Immediate effects of thoracic manipulation in patients with neck pain: a randomized clinical trial. Thoracic spine manipulation for the management of patients with neck pain: a randomized clinical trial. The immediate effect of manipulation versus mobilization on pain and range of motion in the cervical spine: a randomized controlled trial. The immediate effects of upper thoracic translatoric spinal manipulation on cervical pain and range of motion: a randomized clinical trial. Manipulation of the cervical spine--a pilot study. A randomized trial of chiropractic manipulation and mobilization for patients with neck pain: clinical outcomes from the UCLA neck-pain study. A pilot randomized clinical trial on the relative effect of instrumental (MFMA) versus manual (HVLA) manipulation in the treatment of cervical spine dysfunction. The immediate effects of mobilization technique on pain and range of motion in patients presenting with unilateral neck pain: a randomized controlled trial. Immediate effects on neck pain and active range of motion after a single cervical high-velocity low-amplitude manipulation in subjects presenting with mechanical neck pain: a randomized controlled trial. Two-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial of spinal manipulation and two types of exercise for patients with chronic neck pain. A clinical trial investigating the possible effect of the supine cervical rotatory manipulation and the supine lateral break manipulation in the treatment of mechanical neck pain: a pilot study. Active or passive treatment for neck-shoulder pain in occupational health care? A randomized controlled trial. Pressure pain threshold evaluation of the effect of spinal manipulation in the treatment of chronic neck pain: a pilot study. The effect of spinal manipulation on pain and prostaglandin levels in women with primary dysmenorrhea. A feasibility study assessing manual therapies to different regions of the spine for patients with subacute or chronic neck pain. Lumbar spinal manipulation on trial. Part I--clinical assessment. The effect of spinal manipulation in the treatment of cervicogenic headache. Effects of a multimodal exercise program for people with ankylosing spondylitis. Comparison of the effectiveness of three manual physical therapy techniques in a subgroup of patients with low back pain who satisfy a clinical prediction rule: a randomized clinical trial.
Mechanical neck pain is a common occurrence in the general population resulting in a considerable economic burden. Often physical therapists will incorporate manual therapies directed at the cervical spine including joint mobilization and manipulation into the management of patients with cervical pain. Although the effectiveness of mobilization and manipulation of the cervical spine has been well documented, the small inherent risks associated with these techniques has led clinicians to frequently utilize manipulation directed at the thoracic spine in this patient population. It is hypothesized that thoracic spine manipulation may elicit similar therapeutic benefits as cervical spine manipulation while minimizing the magnitude of risk associated with the cervical technique. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to investigate the immediate effects of thoracic spine manipulation on perceived pain levels in patients presenting with neck pain. The results suggest that thoracic spine manipulation results in immediate analgesic effects in patients with mechanical neck pain. Further studies are needed to determine the effects of thoracic spine manipulation in patients with neck pain on long-term outcomes including function and disability. Randomized clinical trial.
                To investigate if patients with mechanical neck pain receiving thoracic spine thrust manipulation would experience superior outcomes compared to a group not receiving thrust manipulation.
                Evidence has begun to emerge in support of thoracic thrust manipulation as an intervention n the management of mechanical neck pain. However, to make a strong recommendation for a clinical technique it is necessary to have multiple studies with convergent findings.
                Forty-five patients (21 females) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: a control group, which received electro-thermal therapy for 5 treatment sessions, and the experimental group, which received the same electro/thermal therapy program in addition to a thoracic spine thrust manipulation once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. Mixed-model analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to examine the effects of treatment on pain (100-mm visual analogue scale), disability (100-point disability scale), and cervical range of motion, with group as the between-subjects variable and time as the within-subjects variable. The primary analysis was the group-by-time interaction for pain.
                The group-by-time interaction effects for the ANOVA models were statistically significant for pain, mobility, and disability (P< .05), indicating greater improvements in the manipulation group for all the outcome measures. Patients receiving thoracic manipulation experienced greater improvements in pain at the fifth (final) treatment session and at the 2-week and 4-week follow-up periods (P< .001), with pain improvement scores in the manipulation group of 16.8 mm and 26.6 mm greater than those in the comparison group at the 2- and 4-week follow-up periods, respectively. The experimental group also experienced significantly greater improvements in disability with a between-group difference of 8.8 points (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.5, 10.1; P< .001) at the fifth visit and 8.0 points (95% CI: 5.8, 10.2; P< .001) at the 2-week follow-up.
