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

Improved short-term outcomes for mechanical neck pain with HVLA thrust manipulation

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
July 2013

Improved short-term outcomes for mechanical neck pain with HVLA thrust manipulation

Vol: 2| Issue: 6| Number:13| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:N/A

Upper cervical and upper thoracic thrust manipulation versus nonthrust mobilization in patients with mechanical neck pain: a multicenter randomized clinical trial

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012 Jan;42(1):5-18. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2012.3894. Epub 2011 Sep 30

Contributing Authors:
JR Dunning JA Cleland MA Waldrop CF Arnot IA Young M Turner G Sigurdsson

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

Synopsis

107 patients were randomized to receive either high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) thrust manipulation or non-thrust mobilization to determine which method provided improved short-term outcomes in the treatment of mechanical neck pain. Disability, pain, range of motion and motor control of the cervical flexors were assessed 48 hours post-intervention. The results indicated that HVLA thrust manipula...

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