Cervical manipulation versus thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations for the management of neck pain. A systematic review and meta-analysis
Carrasco-Uribarren, Andoni ; Pardos-Aguilella, Pilar (Universidad de Zaragoza) ; Jiménez-del-Barrio, Sandra ; Cabanillas-Barea, Sara ; Pérez-Guillén, Silvia ; Ceballos-Laita, Luis
Resumen: Background
Cervical and thoracic thrust or non-thrust manipulations have shown to be effective in patients with neck pain, but there is a lack of studies comparing both interventions in patients with neck pain.
Objective
To investigate the effects of cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations compared to thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations for improving pain, disability, and range of motion in patients with neck pain.
Design
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Method
Searches were performed in PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane Library, CINHAL, and Web of Science databases from inception to May 22, 2023. Randomized clinical trials comparing cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations to thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations were included. Methodological quality was assessed with PEDro scale, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE guidelines.
Results
Six studies were included. Meta-analyses revealed no differences between cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations and thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations in pain intensity, disability, or cervical range of motion in any plane. The certainty of evidence was downgraded to very low for pain intensity, to moderate or very low for disability and to low or very low for cervical range of motion.
Conclusion
There is moderate to very low certainty evidence that there is no difference in effectiveness between cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations and thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations for improving pain, disability, and range of motion in patients with neck pain.
Idioma: Inglés
DOI: 10.1016/j.msksp.2024.102927
Año: 2024
Publicado en: MUSCULOSKELETAL SCIENCE AND PRACTICE 71 (2024), 102927 [32 pp.]
ISSN: 2468-8630
Factor impacto JCR: 2.2 (2024)
Categ. JCR: REHABILITATION rank: 43 / 173 = 0.249 (2024) - Q1 - T1
Factor impacto SCIMAGO: 0.85 - Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation (Q1)
Tipo y forma: Article (Published version)
Área (Departamento): Área Fisioterapia (Dpto. Fisiatría y Enfermería)
Exportado de SIDERAL (2025-09-22-14:30:48)
Visitas y descargas
Cervical and thoracic thrust or non-thrust manipulations have shown to be effective in patients with neck pain, but there is a lack of studies comparing both interventions in patients with neck pain.
Objective
To investigate the effects of cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations compared to thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations for improving pain, disability, and range of motion in patients with neck pain.
Design
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Method
Searches were performed in PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane Library, CINHAL, and Web of Science databases from inception to May 22, 2023. Randomized clinical trials comparing cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations to thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations were included. Methodological quality was assessed with PEDro scale, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE guidelines.
Results
Six studies were included. Meta-analyses revealed no differences between cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations and thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations in pain intensity, disability, or cervical range of motion in any plane. The certainty of evidence was downgraded to very low for pain intensity, to moderate or very low for disability and to low or very low for cervical range of motion.
Conclusion
There is moderate to very low certainty evidence that there is no difference in effectiveness between cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations and thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations for improving pain, disability, and range of motion in patients with neck pain.
Idioma: Inglés
DOI: 10.1016/j.msksp.2024.102927
Año: 2024
Publicado en: MUSCULOSKELETAL SCIENCE AND PRACTICE 71 (2024), 102927 [32 pp.]
ISSN: 2468-8630
Factor impacto JCR: 2.2 (2024)
Categ. JCR: REHABILITATION rank: 43 / 173 = 0.249 (2024) - Q1 - T1
Factor impacto SCIMAGO: 0.85 - Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation (Q1)
Tipo y forma: Article (Published version)
Área (Departamento): Área Fisioterapia (Dpto. Fisiatría y Enfermería)
Exportado de SIDERAL (2025-09-22-14:30:48)
Permalink:
Visitas y descargas
Este artículo se encuentra en las siguientes colecciones:
articulos > articulos-por-area > fisioterapia
Notice créée le 2024-03-15, modifiée le 2025-09-23