Gudavalli M Ram, Salsbury Stacie A, Vining Robert D, Long Cynthia R, Corber Lance, Patwardhan Avinash G, Goertz Christine M
Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, Palmer College of Chiropractic, 741 Brady Street, 52803, Davenport, IA, USA.
Musculoskeletal Biomechanics Laboratory, Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, IL and Department of Orthopedic Surgery & Rehabilitation, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Trials. 2015 Jun 5;16:259. doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0770-6.
Manual cervical distraction (MCD) is a traction-based therapy performed with a manual contact over the cervical region producing repeating cycles while patients lie prone. This study evaluated a traction force-based minimal intervention for use as an attention-touch control in clinical trials of MCD for patients with chronic neck pain.
We conducted a mixed-methods, pilot randomized clinical trial in adults with chronic neck pain. Participants were allocated to three traction force ranges of MCD: low force/minimal intervention (0-20 N), medium force (21-50 N), or high force (51-100 N). Clinicians delivered five treatments over two weeks consisting of three sets of five cycles of MCD at the C5 vertebra and occiput. Traction forces were measured at each treatment. Patient-reported outcomes included a pain visual analogue scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ), and adverse effects. A qualitative interview evaluated treatment group allocation perceptions.
We randomized 48 participants, allocating an average of five each month. Forty-five participants completed the trial with three participants lost to follow-up. Most participants were women (65%) and white (92%) with a mean (SD) age of 46.8 (12.5) years. Mean traction force values were within the prescribed force ranges for each group at the C5 and occiput levels. Neck pain VAS demonstrated a benefit for high traction force MCD compared to the low force group [adjusted mean difference 15.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6 to 29.7]. Participants in the medium traction force group demonstrated improvements in NDI compared to the low force group (adjusted mean difference 3.0; 95% CI 0.1 to 5.9), as did participants in the high traction force group (adjusted mean difference 2.7; 95% CI -0.1 to 5.6). CEQ favored the high force group. Most low force participants correctly identified their treatment allocation in the qualitative interview. No serious adverse events were documented.
This pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of a clinical trial protocol and the utility of a traction-based, minimal intervention as an attention-touch control for future efficacy trials of MCD for patients with neck pain.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01765751 (Registration Date 30 May 2012).
手动颈椎牵引(MCD)是一种基于牵引的治疗方法,在患者俯卧时通过在颈部区域进行手动接触产生重复周期。本研究评估了一种基于牵引力的最小干预措施,作为MCD治疗慢性颈痛患者临床试验中的注意力-触摸对照。
我们对患有慢性颈痛的成年人进行了一项混合方法的试点随机临床试验。参与者被分配到MCD的三个牵引力范围:低力/最小干预(0-20N)、中力(21-50N)或高力(51-100N)。临床医生在两周内进行了五次治疗,包括在C5椎体和枕骨处进行三组,每组五个周期的MCD。每次治疗时测量牵引力。患者报告的结果包括疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)、颈部功能障碍指数(NDI)、可信度和期望问卷(CEQ)以及不良反应。一项定性访谈评估了治疗组分配的认知情况。
我们随机分配了48名参与者,平均每月分配5名。45名参与者完成了试验,3名参与者失访。大多数参与者为女性(65%)且为白人(92%),平均(标准差)年龄为46.8(12.5)岁。在C5和枕骨水平,每组的平均牵引力值均在规定的力范围内。与低力组相比,高牵引力MCD在颈部疼痛VAS方面显示出益处[调整后平均差异15.6;95%置信区间(CI)1.6至29.7]。与低力组相比,中牵引力组的参与者在NDI方面有所改善(调整后平均差异3.0;95%CI 0.1至5.9),高牵引力组的参与者也是如此(调整后平均差异2.7;95%CI -0.1至5.6)。CEQ有利于高力组。在定性访谈中,大多数低力组参与者正确识别了他们的治疗分配。未记录到严重不良事件。
这项试点研究证明了临床试验方案的可行性,以及基于牵引的最小干预作为注意力-触摸对照在未来MCD治疗颈痛患者疗效试验中的实用性。
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01765751(注册日期2012年5月30日)。