Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29481979›Full record

Trial reportThe spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society2018

Dose-response and efficacy of spinal manipulation for care of cervicogenic headache: a dual-center randomized controlled trial.

Mitchell Haas, Gert Bronfort, Roni Evans, Craig Schulz, Darcy Vavrek, Leslie Takaki, Linda Hanson, Brent Leininger, Moni B Neradilek

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01530321 (Dose-Response of Manipulation for Cervicogenic Headache), which is not on this map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT01530321 phase1 / phase2completednot on this map

Dose-Response of Manipulation for Cervicogenic Headache

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Western StatesRan2012 to 2016Enrolled256ConditionsCervicogenic HeadacheArmsSpinal Manipulation, Light Massage
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Massage for neck pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Multimodal chiropractic care for migraine: A pilot randomized controlled trial.Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache · 2021
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The Role of Manual Therapies in the Treatment of Headache Disorders.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2023
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Clinical Effectiveness and Efficacy of Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation for Spine Pain.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Occipital Neuralgia and Cervicogenic Headache: Diagnosis and Management.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2019
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mitchell HaasIntegrative Health & Wellbeing Research Program, Earl E. Bakken Center for Spirituality & Healing, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. Electronic address: haasmitch@comcast.net.
Gert BronfortIntegrative Health & Wellbeing Research Program, Earl E. Bakken Center for Spirituality & Healing, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Roni EvansIntegrative Health & Wellbeing Research Program, Earl E. Bakken Center for Spirituality & Healing, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Craig SchulzIntegrative Health & Wellbeing Research Program, Earl E. Bakken Center for Spirituality & Healing, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Darcy VavrekIllumina, Inc, 5200 Illumina Way, San Diego, CA 92122, USA.
Leslie TakakiAcademic Affairs, University of Western States, 2900 NE 132nd Ave, Portland, OR 97230, USA.
Linda HansonIntegrative Health & Wellbeing Research Program, Earl E. Bakken Center for Spirituality & Healing, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Brent LeiningerIntegrative Health & Wellbeing Research Program, Earl E. Bakken Center for Spirituality & Healing, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Moni B NeradilekThe Mountain-Whisper-Light Statistics, 1827 23rd Ave East, Seattle, WA 98112, USA.
University of Minnesota · USIllumina (United States) · USUniversity of Western States · US

Funding

Dose-Response of Manipulation for Cervicogenic HeadacheR01AT006330 · NCCIH · UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN STATES · PI BRONFORT, GERT, HAAS, MITCHELL · 2011 to 2015
$3.3M
Cost effectiveness of manipulation for spine pain using individual patient dataK01AT008965 · NCCIH · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI LEININGER, BRENT · 2016 to 2020
$559k
NCCIH NIH HHS K01 AT008965NCCIH NIH HHS R01 AT006330
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background contextThe optimal number of visits for the care of cervicogenic headache (CGH) with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is unknown. PURPOSE: The present study aimed to identify the dose-response relationship between visits for SMT and chronic CGH outcomes and to evaluate the efficacy of SMT by comparison with a light-massage control. STUDY DESIGN/

settingThis is a two-site, open-label randomized controlled trial. PATIENT SAMPLE: Participants were 256 adults with chronic CGH. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was days with CGH in the previous 4 weeks evaluated at the 12- and 24-week primary end points. Secondary outcomes included CGH days at remaining end points, pain intensity, disability, perceived improvement, medication use, and patient satisfaction.

methodsParticipants were randomized to four dose levels of chiropractic SMT: 0, 6, 12, or 18 sessions. They were treated three times per week for 6 weeks and received a focused light-massage control at sessions when SMT was not assigned. Linear dose effects and comparisons with the no-manipulation control group were evaluated at 6, 12, 24, 39, and 52 weeks. The present study was funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (R01AT006330) and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01530321). The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

resultsA linear dose-response was observed for all follow-ups, a reduction of approximately 1 CGH day/4 weeks per additional 6 SMT visits (p<.05); a maximal effective dose could not be determined. Cervicogenic headache days/4 weeks were reduced from about 16 to 8 for the highest and most effective dose of 18 SMT visits. Mean differences in CGH days/4 weeks between 18 SMT visits and control were -3.3 (p=.004) and -2.9 (p=.017) at the primary end points, and were similar in magnitude at the remaining end points (p<.05). Differences between other SMT doses and control were smaller in magnitude (p>.05). Cervicogenic headache intensity showed no important improvement nor differed by dose. Other secondary outcomes were generally supportive of the primary outcome.

conclusionsThere was a linear dose-response relationship between SMT visits and days with CGH. For the highest and most effective dose of 18 SMT visits, CGH days were reduced by half and about 3 more days per month than for the light-massage control.

Indexed as

AdultDisability EvaluationFemaleHumansMaleManipulation, SpinalMassageMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPatient SatisfactionPost-Traumatic HeadacheProspective StudiesSpineTreatment OutcomeCervicogenic headacheChiropracticDose-responseMassageRandomized controlled trialSpinal manipulative therapy

Identifiers

PMID29481979
PMCPMC6107442
OpenAlexW2794295475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.