A clinical trial investigating the possible effect of the supine cervical rotatory manipulation and the supine lateral break manipulation in the treatment of mechanical neck pain: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the possible effect of the supine cervical rotary manipulation and the supine lateral break manipulation in the treatment of mechanical neck pain, according to subjective and objective clinical findings. BACKGROUND: Delivering a supine lateral break manipulation to the ipsilateral side of an inflamed facet joint(s) that exhibits a lateral flexion fixation may result in pain and/or discomfort to the patient. Thus the proposed alternative is a supine cervical rotary manipulation delivered on the ipsilateral side or a supine lateral break manipulation delivered on the contralateral side of the relevant joint(s). DESIGN: Randomized, comparative clinical trial. SUBJECTS: Two groups of 15 subjects diagnosed with mechanical neck pain. INTERVENTION: The diagnosis of mechanical neck pain and the identification of lateral flexion fixations in the cervical spine were made with conventional clinical evaluation, including motion palpation. Group A received a cervical rotary manipulation(s) on the ipsilateral side of the lateral flexion fixation(s), while group B received a supine lateral break manipulation(s) on the contralateral side of the lateral flexion fixation(s). Subjects received a maximum of 10 treatments over a 4-week treatment period. OUTCOME MEASURES: Both treatment groups were assessed with subjective (Numerical Pain Rating Scale 101, McGill Short-Form Pain Questionnaire and the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College Neck Disability Index) and objective (cervical range of motion goniometer and algometer) measurement parameters at the initial consultation (before any treatment), the final consultation, and at a 1-month follow-up consultation. Statistical analysis was conducted at a 95% confidence level (alpha =.05) with the non-parametric 2-tailed Wilcoxon signed ranks test, the Mann-Whitney U test, and descriptive statistics. Two-tailed power analysis was conducted after the fact, where a confidence level of 80% (beta =.20) was considered satisfactory. RESULTS: Intragroup analysis indicated a significant difference between the initial consultation data and the final consultation data for the subjective data, indicating an effect. Analysis of the objective data did not reveal any significant difference. Intergroup analysis did not reveal any significant difference between the 2 groups when comparing the data of the initial consultation and the final consultation, indicating that both treatments had a similar or equal effect. Power analysis was not satisfactory for most data, indicating the possibility of many Type II errors. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Statistically, the results suggested that both treatments had an effect but that neither group showed a benefit over the other. However, because of the unsatisfactory power of the study, conclusions are to be drawn with caution. Clinical significance supported the statistical outcomes where it was suggested that both treatments had an effect and that neither treatment had a greater effect. A larger sample size and the inclusion of a placebo group is recommended to reveal true treatment outcomes and trends.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".