Pragmatic application of manipulation versus mobilization to the upper segments of the cervical spine plus exercise for treatment of cervicogenic headache: a randomized clinical trial
Addison Lerner-Lentz, Bryan O’Halloran, Megan Donaldson, Joshua A. Cleland
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of manipulation versus mobilization for the management of spinal conditions, including cervicogenic headache, is conflicting. However, a pragmatic approach comparing manipulation to mobilization has not been examined in a patient population with cervicogenic headache. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of manipulation compared to mobilization applied in a pragmatic fashion for patients with cervicogenic headache. METHODS: Forty-five (26 females) patients with cervicogenic headache (mean age 47.8 ± SD 16.9 years) were randomly assigned to receive either pragmatically selected manipulation or mobilization. Outcomes were measured at baseline, the second visit, discharge, and 1-month follow-up and included the Neck Disability Index (NDI), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), the Global Rating of Change (GRC), the Patient Acceptable Symptoms Scale (PASS). The primary aim (effects of treatment on disability and pain were examined with a mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA), with treatment group (manipulation versus mobilization) as the between subjects variable and time (baseline, 48 hours, discharge and follow-up) as the within subjects variable. RESULTS: The interaction for the mixed model ANOVA was not statistically significant for NDI (p = 0.91), NPRS (p = 0.81), or HIT (p = 0.89). There was no significant difference between groups for the GRC or PASS. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The results suggest that manipulation has similar effects on disability, pain, GRC, and cervical range of motion as mobilization when applied in a pragmatic fashion for patients with cervicogenic headaches. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT03919630.