Diets: The statistics are sobering. The typical American diet far exceeds the daily recommended intake levels in calories from sugars and solid fats, sodium, refined grains, and saturated fat. It is also lacking in the recommended amounts of fruits, vegetables, dairy, whole grains, and oils. The result is obesity and experts project that by 2030, in the United States alone, half of all adults will be obese.
That�s when people start dieting � and that is what gets them into trouble.
Contents
Diet vs. Lifestyle Change
Bottom line, diets are temporary. There are some serious consequences that can come from dieting, especially fad or crash diets. The effects of these types of diets can also seriously impact your chiropractic care, hindering your progress.
Also, because diets are temporary, once you return to your regular eating habits the weight usually comes back.
A lifestyle change is a far better choice. It involves making smart, healthy eating choices � choices that you maintain for the rest of your life. This also impacts your chiropractic care by strengthening your body and keeping it healthy so that it is in an optimal state for healing and responds well to treatment.
Types Of Diets
There are all sorts of diets out there. Some are blatantly unhealthy but others are sneaky. They come with claims of being healthy, of being created or endorsed by doctors, or include tons of vitamin supplements but very limited food intake. It is important to be able to spot these destructive fad diets so you don�t get suckered into their hype.
Some of the most common types of fad diets include high protein, low or no carb, liquid, cabbage, grapefruit, broth or juice, and food combining. Some of these can cause serious health problems including vital organ damage. Others can cause vitamin deficiencies and dehydration. None of them can (or should) be maintained over a long period of time, much less the rest of your life.
The Dangers Of Diets
Unhealthy dieting can come with some pretty scary dangers. Because they typically omit key foods or food groups your body can become imbalanced. Some of the dangers of dieting include dehydration, fatigue, weakness, vitamin and mineral deficiency, headaches, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, mental fogginess, loss of muscle mass, organ damage, and even heart attack and stroke.
One popular diet restricts carbs, often cutting them out completely. This includes all whole grains (which have vital minerals and fiber) as well as many fruits and vegetables. The result is a diet that is mostly protein and fat.
While the dieter may lose some weight on this plan, it is at a great cost. The extremely high intake of protein which exceeds the levels that the body should have can cause liver and kidney failure. The omission of vital grains, fruits, and vegetables can lead to serious vitamin deficiencies while the increased fat intake can lead to heart attack and stroke.
If a diet eliminates any of the key foods (lean meats, whole grains, fruits, and vegetables), it advocates losing more than 2 or 3 pounds a week, or it restricts caloric intake to less than 1,200 calories a day it is potentially unhealthy and should only be done 1) under a doctor�s close supervision, and 2) on a very temporary basis.
Healthy Eating Is A Lifestyle
When you make the life changing commitment to adopt a healthy eating lifestyle you open yourself up to a world of better health, more energy, and better focus. Your body will heal faster and you will feel better.
A diet of fresh fruits and vegetables, lean meats, fresh fish, and whole grains, along with lots of water should become a way of life. It is far healthier than the temporary diets that are out there and more effective too.
If you or a loved one need additional dietary guidance, give us a call. Our Doctor of Chiropractic is here to help!
Headache pain is one of the most prevalent reasons for doctor office visits. The majority of people experience them at some point in their life and they can affect anyone, regardless of age, race and gender. The International Headache Society, or IHS, categorizes headaches as primary, when they are not caused by another injury and/or condition, or secondary, when there is an underlying cause behind them. From migraines to cluster headaches and tension headaches, people who suffer from constant head pain may find it difficult to participate in their everyday activities. Many healthcare professionals treat headache pain, however, chiropractic care has become a popular alternative treatment option for a variety of health issues. The purpose of the following article is to demonstrate evidence-based guidelines for the chiropractic treatment of adults with headache.
Contents
Evidence-Based Guidelines for the Chiropractic Treatment of Adults with Headache
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this manuscript is to provide evidence-informed practice recommendations for the chiropractic treatment of headache in adults.
Methods: Systematic literature searches of controlled clinical trials published through August 2009 relevant to chiropractic practice were conducted using the databases MEDLINE; EMBASE; Allied and Complementary Medicine; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; Manual, Alternative, and Natural Therapy Index System; Alt HealthWatch; Index to Chiropractic Literature; and the Cochrane Library. The number, quality, and consistency of findings were considered to assign an overall strength of evidence (strong, moderate, limited, or conflicting) and to formulate practice recommendations.
Results: Twenty-one articles met inclusion criteria and were used to develop recommendations. Evidence did not exceed a moderate level. For migraine, spinal manipulation and multimodal multidisciplinary interventions including massage are recommended for management of patients with episodic or chronic migraine. For tension-type headache, spinal manipulation cannot be recommended for the management of episodic tension-type headache. A recommendation cannot be made for or against the use of spinal manipulation for patients with chronic tension-type headache. Low-load craniocervical mobilization may be beneficial for longer term management of patients with episodic or chronic tension-type headaches. For cervicogenic headache, spinal manipulation is recommended. Joint mobilization or deep neck flexor exercises may improve symptoms. There is no consistently additive benefit of combining joint mobilization and deep neck flexor exercises for patients with cervicogenic headache. Adverse events were not addressed in most clinical trials; and if they were, there were none or they were minor.
