The effectiveness of manipulation and mobilization on pain and disability in individuals with cervicogenic and tension-type headaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Cervicogenic (CGH) and tension-type (TTH) headaches are prevalent conditions that are associated with considerable pain and disability. Joint mobilization and manipulation are common interventions used by physical therapists to manage individuals with musculoskeletal conditions. However, there is controversy surrounding their effectiveness.

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of mobilization and manipulation (MM) compared to other conservative treatments on reducing pain, frequency, and disability in patients with CGH and TTH.

Methods: A literature search using terms related to mobilization, manipulation, CGH, and TTH was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials comparing MM to conservative treatment in treating CGH and TTH. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Meta-analysis and qualitative synthesis of the evidence were performed.

Results: Nine total studies were included in the systematic review. The majority of studies scored lower than a 69% on the Cochrane risk of bias tool indicating a moderate to high risk of bias. MM were found to be equally as effective as conservative treatment in reducing pain, disability, and frequency of headache in individuals with CGH. MM had statistically significant short-term (1–4 weeks) improvements over conservative treatment for TTH on pain and disability, but not frequency. When comparing the effectiveness of MM versus conservative treatment for TTH, both groups exhibited improvement between 1–3 months in all three outcomes.

Conclusions: Manipulation and mobilization were only found to be more effective than conservative care at short-term follow up for individuals with TTH.     

Thoracic manipulation versus mobilization in patients with mechanical neck pain: a systematic review

Objectives:

Thoracic manipulation is widely used in physical therapy and has been shown to be effective at addressing mechanical neck pain. However, thoracic mobilization may produce similar effects. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the current literature regarding the effectiveness of thoracic manipulation versus mobilization in patients with mechanical neck pain.

Methods:

ProQuest, NCBI-PubMed, APTA's Hooked on Evidence, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus were searched to identify relevant studies. Fourteen studies meeting the inclusion criteria were analyzed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale and the GRADE approach.

Results:

The literature as assessed by the PEDro scale was fair and the GRADE method showed overall quality ranging from very low to moderate quality. The 14 included studies showed positive outcomes on cervical pain levels, range of motion, and/or disability with the use of thoracic manipulation or mobilization. There was a paucity of literature directly comparing thoracic manipulation and mobilization.

Discussion:

Current limitations in the body of research, specifically regarding the use of thoracic mobilization, limit the recommendation of its use compared to thoracic manipulation for patients with mechanical neck pain. There is, however, a significant amount of evidence, although of varied quality, for the short-term benefits of thoracic manipulation in treating patients with this condition. Further high quality research is necessary to determine which technique is more effective in treating patients with mechanical neck pain.     

Immediate effects of the central posteroanterior mobilization technique on pain and range of motion in patients with mechanical neck pain

Purpose.?To determine the immediate effects of the central posteroanterior (PA) mobilization technique on both pain and active cervical range of motion in patients with mechanical neck pain presenting with central or bilateral symptoms.

Methods.?A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 60 patients who were randomly allocated into either ‘central PA’ or ‘random’ mobilization group. Two physical therapists and one assessor participated. Outcome measures included neck pain at rest, pain on the most painful movement, and active cervical range of motion taken before and immediately 5?min after the mobilization treatment.

Results.?Significant reductions in pain at rest and on the most painful movement were noted within-group comparisons (p?<?0.001). However, the ‘central PA’ mobilization group obtained a significantly greater reduction in pain on the most painful movement than the ‘random’ mobilization group (p?<?0.05). Both mobilization techniques had no effects on the active cervical range of motion. However, the differences in the means of pain reduction between both mobilization techniques were modest (<10?mm).

Conclusion.?The clinical recommendation regarding the selection of the central PA mobilization technique for treating patients with central or bilateral mechanical neck pain is therefore arguably.     

The effectiveness of cervical versus thoracic thrust manipulation for the improvement of pain,disability, and range of motion in patients with mechanical neck pain

Background:

Many patients present to physical therapy with mechanical neck pain. Cervical and thoracic manipulations are being utilized in treating this impairment, but minimal evidence as to which technique is superior exists in the literature.

