Chiropractic Care

Spinal Manipulation vs. Amitriptyline for the Treatment of Chronic Tension-type Headaches: A Randomized Clinical Trial

By Frank M. Painter|January 20, 2014|Chiropractic Care, Evidence-based Medicine, Headache|

Spinal Manipulation vs. Amitriptyline for the Treatment of Chronic Tension-type Headaches: A Randomized Clinical Trial

SOURCE: J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1995 (Mar); 18 (3): 148–154

Patrick Boline, DC, Kassem Kassak, MPH, PhD,
Gert Bronfort, DC, PhD, Craig Nelson, DC,
A.V. Anderson, DC, MD

Funding was provided by:
Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research (FCER)

This article is reprinted with the permission of National College of Chiropractic and JMPT. Our special thanks to the Editor, Dr. Dana Lawrence, D.C. for permission to reproduce this article exclusively at Chiro.Org

This study compared the effects of spinal manipulation and pharmaceutical treatments for chronic tension headaches. Four weeks following the cessation of treatment, the pharmaceutical group demonstrated no improvement from the baseline. In the spinal manipulation group, headache intensity dropped 32 percent; frequency dropped 42 percent; and there was an overall improvement of 16 percent in functional health status.

Perhaps the best known clinical trial on chiropractic and Tension-type Headaches was the Boline et al study, which compared chiropractic care to the medication amitriptyline. These investigators found that one month of chiropractic care (approximately 2 visits per week) was more effective than amitriptyline for long-term relief of headache pain.

During the treatment phase of the trial, pain relief among those treated with medication was roughly comparable to the chiropractic group. But chiropractic patients maintained their levels of improvement after treatment was discontinued, while those taking medication returned to pretreatment status in an average of 4 weeks after its discontinuation.
(Thanks to Daniel Redwood, DC)

This study compared the effects of spinal manipulation and pharmaceutical treatments for chronic tension headaches. Four weeks following the cessation of treatment, the pharmaceutical group demonstrated no improvement from the baseline. In the spinal manipulation group, headache intensity dropped 32 percent; frequency dropped 42 percent; and there was an overall improvement of 16 percent in functional health status.

Background: In the United States headaches are responsible for more than 18 million office visits annually, and are the most common reason for using over-the-counter medications. It is estimated that 156 million work days are lost each year because of headaches, translating to $25 billion in lost productivity. Of the categories of chronic headaches, tension-type headaches are most common.

Headaches are commonly treated by chiropractic doctors with spinal manipulation, and several studies have reported good outcomes. These trials however, suffered from either a lack of a control group or inadequate statistical power. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of spinal manipulation and a common pharmaceutical treatment (amitriptyline) for chronic tension-type headache.

Methods: One-hundred-fifty patients between the ages of 18 and 70 were randomly assigned to receive either six weeks of chiropractic or pharmaceutical treatment which was preceded by a two week baseline period and included a four week, post-treatment follow up period. Main outcome measures were change in patient-reported daily headache intensity, weekly headache frequency, over-the-counter medication usage, and functional health status using the SF-36 Health Survey.

Results: During the treatment period both groups improved at very similar rates in all primary outcomes. Four weeks following the cessation of treatment patients who received spinal manipulative therapy showed a reduction of 32% in headache intensity, 42% in headache frequency, 30% in over-the-counter medication usage and 16% in functional health status. By comparison, patients that received amitriptyline showed no improvement or a slight worsening from baseline values in the same outcome measures. The group differences at four week post-treatment follow up were considered to be clinically important and statistically significant. There is further need to assess the effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy beyond four weeks and to compare spinal manipulative therapy to an appropriate placebo such as sham manipulation in future clinical trials.

