Thoracic spine thrust manipulation for individuals with cervicogenic headache: a crossover randomized 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.

A Review on Osteopathic Manipulation in Patients With Headache

Headaches are a common neurological disorder, significantly impacting patients' quality of life. Traditional treatments include pharmacological and nonpharmacological approaches. Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a holistic, hands-on technique used by osteopathic physicians to alleviate pain and improve function by addressing musculoskeletal dysfunctions. This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of osteopathic manipulation in managing headaches, focusing on the different types of headaches, the specific techniques used, and the overall outcomes reported in clinical studies. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, and MEDLINE, to identify relevant studies published in the past two decades. Inclusion criteria were studies involving adult patients diagnosed with headaches and treated with OMT. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were included. The review identified 15 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Evidence suggests that OMT can be beneficial in reducing the frequency, intensity, and duration of headaches, particularly tension-type headaches (TTHs) and migraines. Techniques such as myofascial release, cranial osteopathy, and muscle energy techniques were commonly employed. Many studies reported significant improvements in patients' quality of life and functional status post-treatment. However, the heterogeneity in study designs, sample sizes, and outcome measures warrants cautious interpretation of the results. Osteopathic manipulation shows promise as a complementary approach for managing headaches, with positive effects on pain relief and functional improvement. Further large-scale, high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm these findings and to establish standardized treatment protocols. Integrating OMT into multidisciplinary headache management strategies could potentially enhance patient outcomes and reduce reliance on pharmacological interventions.

Comparative effectiveness of cervical vs thoracic spinal-thrust manipulation for care of cervicogenic headache: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is ample evidence supporting the use of different manipulative therapy techniques for Cervicogenic Headache (CgH). However, no technique can be singled as the best available treatment for patients with CgH. Therefore, the objective of the study is to find and compare the clinical effects of cervical spine over thoracic spine manipulation and conventional physiotherapy in patients with CgH.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

It is a prospective, randomized controlled study conducted between July 2020 and January 2023 at the University hospital. N = 96 eligible patients with CgH were selected based on selection criteria and they were divided into cervical spine manipulation (CSM; n = 32), thoracic spine manipulation (TSM; n = 32) and conventional physiotherapy (CPT; n = 32) groups, and received the respective treatment for four weeks. Primary (CgH frequency) and secondary CgH pain intensity, CgH disability, neck pain frequency, neck pain intensity, neck pain threshold, cervical flexion rotation test (CFRT), neck disability index (NDI) and quality of life (QoL) scores were measured. The effects of treatment at various intervals were analyzed using a 3 × 4 linear mixed model analysis (LMM), with treatment group (cervical spine manipulation, thoracic spine manipulation, and conventional physiotherapy) and time intervals (baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 6 months), and the statistical significance level was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

The reports of the CSM, TSM and CPT groups were compared between the groups. Four weeks following treatment CSM group showed more significant changes in primary (CgH frequency) and secondary (CgH pain intensity, CgH disability, neck pain frequency, pain intensity, pain threshold, CFRT, NDI and QoL) than the TSM and CPT groups (p = 0.001). The same gradual improvement was seen in the CSM group when compared to TSM and CPT groups (p = 0.001) in the above variables at 8 weeks and 6 months follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The reports of the current randomized clinical study found that CSM resulted in significantly better improvements in pain parameters (intensity, frequency and threshold) functional disability and quality of life in patients with CgH than thoracic spine manipulation and conventional physiotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trial registration: CTRI/2020/06/026092 trial was registered prospectively on 24/06/2020.

Physical Therapist Interventions to Reduce Headache Intensity, Frequency, and Duration in Patients With Cervicogenic Headache: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of physical therapist interventions on the intensity, frequency, and duration of headaches, as well as on the quality of life of patients with cervicogenic headache.

METHODS

The following databases were searched up to October 2022: Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Web of Science, Pubmed, and Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of physical therapist interventions on adults with cervicogenic headache were included. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and the Confidence in Network Meta-analysis web app. Synthesis methods were conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook.

RESULTS

Of the 28 identified reports, 23 were included in the quantitative synthesis. Manipulation plus dry needling was the highest-ranked intervention to reduce the short-term headache intensity (mean difference [MD] = -4.87; 95% CI = -8.51 to -1.24) and frequency (MD = -3.09; 95% CI = -4.93 to -1.25) when compared to a control intervention. Other high-ranked and clinically effective interventions (when compared to a control intervention) were muscle-energy technique plus exercise (MD = 4.37; 95% CI = -8.01 to -0.74), as well as soft tissue techniques plus exercise (MD = -3.01; 95% CI = -5.1 to -0.92) to reduce short-term headache intensity, and dry needling plus exercise (MD = -2.92; 95% CI = -4.73 to -1.11) to reduce short-term headache frequency. These results were based on a low certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSION

The 4 most highly ranked interventions can be considered in clinical practice. However, no conclusive recommendation can be made due to the low certainty of evidence.

IMPACT

Combined interventions such as spinal joint manipulation plus dry needling and muscle-energy technique or soft tissue techniques or dry needling plus exercises seem to be the best interventions to reduce short-term cervicogenic headache intensity and/or frequency.

Efficacy of Physiotherapy Interventions for The Management of Adults With Cervicogenic Headache: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To update and appraise the efficacy of physiotherapy for adults with cervicogenic headache.

LITERATURE SURVEY

Bibliographic searches were conducted up to September 2021 for randomized controlled trials, assessing the efficacy of physiotherapy interventions for adults with cervicogenic headache, in five databases: CINAHL, PEDro, PubMed, Sage Journals and Wiley Online Library.

METHODS

Data extraction of included trials was conducted by two reviewers according to a standardized extraction form. The PEDro tool and the GRADE approach were used for grading evidence. Results from trials with similar interventions and with similar outcome measures were pooled into separate meta-analyses. A qualitative synthesis was performed for studies that were not pooled into meta-analyses.

SYNTHESIS

Fourteen trials were included. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that manual therapy significantly reduces headache frequency (MD: -0.93 episodes/week; 95%CI: -1.40 to -0.46; 2 RCTs; n=265) compared to sham manual therapy, and headache frequency (MD: -1.23 episodes/week; 95%CI: -1.55 to -0.91; 3 RCTs; n=126) and intensity (MD: -1.63/10; 95%CI: -2.15 to -1.10; 4 RCTs; n=208) compared to no treatment in the short term. At 12-month follow-up, moderate-certainty evidence indicates that manual therapy did not lead to greater reduction in headache intensity (MD VAS 0-10: -0.12; 95%CI: -0.49 to 0.26; 2 RCTs; n=265) nor frequency (MD: -0.32 episodes/week; 95%CI: -0.91 to 0.28; 2 RCTs; n=265) when compared to a sham manual therapy. In the long-term, in one high quality trial, neck exercise significantly reduces headache intensity compared to no treatment (MD: -1.51/10; 95%CI: -2.52 to -0.50; n=100) or to aerobic exercises in another trial of moderate quality (MD: -1.15/10; 95%CI: -2.1 to -0.20; n=180).

CONCLUSIONS

Manual therapy in the short term and neck exercise in the long term may be efficacious to treat adults with cervicogenic headache. More high quality evidence is needed and future results may change the current conclusions. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.