Advertisement

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Manipulation With Mobilization for Recent Onset Neck Pain

      Abstract

      Leaver AM, Maher CG, Herbert RD, Latimer J, McAuley JH, Jull G, Refshauge KM. A randomized controlled trial comparing manipulation with mobilization for recent onset neck pain.

      Objective

      To determine whether neck manipulation is more effective for neck pain than mobilization.

      Design

      Randomized controlled trial with blind assessment of outcome.

      Setting

      Primary care physiotherapy, chiropractic, and osteopathy clinics in Sydney, Australia.

      Participants

      Patients (N=182) with nonspecific neck pain less than 3 months in duration and deemed suitable for treatment with manipulation by the treating practitioner.

      Interventions

      Participants were randomly assigned to receive treatment with neck manipulation (n=91) or mobilization (n=91). Patients in both groups received 4 treatments over 2 weeks.

      Main Outcome Measure

      The number of days taken to recover from the episode of neck pain.

      Results

      The median number of days to recovery of pain was 47 in the manipulation group and 43 in the mobilization group. Participants treated with neck manipulation did not experience more rapid recovery than those treated with neck mobilization (hazard ratio=.98; 95% confidence interval, .66–1.46).

      Conclusions

      Neck manipulation is not appreciably more effective than mobilization. The use of neck manipulation therefore cannot be justified on the basis of superior effectiveness.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Gross A.R.
        • Hoving J.L.
        • Haines T.A.
        • et al.
        A Cochrane review of manipulation and mobilization for mechanical neck disorders.
        Spine. 2004; 29: 1541-1548
        • Magarey M.E.
        • Rebbeck T.
        • Coughlan B.
        • Grimmer K.
        • Rivett D.A.
        • Refshauge K.
        Pre-manipulative testing of the cervical spine review, revision and new clinical guidelines.
        Man Ther. 2004; 9: 95-108
        • Cote P.
        • Cassidy J.D.
        • Carroll L.
        The Saskatchewan Health and Back Pain Survey: the prevalence of neck pain and related disability in Saskatchewan adults.
        Spine. 1998; 23: 1689-1698
        • Gatterman M.I.
        • Hansen D.T.
        Development of chiropractic nomenclature through consensus.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1994; 17: 302-309
        • Refshauge K.M.
        • Parry S.
        • Shirley D.
        • Larsen D.
        • Rivett D.
        • Boland R.
        Professional responsibility in relation to cervical spine manipulation.
        Aust J Physiother. 2002; 48: 171-179
        • Breen A.
        • Breen A.
        Manipulation of the neck and stroke: time for more rigorous evidence.
        Med J Aust. 2002; 176: 364-365
        • Cassidy J.D.
        • Boyle E.
        • Cote P.
        • et al.
        Risk of vertebrobasilar stroke and chiropractic care: results of a population-based case-control and case-crossover study.
        Spine. 2008; 33: S176-S183
        • Rothwell D.M.
        • Bondy S.J.
        • Williams J.I.
        Chiropractic manipulation and stroke: a population-based case-control study.
        Stroke. 2001; 32: 1054-1060
        • Smith W.S.
        • Johnston S.C.
        • Skalabrin E.J.
        • et al.
        Spinal manipulative therapy is an independent risk factor for vertebral artery dissection.
        Neurology. 2003; 60: 1424-1428
        • Miley M.L.
        • Wellik K.E.
        • Wingerchuk D.M.
        • Demaerschalk B.M.
        Does cervical manipulative therapy cause vertebral artery dissection and stroke?.
        Neurologist. 2008; 14: 66-73
        • Mann T.
        • Refshauge K.M.
        Causes of complications from cervical spine manipulation.
        Aust J Physiother. 2001; 47: 255-266
        • Hurwitz E.L.
        • Aker P.D.
        • Adams A.H.
        • Meeker W.C.
        • Shekelle P.G.
        Manipulation and mobilization of the cervical spine: a systematic review of the literature.
        Spine. 1996; 21: 1746-1759
        • Bronfort G.
        • Haas M.
        • Evans R.L.
        • Bouter L.M.
        Efficacy of spinal manipulation and mobilization for low back pain and neck pain: a systematic review and best evidence synthesis.
        Spine J. 2004; 4: 335-356
        • Merskey H.
        • Bogduk N.
        Classification of chronic pain: description of pain terms and definitions of pain terms.
        2nd ed. IASP Press, Seattle1994
        • NHMRC
        Acute neck pain.
        in: Evidence-based management of acute musculoskeletal pain: a guide for clinicians Australian Acute Musculoskeletal Guidelines Group. Australia Academic Pr, Brisbane2004: 83-118
        • Vernon H.
        • Mior S.
        The neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991; 14: 409-415
        • Westaway M.D.
        • Stratford P.W.
        • Binkley J.M.
        The patient-specific functional scale: validation of its use in persons with neck dysfunction.
        J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998; 27: 331-338
        • Ostelo R.W.
        • de Vet H.C.
        Clinically important outcomes in low back pain.
        Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2005; 19: 593-607
        • Ware J.
        • Kosinski M.
        • Keller S.
        A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity.
        Med Care. 1996; 34: 220-233
        • Borkovec T.D.
        • Nau S.D.
        Credibility of analogue therapy rationales.
        J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 1972; 3: 257-260
        • Barrett A.J.
        • Breen A.C.
        Adverse effects of spinal manipulation.
        J R Soc Med. 2000; 93: 258-259
        • Leaver A.M.
        • Refshauge K.M.
        • Maher C.G.
        • et al.
        Efficacy of manipulation for non-specific neck pain of recent onset: design of a randomised controlled trial.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007; 8: 18
        • Clark T.G.
        • Altman D.G.
        • De Stavola B.L.
        Quantification of the completeness of follow-up.
        Lancet. 2002; 359: 1309-1310
        • Kovacs F.M.
        • Abraira V.
        • Royuela A.
        • et al.
        Minimum detectable and minimal clinically important changes for pain in patients with nonspecific neck pain.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008; 9: 43
        • Meeker W.C.
        • Haldeman S.
        Chiropractic: a profession at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine.
        Ann Intern Med. 2002; 136: 216-227
        • Boutron I.
        • Moher D.
        • Altman D.G.
        • et al.
        Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration.
        Ann Intern Med. 2008; 148: 295-309
        • Carroll L.J.
        • Hogg-Johnson S.
        • van der Velde G.
        • et al.
        Course and prognostic factors for neck pain in the general population: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders.
        Spine. 2008; 33: S75-S82
        • Barrett A.J.
        • Breen A.C.
        Adverse effects of spinal manipulation.
        J R Soc Med. 2000; 93: 258-259
        • Hurwitz E.L.
        • Morgenstern H.
        • Vassilaki M.
        • Chiang L.-M.
        Frequency and clinical predictors of adverse reactions to chiropractic care in the UCLA neck pain study.
        Spine. 2005; 30: 1477-1484