clinically Important Difference, or an Absolute VAS Score Improvement of 1.5 cm or More?

OBJECTIVES

Objectives were to determine at completion of a multidisciplinary pain program: 1) what percentage of chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients had improved at 30% or more (minimal clinically important difference [MCID]) and by 1.5 cm or more (minimal important change [MIC]) on the visual analog scale (VAS) and 2) whether that improvement is associated with pain matching (PM), pain threshold (PTRE), and pain tolerance (PTOL) improvements.

METHODS

One hundred and six CLBP patients had admission and discharge scores for VAS, PM, PTRE, and PTOL. Improvement was determined by absolute, MCID, and MIC VAS improvement. Logistic regression analysis controlling for age, gender, race, education, psychoactive substance dependence, and depression was utilized to develop models for the dependent variables of improvement of overall VAS; of MCID of 50% or more; and of MIC with PM, PTOL, and PTRE as independent variables.

RESULTS

Thirty-two percent and 35% of the CLBP patients were at MCID and MIC, respectively, at discharge (68% and 65% not at MCID and MIC, respectively), and 54.7% were improved overall. Of the improved patients, 59% were at MCID and 63.7% at MIC. PM was associated with overall VAS improvement, while PTRE and PM were associated with MCID improvement. MIC and 50% or above models could not be estimated.

LIMITATIONS

The VAS was treated as a ratio scale.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant percentage of CLBP patients were at MCID and at MIC at completion of multidisciplinary treatment. PM was associated with overall VAS improvement, while PTRE and PM were associated with MCID.

Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment

BACKGROUND

Manipulation and mobilisation are commonly used to treat neck pain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of manipulation or mobilisation alone compared wiith those of an inactive control or another active treatment on pain, function, disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults experiencing neck pain with or without radicular symptoms and cervicogenic headache (CGH) at immediate- to long-term follow-up. When appropriate, to assess the influence of treatment characteristics (i.e. technique, dosage), methodological quality, symptom duration and subtypes of neck disorder on treatment outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

Review authors searched the following computerised databases to November 2014 to identify additional studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to find relevant studies. We updated this search in June 2015, but these results have not yet been incorporated.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken to assess whether manipulation or mobilisation improves clinical outcomes for adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and applied Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods (very low, low, moderate, high quality). We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 51 trials (2920 participants, 18 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus control; 34 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus another treatment, 1 trial had two comparisons). Cervical manipulation versus inactive control: For subacute and chronic neck pain, a single manipulation (three trials, no meta-analysis, 154 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) relieved pain at immediate- but not short-term follow-up. Cervical manipulation versus another active treatment: For acute and chronic neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 446 participants, ranged from moderate to high quality) produced similar changes in pain, function, quality of life (QoL), global perceived effect (GPE) and patient satisfaction when compared with multiple sessions of cervical mobilisation at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. For acute and subacute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation were more effective than certain medications in improving pain and function at immediate- (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality) and long-term follow-up (one trial, 181 participants, moderate quality). These findings are consistent for function at intermediate-term follow-up (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality). For chronic CGH, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 125 participants, low quality) may be more effective than massage in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 65 participants, very low quality) may be favoured over transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain reduction at short-term follow-up. For acute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 20 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than thoracic manipulation in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Thoracic manipulation versus inactive control: Three trials (150 participants) using a single session were assessed at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. At short-term follow-up, manipulation improved pain in participants with acute and subacute neck pain (five trials, 346 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.86 to -0.66) and improved function (four trials, 258 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.40, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.55) in participants with acute and chronic neck pain. A funnel plot of these data suggests publication bias. These findings were consistent at intermediate follow-up for pain/function/quality of life (one trial, 111 participants, low quality). Thoracic manipulation versus another active treatment: No studies provided sufficient data for statistical analyses. A single session of thoracic manipulation (one trial, 100 participants, moderate quality) was comparable with thoracic mobilisation for pain relief at immediate-term follow-up for chronic neck pain. Mobilisation versus inactive control: Mobilisation as a stand-alone intervention (two trials, 57 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) may not reduce pain more than an inactive control. Mobilisation versus another active treatment: For acute and subacute neck pain, anterior-posterior mobilisation (one trial, 95 participants, very low quality) may favour pain reduction over rotatory or transverse mobilisations at immediate-term follow-up. For chronic CGH with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, multiple sessions of TMJ manual therapy (one trial, 38 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than cervical mobilisation in improving pain/function at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. For subacute and chronic neck pain, cervical mobilisation alone (four trials, 165 participants, ranged from low to very low quality) may not be different from ultrasound, TENS, acupuncture and massage in improving pain, function, QoL and participant satisfaction at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. Additionally, combining laser with manipulation may be superior to using manipulation or laser alone (one trial, 56 participants, very low quality).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although support can be found for use of thoracic manipulation versus control for neck pain, function and QoL, results for cervical manipulation and mobilisation versus control are few and diverse. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Research designed to protect against various biases is needed. Findings suggest that manipulation and mobilisation present similar results for every outcome at immediate/short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple cervical manipulation sessions may provide better pain relief and functional improvement than certain medications at immediate/intermediate/long-term follow-up. Since the risk of rare but serious adverse events for manipulation exists, further high-quality research focusing on mobilisation and comparing mobilisation or manipulation versus other treatment options is needed to guide clinicians in their optimal treatment choices.

