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

Real vs. Sham C0-C1 Mobilization in Patients With Chronic Neck Pain and Upper Cervical Restriction

Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
March 2023

Real vs. Sham C0-C1 Mobilization in Patients With Chronic Neck Pain and Upper Cervical Restriction

Vol: 303| Issue: 3| Number:1| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:1
Journal Level of Evidence:1

Are there differences between a real C0-C1 mobilization and a sham technique in function and pressure pain threshold in patients with chronic neck pain and upper cervical restriction? A randomised controlled clinical trial.

J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2023;36(1): 61-70.

Contributing Authors:
G Arias-Alvarez MM Bustos C Hidalgo-Garcia K Cordova-Leon A Perez-Bellmunt C Lopez-de-Celis J Rodriguez-Sanz

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

Synopsis

Twenty-eight patients with chronic neck pain and upper cervical restriction were randomized to receive a single session of C0-C1 dorsal gliding manual therapy (n=14) or a sham treatment (n=14). The primary outcome of interest was the flexion-rotation test variable. Secondary outcomes included upper flexion-extension mobility, pain pressure threshold, and deep flexor muscle activation, measured imm...

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.