Objective:

The purpose of this systematic review is to identify whether cervical or thoracic manipulation is more effective at improving pain, range of motion (ROM), and disability in patients with mechanical neck pain.

Methods:

A comprehensive search of published literature from seven search engines (PubMed, ProQuest, PEDro, CINAHL, Healthsource, Cochrane Library, SPORTDiscus) yielded 13 studies that examined the effectiveness of either cervical manipulations, thoracic manipulations, or cervical and thoracic manipulations to relieve the effects of mechanical neck pain. Eleven of the studies included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), while two were secondary analyses of RCTs. Each study was assessed using the PEDro scale and found to be of fair to high research quality.

Results:

The studies included in this systematic review produced both positive clinical and statistical differences in pain, disability, and ROM following manipulations of the cervical or thoracic spine.

Conclusion:

There is limited high-quality research directly comparing the two interventions, so determining whether cervical or thoracic thrust manipulation is superior cannot be concluded from this systematic review alone. However, based on the results found in this review, cervical and thoracic thrust manipulations are equally valuable in relieving pain, disability, and improving ROM for a patient with mechanical neck pain in the short term.     

Thoracic manual therapy in the management of non-specific shoulder pain: a systematic review

Abstract

Objectives:

Non-specific shoulder pain (NSSP) is often persistent and disabling leading to high socioeconomic costs. Cervical manipulation has demonstrated improvements in patients with NSSP, although risks associated with thrust techniques are documented. Thoracic manual therapy (TMT) may utilise similar neurophysiological effects with less risk. The current evidence for TMT in treating NSSP is limited to systematic reviews of manual therapy (MT) applied to the upper quadrant. These reviews included trials that used shoulder girdle manual therapy (SG-MT) in the TMT group. This limits the scope of their conclusions with regard to the exclusive effectiveness of TMT for NSSP.     

Thoracic manual therapy in the management of non-specific shoulder pain: a systematic review

ObjectivesNon-specific shoulder pain (NSSP) is often persistent and disabling leading to high socioeconomic costs. Cervical manipulation has demonstrated improvements in patients with NSSP, although risks associated with thrust techniques are documented. Thoracic manual therapy (TMT) may utilise similar neurophysiological effects with less risk. The current evidence for TMT in treating NSSP is limited to systematic reviews of manual therapy (MT) applied to the upper quadrant. These reviews included trials that used shoulder girdle manual therapy (SG-MT) in the TMT group. This limits the scope of their conclusions with regard to the exclusive effectiveness of TMT for NSSP.MethodsThis review used a steering group for subject and methodological expertise and was reported in line with Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Key databases were searched (1990–2014) using relevant search terms and medical subject headings (MeSH); eligibility was evaluated independently by two reviewers based on pre-defined criteria. Study participants had NSSP including impingement syndrome and excluding cervical pain. Interventions included cervicothoracic junction and TMT with or without supplementary exercises. Studies that included MT applied to the shoulder girdle including the glenohumeral joint, acromioclavicular joint or sternoclavicular joint in the TMT group, without a control, were excluded. Included studies utilised outcome measures that monitored pain and disability scores. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical studies were eligible. Using a standardised form, each reviewer independently extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using GRADE and PEDro scale. Results were tabulated for semi-quantitative comparison.ResultsOver 912 articles were retrieved: three RCTs, one single-arm trial and three pre–post test studies were eligible. Studies varied from poor to high quality. Three RCTs demonstrated that TMT reduced pain and disability at 6, 26 and 52 weeks compared with usual care. Two pre–post test studies found between 76% and 100% of patients experienced significant pain reduction immediately post-TMT. An additional pre–post test study and a single-arm trial showed reductions in pain and disability scores 48 hours post-TMT.DiscussionThoracic manual therapy accelerated recovery and reduced pain and disability immediately and for up to 52 weeks compared with usual care for NSSP. Further, high-quality RCTs investigating the effect of TMT in isolation for the treatment of patients with NSSP are now required.     