                The results of our study suggest that thoracic spine thrust manipulation results in superior clinical benefits that persist beyond the 1-mont follow-up period for patients with acute neck pain. Future studies should continue to investigate the effects of thoracic spine thrust manipulation, as compared to other physical therapy interventions, in a population with mechanical neck pain. The main objective of this study is to compare the immediate results of manipulation to mobilization in neck pain patients.
                The patients were compared in a randomized controlled trial without long-term follow-up.
                The study was conducted at an outpatient teaching clinic on primary and referred patients.
                One hundred consecutive outpatients suffering from unilateral neck pain with referral into the trapezius muscle were studied. Fifty-two subjects were manipulated and 48 subjects were mobilized. The mean (SD) age was 34.5 (13.0) yr for the manipulated group and 37.7 (12.5) yr for the mobilized group. Sixteen subjects had neck pain for less than 1 wk, 34 subjects had pain for between 1 wk and 6 mo and 50 subjects had pain for more than 6 mo. Seventy-eight subjects had a past history of neck pain. Thirty-one subjects had been involved in an injurious motor vehicle accident and 28 subjects had other types of minor trauma to the neck. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups with respect to history of neck pain or level of disability as measured by the Pain Disability Index.
                The patients received either a single rotational manipulation (high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust) or mobilization in the form of muscle energy technique.
                Prior to and immediately after the treatments, cervical spine range of motion was recorded in three planes, and pain intensity was rated on the 101-point numerical rating scale (NRS-101). Both pre- and post-test measurements were conducted in a blinded fashion.
                The results show that both treatments increase range of motion, but manipulation has a significantly greater effect on pain intensity. Eighty-five percent of the manipulated patients and 69% of the mobilized patients reported pain improvement immediately after treatment. However, the decrease in pain intensity was more than 1.5 times greater in the manipulated group (p = .05).
                This study demonstrates that a single manipulation is more effective than mobilization in decreasing pain in patients with mechanical neck pain. Both treatments increase range of motion in the neck to a similar degree. Further studies are required to determine any long-term benefits of manipulation for mechanical neck pain. This study examined the effect of translatoric spinal manipulation (TSM) on cervical pain and cervical active motion restriction when applied to upper thoracic (T1-T4) segments. Active cervical rotation range of motion was measured re- and post-intervention with a cervical inclinometer (CROM), and cervical pain status was monitored before and after manipulation with a Faces Pain Scale. Study participants included a sample of convenience that included 32 patients referred to physical therapy with complaints of pain in the mid-cervical region and restricted active cervical rotation. Twenty-two patients were randomly assigned to the experimental group and ten were assigned to the control group. Pre- and post-intervention cervical range of motion and pain scale measurements were taken by a physical therapist assistant who was blinded to group assignment. The experimental group received TSM to hypomobile upper thoracic segments. The control group received no intervention. Paired t-tests were used to analyze within-group changes in cervical rotation and pain, and a 2-way repeated-measure ANOVA was used to analyze between-group differences in cervical rotation and pain. Significance was accepted at p = 0.05. Significant changes that exceeded the MDC(95) were detected for cervical rotation both within group and between groups with the TSM group demonstrating increased mean (SD) in right rotation of 8.23 degrees (7.41 degrees ) and left rotation of 7.09 degrees (5.83 degrees ). Pain levels perceived during post-intervention cervical rotation showed significant improvement during right rotation for patients experiencing pain during bilateral rotation only (p=.05). This study supports the hypothesis that spinal manipulation applied to the upper thoracic spine (T1-T4 motion segments) significantly increases cervical rotation ROM and may reduce cervical pain at end range rotation for patients experiencing pain during bilateral cervical rotation. A randomized controlled trial of manipulation of the cervial spine was carried out on 52 patients in general practice, and the results were assessed symptomatically and goniometrically for three weeks. Manipulation produced a significant immediate improvement in symptoms in those with pain or stiffness in the neck, and pain/paraesthesia in the shoulder, and a nearly significant improvement in those with pain/paraesthesia in the arm/hand. Manipulation also produced a significant increase in measured rotation that was maintained for three weeks and an immediate improvement in lateral flexion that was not maintained.This is to our knowledge the first published formal trial of such manipulation and should increase interest in this form of treatment by the medical profession. This study compared the relative effectiveness of cervical spine manipulation and mobilization for neck pain.
