Zoekresultaten

Completeness of the description of manipulation and mobilisation techniques in randomized controlled trials in neck pain; A review using the TiDieR checklist

Study design: A secondary analysis of a systematic review. Background: Manipulations or mobilizations are commonly used interventions in patients with mechanical neck pain. The treatment effects have often been studied in randomized controlled trials (RCT) which are generally considered the gold standard in evaluating the treatment effects, mainly due to its high internal validity. External validity is defined as the extent to which the effects can be generalised to clinical practice. An important prerequisite for this is that interventions used in clinical trials can be replicated in clinical practice. It can be questioned if interventions utilized in randomized controlled trials can be translated into clinical practice. Objectives: The overall aim of this study is to examine whether the quality of the description of manipulation and mobilization interventions is sufficient for to replication of these interventions in clinical practice. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed. Two independent researchers used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) which is a 12-item checklist for describing the completeness of the interventions. Results: Sixty-seven articles were included that used manipulation and/or mobilization interventions for patients with mechanical neck pain. None of the articles describe the intervention e.g. all the items on the TIDieR list. Considering item 8 (a-f) of the TIDieR checklist only one article described the used techniques completely. Conclusion: Manipulation or a mobilization interventions are poorly reported in RCTs, which jeopardize the external validity of RCTs, making it difficult for clinicians and researchers to replicate these interventions.

Adverse events associated with the use of cervical spine manipulation or mobilization and patient characteristics

Cervical spinal manipulation (CSM) and cervical mobilization are frequently used in patients with neck pain and headache. Pre-manipulative cervical instability and arterial integrity tests appear to be unreliable in identifying patients at risk for adverse events. It would be valuable if patients at risk could be identified by specific characteristics during the preliminary screening.Objective was to identify characteristics of 1) patients, 2) practitioners, 3) treatment process and 4) adverse events (AE) occurring after CSM or cervical mobilization.A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web-of-science, AMED, and ICL (Index Chiropractic Literature) up to December 2014.Of the initial 1043 studies, 144 studies were included, containing 227 cases. 117 cases described male patients with a mean age of 45 (SD 12) and a mean age of 39 (SD 11) for females. Most patients were treated by chiropractors (66%). Manipulation was reported in 95% of the cases, and neck pain was the most frequent indication. Cervical arterial dissection (CAD) was reported in 57% (P = 0.21) of the cases and 45.8% had immediate onset symptoms. The overall distribution of gender for CAD is 55% (n = 71) for female and therefore opposite of the total AE.Patient characteristics were described poorly. No clear patient profile, related to the risk of AE after CSM, could be extracted. However, women seem more at risk for CAD. There seems to be under-reporting of cases. Further research should focus on a more uniform and complete registration of AE using standardized terminology.

Monitoring cervical manipulations (MCM)

Introduction:Major Adverse Events (MAE) following Cervical Spinal Manipulations (CSM) have been described anecdotally and are frequently discussed. Until now, exact incidence rates are unknown. Furthermore, there are doubts concerning the factors which may play a role in the occurrence of MAE.Objectives:Determine incidence rates of CSM following CSM.Inventory of patient and clinician characteristics.Introduce an incidence reporting system that fulfils all proposed criteria.Methods:A twofold prospective cohort study will be performed in The Netherlands. Underreporting is particularly likely to be present in primary care, but also likely to be present in secondary care.For this reason measurements will be done in both primary care (MCM -1 group) and secondary care (MCM – 2 group). Data will be collected from September 2016 to September 2017.Considering the sensitivity of the subject and to gain the participants trust, an independent privacy monitoring board is to be founded.Discussion:This study may be helpful in collecting incidence rates of MAE following CSM, collecting relevant factors that play a role in the occurrence of these MAE, collecting epidemiological data and gain insight in the behavior of health professionals.

Complicaties na behandeling van de cervicale wervelkolom middels manuele technieken

Patientkarakteristieken in relatie tot bijwerkingen van manipulaties en mobilisaties

Cervicale mobilisaties en manipulatiesworden frequent en effectief uitgevoerd bijpatiënten met nek- en hoofdpijn. Slechtszeer zelden is er sprake van een calamiteit(zware complicatie) na een cervicaletechniek. Premanipulatieve tests gerichtop arteriële integriteit en ligamentairestabiliteit lijken niet voldoende valide enniet voldoende betrouwbaar te zijn. Hetzou daarom waardevol zijn als patiëntenmet een verhoogd risico voorafgaande aaneen cervicale handeling geïdentificeerdkunnen worden aan de hand van specifiekekenmerken. In deze review wordende karakteristieken in kaart gebracht vanpatiënten, behandelaren, het behandelprocesen de complicaties.

Yes, we should abandon pre-treatment positional testing of the cervical spine

Although there seems to be no causality between cervical spine (CS) manipulation and major adverse events (MAE), it remains important that manual therapists try to prevent every potential MAE. Although the validity of positional testing for vertebrobasilar insufficiency (VBI) has been questioned, recently, the use of these tests was recommended. However, based on the low sensitivity of the VBI tests, which may result in too many false-negative results, the VBI tests seem to be less valuable in pre-manipulative screening. Moreover, because the VBI tests are unable to consistently produce a decreased blood flow in the contralateral vertebral artery in (healthy people), the underlying mechanism of the test may not be a valid construct. There are numerous cases reporting MAE after a negative VBI test, indicating that the VBI tests do not have a role in assessing the risk of serious neurovascular pathology, such as cervical arterial dissection, the most frequently described MAE after CS manipulation. Symptoms of VBI can be identified in the patient interview and should be considered as red flags or warning signs and require further medical investigation. VBI tests are not able to predict MAE and seem not to have any added value to the patient interview with regard to detecting VBI or another vascular pathology. Furthermore, a negative VBI test can be wrongly interpreted as 'safe to manipulate'. Therefore, the use of VBI tests cannot be recommended and should be abandoned.