Fascial manipulation vs. standard physical therapy practice for low back pain diagnoses: A pragmatic study

Background

Connective tissue mobility alters motor unit recruitment, but the restoration of fascial mobility allows for optimal motor function. The Fascial Manipulation^® (FM^®) method is a multiplanar approach that assesses and treats the mobility of deep fascia in specific anatomical locations where motor units converge.

Effectiveness of osteopathic interventions in chronic non-specific low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundChronic low back pain (CLBP) is a frequent cause of disability and it represents a medical, social and economic burden globally. Therefore, we assessed effectiveness of osteopathic interventions in the management of NS-CLBP for pain and functional status.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Findings were reported following the PRISMA statement. Six databases were searched for RCTs. Studies were independently assessed using a standardized form. Each article was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool. Effect size (ES) were calculated at post-treatment and at 12 weeks’ follow up. We used GRADE to assess quality of evidence.Results10 articles were included. Studies investigated osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT, n = 6), myofascial release (MFR, n = 2), craniosacral treatment (CST, n = 1) and osteopathic visceral manipulation (OVM, n = 1). None of the study was completely judged at low RoB. Osteopathy revealed to be more effective than control interventions in pain reduction (ES: -0.59; 95% CI: -0.81, -0.36; P < 0.00,001) and in improving functional status (ES: -0.42; 95% 95% CI: -0.68, -0.15; P = 0.002). Moderate-quality evidence suggested that MFR is more effective than control treatments in pain reduction (ES: -0.69; 95% CI: -1.05, -0.33; P = 0.0002), even at follow-up (ES: -0.73; 95% CI: -1.09, -0.37; P < 0.0001). Low-quality evidence suggested superiority of OMT in pain reduction (ES: -0.57; 95% CI: -0.90, -0.25; P = 0.001) and in changing functional status (ES: -0.34; 95% CI: -0.65, -0.03; P = 0.001). Very low-quality evidence suggested that MFR is more effective than control interventions in functional improvements (ES: -0.73; 95% CI: -1.25, -0.21; P = 0.006).ConclusionResults strengthen evidence that osteopathy is effective in pain levels and functional status improvements in NS-CLBP patients. MFR reported better level of evidence for pain reduction if compared to other interventions. Further high-quality RCTs, comparing different osteopathic modalities, are recommended to produce better-quality evidence.     

Spinal mobilization vs conventional physiotherapy in the management of chronic low back pain due to spinal disk degeneration: a randomized controlled trial

Objectives: The aim of the study was to examine the efficacy of spinal mobilization in subjects with low back pain (LBP) and associated spinal disk degeneration.

Methods: Seventy-five subjects suffering from chronic LBP (>3 months) were randomly allocated into 3 groups of 25 subjects each. Each group received five treatment sessions with the first group receiving manual therapy (MT) (spinal mobilization), the second a sham treatment, and the third conventional physiotherapy (CP) (stretching exercises, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and massage). Subjects were assessed for their pain intensity using the numerical pain rating scale and for their self-reported disability using the Oswestry and Roland-Morris Questionnaire at baseline and after the completion of the five treatment sessions.

Results: Paired t-tests showed a significant improvement for all outcome measures in the MT and CP group (p < 0.05). Analysis of covariance revealed that the MT group had significant improvement in all outcome measures in comparison with the sham and CP group (p < 0.05), whereas no significant difference was observed between the sham and CP group (p > 0.05).

Discussion: MT is preferable to CP in order to reduce the pain intensity and disability in subjects with chronic LBP and associated disk degeneration. The findings of this study may lead to the establishment of spinal mobilization as one of the most preferable approaches for the management of LBP due to disk degeneration.

Level of evidence: 1b.     

