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

No significant difference between three manual therapy techniques for chronic neck pain

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
June 2014

No significant difference between three manual therapy techniques for chronic neck pain

Vol: 3| Issue: 6| Number:12| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:N/A

Is one better than another?: A randomized clinical trial of manual therapy for patients with chronic neck pain

Man Ther. 2014 Jan 11. pii: S1356-689X(13)00214-2. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2013.12.002.

Contributing Authors:
H Izquierdo Perez JL Alonso Perez A Gil Martinez R La Touche SL Lara N Commeaux Gonzalez H Arribas Perez MD Bishop J Fernandez-Carnero

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

Synopsis

61 patients with mechanical neck pain were randomized to receive either sustained natural apophyseal glide (SNAG), mobilization, or high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) techniques for manual therapy. The effectiveness of the three techniques were compared in terms of immediate and short-term outcomes of pain, disability, mobility, and the global rating scale. After 3 months, analysis revealed no si...

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