The effect of spinal manipulation on deep experimental muscle pain in healthy volunteers

Background

High-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) spinal manipulation is commonly used in the treatment of spinal pain syndromes. The mechanisms by which HVLA-manipulation might reduce spinal pain are not well understood, but often assumed to relate to the reduction of biomechanical dysfunction. It is also possible however, that HVLA-manipulation involves a segmental or generalized inhibitory effect on nociception, irrespective of biomechanical function. In the current study it was investigated whether a local analgesic effect of HVLA-manipulation on deep muscle pain could be detected, in healthy individuals.

Methods and materials

Local, para-spinal muscle pain was induced by injection of 0.5 ml sterile, hyper-tonic saline on two separate occasions 1 week apart. Immediately following the injection, treatment was administered as either a) HVLA-manipulation or b) placebo treatment, in a randomized cross-over design. Both interventions were conducted by an experienced chiropractor with minimum 6 years of clinical experience. Participants and the researcher collecting data were blinded to the treatment allocation. Pain scores following saline injection were measured by computerized visual analogue pain scale (VAS) (0-100 VAS, 1 Hz) and summarized as a) Pain duration, b) Maximum VAS, c) Time to maximum VAS and d) Summarized VAS (area under the curve). Data analysis was performed as two-way analysis of variance with treatment allocation and session number as explanatory variables.

Results

Twenty-nine healthy adults (mean age 24.5 years) participated, 13 women and 16 men. Complete data was available for 28 participants. Analysis of variance revealed no statistically significant difference between active and placebo manipulation on any of the four pain measures.

Conclusion

The current findings do not support the theory that HVLA-manipulation has a non-specific, reflex-mediated local or generalized analgesic effect on experimentally induced deep muscle pain. This in turn suggests, that any clinical analgesic effect of HVLA-manipulation is likely related to the amelioration of a pre-existing painful problem, such as reduction of biomechanical dysfunction.

A multimodal physical therapy approach to the management of a patient with temporomandibular dysfunction and head and neck lymphedema: a case report

OBJECTIVE AND IMPORTANCE

There is a paucity of research that investigates therapeutic interventions of patients with concurrent head and neck lymphedema and temporomandibular dysfunction (TMD). The purpose of this case report is to describe the management and outcomes of a patient with head and neck lymphedema and TMD using a multimodal physical therapy approach.

CLINICAL PRESENTATION

A 74-year-old male with a past medical history of head and neck lymphedema and TMD was referred to physical therapy with chief complaints of inability to open his mouth in order to eat solid food, increased neck lymphedema, temporomadibular joint pain, and inability to speak for prolonged periods of time.

INTERVENTIONS

The patient was treated for three visits over 4 weeks. Treatment included complete decongestive therapy (CDT), manual therapy, therapeutic exercise, and a home exercise program. Upon discharge, the patient had improved mandibular depression, decreased head and neck lymphedema, improved deep neck flexor endurance, decreased pain, and improved function on the Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS).

CONCLUSION

Utilization of a multimodal physical therapy approach to treat a patient with a complex presentation yielded positive outcomes. Further research on outcomes and treatment approaches in patients with TMD and head and neck lymphedema is warranted.

