Evidence for Neck problems causing headaches.
Please see a selection of Research and Academic Abstracts:
The Lancet Neurology, Volume 8, Issue 10, Pages 959 - 968, October 2009
Cervicogenic headache: an assessment of the evidence on clinical diagnosis, invasive tests, and treatment
Nikolai Bogduk MD a b , Jayantilal Govind MBChB c d ‡
Summary
Cervicogenic headache is characterised by pain referred to the head from the cervical spine. Although the International Headache Society recognises this type of headache as a distinct disorder, some clinicians remain sceptical. Laboratory and clinical studies have shown that pain from upper cervical joints and muscles can be referred to the head. Clinical diagnostic criteria have not proved valid, but a cervical source of pain can be established by use of fluoroscopically guided, controlled, diagnostic nerve blocks. In this Review, we outline the basic science and clinical evidence for cervicogenic headache and indicate how opposing approaches to its definition and diagnosis affect the evidence for its clinical management. We provide recommendations that enable a pragmatic approach to the diagnosis and management of probable cervicogenic headache, as well as a rigorous approach to the diagnosis and management of definite cervical headache. To read Ful article see:http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(09)70209-1/abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................................ Dose Response for Chiropractic Care of Chronic Cervicogenic Headache and Associated Neck Pain: A Randomized Pilot Study Mitchell Haas, DC Elyse Groupp, PhD Mikel Aickin, PhD Alisa Fairweather, MPH Bonnie Ganger Michael Attwood , Cathy Cummins, DC , Laura Baffes, DC Received 5 June 2003; received in revised form 9 September 2003 Abstract Full Text PDF Images References . ObjectiveTo acquire information for designing a large clinical trial and determining its feasibility and to make preliminary estimates of the relationship between headache outcomes and the number of visits to a chiropractor. Design Randomized, controlled trial.Setting Private practice in a college outpatient clinic and in the community. Subjects Twenty-four adults with chronic cervicogenic headache. Methods Patients were randomly allocated to 1, 3, or 4 visits per week for 3 weeks. All patients received high-velocity low-amplitude spinal manipulation. Doctor of Chiropractics could apply up to 2 physical modalities at each visit from among heat and soft tissue therapy. They could also recommend modification of daily activities and rehabilitative exercises. Outcomes included 100-point Modified Von Korff pain and disability scales, and headaches in last 4 weeks. Results Only 1 participant was insufficiently compliant with treatment (3 of 12 visits), and 1 patient was lost to follow-up. There was substantial benefit in pain relief for 9 and 12 treatments compared with 3 visits. At 4 weeks, the advantage was 13.8 (P = .135) for 3 visits per week and 18.7 (P = .041) for 4 visits per week. At the 12-week follow-up, the advantage was 19.4 (P = .035) for 3 visits per week and 18.1 (P = .048) for 4 visits per week. Conclusion A large clinical trial on the relationship between pain relief and the number of chiropractic treatments is feasible. Findings give preliminary support for the benefit of larger doses, 9 to 12 treatments, of chiropractic care for the treatment of cervicogenic headache. http://www.jmptonline.org/article/S0161-4754(04)00239-8/abstract...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Dose response and efficacy of spinal manipulation for chronic cervicogenic headache: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Haas M, Spegman A, Peterson D, Aickin M, Vavrek D.SourceCenter for Outcomes Studies, Western States Chiropractic College, 2900 NE 132nd Ave., Portland, OR 97230, USA. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. "> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT:
Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials suggest that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is efficacious for care of cervicogenic headache (CGH). The effect of SMT dose on outcomes has not been studied.
PURPOSE:
To compare the efficacy of two doses of SMT and two doses of light massage (LM) for CGH.
PATIENT SAMPLE:
Eighty patients with chronic CGH.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
Modified Von Korff pain and disability scales for CGH and neck pain (minimum clinically important difference=10 on 100-point scale), number of headaches in the last 4 weeks, and medication use. Data were collected every 4 weeks for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was the CGH pain scale.
METHODS:
Participants were randomized to either 8 or 16 treatment sessions with either SMT or a minimal LM control. Patients were treated once or twice per week for 8 weeks. Adjusted mean differences (AMD) between groups were computed using generalized estimating equations for the longitudinal outcomes over all follow-up time points (profile) and using regression modeling for individual time points with baseline characteristics as covariates and with imputed missing data.
RESULTS:
For the CGH pain scale, comparisons of 8 and 16 treatment sessions yielded small dose effects: |AMD|</=5.6. There was an advantage for SMT over the control: AMD=-8.1 (95% confidence interval=-13.3 to -2.8) for the profile, -10.3 (-18.5 to -2.1) at 12 weeks, and -9.8 (-18.7 to -1.0) at 24 weeks. For the higher dose patients, the advantage was greater: AMD=-11.9 (-19.3 to -4.6) for the profile, -14.2 (-25.8 to -2.6) at 12 weeks, and -14.4 (-26.9 to -2.0) at 24 weeks. Patients receiving SMT were also more likely to achieve a 50% improvement in pain scale: adjusted odds ratio=3.6 (1.6 to 8.1) for the profile, 3.1 (0.9 to 9.8) at 12 weeks, and 3.1 (0.9 to 10.3) at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes showed similar trends favoring SMT. For SMT patients, the mean number of CGH was reduced by half.
