Article

Dose response and efficacy of spinal manipulation for chronic cervicogenic headache: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Center for Outcomes Studies, Western States Chiropractic College, 2900 NE 132nd Ave., Portland, OR 97230, USA.
The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society (Impact Factor: 2.9). 10/2009; 10(2):117-28. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.09.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials suggest that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is efficacious for care of cervicogenic headache (CGH). The effect of SMT dose on outcomes has not been studied.
To compare the efficacy of two doses of SMT and two doses of light massage (LM) for CGH.
Eighty patients with chronic CGH.
Modified Von Korff pain and disability scales for CGH and neck pain (minimum clinically important difference=10 on 100-point scale), number of headaches in the last 4 weeks, and medication use. Data were collected every 4 weeks for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was the CGH pain scale.
Participants were randomized to either 8 or 16 treatment sessions with either SMT or a minimal LM control. Patients were treated once or twice per week for 8 weeks. Adjusted mean differences (AMD) between groups were computed using generalized estimating equations for the longitudinal outcomes over all follow-up time points (profile) and using regression modeling for individual time points with baseline characteristics as covariates and with imputed missing data.
For the CGH pain scale, comparisons of 8 and 16 treatment sessions yielded small dose effects: |AMD|</=5.6. There was an advantage for SMT over the control: AMD=-8.1 (95% confidence interval=-13.3 to -2.8) for the profile, -10.3 (-18.5 to -2.1) at 12 weeks, and -9.8 (-18.7 to -1.0) at 24 weeks. For the higher dose patients, the advantage was greater: AMD=-11.9 (-19.3 to -4.6) for the profile, -14.2 (-25.8 to -2.6) at 12 weeks, and -14.4 (-26.9 to -2.0) at 24 weeks. Patients receiving SMT were also more likely to achieve a 50% improvement in pain scale: adjusted odds ratio=3.6 (1.6 to 8.1) for the profile, 3.1 (0.9 to 9.8) at 12 weeks, and 3.1 (0.9 to 10.3) at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes showed similar trends favoring SMT. For SMT patients, the mean number of CGH was reduced by half.
Clinically important differences between SMT and a control intervention were observed favoring SMT. Dose effects tended to be small.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
152 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In recent years, there has been an increasing knowledge in the pathogenesis and better management of chronic headaches. Current scientific evidence supports the role of manual therapies in the management of tension type and cervicogenic headache, but the results are still conflicting. These inconsistent results can be related to the fact that maybe not all manual therapies are appropriate for all types of headaches; or maybe not all patients with headache will benefit from manual therapies. There are preliminary data suggesting that patients with a lower degree of sensitization will benefit to a greater extent from manual therapies, although more studies are needed. In fact, there is evidence demonstrating the presence of peripheral and central sensitization in chronic headaches, particularly in tension type. Clinical management of patients with headache needs to extend beyond local tissue-based pathology, to incorporate strategies directed at normalizing central nervous system sensitivity. In such a scenario, this paper exposes some examples of manual therapies for tension type and cervicogenic headache, based on a nociceptive pain rationale, for modulating central nervous system hypersensitivity: trigger point therapy, joint mobilization, joint manipulation, exercise, and cognitive pain approaches.
    The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy 02/2014; 22(1):44-50. DOI:10.1179/2042618613Y.0000000050
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chiropractic care is a complex health intervention composed of both treatment effects and non-specific, or placebo, effects. While doctor-patient interactions are a component of the non-specific effects of chiropractic, these effects are not evaluated in most clinical trials. This study aimed to: 1) develop an instrument to assess practitioner-patient interactions; 2) determine the equivalence of a chiropractor's verbal interactions and treatment delivery for participants allocated to active or sham chiropractic groups; and 3) describe the perceptions of a treatment-masked evaluator and study participants regarding treatment group assignment. We conducted an observational analysis of digital video-recordings derived from study visits conducted during a pilot randomized trial of conservative therapies for temporomandibular pain. A theory-based, iterative process developed the 13-item Chiropractor Interaction and Treatment Equivalence Instrument. A trained evaluator masked to treatment assignment coded video-recordings of clinical encounters between one chiropractor and multiple visits of 26 participants allocated to active or sham chiropractic treatment groups. Non-parametric statistics were calculated. The trial ran from January 2010 to October 2011. We analyzed 111 complete video-recordings (54 active, 57 sham). Chiropractor interactions differed between the treatment groups in 7 categories. Active participants received more interactions with clinical information (8 vs. 4) or explanations (3.5 vs. 1) than sham participants within the therapeutic domain. Active participants received more directions (63 vs. 58) and adjusting instrument thrusts (41.5 vs. 23) in the procedural domain and more optimistic (2.5 vs. 0) or neutral (7.5 vs. 5) outcome statements in the treatment effectiveness domain. Active participants recorded longer visit durations (13.5 vs. 10 minutes). The evaluator correctly identified 61% of active care video-recordings as active treatments but categorized only 31% of the sham treatments correctly. Following the first treatment, 82% of active and 11% of sham participants correctly identified their treatment group. At 2-months, 93% of active and 42% of sham participants correctly identified their group assignment. Our findings show the feasibility of evaluating doctor-patient interactions in chiropractic clinical trials using video-recordings and standardized instrumentation. Clinical trial design and clinician training protocols should improve and assess the equivalence of doctor-patient interactions between treatment groups. This trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01021306 on 24 November 2009.
    12/2014; 22(1):42. DOI:10.1186/s12998-014-0042-7
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate changes in methodological quality and sample size in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for neck and low back pain over a specified period. A secondary purpose was to make recommendations for improvement for future SMT trials based upon our findings. Methods Randomized controlled trials that examined the effect of SMT in adults with neck and/or low back pain and reported at least 1 patient-reported outcome measure were included. Studies were identified from recent Cochrane reviews of SMT, and an update of the literature was conducted (March 2013). Risk of bias was assessed using the 12-item criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. In addition, sample size was examined. The relationship between the overall risk of bias and sample size over time was evaluated using regression analyses, and RCTs were grouped into periods (epochs) of approximately 5 years. Results In total, 105 RCTs were included, of which 41 (39%) were considered to have a low risk of bias. There is significant improvement in the mean risk of bias over time (P < .05), which is the most profound for items related to selection bias and, to a lesser extent, attrition and selective outcome reporting bias. Furthermore, although there is no significant increase in sample size over time (overall P = .8), the proportion of studies that performed an a priori sample size calculation is increasing statistically (odds ratio, 2.1; confidence interval, 1.5-3.0). Sensitivity analyses suggest no appreciable difference between studies for neck or low back pain for risk of bias or sample size. Conclusion Methodological quality of RCTs of SMT for neck and low back pain is improving, whereas overall sample size has shown only small and nonsignificant increases. There is an increasing trend among studies to conduct sample size calculations, which relate to statistical power. Based upon these findings, 7 areas of improvement for future SMT trials are suggested.
    Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 10/2014; 37(8). DOI:10.1016/j.jmpt.2014.07.007 · 1.25 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
334 Downloads
Available from
May 22, 2014