↓ Skip to main content

Effect of manual versus mechanically assisted manipulations of the thoracic spine in neck pain patients: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
240 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
Effect of manual versus mechanically assisted manipulations of the thoracic spine in neck pain patients: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0763-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anke Langenfeld, B. Kim Humphreys, Rob A. de Bie, Jaap Swanenburg

Abstract

Neck pain is a common musculoskeletal condition with a point prevalence of around 15 % in males and 23 % in females that often presents in physiotherapy practice. Physical therapy and/or manipulation therapy is generally the first management option for patients with mechanical neck pain. Physical therapists treat mechanical neck pain with a number of interventions including joint mobilization and/or manipulation, therapeutic exercises or education. However, manipulation of the cervical spine carries some risks. Treating the thoracic spine for neck pain is an alternative approach. Emerging evidence suggests that it may be effective for treating neck pain without the risks associated with cervical spine manipulation. A new electromechanical device has recently been developed and tested for delivering multiple high velocity, low amplitude thrust manipulations to the spine. This device incorporates both auditory and visual systems that provide real time feedback on the applied treatment. The objective of this study is to compare the short- and long-term effects of manual versus mechanically assisted manipulations of the thoracic spine for neck pain patients. A 6-month, randomized controlled trial consisting of 54 patients with acute or chronic neck pain patients will be conducted. Patients with no signs of major pathology and with little or no interference with daily activities will be recruited. Three treatment sessions with 4-day intervals will be carried out. The patients will be randomly assigned to receive either manually performed manipulations or electromechanical manipulations at the thoracic spine. The primary outcome is pain intensity as measured by the Visual Analogue Pain Rating Scale. The secondary outcome measures are neck physical disability using the Neck Disability Index, quality of life measured by the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 5 Levels and patients' improvement using the Patient's Global Impression of Change Scale. It is expected that both interventions will improve neck pain. This would be a significant finding, as thoracic spine manipulation for neck pain does not carry the same risk of injury as cervical spine manipulation. In addition, the results may provide useful information about therapeutic options for health care providers and patients for the problem of neck pain. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN88585962 , registered January 2013.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 240 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 237 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 18%
Student > Bachelor 37 15%
Researcher 20 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 6%
Other 35 15%
Unknown 72 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 67 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 47 20%
Sports and Recreations 10 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Psychology 6 3%
Other 26 11%
Unknown 78 33%