Short-term effects of manipulative treatment versus a therapeutic home exercise protocol for chronic cervical pain: A randomized clinical trial

20Citations
Citations of this article
311Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Your institution provides access to this article.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: While both manipulative treatment and physical exercises are used to treat cervical pain, it remains unclear which is most effective. OBJECTIVE: To compare the short-term effects of high-velocity, low-amplitude manipulation techniques (MT) with those of home-exercise (HE) with stretching and low-intensity (10% of max) isometric contractions on pain and function. METHODS: Single-blind randomized clinical trial was performed. A total of 27 asymptomatic subjects were randomly assigned to 2 groups: manipulation techniques (MT, n= 13) and home exercise (HE, n= 14). The visual analogue scale (VAS); neck disability index (NDI); pressure pain thresholds; cervical spine range of motion and electromyography during the cranio-cervical flexion test was measured before and one week after the intervention. RESULTS: After the intervention, both groups showed improved (P< 0.05) NDI and VAS scores and flexion in both rotation ranges compared with the pre-intervention values. For the NDI, pain intensity, and neck flexion, the effects sizes were large; for the majority of the other measurements, the effect sizes were small to moderate. The MT group showed significantly better results than the HE group for 2 out of 17 tests. CONCLUSIONS: Both interventions improved function and pain after one week, with only marginal between-group differences in favor of MT.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Galindez-Ibarbengoetxea, X., Setuain, I., Ramírez-Velez, R., Andersen, L. L., González-Izal, M., Jauregi, A., & Izquierdo, M. (2018). Short-term effects of manipulative treatment versus a therapeutic home exercise protocol for chronic cervical pain: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation, 31(1), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-169723

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free