Conclusion: The results of this study show that spinal manipulative therapy is an effective treatment for tension headaches. Amitriptyline was slightly more effective in reducing pain by the end of the treatment period, but was associated with more side effects. Four weeks after cessation of treatment however, patients who received spinal manipulation experienced a sustained therapeutic benefit in all major outcomes in contrast to the amitriptyline group, who reverted to baseline values. The sustained theraputic benefit associated with spial manipulation seemed to result in a decreased need for over-the-counter medication. There is a need to assess the effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy beyond four weeks and to compare SMT to an appropriate placebo such as sham manipulation in future clinical trials. (see the Problem with Placebo/Shams Page for other issues associated with sham treatments provided in previous studies.)

Key words: clinical guidelines; low back pain; evidence based medicine; systematic reviews

From the Full-Text Article:

INTRODUCTION

There are more articles like this @ our:

Headache and Chiropractic Page

(more…)

0

Musculoskeletal Abnormalities in Chronic Headache

By Frank M. Painter|January 15, 2014|Chiropractic Care, Forward Head Posture, Headache, Posture|

Musculoskeletal Abnormalities in Chronic Headache: A Controlled Comparison of Headache Diagnostic Groups

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE: Headache. 1999 (Jan); 39 (1): 21–27

Marcus DA, Scharff L, Mercer S, Turk DC.

Department of Anesthesiology, University of Pittsburgh (Penn) School of Medicine, USA.

The presence of postural, myofascial, and mechanical abnormalities in patients with migraine, tension-type headache, or both headache diagnoses was compared to a headache-free control sample. Twenty-four control subjects were obtained from a convenience sampling and each was matched by age and sex to three patients with headache (one with migraine [with or without aura], one with tension-type headache, and one with diagnoses of both migraine and tension-type headache [combined diagnosis]) who had been previously assessed by a physical therapist at a headache clinic. Physical therapy assessment findings were compared among the four groups.

There are more articles like this @ our:

Headache and Chiropractic Page

(more…)

0

A Theoretical Model For The Development Of A Diagnosis-based Clinical Decision Rule For The Management Of Patients With Spinal Pain

By Frank M. Painter|January 12, 2014|Chiropractic Care, Clinical Decision-making, Diagnosis, Evidence-based Medicine|

A Theoretical Model For The Development Of A Diagnosis-based Clinical Decision Rule For The Management Of Patients With Spinal Pain

The Chiro.Org Blog

BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007 (Aug 3); 8: 75 ~ FULL TEXT

Donald R Murphy and Eric L Hurwitz

Rhode Island Spine Center,
Pawtucket, RI, USA.
rispine@aol.com

BACKGROUND: Spinal pain is a common problem, and disability related to spinal pain has great consequence in terms of human suffering, medical costs and costs to society. The traditional approach to the non-surgical management of patients with spinal pain, as well as to research in spinal pain, has been such that the type of treatment any given patient receives is determined more by what type of practitioner he or she sees, rather than by diagnosis. Furthermore, determination of treatment depends more on the type of practitioner than by the needs of the patient. Much needed is an approach to clinical management and research that allows clinicians to base treatment decisions on a reliable and valid diagnostic strategy leading to treatment choices that result in demonstrable outcomes in terms of pain relief and functional improvement. The challenges of diagnosis in patients with spinal pain, however, are that spinal pain is often multifactorial, the factors involved are wide ranging, and for most of these factors there exist no definitive objective tests.

DISCUSSION: The theoretical model of a diagnosis-based clinical decision rule has been developed that may provide clinicians with an approach to non-surgical spine pain patients that allows for specific treatment decisions based on a specific diagnosis. This is not a classification scheme, but a thought process that attempts to identify most important features present in each individual patient. Presented here is a description of the proposed approach, in which reliable and valid assessment procedures are used to arrive at a working diagnosis which considers the disparate factors contributing to spinal pain. Treatment decisions are based on the diagnosis and the outcome of treatment can be measured.

SUMMARY: In this paper, the theoretical model of a proposed diagnosis-based clinical decision rule is presented. In a subsequent manuscript, the current evidence for the approach will be systematically reviewed, and we will present a research strategy required to fill in the gaps in the current evidence, as well as to investigate the decision rule as a whole.

