The Efficacy of Manual Therapy and Pressure Biofeedback-Guided Deep Cervical Flexor Muscle Strength Training on Pain and Functional Limitations in Individuals with Cervicogenic Headaches: A Randomized Comparative Study.
Shahnaz Hasan, Nasrin Bharti, Ahmad H Alghadir, Amir Iqbal, Naiyer Shahzad, Abeer R Ibrahim
{"title":"The Efficacy of Manual Therapy and Pressure Biofeedback-Guided Deep Cervical Flexor Muscle Strength Training on Pain and Functional Limitations in Individuals with Cervicogenic Headaches: A Randomized Comparative Study.","authors":"Shahnaz Hasan, Nasrin Bharti, Ahmad H Alghadir, Amir Iqbal, Naiyer Shahzad, Abeer R Ibrahim","doi":"10.1155/2023/1799005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to compare the efficacy of manual therapy and pressure biofeedback-guided DCFM strength training on pain intensity and functional limitations in individuals with CGH. <i>Trial Design</i>. A double-blinded, two-arm parallel group randomized comparative design.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After applying the eligibility criteria, sixty out of eighty-nine CGH patients were recruited from King Saud University Medical Center in Riyadh and randomly allocated to intervention groups using simple random sampling. Group 1 underwent pressure biofeedback-guided DCFM strength training and conventional treatment, while Group 2 received manual therapy and conventional treatment for three consecutive weeks. The main outcome measures were scores on the visual analog scale (VAS) and the headache disability index (HDI). One assessor and two physical therapists were blinded to group allocation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty out of eighty participants aged 29-40 years were randomized into intervention groups (<i>n</i> = 30/group; age (mean ± standard deviation): group 1 = 35.0 ± 2.82; group 2 = 34.87 ± 2.60), and their data were analyzed. A significant improvement (95% CI, <i>p</i> < 0.05) was observed within each group when comparing the VAS and HDI scores between baseline and postintervention. In contrast, between-group comparisons for the outcome score of VAS and HDI revealed nonsignificant differences in the first, second, and third weeks after intervention, except for the VAS score, which showed a significant difference in weeks 2 and 3 after intervention. Cohen's <i>d</i>-value indicated that the intervention effect size for reducing pain was larger in group 1 than in group 2 at weeks 2 and 3.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with manual therapy, pressure biofeedback-guided DCFM strength training showed a greater reduction in pain intensity (assessed using the VAS) at weeks two and three. However, both treatments were equally effective in lowering headache-related functional limitations in patients with CGH. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrial.gov PRS (Identifier ID: NCT05692232).</p>","PeriodicalId":19913,"journal":{"name":"Pain Research & Management","volume":"2023 ","pages":"1799005"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10442171/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Research & Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/1799005","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of manual therapy and pressure biofeedback-guided DCFM strength training on pain intensity and functional limitations in individuals with CGH. Trial Design. A double-blinded, two-arm parallel group randomized comparative design.
Methods: After applying the eligibility criteria, sixty out of eighty-nine CGH patients were recruited from King Saud University Medical Center in Riyadh and randomly allocated to intervention groups using simple random sampling. Group 1 underwent pressure biofeedback-guided DCFM strength training and conventional treatment, while Group 2 received manual therapy and conventional treatment for three consecutive weeks. The main outcome measures were scores on the visual analog scale (VAS) and the headache disability index (HDI). One assessor and two physical therapists were blinded to group allocation.
Results: Sixty out of eighty participants aged 29-40 years were randomized into intervention groups (n = 30/group; age (mean ± standard deviation): group 1 = 35.0 ± 2.82; group 2 = 34.87 ± 2.60), and their data were analyzed. A significant improvement (95% CI, p < 0.05) was observed within each group when comparing the VAS and HDI scores between baseline and postintervention. In contrast, between-group comparisons for the outcome score of VAS and HDI revealed nonsignificant differences in the first, second, and third weeks after intervention, except for the VAS score, which showed a significant difference in weeks 2 and 3 after intervention. Cohen's d-value indicated that the intervention effect size for reducing pain was larger in group 1 than in group 2 at weeks 2 and 3.
Conclusion: Compared with manual therapy, pressure biofeedback-guided DCFM strength training showed a greater reduction in pain intensity (assessed using the VAS) at weeks two and three. However, both treatments were equally effective in lowering headache-related functional limitations in patients with CGH. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrial.gov PRS (Identifier ID: NCT05692232).
期刊介绍:
Pain Research and Management is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies in all areas of pain management.
The most recent Impact Factor for Pain Research and Management is 1.685 according to the 2015 Journal Citation Reports released by Thomson Reuters in 2016.