A preliminary study comparing the use of cervical/upper thoracic mobilization and manipulation for individuals with mechanical neck pain

Objectives:Neck pain is routinely managed using manual therapy (MT) to the cervical and thoracic spines. While both mobilizations and manipulations to these areas have been shown to reduce neck pain, increase cervical range of motion, and reduce disability, the most effective option remains elusive. The purpose of this preliminary trial was to compare the pragmatic use of cervical and thoracic mobilizations vs. manipulation for mechanical neck pain.Methods:This trial included 20 patients with mechanical neck pain. Each patient was randomized to receive either mobilization or manipulation to both the cervical and thoracic spines during their plan of care. Within-group analyses were made with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and between-group analyses were made with Mann–Whitney U.Results:There were no between-group differences for any of the dependent variables including cervical active range of motion (CAROM) (P = 0.18), deep cervical flexion (DCF) endurance (P = 0.06), numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) (P = 0.26), the neck disability index (NDI, P = 0.33), patient-specific functional scale (PSFS, P = 0.20), or the global rating of change (GROC) scale (P = 0.94). Within-group results were significant for all outcome variables (P<0.001) from initial evaluation to discharge for both groups.Discussion:These findings were consistent with other trials previously conducted that applied the MT techniques in a pragmatic fashion, but varied from previous trials where the treatment was standardized. A larger experimental study is necessary to further examine the differences between mobilization and manipulation for neck pain.     

Lumbar manipulation and exercise for the treatment of acute low back pain in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial

ObjectivesLow back pain (LBP) is a common condition in adolescents. Although much has been written about the efficacy of lumbar manipulation for adults with LBP, little is known about its effectiveness in adolescents. This study had two primary aims: (1) to assess the efficacy of adding lumbar manipulation to an exercise program in adolescents with acute (<90 days) LBP and (2) to report and assess any adverse reactions associated with lumbar manipulation noted in this study.MethodsPatients were randomly assigned to receive lumbar manipulation or sham manipulation. All patients performed 4 weeks of physical therapy exercise. Pain, patient-specific functional scale (PSFS), and global rating of change (GROC) scores were measured at evaluation, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 6 months. Relative risk was calculated for adverse reactions noted.ResultsWe recruited 35 consecutive patients with acute LBP. One patient was excluded after being diagnosed with a spondylolysis, 34 patients remained for analysis. Both groups experienced significant improvement over time in all measures. There were no differences between groups for pain, PSFS, or GROC scores. No increased risk of adverse reaction from lumbar manipulation was noted.DiscussionThe addition of lumbar manipulation to exercise did not benefit adolescents with acute LBP. There was not an increased risk of an adverse reaction noted in this study from lumbar manipulation performed on adolescents. Further research needs to be done to identify factors that predict positive outcomes following lumbar manipulation in adolescents.     

Lumbar manipulation and exercise for the treatment of acute low back pain in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Objectives:

Low back pain (LBP) is a common condition in adolescents. Although much has been written about the efficacy of lumbar manipulation for adults with LBP, little is known about its effectiveness in adolescents. This study had two primary aims: (1) to assess the efficacy of adding lumbar manipulation to an exercise program in adolescents with acute (<90 days) LBP and (2) to report and assess any adverse reactions associated with lumbar manipulation noted in this study.

Methods:

Patients were randomly assigned to receive lumbar manipulation or sham manipulation. All patients performed 4 weeks of physical therapy exercise. Pain, patient-specific functional scale (PSFS), and global rating of change (GROC) scores were measured at evaluation, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 6 months. Relative risk was calculated for adverse reactions noted.

Results:

We recruited 35 consecutive patients with acute LBP. One patient was excluded after being diagnosed with a spondylolysis, 34 patients remained for analysis. Both groups experienced significant improvement over time in all measures. There were no differences between groups for pain, PSFS, or GROC scores. No increased risk of adverse reaction from lumbar manipulation was noted.

Discussion:

The addition of lumbar manipulation to exercise did not benefit adolescents with acute LBP. There was not an increased risk of an adverse reaction noted in this study from lumbar manipulation performed on adolescents. Further research needs to be done to identify factors that predict positive outcomes following lumbar manipulation in adolescents.     

