Background and Purpose: Evidence supports the use of manual physical therapy interventions directed at the thoracic spine in patients with neck pain. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of thoracic spine thrust mobilization/manipulation with that of nonthrust mobilization/manipulation in patients with a primary complaint of mechanical neck pain. The authors also sought to compare the frequencies, durations, and types of side effects between the groups. Subjects: The subjects in this study were 60 patients who were 18 to 60 years of age and had a primary complaint of neck pain. Methods: For all subjects, a standardized history and a physical examination were obtained. Self-report outcome measures included the Neck Disability Index (NDI), a pain diagram, the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), and the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire. After the baseline evaluation, the subjects were randomly assigned to receive either thoracic spine thrust or nonthrust mobilization/manipulation. The subjects were reexamined 2 to 4 days after the initial examination, and they again completed the NDI and the NPRS, as well as the Global Rating of Change (GROC) Scale. The primary aim was examined with a 2-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), with intervention group (thrust versus nonthrust mobilization/manipulation) as the between-subjects variable and time (baseline and 48 hours) as the within-subject variable. Separate ANOVAs were performed for each dependent variable: disability (NDI) and pain (NPRS). For each ANOVA, the hypothesis of interest was the 2-way group × time interaction. Results: Sixty patients with a mean age of 43.3 years (SD=12.7) (55% female) satisfied the eligibility criteria and agreed to participate in the study. Subjects who received thrust mobilization/manipulation experienced greater reductions in disability, with a between-group difference of 10% (95% confidence interval [CI]=5.3–14.7), and in pain, with a between-group difference of 2.0 (95% CI=1.4–2.7). Subjects in the thrust mobilization/manipulation group exhibited significantly higher scores on the GROC Scale at the time of follow-up. No differences in the frequencies, durations, and types of side effects existed between the groups. Discussion and Conclusion: The results suggest that thoracic spine thrust mobilization/manipulation results in significantly greater short-term reductions in pain and disability than does thoracic nonthrust mobilization/manipulation in people with neck pain.

Randomized clinical trial. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to examine the generalizability of 3 different manual therapy techniques in a patient population with low back pain that satisfy a clinical prediction rule (CPR). Recently a CPR that identifies patients with LBP who are likely to respond rapidly and dramatically to thrust manipulation has been developed and validated. The generalizability of the CPR requires further investigation. A total of 112 patients were enrolled in the trial and provided demographic information and completed a number of self-report questionnaires including the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) at baseline, 1-week, 4-weeks, and 6-months. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 of the 3 manual therapy techniques for 2 consecutive treatment sessions followed by exercise regimen for an additional 3 sessions. We examined the primary aim using a linear mixed model for repeated measures, using the ODQ and NPRS as dependent variables. The hypothesis of interest was the group by time interaction, which was further explored with pair-wise comparisons of the estimated marginal means. There was a significant group x time interaction for the ODQ (P < 0.001) and NPRS scores (P = 0.001). Pair-wise comparisons revealed no differences between the supine thrust manipulation and side-lying thrust manipulation at any follow-up period. Significant differences in the ODQ and NPRS existed at each follow-up between the thrust manipulation and the nonthrust manipulation groups at 1-week and 4-weeks. There was also a significant difference in ODQ scores at 6-months in favor of the thrust groups. The results of the study support the generalizability of the CPR to another thrust manipulation technique, but not to the nonthrust manipulation technique that was used in this study. In general, our results also provided support that the CPR can be generalized to different settings from which it was derived and validated. However, additional research is needed to examine this issue.

Although commonly utilized interventions, no studies have directly compared the effectiveness of cervical and thoracic manipulation to mobilization and exercise in individuals with cervicogenic headache (CH). The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of manipulation to mobilization and exercise in individuals with CH. One hundred and ten participants (n = 110) with CH were randomized to receive both cervical and thoracic manipulation (n = 58) or mobilization and exercise (n = 52). The primary outcome was headache intensity as measured by the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Secondary outcomes included headache frequency, headache duration, disability as measured by the Neck Disability Index (NDI), medication intake, and the Global Rating of Change (GRC). The treatment period was 4 weeks with follow-up assessment at 1 week, 4 weeks, and 3 months after initial treatment session. The primary aim was examined with a 2-way mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA), with treatment group (manipulation versus mobilization and exercise) as the between subjects variable and time (baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks and 3 months) as the within subjects variable. The 2X4 ANOVA demonstrated that individuals with CH who received both cervical and thoracic manipulation experienced significantly greater reductions in headache intensity (p < 0.001) and disability (p < 0.001) than those who received mobilization and exercise at a 3-month follow-up. Individuals in the upper cervical and upper thoracic manipulation group also experienced less frequent headaches and shorter duration of headaches at each follow-up period (p < 0.001 for all). Additionally, patient perceived improvement was significantly greater at 1 and 4-week follow-up periods in favor of the manipulation group (p < 0.001). Six to eight sessions of upper cervical and upper thoracic manipulation were shown to be more effective than mobilization and exercise in patients with CH, and the effects were maintained at 3 months. NCT01580280 April 16, 2012.

Background: 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. Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of this CPR. Design: This was a multi-center randomized clinical trial. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Limitations: Different exercise approaches may have resulted in a different outcome. Conclusions: 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.

Randomized clinical trial. To compare the effectiveness of 2 different conservative management approaches in the treatment of plantar heel pain. There is insufficient evidence to establish the optimal physical therapy management strategies for patients with heel pain, and little evidence of long-term effects. Patients with a primary report of plantar heel pain underwent a standard evaluation and completed a number of patient self-report questionnaires, including the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Patients were randomly assigned to be treated with either an electrophysical agents and exercise (EPAX) or a manual physical therapy and exercise (MTEX) approach. Outcomes of interest were captured at baseline and at 4-week and 6-month follow-ups. The primary aim (effects of treatment on pain and disability) was examined with a mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA). The hypothesis of interest was the 2-way interaction (group by time). Sixty subjects (mean [SD] age, 48.4 [8.7] years) satisfied the eligibility criteria, agreed to participate, and were randomized into the EPAX (n = 30) or MTEX group (n = 30). The overall group-by-time interaction for the ANOVA was statistically significant for the LEFS (P = .002), FAAM (P = .005), and pain (P = .043). Between-group differences favored the MTEX group at both 4-week (difference in LEFS, 13.5; 95% CI: 6.3, 20.8) and 6-month (9.9; 95% CI: 1.2, 18.6) follow-ups. The results of this study provide evidence that MTEX is a superior management approach over an EPAX approach in the management of individuals with plantar heel pain at both the short- and long-term follow-ups. Future studies should examine the contribution of the different components of the exercise and manual physical therapy programs. Therapy, level 1b.