Early use of thrust manipulation versus non-thrust manipulation: A randomized clinical trial

Cook, Chad; Learman, Kenneth; Showalter, Chris; Kabbaz, Vincent J.; O’Halloran, Bryan

doi:10.1016/j.math.2012.08.005

Cited by 71 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The RoR is a scale from 0 to 100%.The patient is asked to report how much improvement he/she has noticed during the course of care as a percentage score. This variable has been previously used in studies on low-back pain 25 and shoulder pain. 34 To measure HEP adherence, we used a novel measure that asked patients to rate their confidence on their ability to perform the home exercise interventions and asked patients to complete an exercise diary.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…21 Many clinical research studies, in which the primary intervention was thrust and/or non-thrust manipulation, have also included concurrent exercise regimens. [22][23][24][25] Since the treatment approach in these studies was multi-modal, the concurrent regimens may have prolonged the benefits from the MT. Despite this finding, the best type of exercise to prescribe in conjunction with MT has not been clearly established.…”

Section: -10mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of manual therapy with augmentative exercises for neck pain: a randomised clinical trial

Petersen

Cook

Donaldson

et al. 2015

Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:To compare the effect of manual therapy (MT) and an augmentative exercise programme (AEP) versus MT and general neck range of motion (ROM) on functional outcomes for patients with neck pain. A secondary objective was to examine changes in self-report measures and quantitative sensory testing (QST) following MT and AEP. Methods: This was a randomised clinical trial. Seventy-two patients with neck pain were recruited. All patients received a single session of MT. Patients were randomly assigned to MT+AEP or MT+ROM. Clinical self-report outcome measures for disability and pain, and QST measures (pain and vibration thresholds) were collected at baseline, post MT treatment, at ∼48 hours, and at ∼96 hours. Repeated measures ANOVA and MANOVA were used to analyse within and between-group effects for clinical and QST measures. Results: There were no between-group differences for disability, pain and QST measures. There was, however, a significant difference between groups for Global Rating of Change (GRoC) scores (P = 0.037). Patients in both groups showed improvements in pain, disability and trapezius pressure-pain threshold (PPT) (all P < 0.001). Discussion: Augmentative exercise programme does not significantly improve disability, pain or QST measures in patients with chronic neck pain although it may enhance their GRoC scores. Over a 96-hour period, patients benefitted from MT plus exercise whether the exercise was general or specific.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: -10mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of manual therapy with augmentative exercises for neck pain: a randomised clinical trial

Petersen

Cook

Donaldson

et al. 2015

Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…24 The RCT was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: Identifier NCT01438203. Specific details of the trial are published elsewhere.…”

Section: Methods Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Different minimally important clinical difference (MCID) scores lead to different clinical prediction rules for the Oswestry disability index for the same sample of patients

Schwind

Learman

O’Halloran

et al. 2013

Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) scores for outcome measures are frequently used evidence-based guides to gage meaningful changes. There are numerous outcome instruments used for analyzing pain, disability, and dysfunction of the low back; perhaps the most common of these is the Oswestry disability index (ODI). A single agreed-upon MCID score for the ODI has yet to be established. What is also unknown is whether selected baseline variables will be universal predictors regardless of the MCID used for a particular outcome measure. Objective: To explore the relationship between predictive models and the MCID cutpoint on the ODI. Setting: Data were collected from 16 outpatient physical therapy clinics in 10 states. Design: Secondary database analysis using backward stepwise deletion logistic regression of data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to create prognostic clinical prediction rules (CPR). Participants and Interventions: One hundred and forty-nine patients with low back pain (LBP) were enrolled in the RCT. All were treated with manual therapy, with a majority also receiving spine-strengthening exercises. Results: The resultant predictive models were dependent upon the MCID used and baseline sample characteristics. All CPR were statistically significant (P , 0.01). All six MCID cutpoints used resulted in completely different significant predictor variables with no predictor significant across all models. Limitations: The primary limitations include sub-optimal sample size and study design. Conclusions: There is extreme variability among predictive models created using different MCIDs on the ODI within the same patient population. Our findings highlight the instability of predictive modeling, as these models are significantly affected by population baseline characteristics along with the MCID used. Clinicians must be aware of the fragility of CPR prior to applying each in clinical practice.

show abstract

“…The mechanical stimulus and resultant neurophysiological effects are modified by nonspecific factors such as expectation of the patient [58,59], equipoise of the practitioner [60,61], placebo effects [62], contextual factors such as the setting and therapeutic alliance between provider and patient [63]. All of these factors can be decisive in treatment outcomes.…”

Section: Moderating For Effectiveness Of Mtmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Effect can Manual Therapy have on a Patient’s Pain Experience?

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Manual therapy (MT) is a passive, skilled movement applied by clinicians that directly or indirectly targets a variety of anatomical structures or systems, which is utilized with the intent to create beneficial changes in some aspect of the patient pain experience. Collectively, the process of MT is grounded on clinical reasoning to enhance patient management for musculoskeletal pain by influencing factors from a multidimensional perspective that have potential to positively impact clinical outcomes. The influence of biomechanical, neurophysiological, psychological and nonspecific patient factors as treatment mediators and/or moderators provides additional information related to the process and potential mechanisms by which MT may be effective. As healthcare delivery advances toward personalized approaches there is a crucial need to advance our understanding of the underlying mechanisms associated with MT effectiveness.

show abstract

Early use of thrust manipulation versus non-thrust manipulation: A randomized clinical trial

Cited by 71 publications

References 19 publications

The effect of manual therapy with augmentative exercises for neck pain: a randomised clinical trial

The effect of manual therapy with augmentative exercises for neck pain: a randomised clinical trial

Different minimally important clinical difference (MCID) scores lead to different clinical prediction rules for the Oswestry disability index for the same sample of patients

What Effect can Manual Therapy have on a Patient’s Pain Experience?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About