STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. Objective To determine if force magnitude during posterior-to-anterior mobilization affects immediate and short-term outcomes in patients with chronic, nonspecific neck pain. BACKGROUND: The optimal dose of mobilization to effectively treat patients with neck pain is not known. METHODS:Patients with neck pain of at least 3 months in duration (n = 64) were randomized to receive a single treatment of posterior-to-anterior mobilization applied with 30 N or 90 N of mean peak force (3 sets of 30 seconds) or a placebo (detuned laser) on the spinous process at the painful spinal level. Pressure pain threshold, pain measured with a visual analog scale (range, 0-100 mm), cervical range of motion, and spinal stiffness at the painful spinal level (measured with a custom device and normalized as a percentage of C7 stiffness) were assessed before, immediately after, and at a mean ± SD follow-up of 4.0 ± 1.8 days following treatment. Repeated-measures analysis of covariance and Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc tests determined group differences for each outcome measure after treatment and at follow-up. RESULTS: At follow-up, the 90-N group had less pain than the 30-N group (mean difference, 11.3 mm; 95% confidence interval: 0.1, 22.6 mm; P = .048) and lower stiffness than the placebo group (mean difference, 17.5%; 95% confidence interval: 4.2%, 30.9%; P = .006). These differences were not present immediately after treatment. There were no significant between-group differences in pressure pain threshold or range of motion after treatment or at follow-up. CONCLUSION: A specific dose of mobilization, in terms of applied force, appears necessary for reducing stiffness and potentially pain in patients with chronic neck pain. Changes were not observed immediately after mobilization, suggesting that its effects are not directly mechanical. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( http://www.anzctr.org.au/): ACTRN12611000374965. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 1b-.
RCT Entities:
STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. Objective To determine if force magnitude during posterior-to-anterior mobilization affects immediate and short-term outcomes in patients with chronic, nonspecific neck pain. BACKGROUND: The optimal dose of mobilization to effectively treat patients with neck pain is not known. METHODS:Patients with neck pain of at least 3 months in duration (n = 64) were randomized to receive a single treatment of posterior-to-anterior mobilization applied with 30 N or 90 N of mean peak force (3 sets of 30 seconds) or a placebo (detuned laser) on the spinous process at the painful spinal level. Pressure pain threshold, pain measured with a visual analog scale (range, 0-100 mm), cervical range of motion, and spinal stiffness at the painful spinal level (measured with a custom device and normalized as a percentage of C7 stiffness) were assessed before, immediately after, and at a mean ± SD follow-up of 4.0 ± 1.8 days following treatment. Repeated-measures analysis of covariance and Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc tests determined group differences for each outcome measure after treatment and at follow-up. RESULTS: At follow-up, the 90-N group had less pain than the 30-N group (mean difference, 11.3 mm; 95% confidence interval: 0.1, 22.6 mm; P = .048) and lower stiffness than the placebo group (mean difference, 17.5%; 95% confidence interval: 4.2%, 30.9%; P = .006). These differences were not present immediately after treatment. There were no significant between-group differences in pressure pain threshold or range of motion after treatment or at follow-up. CONCLUSION: A specific dose of mobilization, in terms of applied force, appears necessary for reducing stiffness and potentially pain in patients with chronic neck pain. Changes were not observed immediately after mobilization, suggesting that its effects are not directly mechanical. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( http://www.anzctr.org.au/): ACTRN12611000374965. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 1b-.
Authors: Ian D Coulter; Cindy Crawford; Howard Vernon; Eric L Hurwitz; Raheleh Khorsan; Marika Suttorp Booth; Patricia M Herman Journal: Pain Physician Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Maruti Ram Gudavalli; Robert D Vining; Stacie A Salsbury; Lance G Corber; Cynthia R Long; Avinash G Patwardhan; Christine M Goertz Journal: Spine J Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Francisco X Araujo; Mauricio Scholl Schell; Giovanni E Ferreira; Mariana D V Pessoa; Alexandre S Pinho; Rodrigo D M Plentz; Marcelo F Silva Journal: J Chiropr Med Date: 2019-05-07
Authors: M Ram Gudavalli; Stacie A Salsbury; Robert D Vining; Cynthia R Long; Lance Corber; Avinash G Patwardhan; Christine M Goertz Journal: Trials Date: 2015-06-05 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Benjamin Hidalgo; Toby Hall; Jean Bossert; Axel Dugeny; Barbara Cagnie; Laurent Pitance Journal: J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 1.398