首页> 外文期刊>Physical Therapy >Examination of a Clinical Prediction Rule to Identify Patients With Neck Pain Likely to Benefit From Thoracic Spine Thrust Manipulation and a General Cervical Range of Motion Exercise: Multi-Center Randomized Clinical Trial/Invited Commentary/Author Response
【24h】

Examination of a Clinical Prediction Rule to Identify Patients With Neck Pain Likely to Benefit From Thoracic Spine Thrust Manipulation and a General Cervical Range of Motion Exercise: Multi-Center Randomized Clinical Trial/Invited Commentary/Author Response

机译:临床预测规则的鉴定,以识别颈痛患者可能受益于胸椎推力操纵和颈椎常规运动锻炼:多中心随机临床试验/特邀评论/作者反应

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

A clinical prediction rule (CPR) purported to identify patients with neck pain who are likely to respond to thoracic spine thrust manipulation has recently been developed, but has yet to be validated. The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of this CPR. This was a multi-center randomized clinical trial. One hundred forty patients with a primary report of neck pain were randomly assigned to receive either 5 sessions of stretching and strengthening exercise (exercise-only group) or 2 sessions of thoracic spine manipulation and cervical range of motion exercise followed by 3 sessions of stretching and strengthening exercise (manipulation + exercise group). Data on disability and pain were collected at baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 6 months. The primary aim (treatment group × time × status on the prediction rule) was examined using a linear mixed model with repeated measures. Time, treatment group, and status on the rule, as well as all possible 2-way and 3-way interactions, were modeled as fixed effects, with disability (and pain) as the dependent variable. Effect sizes were calculated for both pain and disability at each follow-up period. There was no 3-way interaction for either disability or pain. A 2-way (group × time) interaction existed for both disability and pain. Pair-wise comparisons of disability demonstrated that significant differences existed at each follow-up period between the manipulation + exercise group and the exercise-only group. The patients who received manipulation exhibited lower pain scores at the 1-week follow-up period. The effect sizes were moderate for disability at each follow-up period and were moderate for pain at the 1-week follow-up. Different exercise approaches may have resulted in a different outcome. The results of the current study did not support the validity of the previously developed CPR. However, the results demonstrated that patients with mechanical neck pain who received thoracic spine manipulation and exercise exhibited significantly greater improvements in disability at both the short- and long-term follow-up periods and in pain at the 1-week follow-up compared with patients who received exercise only.
机译:最近已经开发了一种临床预测规则(CPR),旨在识别可能对胸椎推力操作有反应的颈部疼痛患者,但尚未得到验证。这项研究的目的是检查该CPR的有效性。这是一项多中心随机临床试验。一百四十名主要报告颈部疼痛的患者被随机分配接受5次伸展和强化运动(仅运动组)或2次胸椎操纵和颈椎活动范围运动,然后进行3次伸展和加强运动(操作+运动组)。在基线,1周,4周和6个月时收集有关残疾和疼痛的数据。使用具有重复测量的线性混合模型检查了主要目标(治疗组×时间×预测规则上的状态)。将时间,治疗组和规则状态以及所有可能的2向和3向交互方式建模为固定效果,以残疾(和疼痛)为因变量。在每个随访期间计算疼痛和残疾的效应大小。没有针对残疾或疼痛的三向交互作用。残障和疼痛均存在2次(组×时间)互动。残疾的成对比较显示,在每个随访阶段,操作+锻炼组和仅锻炼组之间存在显着差异。接受操作的患者在1周的随访期内疼痛评分较低。在每个随访期中,对残疾的影响大小是中等的,在1周的随访中,对疼痛的影响是中等的。不同的锻炼方法可能导致不同的结果。当前研究的结果不支持先前开发的CPR的有效性。但是,结果表明,接受机械性颈痛的胸椎手法和运动的患者与短期和长期随访相比,在残疾方面的改善显着更大,而在1周的随访中与疼痛相比,则改善了。仅接受运动的患者。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号