Validation of Placebo in a Manual Therapy Randomized Controlled Trial

At present, no consensus exists among clinical and academic experts regarding an appropriate placebo for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). Therefore, we investigated whether it was possible to conduct a chiropractic manual-therapy RCT with placebo. Seventy migraineurs were randomized to a single-blinded placebo-controlled clinical trial that consisted of 12 treatment sessions over 3 months. The participants were randomized to chiropractic SMT or placebo (sham manipulation). After each session, the participants were surveyed on whether they thought they had undergone active treatment (“yes” or “no”) and how strongly they believed that active treatment was received (numeric rating scale 0–10). The outcome measures included the rate of successful blinding and the certitude of the participants’ beliefs in both treatment groups. At each treatment session, more than 80% of the participants believed that they had undergone active treatment, regardless of group allocation. The odds ratio for believing that active treatment was received was >10 for all treatment sessions in both groups (all p < 0.001). The blinding was maintained throughout the RCT. Our results strongly demonstrate that it is possible to conduct a single-blinded manual-therapy RCT with placebo and to maintain the blinding throughout 12 treatment sessions given over 3 months.

Immediate Effects of Combining Local Techniques in the Craniomandibular Area and Hamstring Muscle Stretching in Subjects with Temporomandibular Disorders: A Randomized Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the immediate effects on vertical mouth opening, orofacial mechanosensitivity, and lumbar and suboccipital mobility after adding a myofascial induction technique to a multimodal protocol in subjects with temporomandibular disorders (TMD).

DESIGN

A randomized and double-blind controlled trial was carried out.

SETTINGS/LOCATION

University-based physical therapy research clinic.

SUBJECTS

Sixty subjects (35±11.22 years) with TMD, and restricted mobility of the mandibular condyles and the first cervical vertebrae, were recruited and randomized to either a control group (CG) (n=30) or an experimental group (EG) (n=30).

INTERVENTIONS

The CG underwent a neuromuscular technique over the masseter muscles and passive hamstring muscle stretching. A suboccipital muscle inhibition technique was added to this protocol in the EG.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary measurements were made of vertical mouth opening and pressure pain threshold of the masseter muscles. Secondary outcome measures included pressure algometry of the trigeminal nerve, suboccipital range of motion, and lumbar spine mobility, assessed with the sit-and-reach (SAR) test and lumbar forward bending. All evaluations were collected at baseline and immediately after intervention.

RESULTS

In the intragroup comparison, the EG observed an increase in suboccipital flexion (p<0.001; F1,29=14.47; R(2)=0.33) and the SAR test (p=0.009; F1,29=7.89; R(2)=0.21). No significant differences were found in the between-group comparison for any variable (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

The inclusion of a myofascial induction maneuver in a protocol combining local (neuromuscular treatment) and distal techniques (hamstring stretching) in subjects with TMD has no impact on improving mouth opening, suboccipital and lumbar mobility, and orofacial sensitivity to mechanical pressure.

Effect of spinal manipulation thrust magnitude on trunk mechanical activation thresholds of lateral thalamic neurons

OBJECTIVES

High-velocity low-amplitude spinal manipulation (HVLA-SM), as performed by doctors who use manual therapy (eg, doctors of chiropractic and osteopathy), results in mechanical hypoalgesia in clinical settings. This hypoalgesic effect has previously been attributed to alterations in peripheral and/or central pain processing. The objective of this study was to determine whether thrust magnitude of a simulated HVLA-SM alters mechanical trunk response thresholds in wide dynamic range (WDR) and/or nociceptive specific (NS) lateral thalamic neurons.

METHODS

Extracellular recordings were carried out in the thalamus of 15 anesthetized Wistar rats. Lateral thalamic neurons having receptive fields, which included the lumbar dorsal-lateral trunk, were characterized as either WDR (n=22) or NS (n=25). Response thresholds to electronic von Frey (rigid tip) mechanical trunk stimuli were determined in 3 directions (dorsal-ventral, 45° caudalward, and 45° cranialward) before and immediately after the dorsal-ventral delivery of a 100-millisecond HVLA-SM at 3 thrust magnitudes (control, 55%, 85% body weight).

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in mechanical threshold between 85% body weight manipulation and control thrust magnitudes in the dorsal-ventral direction in NS neurons (P=.01). No changes were found in WDR neurons at either HVLA-SM thrust magnitude.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to investigate the effect of HVLA-SM thrust magnitude on WDR and NS lateral thalamic mechanical response threshold. Our data suggest that, at the single lateral thalamic neuron level, there may be a minimal spinal manipulative thrust magnitude required to elicit an increase in trunk mechanical response thresholds.

Effect of spinal manipulation thrust duration on trunk mechanical activation thresholds of nociceptive-specific lateral thalamic neurons

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this preliminary study was to determine if high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation (HVLA-SM) thrust duration alters mechanical trunk activation thresholds of nociceptive-specific (NS) lateral thalamic neurons.

