Immediate and Short-Term Effects of Upper Thoracic Manipulation on Myoelectric Activity of Sternocleidomastoid Muscles in Young Women With Chronic Neck Pain: A Randomized Blind Clinical Trial

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.

Spinal manipulation does not improve short-term pain and function in persons with painful shoulder: a systematic review with meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the benefit of spinal high-velocity low-amplitude thrust (HVLAT) in improving pain and disability in persons with painful shoulder as primary outcomes. Function, quality of life, persons (and clinicians) satisfaction, adverse events rate, and time for recovery were secondary outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted and MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, and PEDro until 20 September 2023 were investigated. Two thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine records were retrieved and nine studies were included. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed through the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The certainty of evidence of the pooled results was graded with GRADE approach.

RESULTS

The analysis included nine studies (441 persons). The pooled results showed non-significant differences between HVLAT versus sham in pain at pre-post follow-up (MD -0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.60; 0.35; p = 0.61, I2 = 0%), and at <4 days follow-up (SMD 0.16, 95%CI -0.16; 0.48; p = 0.34, I2 = 23%); in function at <4 days follow-up (SMD -0.29, 95%CI -0.69; 0.11; p = 0.16, I2 = 50%). The certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low.

CONCLUSIONS

HVLAT was not more effective than sham in improving pain and function at pre-post and at <4 days follow-up. When used as an "add-on technique", HVLAT did not improve pain nor disability.

Effectiveness and safety of thoracic manipulation in the treatment of neck pain: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of thoracic manipulation (TM) in patients with neck pain (NP).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of thoracic manipulation (TM) in patients with neck pain (NP).

METHODS

Seven electronic databases were searched from their inception through October 2023 by two authors. The methodological quality assessments were performed with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. Pain, cervical range of motion (ROM), disability, and quality of life (QOL) were estimated for TM treatment in patients with NP.

RESULTS

Eighteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 914 patients were included with a PEDro score of 6.923 ± 3.120. Pooled effect sizes of pain (SMD =-0.481, 95% CI -0.653 to -0.309, P= 0.000), disability (SMD =-1.435, 95% CI -2.480 to -0.390, P= 0.007), QOL-physical component score (PCS) (SMD = 0.658, 95% CI 0.290 to 1.025, P= 0.000), ROM of flexion (SMD = 0.921, 95% CI 0.287 to 1.555, P= 0.000), ROM of extension (SMD = 0.572, 95% CI 0.321 to 0.822, P= 0.000), ROM of left lateral flexion (SMD = 0.593, 95% CI 0.075 to 1.112, P= 0.025) and ROM of left rotation (SMD = 0.230, 95% CI 0.010 to 0.450, P= 0.04) were favored by the TM group.

CONCLUSIONS

TM provides short-term effect on relieving neck pain, increasing cervical ROM, and disability in patients with NP without serious side effects. Continuous therapy and distraction therapy are recommended as optimal choice on reducing pain and improving cervical ROM, especially in patients with chronic NP (> 3 months). The TM-induced improvements in the QOL of patients with NP should be verified by more further high-quality RCTs.

Effectiveness of Thoracic Spine Manipulation on the Management of Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials

There are contradicting findings regarding the effect of thoracic spine manipulation in decreasing pain and disability in patients with chronic mechanical neck pain. Hence, the purpose of this review was to evaluate the current evidence on the effectiveness of thoracic spine thrust manipulation in decreasing pain intensity, and neck disability among subjects with chronic mechanical neck pain. We made a comprehensive search of literature published between 2010 and 2020 from the electronic databases of PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). We adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). The methodological quality was assessed by the PEDro scale, and the level of evidence rated by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) software. Finally, a meta-analysis was done using RevMan 5.3 with a random-effects model to calculate the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals for pain and disability. Eight eligible randomized controlled trials were identified with a total of 457 participants. The quality assessment of the included studies was found to be fair in quality (mean PEDro score of 6.63/10). The overall GRADE of the review showed low to moderate level of evidence. Effect size estimates of the studies showed modest differences in pain reduction, as it revealed a significant effect in Visual Analog Scale ((VAS) 0-100mm) (MD -12.46; 95% CI: -17.29, -7.64), and Pain Numeric Rating Scale ((PNRS) 0-10 pts) (MD -0.8; 95% CI: -1.60, -0.10). The thoracic manipulation also resulted in a significant effect in decreasing neck disability, in which the mean difference in Neck disability index (NDI) showed (MD -6.46; 95% CI: -10.43 -2.50). This review suggested that thoracic spine manipulation was effective in reducing pain and neck disability in all adults with chronic mechanical neck pain compared to other interventions.

Manual Therapy Effect in Placebo-Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Background: Evaluate whether the design of placebo control groups could produce different interpretations of the efficacy of manual therapy techniques.

METHODS

Nine databases were searched (EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, PubMed, SCOPUS, WEB of SCIENCE, COCHRANE, and PEDro). Randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials that used manual therapy as a sham treatment on subjects suffering from pain were included. Data were summarized qualitatively, and meta-analyses were conducted with R.

RESULTS

53 articles were included in the qualitative analysis and 48 were included in the quantitative analyses. Manipulation techniques did not show higher effectiveness when compared with all types of sham groups that were analyzed (SMD 0.28; 95%CI [-0.24; 0.80]) (SMD 0.28; 95%CI [-0.08; 0.64]) (SMD 0.42; 95%CI [0.16; 0.67]) (SMD 0.82; 95%CI [-0.57; 2.21]), raising doubts on their therapeutic effect. Factors such as expectations of treatment were not consistently evaluated, and analysis could help clarify the effect of different sham groups. As for soft tissue techniques, the results are stronger in favor of these techniques when compared to sham control groups (SMD 0.40; 95%CI [0.19, 0.61]). Regarding mobilization techniques and neural gliding techniques, not enough studies were found for conclusions to be made.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature presents a lack of a unified placebo control group design for each technique and an absence of assessment of expectations. These two issues might account for the unclear results obtained in the analysis.