Pilates for neck pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BackgroundAlthough widely used in clinical practice, evidence on the effectiveness of the Pilates method in people with neck pain has not been adequately summarised yet.ObjectiveTo systematically review the literature on the effectiveness of the Pilates method on improving pain and disability in patients with neck pain.MethodsWe performed searches in multiple databases from their inception to October 2021. We included randomised controlled trials comparing the effects of the Pilates method with other treatments on pain and disability in patients with neck pain. Two authors independently selected studies, rated risk of bias, extracted data, and judged the overall certainty of evidence using GRADE.ResultsWe included five RCTs (n = 224 participants). There is low certainty evidence that Pilates method did not significantly improve pain compared to other treatments at short-term (mean difference (MD): MD: 9.29 points, 95% CI -25.84 to 7.26; I2 = 93%). Low certainty evidence suggested that the Pilates method did not significantly improve disability compared to other treatments at short-term (MD: 3.20 points, 95% CI -7.70 to 1.30; I² = 75%).ConclusionBased on low certainty evidence, the Pilates method is not better than other treatments at 3 months to reduce pain and disability. High quality trials are required.     

Relationship between physical activity and disability in low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

It is often assumed that patients with pain-related disability due to low back pain (LBP) will have reduced physical activity levels, but recent studies have provided results that challenge this assumption. The aim of our systematic review was to examine the relationship between physical activity and disability in LBP. The literature search included 6 electronic databases and the reference list of relevant systematic reviews and studies to May 2010. To be included, studies had to measure both disability (eg, with the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) and physical activity (eg, by accelerometry) in patients with non-specific LBP. Two independent reviewers screened search results and extracted data, and authors were contacted for additional data. Correlation coefficients were pooled using the random-effects model. The search identified 3213 records and 18 studies were eligible for inclusion. The pooled results showed a weak relationship between physical activity and disability in acute or subacute (<3 months) LBP (r = −0.08, 95% confidence interval = −0.17 to 0.002), and a moderate and negative relationship in chronic (>3 months) LBP (r = −0.33, 95% confidence interval = −0.51 to −0.15). That is, persons with acute or subacute LBP appear to vary in the levels of physical activity independent of their pain-related disability. Persons with chronic LBP with high levels of disability are also likely to have low levels of physical activity.     

A randomized clinical trial comparing non-thrust manipulation with segmental and distal dry needling on pain,disability, and rate of recovery for patients with non-specific low back pain

ABSTRACT

Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the within and between-group effects of segmental and distal dry needling (DN) without needle manipulation to a semi-standardized non-thrust manipulation (NTM) targeting the symptomatic spinal level for patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP).

Methods: Sixty-five patients with NSLBP were randomized to receive either DN (n = 30) or NTM (n = 35) for six sessions over 3 weeks. Outcomes collected included the oswestry disability index (ODI), patient specific functional scale (PSFS), numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), and pain pressure thresholds (PPT). At discharge, patients perceived recovery was assessed.

Results: A two-way mixed model ANOVA demonstrated that there was no group*time interaction for PSFS (p = 0.26), ODI (p = 0.57), NPRS (p = 0.69), and PPT (p = 0.51). There was significant within group effects for PSFS (3.1 [2.4, 3.8], p = 0.018), ODI (14.5% [10.0%, 19.0%], p = 0.015), NPRS (2.2 [1.5, 2.8], p = 0.009), but not for PPT (3.3 [0.5, 6.0], p = 0.20).

Discussion: The between-group effects were neither clinically nor statistically significant. The within group effects were both significant and exceeded the reported minimum clinically important differences for the outcomes tools except the PPT. DN and NTM produced comparable outcomes in this sample of patients with NSLBP.

Level of evidence: 1b     

Classification of pregnancy related non-specific low back pain and pelvic girdle pain: a systematic review

Background: Pregnancy related non-specific low back pain (PNSLBP) and pelvic girdle pain (PGP) affect almost half of pregnant women, causing substantial disability for some. These diagnoses, which may represent several possible individual or co-occurring conditions, lack the specificity required to guide personalized treatment decisions. A reliable and valid classification is needed to direct effectiveness research and inform treatment strategies.

