Jacek Cholewicki1,2,3, John M Popovich1,2,3, N Peter Reeves1,4, Lisa A DeStefano1,2,3, Jacob J Rowan1,2,3, Timothy J Francisco1,3, Lawrence L Prokop1,5, Mathew A Zatkin1,2,3, Angela S Lee1,2,3, Alla Sikorskii6, Pramod K Pathak1,7, Jongeun Choi1,8,9, Clark J Radcliffe1,8, Ahmed Ramadan1,8. 1. Center for Orthopedic Research (MSUCOR), Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA. 2. Center for Neuromusculoskeletal Clinical Research (CNCR), Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA. 3. Department of Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA. 4. Sumaq Life, LLC, East Lansing, Michigan, USA. 5. Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA. 6. Department of Psychiatry Osteopathic Medicine, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA. 7. Department of Statistics and Probability, College of Natural Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA. 8. Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA. 9. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, College of Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neck pain (NP) affects up to 70% of individuals at some point in their lives. Systematic reviews indicate that manual treatments can be moderately effective in the management of chronic, nonspecific NP. However, there is a paucity of studies specifically evaluating the efficacy of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of OMT in reducing pain and disability in patients with chronic NP. DESIGN: Single-blinded, cross-over, randomized-controlled trial. SETTING: University-based, osteopathic manipulative medicine outpatient clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-seven participants, 21 to 65 years of age, with chronic, nonspecific NP. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to two trial arms: immediate OMT intervention or waiting period first. The intervention consisted of three to four OMT sessions over 4 to 6 weeks, after which the participants switched groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures were pain intensity (average and current) on the numerical rating scale and Neck Disability Index. Secondary outcomes included Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 (PROMIS-29) health domains and Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire. Outcomes obtained prior to the cross-over allocation were evaluated using general linear models and after adjusting for baseline values. RESULTS: A total of 38 and 37 participants were available for the analysis in the OMT and waiting period groups, respectively. The results showed significantly better primary outcomes in the immediate OMT group for reductions in average pain (-1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.72, -0.32; p = .005), current pain (-1.02, 95% CI -1.75, -0.30; p = .006), disability (-5.30%, 95% CI -9.2%, -1.3%; p = .010) and improved secondary outcomes (PROMIS) related to sleep (-3.25, 95% CI -6.95, -1.54; p = .003), fatigue (-3.26, 95% CI -6.04, -0.48; p = .022), and depression (-2.59, 95% CI -4.73, -0.45; p = .018). The effect sizes were in the clinically meaningful range between 0.5 and 1 standard deviation. No study-related serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: OMT is relatively safe and effective in reducing pain and disability along with improving sleep, fatigue, and depression in patients with chronic NP immediately following treatment delivered over approximately 4 to 6 weeks.
BACKGROUND: Neck pain (NP) affects up to 70% of individuals at some point in their lives. Systematic reviews indicate that manual treatments can be moderately effective in the management of chronic, nonspecific NP. However, there is a paucity of studies specifically evaluating the efficacy of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of OMT in reducing pain and disability in patients with chronic NP. DESIGN: Single-blinded, cross-over, randomized-controlled trial. SETTING: University-based, osteopathic manipulative medicine outpatient clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-seven participants, 21 to 65 years of age, with chronic, nonspecific NP. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to two trial arms: immediate OMT intervention or waiting period first. The intervention consisted of three to four OMT sessions over 4 to 6 weeks, after which the participants switched groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures were pain intensity (average and current) on the numerical rating scale and Neck Disability Index. Secondary outcomes included Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 (PROMIS-29) health domains and Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire. Outcomes obtained prior to the cross-over allocation were evaluated using general linear models and after adjusting for baseline values. RESULTS: A total of 38 and 37 participants were available for the analysis in the OMT and waiting period groups, respectively. The results showed significantly better primary outcomes in the immediate OMT group for reductions in average pain (-1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.72, -0.32; p = .005), current pain (-1.02, 95% CI -1.75, -0.30; p = .006), disability (-5.30%, 95% CI -9.2%, -1.3%; p = .010) and improved secondary outcomes (PROMIS) related to sleep (-3.25, 95% CI -6.95, -1.54; p = .003), fatigue (-3.26, 95% CI -6.04, -0.48; p = .022), and depression (-2.59, 95% CI -4.73, -0.45; p = .018). The effect sizes were in the clinically meaningful range between 0.5 and 1 standard deviation. No study-related serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: OMT is relatively safe and effective in reducing pain and disability along with improving sleep, fatigue, and depression in patients with chronic NP immediately following treatment delivered over approximately 4 to 6 weeks.
Authors: Julia M Hush; C Christine Lin; Zoe A Michaleff; Arianne Verhagen; Kathryn M Refshauge Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Jaime Guzman; Eric L Hurwitz; Linda J Carroll; Scott Haldeman; Pierre Côté; Eugene J Carragee; Paul M Peloso; Gabrielle van der Velde; Lena W Holm; Sheilah Hogg-Johnson; Margareta Nordin; J David Cassidy Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-02-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Jaime Guzman; Scott Haldeman; Linda J Carroll; Eugene J Carragee; Eric L Hurwitz; Paul Peloso; Margareta Nordin; J David Cassidy; Lena W Holm; Pierre Côté; Gabrielle van der Velde; Sheilah Hogg-Johnson Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-02-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Cheryl Hawk; Wayne Whalen; Ronald J Farabaugh; Clinton J Daniels; Amy L Minkalis; David N Taylor; Derek Anderson; Kristian Anderson; Louis S Crivelli; Morgan Cark; Elizabeth Barlow; David Paris; Richard Sarnat; John Weeks Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 2.579