Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy最新文献

Objectives: The primary purpose of this study is to investigate the feasibility of using ultrasound to verify the placement of narrow-gauge dry needles within the supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscles utilizing palpation-based dry needle techniques.

Methods: This is a prospective observational study with 10 participants recruited. Each participant had a dry needle placed within the infraspinatus and supraspinatus muscles by a trained physical therapist utilizing palpation-based methods. Following needle placement, ultrasound examination was then performed to determine the feasibility of needle tip visualization within the targeted tissues.

Results: The needle tip was successfully visualized on ultrasound in 19/20 cases. The needle tip accurately resided in the targeted muscle tissue in each of the 19 cases it was successfully visualized.

Conclusions: Narrow-gauge dry needles used in physical therapy practice can be consistently visualized in the supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscles using ultrasound imaging. Also, the palpation method utilized is an accurate means of guiding dry needles into the targeted rotator cuff muscles. These are significant findings because most physical therapy clinics do not have the benefit of real-time imaging guidance and must rely solely on palpation-based needling methods.

Introduction: Thoracic manipulative therapy (TMT) is recommended for treating patients with mechanical neck pain (MNP). However, there are multiple proposed recommendations for the mechanism for neck pain reduction.

Objective: To investigate displacement of the cervicothoracic spine during the application of TMT in patients with MNP.

Methods: Thirty-five male patients with MNP were recruited. Displacements of C₃, C₅, C₇, T₂, T₄ and T₆ were measured using a motion capture system while a therapist applied a grade III central posteroanterior TMT (cpa-TMT) to T₆.

Results: Mean (SD) displacement ranged from 2.2 (0.62) to 5.5 (1.1) mm. A significant decrease in neck pain intensity at rest was found after the application of the cpa-TMT (mean difference 17 mm, p < 0.001). A downward trend in spinal displacement was noted, with the largest and smallest displacement occurring at T₆ and C₃, respectively. Correlations between the displacement of T₆ and adjacent spinal levels were moderate to high (Pearson's r range 0.70-0.90, p < 0.001). It was showed that cpa-TMT applied to T₆ produced the PA displacement toward the upper cervical spine.

Conclusion: TMT produces spinal segmental displacements toward the upper cervical spine in MNP patients. These segmental displacements would activate the alleviation effect at both the spinal and supraspinal levels resulting in neck pain reduction. These findings would provide supporting evidence for the use of TMT in neck pain reduction.

Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to update the current level of evidence for spinal manipulation in influencing various biochemical markers in healthy and/or symptomatic population.

Methods: This is a systematic review update. Various databases were searched (inception till May 2023) and fifteen trials (737 participants) that met the inclusion criteria were included in the review. Two authors independently screened, extracted and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. Outcome measure data were synthesized using standard mean differences and meta-analysis for the primary outcome (biochemical markers). The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used for assessing the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome of interest.

Results: There was low-quality evidence that spinal manipulation influenced various biochemical markers (not pooled). There was low-quality evidence of significant difference that spinal manipulation is better (SMD -0.42, 95% CI - 0.74 to -0.1) than control in eliciting changes in cortisol levels immediately after intervention. Low-quality evidence further indicated (not pooled) that spinal manipulation can influence inflammatory markers such as interleukins levels post-intervention. There was also very low-quality evidence that spinal manipulation does not influence substance-P, neurotensin, oxytocin, orexin-A, testosterone and epinephrine/nor-epinephrine.

Conclusion: Spinal manipulation may influence inflammatory and cortisol post-intervention. However, the wider prediction intervals in most outcome measures point to the need for future research to clarify and establish the clinical relevance of these changes.

Background: Treatment mechanisms involve the steps or processes through which an intervention unfolds and produces change in an outcome variable. Treatment mechanisms can be specific to the intervention provided (i.e. pain modulation) or shared with other treatments (i.e. reduced fear of movement). Whether specific and shared treatment mechanisms are different across interventions and whether they lead to the outcomes seen in trials is largely unknown. The management of individuals with chronic neck pain routinely include manual therapy (MT) and resistance exercise (RE), as both approaches are included in clinical practice guidelines and both yield similar outcomes.

Objectives: Our study plans to answer two research questions: 1) what are the specific mechanisms associated with MT versus interventions (and are these different), and 2) what are the shared mechanisms associated with these interventions, and do specific or shared mechanisms mediate clinical outcomes?

Methods: This study will involve a 2-group parallel (1:1) single-blinded randomized trial to compare the specific and potential shared treatment mechanisms between these two approaches. We will enroll individuals with a history of chronic neck pain and evaluate whether specific or shared mechanisms mediate clinical outcomes.

Results: We hypothesize that MT and RE approaches will both exhibit different specific treatment mechanisms, and that both approaches will exhibit shared treatment mechanisms, which will notably influence outcomes at both discharge and 6-months.

Conclusions: This study is important because it will help identify what specific or shared treatment mechanisms are associated with different interventions and, how different treatment mechanisms influence clinical outcomes.

Background: Changes in quantitative sensory testing (QST) after manual therapy can provide insight into pain relief mechanisms. Prior systematic reviews have evaluated manual-therapy-induced QST change. This overview of systematic reviews aims to consolidate this body of literature and critically review evidence on the hypoalgesic effects of manual therapy in clinical populations.

Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Embase. Peer-reviewed systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis were eligible if the reviews examined the effect of manual therapy compared to non-manual therapy interventions on QST outcomes in clinical populations. Methodological quality was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool. Meta-analysis results and qualitative (non-meta-analysis) interpretations were summarized by type of manual therapy. Overlap of studies was examined with the corrected covered area (CCA) index.

Results: Thirty systematic reviews, including 11 meta-analyses, met inclusion. There was a slight overlap in studies (CCA of 1.72% for all reviews and 1.69% for meta-analyses). Methodological quality was predominantly low to critically low. Eight (27%) reviews examined studies with a range of manual therapy types, 13 (43%) reviews focused on joint-biased manual therapy, 7 (23%) reviews focused on muscle-biased manual therapy, and 2 (7%) reviews focused on nerve-biased manual therapy. Twenty-nine (97%) reviews reported on pressure pain threshold (PPT). Meta-analytic results demonstrated conflicting evidence that manual therapy results in greater hypoalgesic effects compared to other interventions or controls.

Conclusion: Our overview of QST effects, which has relevance to mechanisms underlying hypoalgesia, shows conflicting evidence from mostly low to critically low systematic reviews.

Background: Spinal manipulation (SM) has been hypothesized to influence the autonomic nervous system (ANS). Further, it has been proposed that the effects may vary depending on the segment manipulated. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the current level of evidence for SM in influencing the ANS in healthy and/or symptomatic population.

Methods: Various databases (n = 8) were searched (inception till May 2023) and 14 trials (n = 618 participants) were included in the review. Two authors independently screened, extracted and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. The data were synthesized using standard mean differences and meta-analysis for the primary outcome measures. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used for assessing the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome of interest.

Results: Overall, there was low quality evidence that SM did not influence any measure of ANS including heart rate variability (HRV), oxy-hemoglobin, blood pressure, epinephrine and nor-epinephrine. However, there was low quality evidence that cervical spine manipulation may influence high frequency parameter of HRV, indicating its influence on the parasympathetic nervous system.

Conclusion: When compared with control or sham interventions, SM did not alter the ANS. Due to invalid methodologies and the low quality of included studies, findings must be interpreted with great caution. Future studies are needed which employ rigorous data collection processes to verify the true physiological implications of SM on ANS.

Objective: The International Consortium on Manual Therapies (ICMT) is a grassroots interprofessional association open to any formally trained practitioner of manual therapy (MT) and basic scientists promoting research related to the practice of MT. Currently, MT research is impeded by professions' lack of communication with other MT professions, biases, and vernacular. Current ICMT goals are to minimize these barriers, compare MT techniques, and establish an interprofessional MT glossary.

Methods: Practitioners from all professions with training in manual therapies were encouraged by e-mail and website to participate (www.ICMTConferene.org). Video conferences were conducted at least bimonthly for 2.5 years by profession-specific and interprofessional focus groups (FGs). Members summarized scopes of practice, technique descriptions, associated mechanisms of action (MOA), and glossary terms. Each profession presented their work to the interprofessional FG to promote dialogue, understanding and consensus. Outcomes were reported and refined at numerous public events.

Results: Focus groups with representatives from 5 MT professions, chiropractic, massage therapy, osteopathic, physical therapy and structural integration identified 17 targeting osseous structures and 49 targeting nonosseous structures. Thirty-two techniques appeared distinct to a specific profession, and 13 were used by more than 1. Comparing descriptions identified additional commonalities. All professions agreed on 4 MOA categories for MT. A glossary of 280 terms and definitions was consolidated, representing key concepts in MT. Twenty-one terms were used by all MT professions and basic scientists. Five terms were used by MT professions exclusive of basic scientists.

Conclusion: Outcomes suggested a third to a half of techniques used in MT are similar across professions. Additional research is needed to better define the extent of similarity and how to consistently identify those approaches. Ongoing expansion and refinement of the glossary is necessary to promote descriptive clarity and facilitate communication between practitioners and basic scientists.

Objectives: To perform a 'trustworthy' systematic review (SR) with meta-analysis on the potential mechanisms of manual therapy used to treat spinal impairments.

Design: SR with meta-analysis.

Literature search: Articles published between January 2010 and October 2022 from CENTRAL, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, ProQuest, and PEDro.

Methods: This SR included English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving manual therapy to treat spinal impairments in adults. The primary outcome was pressure pain thresholds (PPTs). To synthesize RCTs with high confidence in estimated effects using the GRADE, RCTs with questionable prospective, external, and internal validity, and high risk of bias (RoB) were excluded.

Results: Following title and abstract screening, 89 full-text RCTs were reviewed. Twenty-two studies included the criteria of interest. Sixteen were not prospectively registered, two contained discussion/conclusions judged to be inconsistent with the registry, and one was rated as having a high RoB. Three studies met the inclusion criteria; heterogeneous interventions and locations for PPT testing prevented synthesis into practice recommendations. The two studies with high confidence in estimated effects had small effect sizes, and one study had confidence intervals that crossed zero for the outcome measures of interest.

Discussion: Standardized PPT testing, as a potential measure of centrally mediated pain, could provide clues regarding the mechanisms of manual therapy or help identify/refine research questions.

Conclusion: High-quality RCTs could not be synthesized into strong conclusions secondary to the dissimilarity in research designs. Future research regarding quantitative sensory testing should develop RCTs with high confidence in estimated effects that can be translated into strong recommendations.