Complementary therapies in medicine · 2012
Strain-counterstrain to treat restrictions of the mobility of the cervical spine in patients with neck pain: a sham-controlled randomized trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Klein Reinhold, Bareis Alexa, Schneider Antonius, Linde Klaus
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Strain-counterstrain is an osteopathic technique which is widely used for treating mobility restrictions in the neck. We aimed to investigate whether a single strain-counterstrain intervention is more effective than a sham intervention in improving restricted cervical range of motion in patients with neck pain.
METHODS: 61 adult patients with neck pain and restricted cervical mobility were randomly allocated to receive either a single strain-counterstrain intervention or a sham treatment. After outcome measurement all patients received full individualized osteopathic treatment. Mobility of the cervical spine was measured by a blinded observer using the Cervical Range of Motion (CROM) tool. In addition, patients rated pain intensity and assessed the treatment effect. The main outcome measure was the sum of changes in mobility restriction (in %) after treatment compared to normal mobility.
RESULTS: All patients completed the study. Mobility restriction decreased by 2.0% (SD 6.9%) in the group receiving strain-counterstrain treatment and 0.6% (SD 5.7%) in the group receiving sham treatment (mean difference 1.5%, 95% confidence interval -1.7 to 4.8%; p=0.35). There were no significant differences between groups for secondary outcomes. After receiving the full osteopathic treatment the group initially receiving strain-counterstrain improved by another 4.2% (7.0%; p=0.003) and the group initially receiving sham by another 5.6% (SD 6.8%; p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Strain-counterstrain as a single intervention did not have immediate effects on mobility and pain over a sham treatment. Future studies should probably focus on the investigation of full osteopathic treatment.
METHODS: 61 adult patients with neck pain and restricted cervical mobility were randomly allocated to receive either a single strain-counterstrain intervention or a sham treatment. After outcome measurement all patients received full individualized osteopathic treatment. Mobility of the cervical spine was measured by a blinded observer using the Cervical Range of Motion (CROM) tool. In addition, patients rated pain intensity and assessed the treatment effect. The main outcome measure was the sum of changes in mobility restriction (in %) after treatment compared to normal mobility.
RESULTS: All patients completed the study. Mobility restriction decreased by 2.0% (SD 6.9%) in the group receiving strain-counterstrain treatment and 0.6% (SD 5.7%) in the group receiving sham treatment (mean difference 1.5%, 95% confidence interval -1.7 to 4.8%; p=0.35). There were no significant differences between groups for secondary outcomes. After receiving the full osteopathic treatment the group initially receiving strain-counterstrain improved by another 4.2% (7.0%; p=0.003) and the group initially receiving sham by another 5.6% (SD 6.8%; p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Strain-counterstrain as a single intervention did not have immediate effects on mobility and pain over a sham treatment. Future studies should probably focus on the investigation of full osteopathic treatment.