Electromyographic Responses of Neck, Back, and Limb Outlet Muscles Associated With High-Velocity, Low-Amplitude Manual Cervical and Upper Thoracic Spinal Manipulation of Individuals With Mild Neck Disability: A Descriptive Observational Investigation

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to investigate the extent of electromyographic responses associated with manual high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) spinal manipulation systematically applied to the upper and lower cervical and upper thoracic spines in a cohort with mild neck disability.

METHODS

The study was a descriptive observational investigation, with all participants receiving the same interventions. Nineteen participants with mild neck disability received 6 manual HVLA manipulations to the cervical and upper thoracic spine. Bipolar surface electromyography electrode pairs were used to measure responses of 16 neck, back, and limb outlet muscles bilaterally. The number of electromyographic responses was then calculated.

RESULTS

Electromyographic responses associated with cervical and thoracic manipulation occurred in a median of 4 of the 16 (range: 1-14) recorded muscles. Cervical spinal manipulation was associated with the highest rates of electromyographic responses in neck muscles, whereas responses in back muscles were highest after upper thoracic manipulation.

CONCLUSION

Cervical spinal manipulation was associated with the highest rate of electromyographic responses in muscles of the cervical spine (sternocleidomastoid and splenius cervicis), whereas responses in back muscles (upper and middle trapezius, latissimus dorsi, and longissimus thoracis) were highest after upper thoracic manipulations. This result suggests that electromyographic muscular responses associated with spinal manipulation primarily occur locally (close to the target segment) rather than distally.

Sham treatment effects in manual therapy trials on back pain patients: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects and reliability of sham procedures in manual therapy (MT) trials in the treatment of back pain (BP) in order to provide methodological guidance for clinical trial development.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Different databases were screened up to 20 August 2020. Randomised controlled trials involving adults affected by BP (cervical and lumbar), acute or chronic, were included.Hand contact sham treatment (ST) was compared with different MT (physiotherapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, massage, kinesiology and reflexology) and to no treatment. Primary outcomes were BP improvement, success of blinding and adverse effect (AE). Secondary outcomes were number of drop-outs. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed using risk ratio (RR), continuous using mean difference (MD), 95% CIs. The minimal clinically important difference was 30 mm changes in pain score.

RESULTS

24 trials were included involving 2019 participants. Very low evidence quality suggests clinically insignificant pain improvement in favour of MT compared with ST (MD 3.86, 95% CI 3.29 to 4.43) and no differences between ST and no treatment (MD -5.84, 95% CI -20.46 to 8.78).ST reliability shows a high percentage of correct detection by participants (ranged from 46.7% to 83.5%), spinal manipulation being the most recognised technique.Low quality of evidence suggests that AE and drop-out rates were similar between ST and MT (RR AE=0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.28, RR drop-outs=0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.25). A similar drop-out rate was reported for no treatment (RR=0.82, 95% 0.43 to 1.55).

CONCLUSIONS

MT does not seem to have clinically relevant effect compared with ST. Similar effects were found with no treatment. The heterogeneousness of sham MT studies and the very low quality of evidence render uncertain these review findings.Future trials should develop reliable kinds of ST, similar to active treatment, to ensure participant blinding and to guarantee a proper sample size for the reliable detection of clinically meaningful treatment effects.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020198301.

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.

Reflex Responses of Neck, Back, and Limb Muscles to High-Velocity, Low-Amplitude Manual Cervical and Upper Thoracic Spinal Manipulation of Asymptomatic Individuals-A Descriptive Study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this research was to determine the extent of reflex responses after spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) of the cervical and upper thoracic spine.

METHODS

Eleven asymptomatic participants received 6 commonly used SMTs to the cervical and upper thoracic spine. Bipolar surface electromyography electrodes were used to measure reflex responses of 16 neck, back, and proximal limb muscles bilaterally. The percentage of occurrence and the extent of reflex responses of these muscles were determined.

RESULTS

Reflex responses after cervical SMT were typically present in all neck and most back muscles, whereas responses in the outlets to the arm and leg were less frequent. This trend was similar, although decreased in magnitude, after thoracic SMT.

CONCLUSION

Reflex responses were greatest after upper cervical SMT and lowest with thoracic SMT.

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.

Short-term effects of manipulative treatment versus a therapeutic home exercise protocol for chronic cervical pain: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

While both manipulative treatment and physical exercises are used to treat cervical pain, it remains unclear which is most effective.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the short-term effects of high-velocity, low-amplitude manipulation techniques (MT) with those of home-exercise (HE) with stretching and low-intensity (10% of max) isometric contractions on pain and function.

METHODS

Single-blind randomized clinical trial was performed. A total of 27 asymptomatic subjects were randomly assigned to 2 groups: manipulation techniques (MT, n= 13) and home exercise (HE, n= 14). The visual analogue scale (VAS); neck disability index (NDI); pressure pain thresholds; cervical spine range of motion and electromyography during the cranio-cervical flexion test was measured before and one week after the intervention.

RESULTS

After the intervention, both groups showed improved (P< 0.05) NDI and VAS scores and flexion in both rotation ranges compared with the pre-intervention values. For the NDI, pain intensity, and neck flexion, the effects sizes were large; for the majority of the other measurements, the effect sizes were small to moderate. The MT group showed significantly better results than the HE group for 2 out of 17 tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Both interventions improved function and pain after one week, with only marginal between-group differences in favor of MT.

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.