30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Predictors of outcome in neck pain patients undergoing chiropractic care: comparison of acute and chronic patients.

      Chiropractic & Manual Therapies

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          A Welfare State Paradox: State Interventions and Women’s Employment Opportunities in 22 Countries

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Manipulation or mobilisation for neck pain: a Cochrane Review.

            Manipulation and mobilisation are often used, either alone or combined with other treatment approaches, to treat neck pain. This review assesses if manipulation or mobilisation improves pain, function/disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), and global perceived effect (GPE) in adults experiencing neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radicular findings. A computerised search was performed in July 2009. Randomised trials investigating manipulation or mobilisation for neck pain were included. Two or more authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Pooled relative risk (pRR) and standardised mean differences (pSMD) were calculated. 33% of 27 trials had a low risk of bias. Moderate quality evidence showed cervical manipulation and mobilisation produced similar effects on pain, function and patient satisfaction at intermediate-term follow-up. Low quality evidence suggested cervical manipulation may provide greater short-term pain relief than a control (pSMD -0.90 (95%CI: -1.78 to -0.02)). Low quality evidence also supported thoracic manipulation for pain reduction (NNT 7; 46.6% treatment advantage) and increased function (NNT 5; 40.6% treatment advantage) in acute pain and immediate pain reduction in chronic neck pain (NNT 5; 29% treatment advantage). Optimal technique and dose need to be determined. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Capturing the patient's view of change as a clinical outcome measure.

              Measurement of change in patients' health status is central to both clinical trials and clinical practice. Trials commonly use serial measurements by the patients at 2 points in time while clinicians use the patient's retrospective assessment of change made at 1 point in time. How well these measures correlate is not known. To compare the 2 methods in measurement of changes in pain and disability. Longitudinal survey of patients starting new therapy for chronic arthritis in 1994 and 1995. Surveys were completed at baseline (before intervention) and at 6 weeks and 4 months. Community health education program and university medical and orthopedic services. A total of 202 patients undertaking self-management education (n = 140), therapy with prednisone or methotrexate (n = 34), or arthroplasty of the knee or hip (n = 28). Concordance between serial (visual analog scale for pain and Health Assessment Questionnaire for disability) and retrospective (7-point Likert scale) measures, sensitivities of these measures, and their correlation with patients' satisfaction with the change (7-point Likert scale). When change was small (education group), serial measures correlated poorly with retrospective assessments (eg, r=0.13-0.21 at 6 weeks). With greater change, correlations improved (eg, r = 0.45-0.71 at 6 weeks). Average agreement between all pairs of assessments was 29%. Significant lack of concordance was confirmed in all 12 comparisons by McNemar tests (P = .02 to <.001) and by t tests (P = .03 to <.001). Retrospective measures were more sensitive to change than serial measures and correlated more strongly with patients' satisfaction with change. The 2 methods for measuring health status change did not give concordant results. Including patient retrospective assessments in clinical trials might increase the comprehensiveness of information gained and its accord with clinical practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                22920497
                3574031
                10.1186/2045-709X-20-27

                Comments

                Comment on this article