From the FULL TEXT Article:

Introduction

Chronic spinal pain is an increasingly common problem in Western Society [1]. Spinal disorders exact great costs, in terms of both direct medical costs and indirect costs related to disability and lost productivity [1-3]. A number of researchers have attempted to improve our ability to identify the causes of spinal pain as well as to diagnose and treat patients with this problem. In spite of this, accurate diagnosis, leading to specific, targeted treatments, of patients with spinal pain has been elusive.

It has been repeated over the years that only in 15% of patients with spinal pain can a definitive diagnosis be made [4-6]. However, if one surveys the spine literature, one finds a variety of methods for detecting many of the factors that are believed to be of importance, most of which have known reliability and validity, although there are some that do not. Each of these methods may only help the clinician to identify one particular potential contributing factor in the overall clinical picture of the spine pain patient. However, it may be possible that, by utilizing many of the various diagnostic procedures available to the spine clinician, one can develop a specific working diagnosis that encompasses all of the dimensions for which there may be contributing factors and from which a management strategy may be designed that addresses each of the most important factors in each individual patient.

There are more articles like this @ our:

Low Back Pain Page and the:

Chronic Neck Pain and Chiropractic Page and the:

Clinical Model for the Diagnosis and Management Page

(more…)

0

Sleep Characteristics in Patients with Whiplash-Associated Disorders: A Descriptive Study

By Frank M. Painter|January 7, 2014|Chiropractic Care, Whiplash|

Sleep Characteristics in Patients with Whiplash-Associated Disorders: A Descriptive Study

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE: Topics in Integrative Health Care 2012 (Dec 31); 3 (4)

Jay Greenstein, DC, CCSP, CGFI-L, CKTP, FMS; Barton Bishop, DPT, SCS, CKTI, TPI, CGFI-MP, CSCS; Jean Edward, RN, BSN; Allen Huffman, DC, CKTP, BS; Danielle Davis; Robert Topp, RN, PhD

Study Objectives: The purpose of this study was to explore sleep habits and characteristics of patients with whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) presenting at an outpatient, chiropractic clinic using the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale.

Methods: Fifty-one patients from an outpatient chiropractic and physical therapy clinic specializing in spinal rehabilitation participated in this cross-sectional, descriptive study. Data were collected using a descriptive survey, the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Neck Disability Index (NDI), and the self-administered 12-item MOS Sleep Scale. Data analysis included descriptive statistics to describe pain, disability, and sleep characteristics of the study sample, and computation of confidence intervals to determine differences in means of sleep characteristics between the non-WAD population (as determined by previous studies) and the study sample of WAD patients.

Results: Results indicate that when compared to normative values of the non-WAD population, the sample of WAD patients in this study presents with significantly greater measures of neck disability (NDI), neck pain (VAS), sleep disturbance, snoring, shortness of breath and headache, sleep somnolence and sleep problems index I and II. This sample also presents with significantly lower measures of optimal sleep when compared to the general population.

Conclusion: Consistent with previous research, findings from this study indicate that WAD patients have increased neck disability and pain, and poorer sleep outcomes, indicating the need for clinicians to assess sleep characteristics and incorporate interventions aimed at alleviating these symptoms when planning rehabilitation. Findings provide evidence for the need to further explore sleep disturbances among WAD patients to establish a stronger understanding of the course and prognosis of this condition.

From the FULL TEXT Article:

Introduction

Neck pain related to whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) constitutes a significant health issue that leads patients to seek medical care in chiropractic and other physical therapy, rehabilitative clinics. Studies have indicated that individuals experience multiple clinical manifestations of WADs that lead to chronicity including postural changes, disability, headache, fatigue, and sleep disturbances. [1-4] Although studies have shown that sleep disturbances occur as a result of chronic pain, few studies have explored the relationship between patients with WAD and sleep quality. [4-6]

There are many more articles like this @ our:

The Whiplash Page and the

Chronic Neck Pain and Chiropractic Page

(more…)

0

A Randomised Controlled Trial of Preventive Spinal Manipulation with and without a Home Exercise Program for Patients with Chronic Neck Pain

By Frank M. Painter|December 25, 2013|Chiropractic Care, Chronic Pain, Evidence-based Medicine|

A Randomised Controlled Trial of Preventive Spinal Manipulation with and without a Home Exercise Program for Patients with Chronic Neck Pain

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE: BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011 (Feb 8); 12: 41

Johanne Martel, Claude Dugas, Jean-Daniel Dubois, and Martin Descarreaux

Département de Chiropratique,
Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières,
Trois-Rivières G9A 5H7, Canada.