                Neck-pain patients were randomized to the following conditions: manipulation with or without heat, manipulation with or without electrical muscle stimulation, mobilization with or without heat, and mobilization with or without electrical muscle stimulation.
                Of 960 eligible patients, 336 enrolled in the study. Mean reductions in pain and disability were similar in the manipulation and mobilization groups through 6 months.
                Cervical spine manipulation and mobilization yield comparable clinical outcomes. To determine the relative effect of instrument-delivered thrust cervical manipulations in comparison with traditional manual-delivered thrust cervical manipulations in the treatment of cervical spine dysfunction.
                Prospective, randomized, comparative clinical trial.
                Outpatient chiropractic clinic, Technikon Natal, South Africa.
                Thirty patients diagnosed with neck pain and restricted cervical spine range of motion without complicating pathosis for at least 1 month were included in the study.
                The patients were randomized into 2 groups. Those in one group received mechanical force, manually assisted (MFMA) manipulation to the cervical spine, delivered by means of a hand-held instrument (Activator II Adjusting Instrument). Those in the other group received specific contact high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation consisting of standard Diversified rotary/lateral break techniques to the cervical spine. Each group received only the specific therapeutic intervention, no other treatment modalities or interventions (including medication) being used, until asymptomatic status was achieved or a maximum of 8 treatments had been received. Main Outcome Measures: Both treatment groups were assessed through use of subjective (Numerical Pain Rating Scale 101, McGill Short-Form Pain Questionnaire, and Neck Disability Index) and objective (goniometer cervical range of motion) measurement parameters at specific intervals during the treatment period and at 1-month follow-up. The data were assessed through use of 2-tailed nonparametric paired and unpaired analysis, descriptive statistics, and power analysis of the data.
                The results indicate that both treatment methods had a positive effect on the subjective and objective clinical outcome measures, no significant difference being observed between the 2 groups (P < .025). The subjective data from all 3 questionnaires showed statistically significant changes from initial to final consultations as well as from initial consultation to 1-month follow-up (P < .025). The objective range of motion measures showed statistically significant changes in the MFMA group for left and right rotation and left and right lateral flexion from initial consultation to final consultations and for right rotation and right lateral flexion from initial consultation to 1-month follow-up. The HVLA group showed only the change in left rotation from initial to final consultations and from initial consultation to 1-month follow-up to be statistically significant.
                The results of this clinical trial indicate that both instrumental (MFMA) manipulation and manual (HVLA) manipulation have beneficial effects associated with reducing pain and disability and improving cervical range of motion in this patient population. A randomized, controlled clinical trial in a similar patient base with a larger sample size is necessary to verify the clinical relevance of these findings. To determine the immediate effects on both pain and active range of motion (ROM) of the unilateral posteroanterior (PA) mobilization technique on the painful side in mechanical neck pain patients presenting with unilateral symptoms.
                Triple-blind, randomized controlled trial.
                Outpatient physical therapy, institutional clinic.
                Patients (N=60), 2 physical therapists, and 1 assessor involved in this study.
                The patients were randomly allocated into either preferred or random mobilization group by using an opaque concealed envelope. The first therapist performed the screening, assessing, prescribing the spinal level(s), and the grade of mobilization. The second therapist performed the mobilization treatment according to their allocated group stated in an envelope. The assessor who was blind to the group allocation conducted the measurements of pain and active cervical ROM.
                Pain intensity, active cervical ROM, and global perceived effect were measured at baseline and 5 minutes posttreatment.
                After mobilization, there were no apparent differences in pain and active cervical ROM between groups. However, within-group changes showed significant decreases in neck pain at rest and pain on most painful movement (P<0.001) with a significant increase in active cervical ROM after mobilization on most painful movement (P=0.002).
                The results of this study did not provide support for the preference of the unilateral PA mobilization on the painful side to the random mobilization. The objective of this study is to analyze the immediate effects on neck pain and active cervical range of motion after a single cervical high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation or a control mobilization procedure in mechanical neck pain subjects. In addition, we assessed the possible correlation between neck pain and neck mobility.
