To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Comparison of short-term efficacy of manual therapies for patients with chronic neck pain

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
June 2016

Comparison of short-term efficacy of manual therapies for patients with chronic neck pain

Vol: 5| Issue: 6| Number:15| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:N/A

Mobilization versus manipulations versus sustain apophyseal natural glide techniques and interaction with psychological factors for patients with chronic neck pain: randomized controlled trial

Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2015 Apr;51(2):121-32

Contributing Authors:
A Lopez-Lopez JL Alonso Perez JL González Gutierez R La Touche S Lerma Lara H Izquierdo J Fernández-Carnero

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

48 patients with chronic neck pain were randomized to undergo either high velocity and low amplitude (HVLA) manipulation, anteroposterior mobilization, or sustain apophyseal natural glide treatment. The purpose of this study was to examine the short-term effects of these three manual therapies on pain intensity of neck pain, pressure pain threshold (PPT), and cervical range of motion (CROM). The g...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue