The relative effectiveness of the combination of spinal manipulation and Homoeopathic Simillimum in the treatment of chronic mechanical neck pain
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: According to Picavet and Schouten (2003) the incidence of neck pain is increasing at a greater rate than other spine problems (Hoving et al. 2004). Furthermore, chronic neck pain is a substantial burden to society with chronic neck pain being the fourth leading cause of disability worldwide (Hoy et al. 2014). Chronic mechanical neck pain (CMNP) has been defined as localised, asymmetrical neck pain with restricted range of motion and dysfunctional musculature (Grieve, 1988). Treatments for those suffering with chronic pain, which are non-surgical, appear to be the most beneficial for patients according to Haldeman et al. (2008). Giles and Müller (1999) have stated that spinal manipulation is the most effective method of treating spinal pain on its own. However, the literature suggests that there is benefit in combining manipulation with an “anti-inflammatory type” drug (Crawford 1988; Oberbaum 1998; Serrentino 2003). Many studies have been successfully conducted on Homoeopathic complexes to treat neck pain (Fisher 1986; Bohmer and Ambrus 1992; Hepburn 2000; Soeken 2004) however no study has yet to been carried out on the combination of Homoeopathic Simillimum (single remedy) and spinal manipulation for CMNP. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine if spinal manipulation and Homoeopathic Simillimum in combination are more relatively effective than spinal manipulation alone in the treatment of chronic mechanical neck pain. Methodology: This study was a randomised, blinded placebo controlled quantitative trial with a comparative clinical trial design. Thirty consenting participants with CMNP who met the inclusion criteria were randomly distributed between two treatment groups. Group A received spinal manipulation as well as Homoeopathic Simillimum and group B received spinal manipulation with placebo medication. Each participant received three treatments over a period of a week; with subjective and objective readings taken at every consultation. The subjective tools included the Numerical Pain Rating Scale and Canadian Memorial College of Chiropractic Neck Disability Index. Objective tools included the Algometer and CROM-II Goniometer. All data captured was analysed using SPSS version 24.0. Inferential and non-parametric analysis of the data were also be performed. Results: The results showed that no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of subjective and objective measurements. However, there were statistically significant improvements seen in both groups equally in terms of ANOVA subjective and objective measurements i.e. both groups showed improvement. Conclusion: The results of this study concluded that no statistical or clinically significant changes were noticed between the groups and therefore the Homoeopathic Simillimum added no statistical significant improvements in those who received it over those participants who received placebo in the treatment of chronic mechanical neck pain.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».