                Seventy patients with mechanical neck pain (25 males and 45 females, aged 20-55 years) participated in this study. The lateral gliding test was used to establish the presence of an intervertebral joint dysfunction at the C3 through C4 or C4 through C5 levels. Subjects were divided randomly into either an experimental group, which received an HVLA thrust, or a control group, which received a manual mobilization procedure. The outcome measures were active cervical range of motion and neck pain at rest assessed pretreatment and 5 minutes posttreatment by an assessor blinded to the treatment allocation of the patient. Intragroup and intergroup comparisons were made with parametric tests. Within-group effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d coefficient.
                Within-group changes showed a significant improvement in neck pain at rest and mobility after application of the manipulation (P < .001). The control group also showed a significant improvement in neck pain at rest (P < .01), flexion (P < .01), extension (P < .05), and both lateral flexions (P < .01), but not in rotation. Pre-post effect sizes were large for all the outcomes in the experimental group (d > 1), but were small to medium in the control mobilization group (0.2 < d < 0.6). The intergroup comparison showed that the experimental group obtained a greater improvement than the control group in all the outcome measures (P < .001). Decreased neck pain and increased range of motion were negatively associated for all cervical motions: the greater the increase in neck mobility, the less the pain at rest.
                Our results suggest that a single cervical HVLA manipulation was more effective in reducing neck pain at rest and in increasing active cervical range of motion than a control mobilization procedure in subjects suffering from mechanical neck pain. Randomized clinical trial.
                To compare the effects of spinal manipulation combined with low-tech rehabilitative exercise, MedX rehabilitative exercise, or spinal manipulation alone in patient self-reported outcomes over a two-year follow-up period.
                There have been few randomized clinical trials of spinal manipulation and rehabilitative exercise for patients with neck pain, and most have only reported short-term outcomes.
                One hundred ninety-one patients with chronic neck pain were randomized to 11 weeks of one of the three treatments. Patient self-report questionnaires measuring pain, disability, general health status, improvement, satisfaction, and OTC medication use were collected after 5 and 11 weeks of treatment and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment. Data were analyzed taking into account all time points using repeated measures analyses.
                Ninety-three percent (178) of randomized patients completed the 11-week intervention phase, and 76% (145) provided data at all evaluation time points over the two-year follow-up period. A difference in patient-rated pain with no group-time interaction was observed in favor of the two exercise groups [F(2141) = 3.2; P= 0.04]. There was also a group difference in satisfaction with care [F(2143) = 7.7; P= 0.001], with spinal manipulation combined with low-tech rehabilitative exercise superior to MedX rehabilitative exercise (P = 0.02) and spinal manipulation alone (P < 0.001). No significant group differences were found for neck disability, general health status, improvement, and OTC medication use, although the trend over time was in favor of the two exercise groups.
                The results of this study demonstrate an advantage of spinal manipulation combined with low-tech rehabilitative exercise and MedX rehabilitative exercise versus spinal manipulation alone over two years and are similar in magnitude to those observed after one-year follow-up. These results suggest that treatments including supervised rehabilitative exercise should be considered for chronic neck pain sufferers. Further studies are needed to examine the cost effectiveness of these therapies and how spinal manipulation compares to no treatment or minimal intervention. To evaluate the possible effect of the supine cervical rotary manipulation and the supine lateral break manipulation in the treatment of mechanical neck pain, according to subjective and objective clinical findings.
                Delivering a supine lateral break manipulation to the ipsilateral side of an inflamed facet joint(s) that exhibits a lateral flexion fixation may result in pain and/or discomfort to the patient. Thus the proposed alternative is a supine cervical rotary manipulation delivered on the ipsilateral side or a supine lateral break manipulation delivered on the contralateral side of the relevant joint(s).
                Randomized, comparative clinical trial.
                Two groups of 15 subjects diagnosed with mechanical neck pain.
