The effect of cervical spine manipulation on postural sway in patients with nonspecific neck pain

Waste not, want not: call to action for spinal manipulative therapy researchers

BACKGROUND

Research waste is defined as research outcomes with no or minimal societal benefits. It is a widespread problem in the healthcare field. Four primary sources of research waste have been defined: (1) irrelevant or low priority research questions, (2) poor design or methodology, (3) lack of publication, and (4) biased or inadequate reporting. This commentary, which was developed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) research expertise, discusses waste in SMT research and provides suggestions to improve future research.

MAIN TEXT

This commentary examines common sources of waste in SMT research, focusing on design and methodological issues, by drawing on prior research and examples from clinical and mechanistic SMT studies. Clinical research is dominated by small studies and studies with a high risk of bias. This problem is compounded by systematic reviews that pool heterogenous data from varying populations, settings, and application of SMT. Research focusing on the mechanisms of SMT often fails to address the clinical relevance of mechanisms, relies on very short follow-up periods, and has inadequate control for contextual factors.

CONCLUSIONS

This call to action is directed to researchers in the field of SMT. It is critical that the SMT research community act to improve the way research is designed, conducted, and disseminated. We present specific key action points and resources, which should enhance the quality and usefulness of future SMT research.

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.

Short-term effects of spinal thrust joint manipulation on postural sway in patients with chronic mechanical neck pain: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Our aim was to compare the efficacy of spinal manipulation of the upper cervical spine (C1-C2) on postural sway in patients with chronic mechanical neck pain with the application of a combination of cervical (C3-C4), cervicothoracic (C7-T1) and thoracic spine (T5-T6) thrust joint manipulation.

METHODS

One hundred eighty-six (n = 186) individuals with chronic mechanical neck pain were randomised to receive an upper cervical spine manipulation (n = 93) or three different spinal manipulation techniques applied to the cervical spine, cervicothoracic joint and thoracic spine (n = 93). Measures included the assessment of stabilometric parameters using the Medicapteurs S-Plate platform. Secondarily, neck pain was analysed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale.

RESULTS

We observe a decrease in the length of the centre of pressure path, average speed, medio-lateral and antero-posterior displacement with statistically significant results (p < 0.05) in the upper cervical manipulation group. Both interventions are equally effective in reducing neck pain after fifteen days (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The application of upper cervical thrust joint manipulation is more effective in improving stabilometric parameters in patients with chronic mechanical neck pain. Trial registration: The study was registered in the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (no. ACTRN12619000546156).Implications for rehabilitationPatients who suffer from neck pain exhibit increased postural sway than asymptomatic subjects.Both spinal manipulation treatments applied in this study are equally effective in reducing neck pain.Spinal manipulation treatment on the upper cervical spine improves postural stability parameters.