↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of manipulation for non-specific neck pain of recent onset: design of a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, February 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
190 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Efficacy of manipulation for non-specific neck pain of recent onset: design of a randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, February 2007
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-8-18
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew M Leaver, Kathryn M Refshauge, Christopher G Maher, Jane Latimer, Rob D Herbert, Gwendolen Jull, James H McAuley

Abstract

Manipulation is a common treatment for non-specific neck pain. Neck manipulation, unlike gentler forms of manual therapy such as mobilisation, is associated with a small risk of serious neurovascular injury and can result in stroke or death. It is thought however, that neck manipulation provides better results than mobilisation where clinically indicated. There is long standing and vigorous debate both within and between the professions that use neck manipulation as well as the wider scientific community as to whether neck manipulation potentially does more harm than good. The primary aim of this study is to determine whether neck manipulation provides more rapid resolution of an episode of neck pain than mobilisation. 182 participants with acute and sub-acute neck pain will be recruited from physiotherapy, chiropractic and osteopathy practices in Sydney, Australia. Participants will be randomly allocated to treatment with either manipulation or mobilisation. Randomisation will occur after the treating practitioner decides that manipulation is an appropriate treatment for the individual participant. Both groups will receive at least 4 treatments over 2 weeks. The primary outcome is number of days taken to recover from the episode of neck pain. Cox regression will be used to compare survival curves for time to recovery for the manipulation and mobilisation treatment groups. This paper presents the rationale and design of a randomised controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of neck manipulation and neck mobilisation for acute and subacute neck pain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 2 1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 179 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 16%
Student > Bachelor 24 13%
Researcher 19 10%
Student > Postgraduate 16 8%
Other 13 7%
Other 50 26%
Unknown 38 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 86 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 13%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Sports and Recreations 6 3%
Other 15 8%
Unknown 45 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 June 2023.
All research outputs
#19,320,521
of 23,920,246 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#3,272
of 4,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,680
of 77,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#11
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,920,246 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,200 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 77,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.