METHODS

Extracellular recordings were obtained from 18 NS neurons located in 2 lateral thalamic nuclei (ventrolateral [n = 12] and posterior [n = 6]) in normal anesthetized Wistar rats. Response thresholds to electronic von Frey anesthesiometer (rigid tip) mechanical trunk stimuli applied in 3 lumbar directions (dorsal-ventral, 45° caudal, and 45° cranial) were determined before and immediately after the delivery of 3 HVLA-SM thrust durations (time control 0, 100, and 400 milliseconds). Mean changes in mechanical trunk activation thresholds were compared using a mixed model analysis of variance.

RESULTS

High-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation duration did not significantly alter NS lateral thalamic neurons' mechanical trunk responses to any of the 3 directions tested with the anesthesiometer.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to examine the effect of HVLA-SM thrust duration on NS lateral thalamic mechanical response thresholds. High-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation thrust duration did not affect mechanical trunk thresholds.

Contralateral sensory and motor effects of unilateral kaltenborn mobilization in patients with thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis: a secondary analysis

[Purpose] The aim of this study was to determine changes in pressure sensitivity and pinch strength in patients with thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) osteoarthritis (OA) in the contralateral hand after unilateral Kaltenborn mobilization on the symptomatic hand. [Subjects and Methods] Twenty-nine females with dominant hand thumb CMC osteoarthritis participated (age 70–90), and were randomized into 2 groups. The experimental group received a Kaltenborn mobilization, and the placebo group received a nontherapeutic dose of intermittent ultrasound. Pressure pain thresholds (PPT) at the thumb CMC joint, scaphoid bone and hamate bone and tip and tripod pinch strength were assessed before and after the intervention and 1 week (1st follow-up) and 2 weeks (2nd follow-up) after the intervention. [Results] Significant increases in PPT in the experimental group at all follow-up periods as compared with baseline data were found. The post-intervention between-group mean differences for PPT were 1.1 (95%CI 0.4–1.8) for the CMC joint, 1.1 (95%CI 0.2–2.1) for the scaphoid, and 1.5 (95%CI 0.5–2.8) for the hamate. The post-intervention between-group mean differences were 0.5 (95%CI 0.2–0.9) for the tip pinch and 0.3 (95%CI 0.1–0.6) for the tripod pinch. [Conclusion] The current secondary analysis found that Kaltenborn mobilization for the symptomatic hand reduces pressure pain sensitivity (PPT increases) and also produces motor changes in the contralateral non-treated hand compared with a placebo group.

Immediate changes in neck pain intensity and widespread pressure pain sensitivity in patients with bilateral chronic mechanical neck pain: a randomized controlled trial of thoracic thrust manipulation vs non-thrust mobilization

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of thoracic thrust manipulation vs thoracic non-thrust mobilization in patients with bilateral chronic mechanical neck pain on pressure pain sensitivity and neck pain intensity.

METHODS

Fifty-two patients (58% were female) were randomly assigned to a thoracic spine thrust manipulation group or of thoracic non-thrust mobilization group. Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) over C5-C6 zygapophyseal joint, second metacarpal, and tibialis anterior muscle and neck pain intensity (11-point Numerical Pain Rate Scale) were collected at baseline and 10 minutes after the intervention by an assessor blinded to group allocation. Mixed-model analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to examine the effects of the treatment on each outcome. The primary analysis was the group * time interaction.

RESULTS

No significant interactions were found with the mixed-model ANOVAs for any PPT (C5-C6: P>.252; second metacarpal: P>.452; tibialis anterior: P>.273): both groups exhibited similar increases in PPT (all, P<.01), but within-group and between-group effect sizes were small (standardized mean score difference [SMD]<0.22). The ANOVA found that patients receiving thoracic spine thrust manipulation experienced a greater decrease in neck pain (between-group mean difference: 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.1) than did those receiving thoracic spine non-thrust mobilization (P<.001). Within-group effect sizes were large for both groups (SMD>2.1), and between-group effect size was also large (SMD = 1.3) in favor of the manipulative group.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that thoracic thrust manipulation and non-thrust mobilization induce similar changes in widespread PPT in individuals with mechanical neck pain; however, the changes were clinically small. We also found that thoracic thrust manipulation was more effective than thoracic non-thrust mobilization for decreasing intensity of neck pain for patients with bilateral chronic mechanical neck pain.

Is manipulative therapy more effective than sham manipulation in adults : a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Manipulative therapy is widely used in the treatment of spinal disorders. Manipulative techniques are under debate because of the possibility of adverse events. To date, the efficacy of manipulations compared to sham manipulations is unclear. The purpose of the study is: to assess the efficacy of manipulative therapy compared to sham in adults with a variety of complaints.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, Central) along with a hand search of selected bibliographies were searched from inception up to April 2012.