CONCLUSIONS:
Clinically important differences between SMT and a control intervention were observed favoring SMT. Dose effects tended to be small.
Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Comment in Spine J. 2011 Jan;11(1):94; author reply 94-5. Spine J. 2010 Feb;10(2):169-71.
......................................................................................................................
Clinical Practice Implications of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders:
From Concepts and Findings to Recommendations
Jaime Guzman, MD, MSc, FRCPC(C)
, Scott Haldeman, DC, MD, PhD
, Linda J. Carroll, PhD
, Eugene J. Carragee, MD, FACS
, Eric L. Hurwitz, DC, PhD
, Paul Peloso, MD, MSc, FRCP(C)
, Margareta Nordin, PT, Dr Med Sc
, J. David Cassidy, DC, PhD, Dr Med Sc
, Lena W. Holm, Dr Med Sc
, Pierre Côté, DC, PhD
, Gabrielle van der Velde, DC
, Sheilah Hogg-Johnson, PhD .
Objective
To provide evidence-based guidance to primary care clinicians about how to best assess and treat patients with neck pain.
Summary of Background Data
There is a need to translate the results of clinical and epidemiologic studies into meaningful and practical information for clinicians.
Methods
Based on best evidence syntheses of published studies on the risk, prognosis, assessment, and management of people with neck pain and its associated disorders, plus additional research projects and focused literature reviews reported in this supplement, the 12-member multidisciplinary Scientific Secretariat of the Neck Pain Task Force followed a 4-step approach to develop practical guidance for clinicians.
Results
The Neck Pain Task Force recommends that people seeking care for neck pain should be triaged into 4 groups: Grade I neck pain with no signs of major pathology and no or little interference with daily activities; Grade II neck pain with no signs of major pathology, but interference with daily activities; Grade III neck pain with neurologic signs of nerve compression; Grade IV neck pain with signs of major pathology. In the emergency room after blunt trauma to the neck, triage should be based on the NEXUS criteria or the Canadian C-spine rule. Those with a high risk of fracture should be further investigated with plain radiographs and/or CT-scan. In ambulatory primary care, triage should be based on history and physical examination alone, including screening for red flags and neurologic examination for signs of radiculopathy. Exercises and mobilization have been shown to provide some degree of short-term relief of Grade I or Grade II neck pain after a motor vehicle collision. Exercises, mobilization, manipulation, analgesics, acupuncture, and low-level laser have been shown to provide some degree of short-term relief of Grade I or Grade II neck pain without trauma. Those with confirmed Grade III and severe persistent radicular symptoms might benefit from corticosteroid injections or surgery. Those with confirmed Grade IV neck pain require management specific to the diagnosed pathology.
Conclusion
The best available evidence suggests initial assessment for neck pain should focus on triage into 4 grades, and those with common neck pain (Grade I and Grade II) might be offered the listed noninvasive treatments if short-term relief is desired.
Key words: neck pain, therapy, practice guidelines, diagnosis, management
http://www.jmptonline.org/article/S0161-4754(08)00350-3/abstract
........................................................................................................................
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2001 Sep;24(7):457-66.
Efficacy of spinal manipulation for chronic headache: a systematic review.
Bronfort G, Assendelft WJ, Evans R, Haas M, Bouter L.
Source
Department of Research, Wolfe-Harris Center for Clinical Studies, Northwestern Health Sciences University, Bloomington, MN 55431, USA. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. "> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Chronic headache is a prevalent condition with substantial socioeconomic impact. Complementary or alternative therapies are increasingly being used by patients to treat headache pain, and spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is among the most common of these.
OBJECTIVE:
To assess the efficacy/effectiveness of SMT for chronic headache through a systematic review of randomized clinical trials.
STUDY SELECTION:
Randomized clinical trials on chronic headache (tension, migraine and cervicogenic) were included in the review if they compared SMT with other interventions or placebo. The trials had to have at least 1 patient-rated outcome measure such as pain severity, frequency, duration, improvement, use of analgesics, disability, or quality of life. Studies were identified through a comprehensive search of MEDLINE (1966-1998) and EMBASE (1974-1998). Additionally, all available data from the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Chiropractic Research Archives Collection, and the Manual, Alternative, and Natural Therapies Information System were used, as well as material gathered through the citation tracking, and hand searching of non-indexed chiropractic, osteopathic, and manual medicine journals.
