Trial reportTrials2015
Development of an attention-touch control for manual cervical distraction: a pilot randomized clinical trial for patients with neck pain.
Trial report in Trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01765751 (Cervical Distraction Minimal Intervention Development), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Cervical Distraction Minimal Intervention Development: Translating From Basic to Clinical Studies
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrasound measurements of lumbar spinous process movement during flexion distraction manipulation: a preliminary descriptive cross-sectional study with healthy participants.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2025Article
- Chiropractic Management using Cox Technic Flexion Distraction for a Patient With Tandem Spinal Stenosis.Journal of chiropractic medicine · 2025Article
- Correlation between degeneration of cervical intervertebral disc and degeneration of paravertebral muscle.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Reducing Cervical Retrolisthesis With Long-Term Monthly Chiropractic Maintenance Care: A Case Report.Journal of medical cases · 2022Article
- Care Outcomes for Chiropractic Outpatient Veterans (COCOV): a qualitative study with veteran stakeholders from a pilot trial of multimodal chiropractic care.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2022Article
- Factors Associated With Clinical Responses to Spinal Manipulation in Patients With Non-specific Thoracic Back Pain: A Prospective Cohort Study.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Spinal manipulation frequency and dosage effects on clinical and physiological outcomes: a scoping review.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2019Article
- Evidence-Based Evaluation of Complementary Health Approaches for Pain Management in the United States.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundManual cervical distraction (MCD) is a traction-based therapy performed with a manual contact over the cervical region producing repeating cycles while patients lie prone. This study evaluated a traction force-based minimal intervention for use as an attention-touch control in clinical trials of MCD for patients with chronic neck pain.
methodsWe conducted a mixed-methods, pilot randomized clinical trial in adults with chronic neck pain. Participants were allocated to three traction force ranges of MCD: low force/minimal intervention (0-20 N), medium force (21-50 N), or high force (51-100 N). Clinicians delivered five treatments over two weeks consisting of three sets of five cycles of MCD at the C5 vertebra and occiput. Traction forces were measured at each treatment. Patient-reported outcomes included a pain visual analogue scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ), and adverse effects. A qualitative interview evaluated treatment group allocation perceptions.
resultsWe randomized 48 participants, allocating an average of five each month. Forty-five participants completed the trial with three participants lost to follow-up. Most participants were women (65%) and white (92%) with a mean (SD) age of 46.8 (12.5) years. Mean traction force values were within the prescribed force ranges for each group at the C5 and occiput levels. Neck pain VAS demonstrated a benefit for high traction force MCD compared to the low force group [adjusted mean difference 15.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6 to 29.7]. Participants in the medium traction force group demonstrated improvements in NDI compared to the low force group (adjusted mean difference 3.0; 95% CI 0.1 to 5.9), as did participants in the high traction force group (adjusted mean difference 2.7; 95% CI -0.1 to 5.6). CEQ favored the high force group. Most low force participants correctly identified their treatment allocation in the qualitative interview. No serious adverse events were documented.
conclusionsThis pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of a clinical trial protocol and the utility of a traction-based, minimal intervention as an attention-touch control for future efficacy trials of MCD for patients with neck pain.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01765751 (Registration Date 30 May 2012).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.