                The diagnosis of mechanical neck pain and the identification of lateral flexion fixations in the cervical spine were made with conventional clinical evaluation, including motion palpation. Group A received a cervical rotary manipulation(s) on the ipsilateral side of the lateral flexion fixation(s), while group B received a supine lateral break manipulation(s) on the contralateral side of the lateral flexion fixation(s). Subjects received a maximum of 10 treatments over a 4-week treatment period. Outcome Measures: Both treatment groups were assessed with subjective (Numerical Pain Rating Scale 101, McGill Short-Form Pain Questionnaire and the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College Neck Disability Index) and objective (cervical range of motion goniometer and algometer) measurement parameters at the initial consultation (before any treatment), the final consultation, and at a 1-month follow-up consultation. Statistical analysis was conducted at a 95% confidence level (alpha =.05) with the non-parametric 2-tailed Wilcoxon signed ranks test, the Mann-Whitney U test, and descriptive statistics. Two-tailed power analysis was conducted after the fact, where a confidence level of 80% (beta =.20) was considered satisfactory.
                Intragroup analysis indicated a significant difference between the initial consultation data and the final consultation data for the subjective data, indicating an effect. Analysis of the objective data did not reveal any significant difference. Intergroup analysis did not reveal any significant difference between the 2 groups when comparing the data of the initial consultation and the final consultation, indicating that both treatments had a similar or equal effect. Power analysis was not satisfactory for most data, indicating the possibility of many Type II errors.
                Statistically, the results suggested that both treatments had an effect but that neither group showed a benefit over the other. However, because of the unsatisfactory power of the study, conclusions are to be drawn with caution. Clinical significance supported the statistical outcomes where it was suggested that both treatments had an effect and that neither treatment had a greater effect. A larger sample size and the inclusion of a placebo group is recommended to reveal true treatment outcomes and trends. To compare the effectiveness of thoracic manipulations with instructions for physiotherapeutic exercises for the treatment of neck pain in occupational health care.
                Seventy-five subjects aged 30-55 years from a random sample of 241 employees of the Finnish Broadcasting Company were randomly allocated to treatment in the form of four thoracic manipulations (n = 43), or instructions for physiotherapeutic exercises (n = 32). The subjects reported neck-shoulder pain on a structured pain questionnaire using a visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-10). Muscle tenderness and tender thoracic levels were evaluated by a blinded investigator (A.S.) at 6- and 12 month follow-ups.
                A statistically significant difference was found in self-reported worst pain by VAS at the 12 month follow-up in favour of the thoracic manipulation group.
                The natural course of the neck-shoulder pain in this study appears benign; pain was also reduced in the drop-out group. Both treatments were found effective at the 12 month follow-up. The effect of four manipulations was more favourable than the personal exercise program in treating the more intense phase of pain. Nine subjects with chronic mechanical neck pain syndromes were evaluated for pressure pain threshold (PPT) over standardized tender points in the paraspinal area surrounding a manipulable spinal lesion. The subjects were then allocated randomly to an intervention consisting of either an oscillatory mobilization of the cervical spine (n = 4), which was designated as the control procedure, or a rotational manipulation of the cervical spine (n = 5). An assessor-blinded re-evaluation of the pressure pain threshold levels was conducted after 5 min. In the group receiving a manipulation the mean increases in pressure pain threshold ranged from 40-56% with an average of 45%. In the control group no change in any of the pressure pain thresholds was found. These results were analyzed using ANOVA and were found to be statistically significant (p less than 0.0001). This study confirms that manipulation can increase local paraspinal pain threshold levels. The use of the pressure pain threshold meter allows for the determination of such a beneficial effect in the deeper tissues. The primary objectives of this study were to compare the effect of spinal manipulation vs. sham manipulation on a) circulating plasma levels of the prostaglandin F2a metabolite, 15-keto-13,14-dihydroprostaglandin (KDPGF2a), b) perceived abdominal and back pain and c) perceived menstrual distress in women with primary dysmenorrhea.
                This randomized clinical pilot study investigated the outcome measures before and after either a spinal manipulation treatment (SMT) or a sham manipulation.
                All subjects were treated at the National College Chiropractic clinic, a private chiropractic clinic in the suburban Chicago area.
                Forty-five women with a history of primary dysmenorrhea were recruited from the local community. The volunteers ranged in age from 20-49 (mean age = 30.3 yr), and were entered into the study between April 1990 and January 1991. Twenty-four were randomly assigned to the spinal manipulation group and 21 were assigned to the sham group.