Background: Evidence indicates that supervised home exercises, combined or not with manual therapy, can be beneficial for patients with non-specific chronic neck pain (NCNP). The objective of the study is to investigate the efficacy of preventive spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) compared to a no treatment group in NCNP patients. Another objective is to assess the efficacy of SMT with and without a home exercise program.

Methods: Ninety-eight patients underwent a short symptomatic phase of treatment before being randomly allocated to either an attention-group (n = 29), a SMT group (n = 36) or a SMT + exercise group (n = 33). The preventive phase of treatment, which lasted for 10 months, consisted of meeting with a chiropractor every two months to evaluate and discuss symptoms (attention-control group), 1 monthly SMT session (SMT group) or 1 monthly SMT session combined with a home exercise program (SMT + exercise group). The primary and secondary outcome measures were represented by scores on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS), active cervical ranges of motion (cROM), the neck disability index (NDI) and the Bournemouth questionnaire (BQ). Exploratory outcome measures were scored on the Fear-avoidance Behaviour Questionnaire (FABQ) and the SF-12 Questionnaire.

Results: Our results show that, in the preventive phase of the trial, all 3 groups showed primary and secondary outcomes scores similar to those obtain following the non-randomised, symptomatic phase. No group difference was observed for the primary, secondary and exploratory variables. Significant improvements in FABQ scores were noted in all groups during the preventive phase of the trial. However, no significant change in health related quality of life (HRQL) was associated with the preventive phase.

There are more articles like this @ our:

Chronic Neck Pain and Chiropractic Page and our

Maintenance Care, Wellness and Chiropractic Page

(more…)

0

Evidence-Based Guidelines for the Chiropractic Treatment of Adults With Neck Pain

By Frank M. Painter|November 28, 2013|Chiropractic Care, Chiropractic Research, Evidence-based Medicine, Neck Pain|

Evidence-Based Guidelines for the Chiropractic Treatment of Adults With Neck Pain

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE: J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2014 (Jan); 37 (1): 42–63

Roland Bryans, DC, Philip Decina, DC, Martin Descarreaux, DC, PhD, Mireille Duranleau, DC, Henri Marcoux, DC, Brock Potter, BSc, DC, Richard P. Ruegg, PhD, DCs, Lynn Shaw, PhD, OT, Robert Watkin, BA, LLB, Eleanor White, MSc, DC

Guidelines Development Committee (GDC) Chairman; Chiropractor, Clarenville, Newfoundland, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop evidence-based treatment recommendations for the treatment of nonspecific (mechanical) neck pain in adults.

METHODS: Systematic literature searches of controlled clinical trials published through December 2011 relevant to chiropractic practice were conducted using the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and the Cochrane Library. The number, quality, and consistency of findings were considered to assign an overall strength of evidence (strong, moderate, weak, or conflicting) and to formulate treatment recommendations.

RESULTS: Forty-one randomized controlled trials meeting the inclusion criteria and scoring a low risk of bias were used to develop 11 treatment recommendations. Strong recommendations were made for the treatment of chronic neck pain with manipulation, manual therapy, and exercise in combination with other modalities. Strong recommendations were also made for the treatment of chronic neck pain with stretching, strengthening, and endurance exercises alone. Moderate recommendations were made for the treatment of acute neck pain with manipulation and mobilization in combination with other modalities. Moderate recommendations were made for the treatment of chronic neck pain with mobilization as well as massage in combination with other therapies. A weak recommendation was made for the treatment of acute neck pain with exercise alone and the treatment of chronic neck pain with manipulation alone. Thoracic manipulation and trigger point therapy could not be recommended for the treatment of acute neck pain. Transcutaneous nerve stimulation, thoracic manipulation, laser, and traction could not be recommended for the treatment of chronic neck pain.

