ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Comparative Effects of Mulligan's Mobilization, Spinal Manipulation, and Conventional Massage Therapy in Cervicogenic Headache-A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- The majority of clinical trials assessing mobilization and manipulation for neck pain lack a pragmatic approach: a systematic review of 174 trials.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2024Pooled it
- Neuroathletic training in stroke rehabilitation? A single-blind randomized controlled pilot study on the potential of neuroathletic training for balance ability in stroke outpatient rehabilitation.BMC research notes · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Effects of Spinal Manipulation and Dry Needling on Headache and Migraine: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Intra-observer reliability study of lumbar segmental measurements utilizing ultrasonography.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2024Article
- Additional Effect of Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy with Lidocaine Injection on Clinical and MRI Findings in Frozen Shoulder: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial.Pain and therapy · 2024Article
- Review
- Mechanism of Traditional Chinese Medicine in Treating Migraine: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of pain research · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is ample evidence supporting the use of manual therapy techniques for the treatment of cervicogenic headache (CGH). Objective: The objective of this study was to find and compare the effects of different manual therapy approaches to cervicogenic headache. Methods: A randomized, controlled study was conducted on 84 CGH participants at the university hospital. The participants were divided into a Mulligan mobilization therapy group (MMT; n = 28), a spinal manipulation therapy group (SMT; n = 28), and a control group (Control; n = 28); they received the respective treatments for four weeks. The primary outcome (CGH frequency) and secondary outcomes (CGH pain intensity, CGH disability, neck pain frequency, pain intensity, pain threshold, flexion rotation (right and left), neck disability index, and quality of life scores) were measured at baseline, after 4 weeks, after 8 weeks, and at a 6-month follow-up. The one-way ANOVA test and repeated measures analysis of variance (rANOVA) test were performed to find the difference between the inter- and intra-treatment group effects. Results: Four weeks following training, the MMT group showed a statistically significant difference in the primary (CGH frequency) and secondary (CGH pain intensity, CGH disability, neck pain frequency, neck pain intensity, flexion rotation test, neck disability index, and quality of life) scores than those of the SMT and control groups (p < 0.001). The same difference was seen in the above variables at 8 weeks and at the 6-month follow-up. At the same time, the neck pain threshold level did not show any difference at the 4-week and the 8-week follow-up (p ≥ 0.05) but showed statistical difference at the 6-month follow-up. Conclusion: The study concluded that Mulligan’s mobilization therapy provided better outcomes in cervicogenic headache than those of spinal manipulation therapy and conventional massage therapy.
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.