Lack of Efficacy of Manual Therapy in Children and Adolescents With Suspected Cervicogenic Headache: Results of a Prospective, Randomized, Placebo‐Controlled, and Blinded Trial

Borusiak, Peter; Biedermann, H.; Boßerhoff, Stephanie; Opp, Joachim

doi:10.1111/j.1526-4610.2009.01550.x

Cited by 49 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 3 summarizes the quality scores of the included studies. 4,[63][64][65][66][67] Methodological weaknesses were found in all studies. Specifically, two of the studies received a PEDro score of 6/10, 4,66 two received a score of 7/ 10, 64,67 and two received a score of 8/10.…”

Section: Study Description and Methodological Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, two of the studies received a PEDro score of 6/10, 4,66 two received a score of 7/ 10, 64,67 and two received a score of 8/10. 63,65 All studies were qualified as 'good' regarding the level of internal validity based on the PEDro score grading according to Maher et al 68 The most common methodological weakness in all six studies was failure to blind therapists administering the therapy; however, due to the type of intervention being delivered manually from the practitioner, this was not feasible considering five of the RCTs performed manipulation as a treatment and one focused on self-sustained natural apophyseal glides (SNAGs). Three RCTs 4,64,66 failed to blind the subjects and three 4,66,67 failed to provide point measures as well as measures of variability for one key outcome.…”

Section: Study Description and Methodological Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Headache frequency defined as the number of headache days per week, 66 the mean number of headache hours per day, 4,67 and percent of days with headache. 63 2. Headache intensity which was measured using the visual analog scale.…”

Section: Outcome Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Headache intensity which was measured using the visual analog scale. 4,63,66,67 3. Headache duration measured in total hours and average number of hours headaches lasted in the past week.…”

Section: Outcome Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Analgesic use, which was measured by the mean number of pain killers per day 4,67 and percent of days needing analgesic medication. 63 10. General health status using the physical and mental component summary scales of the SF-12.…”

Section: Outcome Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Conservative physical therapy management for the treatment of cervicogenic headache: a systematic review

Racicki

Gerwin

DiClaudio

et al. 2013

Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of conservative physical therapy management of cervicogenic headache (CGH). Introduction: CGH affects 2.2-2.5% of the adult population with females being four times more affected than men. CGHs are thought to arise from musculoskeletal impairments in the neck with symptoms most commonly consisting of suboccipital neck pain, dizziness, and lightheadedness. Currently, both invasive and non-invasive techniques are available to address these symptoms; however, the efficacy of noninvasive treatment techniques has yet to be established. Methods: Computerized searches of CINAHL, ProQuest, PubMed, MEDLINE, and SportDiscus, were performed to obtain a qualitative analysis of the literature. Inclusion criteria were: randomized controlled trial design, population diagnosed with CGH using the International Headache Society classification, at least one baseline measurement and one outcomes measure, and assessment of a conservative technique. Physiotherapy evidence-based database scale was utilized for quality assessment. Results: One computerized database search and two hand searches yielded six articles. Of the six included randomized controlled trials, all were considered to be of 'good quality' utilizing the physiotherapy evidencebased database scale. The interventions utilized were: therapist-driven cervical manipulation and mobilization, self-applied cervical mobilization, cervico-scapular strengthening, and therapist-driven cervical and thoracic manipulation. With the exception of one study, all reported reduction in pain and disability, as well as improvement in function. Conclusion: Calculated effect sizes allowed comparison of intervention groups between studies. A combination of therapist-driven cervical manipulation and mobilization with cervico-scapular strengthening was most effective for decreasing pain outcomes in those with CGH.

show abstract

Section: Study Description and Methodological Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Description and Methodological Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Outcome Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Headache intensity which was measured using the visual analog scale. 4,63,66,67 3. Headache duration measured in total hours and average number of hours headaches lasted in the past week.…”

Section: Outcome Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Outcome Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Conservative physical therapy management for the treatment of cervicogenic headache: a systematic review

Racicki

Gerwin

DiClaudio

et al. 2013

Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

Spinal manipulation for the management of cervicogenic headache: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Fernandez

Moore

Tan

et al. 2020

European Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is frequently used to manage cervicogenic headache (CGHA). No meta‐analysis has investigated the effectiveness of SMT exclusively for CGHA. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of SMT for CGHA. Databases and Data Treatment Five databases identified randomized controlled trials comparing SMT with other manual therapies. The PEDro scale assessed the risk‐of‐bias. Pain and disability data were extracted and converted to a common scale. A random effects model was used for several follow‐up periods. GRADE described the quality of evidence. Results Seven trials were eligible. At short‐term follow‐up, there was a significant, small effect favouring SMT for pain intensity (mean difference [MD] −10.88 [95% CI, −17.94, −3.82]) and small effects for pain frequency (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.35 [95% CI, −0.66, −0.04]). There was no effect for pain duration (SMD − 0.08 [95% CI, −0.47, 0.32]). There was a significant, small effect favouring SMT for disability (MD − 13.31 [95% CI, −18.07, −8.56]). At intermediate follow‐up, there was no significant effects for pain intensity (MD − 9.77 [−24.21 to 4.68]) and a significant, small effect favouring SMT for pain frequency (SMD − 0.32 [−0.63 to − 0.00]). At long‐term follow‐up, there was no significant effects for pain intensity (MD − 0.76 [−5.89 to 4.37]) and for pain frequency (SMD − 0.37 [−0.84 to 0.10]). Conclusion For CGHA, SMT provides small, superior short‐term benefits for pain intensity, frequency and disability, but not pain duration, however, high‐quality evidence in this field is lacking. The long‐term impact is not significant. Significance CGHA are a common headache disorder. SMT can be considered an effective treatment modality, with this review suggesting it providing superior, small, short‐term effects for pain intensity, frequency and disability when compared with other manual therapies. These findings may help clinicians in practice better understand the treatment effects of SMT alone for CGHA.

show abstract

Lack of Efficacy of Manual Therapy in Children and Adolescents With Suspected Cervicogenic Headache: Results of a Prospective, Randomized, Placebo‐Controlled, and Blinded Trial

Abstract: We were not able to show an efficacy of cervical spine manipulation in 52 children and adolescents.

Cited by 49 publications

References 17 publications

Conservative physical therapy management for the treatment of cervicogenic headache: a systematic review

Conservative physical therapy management for the treatment of cervicogenic headache: a systematic review

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

Spinal manipulation for the management of cervicogenic headache: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About