Hoving Jan L, de Vet Henrica C W, Koes Bart W, Mameren Henk van, Devillé Walter L J M, van der Windt Daniëlle A W M, Assendelft Willem J J, Pool Jan J M, Scholten Rob J P M, Korthals-de Bos Ingeborg B C, Bouter Lex M
Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Clin J Pain. 2006 May;22(4):370-7. doi: 10.1097/01.ajp.0000180185.79382.3f.
The authors' goals were to compare the effectiveness of manual therapy (MT; mainly spinal mobilization), physical therapy (PT; mainly exercise therapy), and continued care by the general practitioner (GP; analgesics, counseling and education) over a period of 1 year.
One hundred eighty-three patients suffering for at least 2 weeks from nonspecific neck pain were randomized to receive a 6-week treatment strategy of MT once a week, PT twice a week, or GP care once every 2 weeks. The primary outcome measures were perceived recovery, severity of physical dysfunctioning, pain intensity, and functional disability.
The differences between groups considered over 1 year were statistically significant (repeated measurements analyses P<0.001 to P=0.02) for all outcomes but borderline for the Neck Disability Index (P=0.06). Higher improvement scores were observed for MT for all outcomes, followed by PT and GP care. The success rate, based on perceived recovery after 13 weeks, was 72% for MT, which was significantly higher than the success rate for continued GP care (42%, P=0.001) but not significantly higher compared with PT treatment (59%, P=0.16). The difference between PT and GP approached statistical significance (P=0.06). After 1 year the success rates were 75%, 63%, and 56%, respectively, and no longer significantly different.
Short-term results (at 7 weeks) have shown that MT speeded recovery compared with GP care and, to a lesser extent, also compared with PT. In the long-term, GP treatment and PT caught up with MT, and differences between the three treatment groups decreased and lost statistical significance at the 13-week and 52-week follow-up.
作者的目标是比较手法治疗(MT;主要是脊柱松动术)、物理治疗(PT;主要是运动疗法)以及全科医生持续护理(GP;使用镇痛药、咨询和教育)在1年期间的效果。
183名患有非特异性颈部疼痛至少2周的患者被随机分配,接受为期6周的治疗策略,MT组每周治疗1次,PT组每周治疗2次,GP护理组每2周护理1次。主要结局指标包括自我感觉的恢复情况、身体功能障碍的严重程度、疼痛强度和功能残疾情况。
在1年期间对各治疗组进行比较,所有结局指标的组间差异均具有统计学意义(重复测量分析,P<0.001至P=0.02),但颈部残疾指数的差异接近临界值(P=0.06)。所有结局指标中,MT组的改善得分更高,其次是PT组和GP护理组。基于13周后自我感觉恢复情况的成功率,MT组为72%,显著高于GP持续护理组的成功率(42%,P=0.001),但与PT治疗组相比差异无统计学意义(59%,P=0.16)。PT组和GP护理组之间的差异接近统计学意义(P=0.06)。1年后,成功率分别为75%、63%和56%,不再有显著差异。
短期结果(7周时)表明,与GP护理相比,MT可加速恢复,与PT相比,MT在较小程度上也能加速恢复。从长期来看,GP治疗和PT与MT的效果相当,在13周和52周随访时,三个治疗组之间的差异减小且失去统计学意义。