No abstract

Migraine occurs in about 15% of the general population. Migraine is usually managed by medication, but some patients do not tolerate migraine medication due to side effects or prefer to avoid medication for other reasons. Non-pharmacological management is an alternative treatment option. We systematically reviewed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on manual therapies for migraine. The RCTs suggest that massage therapy, physiotherapy, relaxation and chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy might be equally effective as propranolol and topiramate in the prophylactic management of migraine. However, the evaluated RCTs had many methodological shortcomings. Therefore, any firm conclusion will require future, well-conducted RCTs on manual therapies for migraine.

Background and purposeTo investigate the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) for migraineurs.MethodsThis was a prospective three‐armed, single‐blinded, placebo, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 17 months duration including 104 migraineurs with at least one migraine attack per month. The RCT was conducted at Akershus University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. Active treatment consisted of CSMT, whereas placebo was a sham push manoeuvre of the lateral edge of the scapula and/or the gluteal region. The control group continued their usual pharmacological management. The RCT consisted of a 1‐month run‐in, 3 months intervention and outcome measures at the end of the intervention and at 3, 6 and 12 months follow‐up. The primary end‐point was the number of migraine days per month, whereas secondary end‐points were migraine duration, migraine intensity and headache index, and medicine consumption.ResultsMigraine days were significantly reduced within all three groups from baseline to post‐treatment (P < 0.001). The effect continued in the CSMT and placebo group at all follow‐up time points, whereas the control group returned to baseline. The reduction in migraine days was not significantly different between the groups (P > 0.025 for interaction). Migraine duration and headache index were reduced significantly more in the CSMT than the control group towards the end of follow‐up (P = 0.02 and P = 0.04 for interaction, respectively). Adverse events were few, mild and transient. Blinding was strongly sustained throughout the RCT.ConclusionsIt is possible to conduct a manual‐therapy RCT with concealed placebo. The effect of CSMT observed in our study is probably due to a placebo response.

ObjectiveCervicogenic headache is a disabling headache where pharmacological management have limited effect. Thus, non-pharmacological management is warranted. Our objective was therefore to investigate the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy versus placebo (sham manipulation) and control (continued usual but non-manual management) for cervicogenic headache in a prospective 3-armed single-blinded, placebo, randomized controlled trial of 17 months’ duration.ResultsNineteen participants were equally randomized into the three groups, and 12 participants completed the randomized controlled trial. Headache frequency improved at all time points in the chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy and the placebo group. Headache index improved in the chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy group at all time points, while it improved at 6 and 12 months’ follow-up in the placebo group. The control group remained unchanged during the whole study period. Adverse events were few, mild and transient. Blinding was concealed throughout the RCT. Thus, our results suggest that manual-therapy might be a safe treatment option for participants with cervicogenic headache, but data need to be confirmed in a randomized controlled trial with sufficient sample size and statistical power. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01687881, 11 September 2012Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13104-017-2651-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectivesThe aim of this Delphi survey was to establish an international consensus on the most useful outcome measures for research on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for migraine. This is important, since guidelines for pharmacological trials recommend measuring the frequency of headaches with 50% reduction considered a clinically meaningful effect. It is unclear whether the same recommendations apply to complementary (or adjunct) non-pharmacological approaches, whether the same cut-off levels need to be considered for effectiveness when used as an adjunct or stand-alone intervention, and what is meaningful to patients.SettingUniversity-initiated international survey.ParticipantsThe expert panel was chosen based on publications on non-pharmacological interventions in migraine populations and from personal contacts. 35 eligible researchers were contacted, 12 agreed to participate and 10 completed all 3 rounds of the survey. To further explore how migraine patients viewed potential outcome measures, four migraine patients were interviewed and presented with the same measurement tools as the researchers.ProceduresThe initial Delphi round was based on a systematic search of the literature for outcome measures used in non-pharmacological interventions for headache. Suggested outcome measures were rated by each expert, blinded towards the other members of the panel, for its usefulness on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from definitely not useful to extremely useful. Results were combined using median values and IQRs. Tools rated overall as definitely or probably not useful were excluded from subsequent rounds. Experts further suggested additional outcome measures that were presented to the panel in subsequent rounds. Additionally, experts were asked to rank the most useful tools and provide information on feasible cut-off levels for effectiveness for the three highest ranked tools.ResultsResults suggest the use of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and headache frequency as primary outcome measures. Patient experts suggested the inclusion of a measure of quality of life and evaluation of associated symptoms and fear of attacks.ConclusionsRecommendations are for the use of the MIDAS, the HIT-6 and headache frequency, in combination with an outcome measure for quality of life. Associated symptoms and fear of attacks should also be considered as secondary outcomes, if relevant for the individual target population. The cut-off level for effectiveness should be lower for non-pharmacological interventions, especially when used as an adjunct to medication.Trial registration numberGerman Register of Clinical Trials (DRKS00011777)

ObjectiveTo assess the significance of adverse events after spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) by replicating and critically reviewing a paper commonly cited when reviewing adverse events of SMT as reported by Ernst (J Roy Soc Med 100:330–338, 2007).MethodReplication of a 2007 Ernst paper to compare the details recorded in this paper to the original source material. Specific items that were assessed included the time lapse between treatment and the adverse event, and the recording of other significant risk factors such as diabetes, hyperhomocysteinemia, use of oral contraceptive pill, any history of hypertension, atherosclerosis and migraine.ResultsThe review of the 32 papers discussed by Ernst found numerous errors or inconsistencies from the original case reports and case series. These errors included alteration of the age or sex of the patient, and omission or misrepresentation of the long term response of the patient to the adverse event. Other errors included incorrectly assigning spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) as chiropractic treatment when it had been reported in the original paper as delivered by a non-chiropractic provider (e.g. Physician).The original case reports often omitted to record the time lapse between treatment and the adverse event, and other significant clinical or risk factors. The country of origin of the original paper was also overlooked, which is significant as chiropractic is not legislated in many countries. In 21 of the cases reported by Ernst to be chiropractic treatment, 11 were from countries where chiropractic is not legislated.ConclusionThe number of errors or omissions in the 2007 Ernst paper, reduce the validity of the study and the reported conclusions. The omissions of potential risk factors and the timeline between the adverse event and SMT could be significant confounding factors. Greater care is also needed to distinguish between chiropractors and other health practitioners when reviewing the application of SMT and related adverse effects.

AEs were mild and transient, and severe or serious AEs were not observed.

No abstract