↓ Skip to main content

Upper cervical and upper thoracic manipulation versus mobilization and exercise in patients with cervicogenic headache: a multi-center randomized clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#5 of 3,518)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
236 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
105 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
836 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
Upper cervical and upper thoracic manipulation versus mobilization and exercise in patients with cervicogenic headache: a multi-center randomized clinical trial
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12891-016-0912-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

James R. Dunning, Raymond Butts, Firas Mourad, Ian Young, Cesar Fernandez-de-las Peñas, Marshall Hagins, Thomas Stanislawski, Jonathan Donley, Dustin Buck, Todd R. Hooks, Joshua A. Cleland

Abstract

Although commonly utilized interventions, no studies have directly compared the effectiveness of cervical and thoracic manipulation to mobilization and exercise in individuals with cervicogenic headache (CH). The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of manipulation to mobilization and exercise in individuals with CH. One hundred and ten participants (n = 110) with CH were randomized to receive both cervical and thoracic manipulation (n = 58) or mobilization and exercise (n = 52). The primary outcome was headache intensity as measured by the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Secondary outcomes included headache frequency, headache duration, disability as measured by the Neck Disability Index (NDI), medication intake, and the Global Rating of Change (GRC). The treatment period was 4 weeks with follow-up assessment at 1 week, 4 weeks, and 3 months after initial treatment session. The primary aim was examined with a 2-way mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA), with treatment group (manipulation versus mobilization and exercise) as the between subjects variable and time (baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks and 3 months) as the within subjects variable. The 2X4 ANOVA demonstrated that individuals with CH who received both cervical and thoracic manipulation experienced significantly greater reductions in headache intensity (p < 0.001) and disability (p < 0.001) than those who received mobilization and exercise at a 3-month follow-up. Individuals in the upper cervical and upper thoracic manipulation group also experienced less frequent headaches and shorter duration of headaches at each follow-up period (p < 0.001 for all). Additionally, patient perceived improvement was significantly greater at 1 and 4-week follow-up periods in favor of the manipulation group (p < 0.001). Six to eight sessions of upper cervical and upper thoracic manipulation were shown to be more effective than mobilization and exercise in patients with CH, and the effects were maintained at 3 months. NCT01580280 April 16, 2012.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 236 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 836 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 826 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 167 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 129 15%
Student > Bachelor 114 14%
Other 82 10%
Student > Postgraduate 75 9%
Other 136 16%
Unknown 133 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 321 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 264 32%
Sports and Recreations 34 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 2%
Neuroscience 8 <1%
Other 34 4%
Unknown 155 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 235. 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 18 October 2021.
All research outputs
#98,842
of 19,430,502 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#5
of 3,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,235
of 361,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,430,502 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,518 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 361,507 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them