CONCLUSIONS: Interventions commonly used in chiropractic care improve outcomes for the treatment of acute and chronic neck pain. Increased benefit has been shown in several instances where a multimodal approach to neck pain has been used.

Thanks to Dynamic Chiropractic for these comments from their article:
The Science of Treating Neck Pain

Following a literature search of controlled clinical trials through December 2011, 560 studies were narrowed to 41 that met the authors’ inclusion criteria and served as the basis for their treatment recommendations, graded as strong, moderate or weak based on the number, quality and consistency of research results.

Treatment strategies given strong recommendations for chronic neck pain included manipulation, manual therapy and exercise in combination with other modalities; as well as stretching, strengthening and endurance exercises alone.

Mobilization, as well as massage in combination with other therapies, received moderate recommendations for chronic neck pain.

Manipulation and mobilization in combination with other modalities received moderate recommendations for treating acute neck pain.

Here are the recommendations:

Acute Neck Pain

Manipulation / Multimodal: “Spinal manipulative therapy is recommended for the treatment of acute neck pain for both short- and long-term benefit (pain and the number of days to recover) when used in combination with other treatment modalities (advice, exercise, and mobilization;
(grade of recommendation – moderate).”

Mobilization/ Multimodal: “Mobilization is recommended for the treatment of acute neck pain for short-term (up to 12 weeks) and long-term benefit (days to recovery, pain) in combination with advice and exercise
(grade of recommendation – moderate).”

Exercise: “Home exercise with advice or training is recommended in the treatment of acute neck pain for both long- and short-term benefits
(neck pain; grade of recommendation – weak).”

Chronic Neck Pain

Manipulation / Multimodal: “Spinal manipulative therapy is recommended in the treatment of chronic neck pain as part of a multimodal approach (including advice, upper thoracic high-velocity low-amplitude thrust, low-level laser therapy, soft-tissue therapy, mobilizations, pulsed short-wave diathermy, exercise, massage, and stretching) for both short- and long-term benefit
(pain, disability, cROMs; grade of recommendation – strong).”

Manual Therapy / Multimodal: “Manual therapy is recommended in the treatment of chronic neck pain for the short- and long-term benefit (pain, disability, cROM, strength) in combination with advice, stretching, and exercise
(grade of recommendation – strong).”

Exercise: “Regular home stretching (3-5 times per week) with advice / training is recommended in the treatment of chronic neck pain for long- and short-term benefits in reducing pain and analgesic intake
(grade of recommendation – strong).”

Exercise / Multimodal: “Exercise (including stretching, isometric, stabilization, and strengthening) is recommended for short- and long-term benefits (pain, disability, muscle strength, QoL, cROM) as part of a multimodal approach to the treatment of chronic neck pain when combined with infrared radiation, massage, or other physical therapies
(grade of recommendation – strong).”

Mobilization: “Mobilization is recommended for the treatment of chronic neck pain for short-term (immediate) benefit
(pain, cROM; grade of recommendation – moderate)”

Massage / Multimodal: “Massage is recommended for the treatment of chronic neck pain for short-term (up to 1 month) benefit (pain, disability, and cROM) when provided in combination with self-care, stretching, and/or exercise (grade of recommendation – moderate).”

Manipulation: “Spinal manipulative therapy is recommended in the treatment of chronic neck pain for short- and long-term benefit
(pain, disability; grade of recommendation – weak).”

In their conclusion, the authors note that their findings suggest “interventions commonly used in chiropractic care improve outcomes for the treatment of acute and chronic neck pain” and that “increased benefit has been shown in several instances where a multimodal approach to neck pain has been used.”

There are more articles like this @ our:

Clinical Model for the Diagnosis and Management Page and the:

Chronic Neck Pain and Chiropractic Page

0