                Subjects treated with spinal manipulation were placed in a side-lying position with the bottom leg straight and the top leg flexed at the knee and hip. They received a high-velocity, short lever, low-amplitude thrust to all clinically relevant vertebral levels within T10 and L5-S1 and the sacroiliac joints. In the sham manipulation, subjects were placed in a side-lying position with both hips and knees flexed. Their manipulation consisted of a similar thrust administered to the midline base of the sacrum.
                Perceived abdominal and back pain were measured with a visual analog scale, and menstrual distress was measured with the Menstrual Distress Questionnaire. Both were administered 15 min before and 60 min after treatment. Blood samples were collected by venipuncture for the determination of plasma levels of KDPGF2a at the same times. The plasma was then assayed for KDPGF2a by radioimmunoassay.
                Analysis of covariance and paired Student's t tests were used for the statistical evaluation. Immediately after treatment, the perception of pain and the level of menstrual distress were significantly reduced by SMT. This reduction was associated with a significant reduction in plasma levels of KDGPF2a in the SMT group. A significant and similar reduction in plasma KDPGF2a also occurred in the sham group, indicating that a placebo effect was associated with a single sham intervention.
                This randomized pilot study suggests that SMT may be an effective and safe nonpharmacological alternative for relieving the pain and distress of primary dysmenorrhea. However, the large change in KDPGF2a observed in both treatment groups clearly indicates that further studies with more subjects, studied over a longer time frame, are needed to resolve the question of a placebo effect. The purpose of this project was to develop and test protocols for a randomized clinical trial of a combined therapeutic approach (thoracic spine and sacroiliac joint high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation [HVLA SM] + cervical spine postisometric relaxation) and cervical spine HVLA SM for patients with subacute or chronic neck pain.
                Patients were recruited in the Quad Cities in Iowa and Illinois. After a baseline assessment visit, eligible patients were randomly assigned to cervical spine HVLA SM or to the combined therapeutic approach for 4 treatment visits over 2 weeks. Outcome assessments included the Neck Disability Index, visual analog scale, and posttreatment response questionnaire. Patient outcomes were not aggregated or compared by treatment group.
                It took approximately 8 months of planning, which included the development of forms and protocols, pretesting the forms, and training staff and clinicians in the standardized protocols. Twelve participants were screened, and 6 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to care over a 6-week period. All patients completed 5 visits. Five of 6 patients had an improvement on the Neck Disability Index. On the visual analog scale, 2 patients improved at 2 weeks, whereas the other 4 got worse. Five patients completed the posttreatment response questionnaire; 2 of the 5 indicated they experienced discomfort or an unpleasant reaction from the study treatments.
                Designing a successful feasibility randomized clinical trial requires considerable planning, development and pretesting of the forms and protocols, and training clinicians and staff for standardized protocols. Patients were willing to be randomized, follow treatment protocols, complete baseline and outcome assessments, and return 83% of the follow-up questionnaires. Thirty-two patients with chronic low back pain were treated three times at weekly intervals with rotational manipulation. Patients with femoral or sciatic root pain were included provided they did not exhibit root compression signs. Background therapy of codeine phosphate was administered throughout. There was a significant increase in spinal flexion measured clinically during the three-week period of manipulation followed by a significant decrease in the three-week period after manipulation. The first week of manipulative treatment was more painful than the corresponding week in the control group but in the second and third weeks there was less pain in the manipulated group. Pain scores were reduced to a significant degree within four weeks of starting treatment only in the group manipulated in the first treatment period. Patients benefitting subjectively from manipulation were more likely to be older and to have had symptoms for a shorter period than those not deriving benefit. The age of onset of symptoms was significantly later in the responders. To study whether the isolated intervention of high-speed, low-amplitude spinal manipulation in the cervical spine has any effect on cervicogenic headache.
                Prospective randomized controlled trial with a blinded observer.
                Ambulatory outpatient facility in an independent research institution.
                Fifty-three subjects suffering from frequent headaches who fulfilled the International Headache Society criteria for cervicogenic headache (excluding radiological criteria). These subjects were recruited from 450 headache sufferers who responded to newspaper advertisements.
                After randomization, 28 of the group received high-velocity, low-amplitude cervical manipulation twice a week for 3 wk. The remaining 25 received low-level laser in the upper cervical region and deep friction massage (including trigger points) in the lower cervical/upper thoracic region, also twice a week for 3 wk.
                The change from week 1 to week 5 in analgesic use per day, in headache intensity per episode and in number of headache hours per day, as registered in a headache diary.
                The use of analgesics decreased by 36% in the manipulation group, but was unchanged in the soft-tissue group; this difference was statistically significant (p = .04, chi 2 for trend). The number of headache hours per day decreased by 69% in the manipulation group, compared with 37% in the soft-tissue group; this was significant at p = .03 (Mann-Whitney). Finally, headache intensity per episode decreased by 36% in the manipulation group, compared with 17% in the soft-tissue group; this was significant at p = .04 (Mann-Whitney).
                Spinal manipulation has a significant positive effect in cases of cervicogenic headache. Few randomized controlled studies have examined the effects of exercise in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). This study investigated the effects of a 12-week, multimodal exercise program in patients with AS.
                A convenience sample of 30 patients with AS (18 male, 12 female), with a mean age of 34.9 years (SD=6.28), participated in the study. Twenty-six subjects were classified as having stage I AS and 4 subjects were classified as having stage II AS according to the modified New York Criteria.
                This study was a randomized controlled trial. Subjects were assigned to either a group that received an exercise program or to a control group. The exercise program consisted of 50 minutes of multimodal exercise, including aerobic, stretching, and pulmonary exercises, 3 times a week for 3 months. Subjects in both groups received medical treatment for AS, but the exercise group received the exercise program in addition to the medical treatment. All subjects received a physical examination at baseline and at 12 weeks. The examinations were conducted under the supervision of a physician who specialized in physical medicine and rehabilitation and included the assessment of spinal mobility using 2 methods: clinical measurements (chin-to-chest distance, Modified Schober Flexion Test, occiput-to-wall distance, finger-to-floor distance, and chest expansion) and inclinometer measurements (gross hip flexion, gross lumbar flexion, and gross thoracic flexion). In addition, vital capacity was measured by a physiologist, and physical work capacity was evaluated by a doctorally prepared exercise instructor.
                The measurements of the exercise group for chest expansion, chin-to-chest distance, Modified Schober Flexion Test, and occiput-to-wall distance were significantly better than those of the control group after the 3-month exercise period. The spinal movements of the exercise group improved significantly at the end of exercise program, but those of the control group showed no significant change. In addition, the results showed that the posttraining value of gross thoracic flexion of the exercise group was significantly higher than that of the control group. Physical work capacity and vital capacity values improved in the exercise group but decreased in the control group.
                In this study, a multimodal exercise program including aerobic, stretching, and pulmonary exercises provided in conjunction with routine medical management yielded greater improvements in spinal mobility, work capacity, and chest expansion. Randomized clinical trial.
                The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to examine the generalizability of 3 different manual therapy techniques in a patient population with low back pain that satisfy a clinical prediction rule (CPR).
                Recently a CPR that identifies patients with LBP who are likely to respond rapidly and dramatically to thrust manipulation has been developed and validated. The generalizability of the CPR requires further investigation.
                A total of 112 patients were enrolled in the trial and provided demographic information and completed a number of self-report questionnaires including the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) at baseline, 1-week, 4-weeks, and 6-months. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 of the 3 manual therapy techniques for 2 consecutive treatment sessions followed by exercise regimen for an additional 3 sessions. We examined the primary aim using a linear mixed model for repeated measures, using the ODQ and NPRS as dependent variables. The hypothesis of interest was the group by time interaction, which was further explored with pair-wise comparisons of the estimated marginal means.
                There was a significant group x time interaction for the ODQ (P < 0.001) and NPRS scores (P = 0.001). Pair-wise comparisons revealed no differences between the supine thrust manipulation and side-lying thrust manipulation at any follow-up period. Significant differences in the ODQ and NPRS existed at each follow-up between the thrust manipulation and the nonthrust manipulation groups at 1-week and 4-weeks. There was also a significant difference in ODQ scores at 6-months in favor of the thrust groups.
                The results of the study support the generalizability of the CPR to another thrust manipulation technique, but not to the nonthrust manipulation technique that was used in this study. In general, our results also provided support that the CPR can be generalized to different settings from which it was derived and validated. However, additional research is needed to examine this issue.
Cervical manipulation and mobilisation produced similar changes. Either may provide immediate- or short-term change; no long-term data are available. Thoracic manipulation may improve pain and function. Optimal techniques and dose are unresolved. Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.