PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-2 (2)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Authors
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Acute effects of single and multiple level thoracic manipulations on chronic mechanical neck pain: a randomized controlled trial 
Background
Thoracic spine manipulation has become a popular alternative to local cervical manipulative therapy for mechanical neck pain. This study investigated the acute effects of single-level and multiple-level thoracic manipulations on chronic mechanical neck pain (CMNP).
Methods
Forty-eight patients with CMNP were randomly allocated to single-level thoracic manipulation (STM) at T6–T7 or multiple-level thoracic manipulation (MTM), or to a control group (prone lying). Cervical range of motion (CROM), visual analog scale (VAS), and the Thai version of the Neck Disability Index (NDI-TH) scores were measured at baseline, and at 24-hour and at 1-week follow-up.
Results
At 24-hour and 1-week follow-up, neck disability and pain levels were significantly (P<0.05) improved in the STM and MTM groups compared with the control group. CROM in flexion and left lateral flexion were increased significantly (P<0.05) in the STM group when compared with the control group at 1-week follow-up. The CROM in right rotation was increased significantly after MTM compared to the control group (P<0.05) at 24-hour follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences in neck disability, pain level at rest, and CROM between the STM and MTM groups.
Conclusion
These results suggest that both single-level and multiple-level thoracic manipulation improve neck disability, pain levels, and CROM at 24-hour and 1-week follow-up in patients with CMNP.
doi:10.2147/NDT.S69579
PMCID: PMC4296956  PMID: 25624764
thoracic manipulation; neck disability; pain level; neck pain
2.  Intrarater Reliability of Pain Intensity, Tissue Blood Flow, Thermal Pain Threshold, Pressure Pain Threshold and Lumbo-Pelvic Stability Tests in Subjects with Low Back Pain 
Purpose
This preliminary study aimed to determine the intrarater reliability of the quantitative tests for the study of non-specific low back pain.
Methods
Test-retest reliability of the measurements of ratio data was determined by an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurements (SEMs), coefficient of variation (CV), and one-way repeated measures ANOVA using the values collected from 13 young individuals (25.8 ± 6.2 years) with chronic non-specific low back pain on two occasions separated by 2 days. Percent agreement of the ordinal data was also determined by Cohen's Kappa statistics (kappa). The measures consisted of tissue blood flow (BF), average pain visual analog scales (VAS), pressure pain threshold (PPT), cold pain threshold (CPT), heat pain threshold (HPT) and lumbo-pelvic stability test (LPST). An acceptable reliability was determined as the ICC values of greater than 0.85, SEMs less than 5%, CV less than 15%, the kappa scores of greater than 80% and no evidence of systematic error (ANOVA, P>0.05).
Results
ICC of all measures in the lumbo-sacral area were greater than 0.87. The kappa was also greater than 83%. Most measures demonstrated a minimal error of measurements and less potential of systemic error in nature. Only the SEMs and the CV of the CPT exceeded the acceptable level.
Conclusions
It is concluded that most of the quantitative measurements are reliable for the study of non-specific low back pain, however the CPT should be applied with care as it has a great variation among individuals and potential of measurement error.
PMCID: PMC3307961  PMID: 22461960
Reliability; Low back pain; Outcome measures; Lumbo-pelvic stability; Pain

Results 1-2 (2)