University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010 Sep;91(9):1313-8. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.06.006.
A randomized controlled trial comparing manipulation with mobilization for recent onset neck pain.
To determine whether neck manipulation is more effective for neck pain than mobilization.
Randomized controlled trial with blind assessment of outcome.
Primary care physiotherapy, chiropractic, and osteopathy clinics in Sydney, Australia.
Patients (N=182) with nonspecific neck pain less than 3 months in duration and deemed suitable for treatment with manipulation by the treating practitioner.
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.
The number of days taken to recover from the episode of neck pain.
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).
Neck manipulation is not appreciably more effective than mobilization. The use of neck manipulation therefore cannot be justified on the basis of superior effectiveness.
一项比较近期发作的颈痛的手法治疗与松动治疗的随机对照试验。
确定颈椎手法治疗是否比松动治疗对颈痛更有效。
具有结局盲法评估的随机对照试验。
澳大利亚悉尼的初级保健理疗、脊椎按摩和整骨疗法诊所。
病程小于 3 个月的非特异性颈痛患者,且治疗医师认为适合进行手法治疗。
参与者被随机分配接受颈椎手法治疗(n=91)或松动治疗(n=91)。两组患者均在 2 周内接受 4 次治疗。
从颈痛发作中恢复的天数。
手法治疗组的疼痛恢复中位数为 47 天,松动治疗组为 43 天。接受颈椎手法治疗的患者比接受颈椎松动治疗的患者恢复得更快(危险比=0.98;95%置信区间,0.66-1.46)。
颈椎手法治疗并不明显优于松动治疗。因此,颈椎手法治疗在疗效上的优势不能作为其应用的理由。