Cargando…
Approaches to cervical spine mobilization for neck pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial
STUDY DESIGN: Pilot randomized controlled trial. BACKGROUND: Better understanding of the relative effectiveness of different approaches to cervical spine mobilization has been identified as a research priority in manual therapy practice. Two distinct approaches to the practice of mobilization have e...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7672847/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33203458 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-020-00348-z |
_version_ | 1783611216899342336 |
---|---|
author | Lagoutaris, Claire Sullivan, Justin Hancock, Michelle Leaver, Andrew M. |
author_facet | Lagoutaris, Claire Sullivan, Justin Hancock, Michelle Leaver, Andrew M. |
author_sort | Lagoutaris, Claire |
collection | PubMed |
description | STUDY DESIGN: Pilot randomized controlled trial. BACKGROUND: Better understanding of the relative effectiveness of different approaches to cervical spine mobilization has been identified as a research priority in manual therapy practice. Two distinct approaches to the practice of mobilization have emerged in recent years, based on different reasoning models for selection of mobilization techniques. The objective of this pilot study was to assess feasibility aspects for a future randomized clinical trial by exploring short-term pain and disability outcomes after a single treatment with pragmatic versus prescriptive approaches to cervical mobilization for people with recent-onset neck pain at 48-h follow-up after randomization. METHODS: Twenty adults with a new episode of mechanical neck pain were randomly allocated to either pragmatic or prescriptive mobilization intervention groups. The pragmatic group received a single treatment of cervical mobilization with the technique, target segment, and grade selected by their treating therapist. The prescriptive group received a single treatment of standardized mobilization with techniques similar to a previous mobilization clinical trial. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment rates, randomization audit and completion of treatment and follow-up per protocol. The primary clinical outcome of interest was disability level measured at 48-h follow-up after randomization. RESULTS: Recruitment rates were approximately 2.5 participants per week and 100% of eligible participants were deemed suitable for treatment with cervical mobilization. There was sufficient variety in the range of pragmatic treatments selected and the data collection process imposed minimal burden on participants. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide supporting evidence for the feasibility of a future larger scale randomized clinical trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616000446460). Registered 6th April 2016. https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=370448&isReview=true SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12998-020-00348-z. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7672847 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76728472020-11-19 Approaches to cervical spine mobilization for neck pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial Lagoutaris, Claire Sullivan, Justin Hancock, Michelle Leaver, Andrew M. Chiropr Man Therap Research STUDY DESIGN: Pilot randomized controlled trial. BACKGROUND: Better understanding of the relative effectiveness of different approaches to cervical spine mobilization has been identified as a research priority in manual therapy practice. Two distinct approaches to the practice of mobilization have emerged in recent years, based on different reasoning models for selection of mobilization techniques. The objective of this pilot study was to assess feasibility aspects for a future randomized clinical trial by exploring short-term pain and disability outcomes after a single treatment with pragmatic versus prescriptive approaches to cervical mobilization for people with recent-onset neck pain at 48-h follow-up after randomization. METHODS: Twenty adults with a new episode of mechanical neck pain were randomly allocated to either pragmatic or prescriptive mobilization intervention groups. The pragmatic group received a single treatment of cervical mobilization with the technique, target segment, and grade selected by their treating therapist. The prescriptive group received a single treatment of standardized mobilization with techniques similar to a previous mobilization clinical trial. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment rates, randomization audit and completion of treatment and follow-up per protocol. The primary clinical outcome of interest was disability level measured at 48-h follow-up after randomization. RESULTS: Recruitment rates were approximately 2.5 participants per week and 100% of eligible participants were deemed suitable for treatment with cervical mobilization. There was sufficient variety in the range of pragmatic treatments selected and the data collection process imposed minimal burden on participants. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide supporting evidence for the feasibility of a future larger scale randomized clinical trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616000446460). Registered 6th April 2016. https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=370448&isReview=true SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12998-020-00348-z. BioMed Central 2020-11-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7672847/ /pubmed/33203458 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-020-00348-z Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Lagoutaris, Claire Sullivan, Justin Hancock, Michelle Leaver, Andrew M. Approaches to cervical spine mobilization for neck pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial |
title | Approaches to cervical spine mobilization for neck pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial |
title_full | Approaches to cervical spine mobilization for neck pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial |
title_fullStr | Approaches to cervical spine mobilization for neck pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Approaches to cervical spine mobilization for neck pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial |
title_short | Approaches to cervical spine mobilization for neck pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial |
title_sort | approaches to cervical spine mobilization for neck pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7672847/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33203458 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-020-00348-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lagoutarisclaire approachestocervicalspinemobilizationforneckpainapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT sullivanjustin approachestocervicalspinemobilizationforneckpainapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT hancockmichelle approachestocervicalspinemobilizationforneckpainapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT leaverandrewm approachestocervicalspinemobilizationforneckpainapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial |