Osteopathic manipulative treatment for chronic nonspecific neck pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Franke, Helge; Franke, Jan-David; Fryer, Gary

doi:10.1016/j.ijosm.2015.05.003

Cited by 41 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The aim of the current literature review was to evaluate published randomized controlled trials examining the effectiveness of care administered by osteopathic practitioners for improving pain and functional status in patients with spinal complaints as compared to control treatments. Conversely to the previous reviews focusing on a specific spinal area such as LBP [ 15 , 17 , 18 ] or neck pain [ 16 ], the current review focused on spinal complaints including back pain, LBP, neck pain, and pelvic girdle pain. In addition, conversely to the reviews by Franke et al [ 16 ] and Orrock and Myers [ 18 ], no restrictions were made concerning the chronicity of the complaint.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conversely to the previous reviews focusing on a specific spinal area such as LBP [ 15 , 17 , 18 ] or neck pain [ 16 ], the current review focused on spinal complaints including back pain, LBP, neck pain, and pelvic girdle pain. In addition, conversely to the reviews by Franke et al [ 16 ] and Orrock and Myers [ 18 ], no restrictions were made concerning the chronicity of the complaint. Finally, conversely to previous reviews, an analysis distinguishing between different osteopathic treatment protocols is considered.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Osteopathic care for spinal complaints: A systematic literature review

Verhaeghe

Schepers

Dun³

et al. 2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the current study was to evaluate the literature examining the impact of osteopathic care for spinal complaints. The bibliographic databases Medline (Pubmed), Web of Science, Embase, and PEDro were searched. In addition, a number of grey literature sources were searched. Only randomized controlled trials conducted in high-income Western countries were considered. Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts. Primary outcomes included ‘pain’ and ‘functional status’, while secondary outcomes included ‘medication use’ and ‘health status’. It was examined if differences existed related to the treatment protocol and geography (European vs. US studies). Study quality was assessed using the risk of bias tool of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Nineteen studies were included and qualitatively synthesized. Nine studies were from the US, followed by Germany with seven studies. The majority of studies (n = 13) focused on low back pain. In general, mixed findings related to the impact of osteopathic care on primary and secondary outcomes were observed. For the primary outcomes, a clear distinction between US and European studies was found, in favor of the latter ones. Studies were characterized by substantial methodological differences in sample sizes, number of treatments, control groups, and follow-up. In conclusion, there is some evidence suggesting that osteopathic care may be effective for people suffering from spinal complaints. Further studies with larger study samples and assessment of long-term impact are required to further increase the evidence-based knowledge of the potential of osteopathic care for individuals suffering from spinal complaints.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Osteopathic care for spinal complaints: A systematic literature review

Verhaeghe

Schepers

Dun³

et al. 2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some of these reviews further specified SMT as cervical, thoracic or lumbar SMT (21 reviews [46, 47, 49, 54, 57, 65, 91, 96, 103, 105, 114, 115, 119, 121, 123, 125–127, 134, 136, 150]). Other reviews did not further specify than ‘manipulation’ (10 reviews [36, 66, 70–73, 79, 93, 101, 107]), ‘osteopathic manipulative treatment/therapy’ (8 reviews [38, 52, 56, 64, 81, 82, 116, 139]), and ‘chiropractic care/interventions’ (5 reviews [67, 98–100, 137]).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSpinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a widely used manual treatment, but many reviews exist with conflicting conclusions about the safety of SMT. We performed an overview of reviews to elucidate and quantify the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with SMT.MethodsWe searched five electronic databases from inception to December 8, 2015. We included reviews on any type of studies, patients, and SMT technique. Our primary outcome was SAEs. Quality of the included reviews was assessed using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). Since there were insufficient data for calculating incidence rates of SAEs, we used an alternative approach; the conclusions regarding safety of SMT were extracted for each review, and the communicated opinion were judged by two reviewers independently as safe, harmful, or neutral/unclear. Risk ratios (RRs) of a review communicating that SMT is safe and meeting the requirements for each AMSTAR item, were calculated.ResultsWe identified 283 eligible reviews, but only 118 provided data for synthesis. The most frequently described adverse events (AEs) were stroke, headache, and vertebral artery dissection. Fifty-four reviews (46%) expressed that SMT is safe, 15 (13%) expressed that SMT is harmful, and 49 reviews (42%) were neutral or unclear. Thirteen reviews reported incidence estimates for SAEs, roughly ranging from 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 250,000,000 manipulations. Low methodological quality was present, with a median of 4 of 11 AMSTAR items met (interquartile range, 3 to 6). Reviews meeting the requirements for each of the AMSTAR items (i.e. good internal validity) had a higher chance of expressing that SMT is safe.ConclusionsIt is currently not possible to provide an overall conclusion about the safety of SMT; however, the types of SAEs reported can indeed be significant, sustaining that some risk is present. High quality research and consistent reporting of AEs and SAEs are needed.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42015030068.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0458-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Examining the effect of manual therapy in mechanical chronic neck pain, clinical evidence is of moderate to high quality [16]. However, methodologic heterogeneity of parameters regarding small sample sizes, different comparison groups, and lack of long-term measurements, place the need for larger and high-quality randomized controlled trials [17]. Mulligan therapy in the ield of manual therapy consists of functional painless techniques that are included in people with spinal pain patients showing immediate symptoms alleviation [18,19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The short and mid-term effects of Mulligan concept in patients with chronic mechanical neck pain

Zemadanis¹

2018

J Nov Physiother Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Mechanical chronic neck pain is very common musculoskeletal dysfunction among people, manifesting one or more pain-induced movements and disability impairments. Clinical guidelines suggest passive cervical mobilization and thoracic manipulation as manual therapy interventions. Mulligan concept has positive effect in patients with lumbar and thoracic spine mechanical chronic pain. Study objective was to investigate possible clinical effects of Mulligan techniques in patients with cervical pain according to pain and disability status.Methods: forty participants diagnosed with mechanical chronic cervical pain, randomly assigned into experimental and control group. NAG, SNAG and self-SNAG joint mobilization in a nine-sessions protocol implemented to the study group, while SHAM-Mulligan techniques applied to control group. Self-reported questionnaires Numeric Pain Rating scale (NPRT) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) were used for the measurement of pain and disability levels respectively. Possible Interactions among Factors (TIME X GROUP) and simple effects in three-time measurements of pre, post and one-month follow-up concerning NDI and NPRS variables, were detected with Mixed-ANOVA test.Results: Baseline scores of pain and disability resulted in no differences between groups. A signifi cant Group and Time factors interaction founded and simple main effects analysis showed that Mulligan concept-group had signifi cant improvement in post-intervention NPRT and NDI scores (p<.001), compared to baseline scores. Follow-up also differed compared to post-treatment score (p<.001). SHAM-Mulligan control group had no signifi cant differences in dependent variables at any level of TIME factor (p>.001). Signifi cant differences were found between groups according to second and third measurement phase (p<.001). Conclusion:Our fi ndings suggest that Mulligan concept techniques improve symptoms of pain and disability in chronic mechanical neck pain patients in short and mid-term effect level.Summary: mobilization techniques of SNAGs, NAGS and self-SNAGs reduces pain and improve function in patients with mechanical neck pain. Taken into consideration the safety and simplicity of application, future studies are encourage to examine the underline mechanism of action.

show abstract

Osteopathic manipulative treatment for chronic nonspecific neck pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 41 publications

References 37 publications

Osteopathic care for spinal complaints: A systematic literature review

Osteopathic care for spinal complaints: A systematic literature review

The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews

The short and mid-term effects of Mulligan concept in patients with chronic mechanical neck pain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About