Objectives: To describe the psychometric properties of pathoanatomic classifications of PNSLBP and PGP as well as to assess the risk of bias of supporting evidence.

Methods: Two independent reviewers systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and PEDro databases and conducted a manual search of reference list of eligible articles reporting office-based examination for classifying PNSLBP/PGP. QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability of reviewed studies.

Results: Ten studies were eligible. Inter-rater reliability was 87% for PNSLBP and 84.6% for PGP. Major sources of potential bias included the lack of reference standard diagnostic tests, insufficient blinding, non-systematic order of index test application, and unclear participant selection procedures. Patient flow throughout studies and the interval between testing (flow and timing) showed the lowest risk of bias. The applicability of the reference standard had the highest concern, while participant selection and index test had the lowest.

Conclusion: Although acceptable inter-rater reliability has been demonstrated, there is no current evidence to support the validity of PNSLBP and PGP classification systems. Future studies should consider including reference standard diagnostic tests, random order sequencing of index tests, rigorous selection criteria, and blinded assessors.     

The impact of low back pain on work: A study in primary care consulters

Background: The cost of low back pain (LBP) to employers is high, with an estimated £9090 million lost in the United Kingdom in 1998. Economic analysis of LBP has focused on work absence among the employed. There is little research characterising individuals who report reduced duties or who are not in employment because of LBP. Aims: To compare the health related characteristics of primary care LBP consulters reporting usual employment, reduced duties, sick leave and non‐employment as a result of LBP. Methods: Prospective cohort study recruiting LBP consulters aged 30–59 years of age from five general practices in North Staffordshire. Results: Nine hundred and thirty‐five participants completed the baseline phase, 65% were in employment and 35% were not in employment. Of the employed participants over 1 in 10 (11%) were undertaking reduced duties and almost one‐fifth were reporting sick leave (22%). Furthermore, 37% of non‐employed consulters reported that LBP was the reason for non‐employment. Significant differences at baseline in socioeconomic status, self‐rated health, anxiety, depression and disability were found between those undertaking their usual job, those on reduced duties and those on sickness absence due to LBP, with those participants further removed from the work force reporting worse health across all measures. Significant differences were also found in self‐rated health between those not working due to LBP and those not working for other reasons, with participants not working due to LBP reporting worse self‐rated health. At follow‐up, work status was found to be relatively stable. Conclusion: These findings indicate that the economic impact of LBP may be higher than previously estimated when data on reduced duties is combined with work absence. The additional impact of unemployment due to LBP should also be included in future assessments of the impact of LBP on the workforce.     

The fidelity of comparison intervention in manual therapy trial for patients with low back pain: a systematic review

Abstract

Background: Comparison interventions for low back pain are described in the literature utilizing different treatment interventions with various terminology. The effectiveness of these comparison groups is not well defined.

Objectives: The objective of this systematic review is to assess the fidelity of comparison interventions within randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of manual therapy on low back pain.

Methods: This systematic review utilized PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane, and Pedro databases. Articles were screened by two authors for eligibility criteria and then extracted, reviewed, and cross-checked for data that included sample size, patient demographics, manual therapy intervention, the control group protocol, and outcomes. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to determine disagreement among authors. A qualitative synthesis of the evidence was completed.

Results: A total of 20 articles were included in this systematic review. The comparison interventions were categorized into themes based on the terminology used by the various studies. The themes consisted of “standard care”, “sham treatment”, “control groups”, and unnamed comparison interventions. These themes were then compared to the CPG based on the interventions utilized in each study.

Conclusions: There appears to be significant variability in comparison interventions within randomized controlled trials assessing manual therapy effects on patients with low back pain. This variability may lead to inconsistent published effect sizes. It is imperative to correctly follow evidence-based practice from resources, such as the CPG, to determine the effectiveness of treatment interventions.