DATA EXTRACTION:
Information about outcome measures, interventions and effect sizes was used to evaluate treatment efficacy. Levels of evidence were determined by a classification system incorporating study validity and statistical significance of study results. Two authors independently extracted data and performed methodological scoring of selected trials.
DATA SYNTHESIS:
Nine trials involving 683 patients with chronic headache were included. The methodological quality (validity) scores ranged from 21 to 87 (100-point scale). The trials were too heterogeneous in terms of patient clinical characteristic, control groups, and outcome measures to warrant statistical pooling. Based on predefined criteria, there is moderate evidence that SMT has short-term efficacy similar to amitriptyline in the prophylactic treatment of chronic tension-type headache and migraine. SMT does not appear to improve outcomes when added to soft-tissue massage for episodic tension-type headache. There is moderate evidence that SMT is more efficacious than massage for cervicogenic headache. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results and the overall study conclusions remained the same even when substantial changes in the prespecified assumptions/rules regarding the evidence determination were applied.
CONCLUSIONS:
SMT appears to have a better effect than massage for cervicogenic headache. It also appears that SMT has an effect comparable to commonly used first-line prophylactic prescription medications for tension-type headache and migraine headache. This conclusion rests upon a few trials of adequate methodological quality. Before any firm conclusions can be drawn, further testing should be done in rigorously designed, executed, and analyzed trials with follow-up periods of sufficient length.
PMID: 11562654 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11562654 ....................................................................................
Efficacy of spinal manipulation and mobilization for low back pain and neck pain: a systematic review and best evidence synthesis.
Bronfort G, Haas M, Evans RL, Bouter LM.
Source
Department of Research, Wolfe-Harris Center for Clinical Studies, Northwestern Health Sciences University, 2501 W, 84th Street Bloomington, MN 55431, USA. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. "> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT:
Despite the many published randomized clinical trials (RCTs), a substantial number of reviews and several national clinical guidelines, much controversy still remains regarding the evidence for or against efficacy of spinal manipulation for low back pain and neck pain.
PURPOSE:
To reassess the efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and mobilization (MOB) for the management of low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP), with special attention to applying more stringent criteria for study admissibility into evidence and for isolating the effect of SMT and/or MOB.
STUDY DESIGN:
RCTs including 10 or more subjects per group receiving SMT or MOB and using patient-oriented primary outcome measures (eg, patient-rated pain, disability, global improvement and recovery time).
METHODS:
Articles in English, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian and Dutch reporting on randomized trials were identified by a comprehensive search of computerized and bibliographic literature databases up to the end of 2002. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed study quality according to eight explicit criteria. A best evidence synthesis incorporating explicit, detailed information about outcome measures and interventions was used to evaluate treatment efficacy. The strength of evidence was assessed by a classification system that incorporated study validity and statistical significance of study results. Sixty-nine RCTs met the study selection criteria and were reviewed and assigned validity scores varying from 6 to 81 on a scale of 0 to 100. Forty-three RCTs met the admissibility criteria for evidence.
RESULTS:
Acute LBP: There is moderate evidence that SMT provides more short-term pain relief than MOB and detuned diathermy, and limited evidence of faster recovery than a commonly used physical therapy treatment strategy. Chronic LBP: There is moderate evidence that SMT has an effect similar to an efficacious prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, SMT/MOB is effective in the short term when compared with placebo and general practitioner care, and in the long term compared to physical therapy. There is limited to moderate evidence that SMT is better than physical therapy and home back exercise in both the short and long term. There is limited evidence that SMT is superior to sham SMT in the short term and superior to chemonucleolysis for disc herniation in the short term. However, there is also limited evidence that MOB is inferior to back exercise after disc herniation surgery. Mix of acute and chronic LBP: SMT/MOB provides either similar or better pain outcomes in the short and long term when compared with placebo and with other treatments, such as McKenzie therapy, medical care, management by physical therapists, soft tissue treatment and back school. Acute NP: There are few studies, and the evidence is currently inconclusive. Chronic NP: There is moderate evidence that SMT/MOB is superior to general practitioner management for short-term pain reduction but that SMT offers at most similar pain relief to high-technology rehabilitative exercise in the short and long term. Mix of acute and chronic NP: The overall evidence is not clear. There is moderate evidence that MOB is superior to physical therapy and family physician care, and similar to SMT in both the short and long term. There is limited evidence that SMT, in both the short and long term, is inferior to physical therapy.
CONCLUSIONS:
Our data synthesis suggests that recommendations can be made with some confidence regarding the use of SMT and/or MOB as a viable option for the treatment of both low back pain and NP. There have been few high-quality trials distinguishing between acute and chronic patients, and most are limited to shorter-term follow-up. Future trials should examine well-defined subgroups of patients, further address the value of SMT and MOB for acute patients, establish optimal number of treatment visits and consider the cost-effectiveness of care. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15125860