RESULTS

In total 965 references were screened for eligibility and 19 RCTs (n = 1080) met the selection criteria. Eight studies were considered of low risk of bias. There is moderate level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief immediately after treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.68, 95% confidence interval (-1.06 to -0.31). There is low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief (SMD - 0.37, -0.69 to -0.04) at short- term follow-up. In patients with musculoskeletal disorders, we found moderate level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.73, -1.21 to -0.25) immediate after treatment and low level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.52, -0.87 to -0.17) at short term-follow-up. We found very low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has no statistically significant effect on disability and perceived (asthma) recovery. Sensitivity analyses did not change the main findings. No serious adverse events were reported in the manipulative therapy or sham group.

CONCLUSIONS

Manipulative therapy has a clinical relevant effect on pain, but not on disability or perceived (asthma) recovery. Clinicians can refer patients for manipulative therapy to reduce pain.

Immediate effects of region-specific and non-region-specific spinal manipulative therapy in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Manual therapists typically advocate the need for a detailed clinical examination to decide which vertebral level should be manipulated in patients with low back pain. However, it is unclear whether spinal manipulation needs to be specific to a vertebral level.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to analyze the immediate effects of a single, region-specific spinal manipulation defined during the clinical examination versus a single non-region-specific spinal manipulation (applied on an upper thoracic vertebra) in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain for the outcome measures of pain intensity and pressure pain threshold at the time of the assessment.

DESIGN

This was a 2-arm, prospectively registered, randomized controlled trial with a blinded assessor.

SETTING

The study was conducted in an outpatient physical therapy clinic in Brazil.

PATIENTS

The study participants were 148 patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (with pain duration of at least 12 weeks).

RANDOMIZATION

The randomization schedule was generated by an independent statistician and was concealed by using consecutively numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes.

INTERVENTIONS

A single high-velocity manipulation was administered to the upper thoracic region of the participants allocated to the non-region-specific manipulation group and to the painful lumbar levels of the participants allocated to the region-specific manipulation group.

MEASUREMENTS

Pain intensity was measured by a 0 to 10 numeric pain rating scale. Pressure pain threshold was measured using a pressure algometer.

LIMITATIONS

It was not possible to blind the therapist and participants.

RESULTS

A total of 148 patients participated in the study (74 in each group). There was no loss to follow-up. Both groups improved in terms of immediate decrease of pain intensity; however, no between-group differences were observed. The between-group difference for pain intensity and pressure pain threshold were 0.50 points (95% confidence interval=-0.10 to 1.10) and -1.78 points (95% confidence interval=-6.40 to 2.82), respectively. No adverse reactions were observed.

CONCLUSION

The immediate changes in pain intensity and pressure pain threshold after a single high-velocity manipulation do not differ by region-specific versus non-region-specific manipulation techniques in patients with chronic low back pain.

Radial nerve mobilisation had bilateral sensory effects in people with thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis: a randomised trial

QUESTION

In people with thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis, does radial nerve mobilisation to the affected hand reduce pressure pain sensitivity in the contralateral hand?

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of data from a randomised trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding, and intention-to-treat analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty people with thumb CMC osteoarthritis in the dominant hand aged 70-90 years.

INTERVENTIONS

The experimental group received sliding mobilisation of the radial nerve and the control group received a non-therapeutic dose of intermittent ultrasound, on the affected side for six sessions over four weeks.

OUTCOME MEASURES

On the contralateral side, pressure pain thresholds at the lateral epicondyle, thumb CMC joint, tubercle of the scaphoid bone, and hamate bone were assessed before and after the intervention with follow-up at 1 and 2 months.

RESULTS

No important baseline differences were noted between groups. At the end of the intervention period, the experimental group had significantly a higher (ie, better) pressure pain threshold than the control group at the lateral epicondyle by 1.5kg/cm(2) (95% CI 0.2 to 2.2), CMC joint by 1.2kg/cm(2) (95% CI 0.5 to 2.0), scaphoid bone by 1.0kg/cm(2) (95% CI 0.2 to 1.8) and hamate bone by 1.9kg/cm(2) (95% CI 1.0 to 2.7). Although mean values in the experimental group remained better than the control group at all sites at both follow-up assessments, these differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Radial nerve gliding applied to the symptomatic hand induced hypoalgesic effects on the contralateral hand in people with CMC osteoarthritis, suggesting bilateral hypoalgesic effects of the intervention.