Dose Optimization for Spinal Treatment Effectiveness: A Randomized Controlled Trial Investigating the Effects of High and Low Mobilization Forces in Patients With Neck Pain

Snodgrass, Suzanne J.; Rivett, Darren A.; Sterling, Michele; Vicenzino, Bill

doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.4778

Cited by 57 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…37 Methodological Quality Table 4 summarizes methodological quality assessment. Four studies 22,25,40,41 were classified as having a high risk of bias and four 24,31,34,35 [40][41][42] and was unclear in seven. 22,23,25,27,29,39,43 Ten 20,21,26,29-35 studies demonstrated adequate randomization and allocation concealment procedures.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…39 The remainder compared mobilizations only with a control condition of lying for the same duration 22,33 or had no comparator. [40][41][42][43] Most participants had neck pain 23,25,[30][31][32]35,36,41,42 or low back pain (LBP). 22,26,28,33,40,43 Three studies' participants had cervicobrachial neurogenic pain.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…37 Outcomes associated with mechanisms of action were surface electromyography (SEMG), 35 25 substance P concentration, 26 and nociceptive flexion reflex. 32 Studies also assessed outcome measures associated with symptoms; pain at rest, 22,24,26,27,30,31,35,37,39,43 during movement, 22,28,[33][34][35] during the previous 24 hours, 37 during PA force application, 33,43 and during activities of daily living, 22,29 dizziness, 29 range of movement (ROM), 27,29,31,33,34,36,43 disability, 39 global perceived effect, 29 and upper limb function. 37 Methodological Quality Table 4 summarizes methodological quality assessment.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[23][24][25]29,39 Mobilizations used were the cervical lateral glide, 20,21,32,34,37,38 central 22,26,28,30,31,33,40-43 or unilateral 35,36 posteroanterior (PA) mobilizations, central anteroposterior mobilizations, 24,39 a cervical sustained natural apophyseal glide, 29 and a combination of passive physiological (e.g., flexion, extension, or retraction) and accessory mobilizations (PA and anteroposterior). 23,25,27 In 10 studies, effects were compared with sham; either maintenance of therapist's hand position without oscillation 24,32,34,35,37,38 Measures that may explain the mechanism of action of mobilizations or the application of detuned laser 29,31 or ultrasound. 20,21 Others compared effects of mobilizations with self-stretching, 23 peripheral neurodynamic sliders (upper limb passive movements aimed at mobilizing the nerves), 27 thoracic spinal mobilizations, 25 a high-velocity thrust, 30 Thai massage, 26 prone lumbar extension, 28 spinal mobilizations to an asymptomatic location, 36 or supplementary to craniocervical flexor muscle exercises.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Mechanism of Action of Spinal Mobilizations

Lascurain-Aguirrebeña

Newham

Critchley

2016

SPINE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mechanism of Action of Spinal Mobilizations

Lascurain-Aguirrebeña

Newham

Critchley

2016

SPINE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, some evidence suggests that cervical mobilization force magnitude can influence clinical outcomes. 23 A recent systematic review reported high variability between providers delivering manual treatments. 24 Our cadaveric research discovered that MCD traction decreased intradiscal pressure relative to the force magnitude and that forces among experienced DCs vary substantially.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Training and certification of doctors of chiropractic in delivering manual cervical traction forces: Results of a longitudinal observational study

Gudavalli¹,

Vining²,

Salsbury³

et al. 2014

Journal of Chiropractic Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Doctors of chiropractic (DCs) use manual cervical distraction to treat patients with neck pain. Previous research demonstrates variability in traction forces generated by different DCs. This article reports on a training protocol and monthly certification process using bioengineering technology to standardize cervical traction force delivery among clinicians. Methods: This longitudinal observational study evaluated a training and certification process for DCs who provided force-based manual cervical distraction during a randomized clinical trial. The DCs completed a 7-week initial training that included instructional lectures, observation, and guided practice by a clinical expert, followed by 3 hours of weekly practice sessions delivering the technique to asymptomatic volunteers who served as simulated patients. An instrumentmodified table and computer software provided the DCs with real-time audible and visual feedback on the traction forces they generated and graphical displays of the magnitude of traction forces as a function of time immediately after the delivery of the treatment. The DCs completed monthly certifications on traction force delivery throughout the trial. Descriptive accounts of certification attempts are provided. Results: Two DCs achieved certification in traction force delivery over 10 consecutive months. No certification required more than 3 attempts at C5 and occiput contacts for 3 force ranges (0-20 N, 21-50 N, and 51-100 N). Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility of a training protocol and certification process using bioengineering technology for training DCs to deliver manual cervical distraction within specified traction force ranges over a 10-month period.

show abstract

Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment

Gross

Langevin

Burnie

et al. 2015

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

158

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although support can be found for use of thoracic manipulation versus control for neck pain, function and QoL, results for cervical manipulation and mobilisation versus control are few and diverse. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Research designed to protect against various biases is needed. Findings suggest that manipulation and mobilisation present similar results for every outcome at immediate/short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple cervical manipulation sessions may provide better pain relief and functional improvement than certain medications at immediate/intermediate/long-term follow-up. Since the risk of rare but serious adverse events for manipulation exists, further high-quality research focusing on mobilisation and comparing mobilisation or manipulation versus other treatment options is needed to guide clinicians in their optimal treatment choices.

show abstract

Dose Optimization for Spinal Treatment Effectiveness: A Randomized Controlled Trial Investigating the Effects of High and Low Mobilization Forces in Patients With Neck Pain

Cited by 57 publications

References 63 publications

Mechanism of Action of Spinal Mobilizations

Mechanism of Action of Spinal Mobilizations

Training and certification of doctors of chiropractic in delivering manual cervical traction forces: Results of a longitudinal observational study

Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About