Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016 Feb 6;17:64.
doi: 10.1186/s12891-016-0912-3.

Upper Cervical and Upper Thoracic Manipulation Versus Mobilization and Exercise in Patients With Cervicogenic Headache: A Multi-Center Randomized Clinical Trial

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Upper Cervical and Upper Thoracic Manipulation Versus Mobilization and Exercise in Patients With Cervicogenic Headache: A Multi-Center Randomized Clinical Trial

James R Dunning et al. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Background: Although commonly utilized interventions, no studies have directly compared the effectiveness of cervical and thoracic manipulation to mobilization and exercise in individuals with cervicogenic headache (CH). The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of manipulation to mobilization and exercise in individuals with CH.

Methods: One hundred and ten participants (n = 110) with CH were randomized to receive both cervical and thoracic manipulation (n = 58) or mobilization and exercise (n = 52). The primary outcome was headache intensity as measured by the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Secondary outcomes included headache frequency, headache duration, disability as measured by the Neck Disability Index (NDI), medication intake, and the Global Rating of Change (GRC). The treatment period was 4 weeks with follow-up assessment at 1 week, 4 weeks, and 3 months after initial treatment session. The primary aim was examined with a 2-way mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA), with treatment group (manipulation versus mobilization and exercise) as the between subjects variable and time (baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks and 3 months) as the within subjects variable.

Results: The 2X4 ANOVA demonstrated that individuals with CH who received both cervical and thoracic manipulation experienced significantly greater reductions in headache intensity (p < 0.001) and disability (p < 0.001) than those who received mobilization and exercise at a 3-month follow-up. Individuals in the upper cervical and upper thoracic manipulation group also experienced less frequent headaches and shorter duration of headaches at each follow-up period (p < 0.001 for all). Additionally, patient perceived improvement was significantly greater at 1 and 4-week follow-up periods in favor of the manipulation group (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Six to eight sessions of upper cervical and upper thoracic manipulation were shown to be more effective than mobilization and exercise in patients with CH, and the effects were maintained at 3 months.

Trial registration: NCT01580280 April 16, 2012.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
High-velocity low-amplitude thrust manipulation directed to the right C1-2 articulation. The subject provided consent for her image to be used
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
High-velocity low-amplitude thrust manipulation directed bilaterally to the upper thoracic (T1-2) spine. The subject provided consent for her image to be used
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Flow diagram of patient recruitment and retention

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 10 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. The International Classifcation of Headache Disorders: 3rd Edition. Cephalalgia. 2013;33(9):629-808. - PubMed
    1. Anthony M. Cervicogenic headache: prevalence and response to local steroid therapy. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2000;18(2 Suppl 19):S59–64. - PubMed
    1. Nilsson N. The prevalence of cervicogenic headache in a random population sample of 20-59 year olds. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995;20(17):1884–8. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199509000-00008. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bogduk N, Govind J. Cervicogenic headache: an assessment of the evidence on clinical diagnosis, invasive tests, and treatment. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8(10):959–68. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70209-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sjaastad O, Fredriksen TA, Pfaffenrath V. Cervicogenic headache: diagnostic criteria. The Cervicogenic Headache International Study Group. Headache. 1998;38(6):442–5. doi: 10.1046/j.1526-4610.1998.3806442.x. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data

Feedback