Conclusions: Evidence suggests that chiropractic care, including spinal manipulation, improves migraine
and cervicogenic headaches. The type, frequency, dosage, and duration of treatment(s) should be based on guideline recommendations, clinical experience, and findings. Evidence for the use of spinal manipulation as an isolated intervention for patients with tension-type headache remains equivocal. (J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2011;34:274-289)
Headache, or head pain, including migraine and other types of headaches, is one of the most common types of pain reported among the general population. These may occur on one or both sides of the head, can be isolated to a specific location or they may radiate across the head from one point. While headache symptoms can vary depending on the type of head pain as well as due to the source of the health issue, headaches are considered to be a general complaint regardless of their severity and form. Headache, or head pain, may occur as a result of spinal misalignment, or subluxation, along the length of the spine. Through the use of spinal adjustments and manual manipulations, chiropractic care can safely and effectively realign the spine, reducing stress and pressure on the surrounding structures of the spine, to ultimately help improve migraine headache pain symptoms as well as overall health and wellness.
Headache is a common experience in adults. Recurring headaches negatively impact family life, social activity, and work capacity.[1,2] Worldwide, according to the World Health Organization, migraine alone is 19th among all causes of years lived with disability. Headache is third among reasons for seeking chiropractic care in North America.[3]
Accurate diagnosis is key to management and treatment, and a wide range of headache types are described in the International Classification of Headache Disorders 2 (International Headache Society [IHS]).[4] The categories are intended for clinical as well as research use. The most common headaches, tension-type and migraine, are considered primary headaches that are episodic or chronic in nature. Episodic migraine or tension-type headaches occur fewer than 15 days per month, whereas chronic headaches occur more than 15 days per month for at least 3 (migraine) or 6 months (tension-type headache).[4] Secondary headaches are attributed to underlying clinical problems in the head or neck that may also be episodic or chronic. Cervicogenic headaches are secondary headaches commonly treated by chiropractors and involve pain referred from a source in the neck and perceived in 1 or more regions of the head. The IHS recognizes cervicogenic headache as a distinct disorder,[4] and evidence that headache can be attributed to a neck disorder or lesion based on history and clinical features (history of neck trauma, mechanical exacerbation of pain, reduced cervical range of motion, and focal neck tenderness, excluding myofascial pain alone) is relevant to diagnosis but is not without controversy in the literature.[4,5] When myofascial pain alone is the cause, the patient should be managed as having tension-type headaches.[4]
Treatment modalities typically used by chiropractors to care for patients with headaches include spinal manipulation, mobilization, device-assisted spinal manipulation, education about modifiable lifestyle factors, physical therapy modalities, heat/ice, massage, advanced soft tissue therapies such as trigger point therapy, and strengthening and stretching exercises. There is a growing expectation for health professions, including chiropractic, to adopt and use research-based knowledge, taking sufficient account of the quality of available research evidence to inform clinical practice. As a result, the purpose of the Canadian Chiropractic Association (CCA) and the Canadian Federation of Chiropractic Regulatory and Educational Accrediting Boards (Federation) Clinical Practice Guidelines Project is to develop guidelines for practice based on available evidence. The purpose of this manuscript is to provide evidence-informed practice recommendations for the chiropractic treatment of headache in adults.
Methods
The Guidelines Development Committee (GDC) planned for and adapted systematic processes for literature�searching, screening, review, analysis, and interpretation. Methods are consistent with criteria proposed by the �Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation� collaboration (http://www.agreecollaboration.org). This guideline is a supportive tool for practitioners. It is not intended as a standard of care. The guideline links available published evidence to clinical practice and is only 1 component of an evidence-informed approach to patient care.
Data Sources and Searches
Systematic search and evaluation of the treatment literature were conducted using methods recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group[6] and Oxman and Guyatt.[7] The search strategy was developed in MEDLINE by exploring MeSH terms related to chiropractic and specific interventions and later modified for other databases. The literature search strategy was intentionally broad. Chiropractic treatment was defined as including the most common therapies used by practitioners and was not restricted to treatment modalities delivered only by chiropractors. A wide net was cast to include treatments that may be administered in chiropractic care as well as those that could also be delivered in the context of care by other health care professionals in a specific research study (Appendix A). Spinal manipulation was defined as a high-velocity low-amplitude thrust delivered to the spine. Excluded therapies included invasive analgesic or neurostimulation procedures, pharmacotherapy, injections of botulinum toxin, cognitive or behavioral therapies, and acupuncture.
Literature searches were completed from April to May 2006, updated in 2007 (phase 1), and updated again in August 2009 (phase 2). Databases searched included MEDLINE; EMBASE; Allied and Complementary Medicine; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; Manual, Alternative, and Natural Therapy Index System; Alt HealthWatch; Index to Chiropractic Literature; and the Cochrane Library (Appendix A). Searches included articles published in English or with English abstracts. The search strategy was limited to adults (?18 years); although research studies with subject inclusion criteria encompassing a broad range of ages, such as adults and adolescents, were retrieved using the search strategy. Reference lists provided in systematic reviews (SRs) were also reviewed by the GDC to minimize relevant articles from being missed.
Evidence Selection Criteria
Search results were screened electronically, and multi-stage screening was applied (Appendix B): stage 1A (title), 1B (abstract); stage 2A (full text), 2B (full text-methodology, relevance); and stage 3 (full text-final GDC screening as clinical content experts). Duplicate citations were removed, and relevant articles were retrieved as electronic�and/or hard copies for detailed analysis. Different assessors, using the same criteria, completed the literature screens in 2007 and 2009 due to the time span between searches.
Only controlled clinical trials (CCTs); randomized, controlled trials (RCTs); and systematic reviews (SRs) were selected as the evidence base for this guideline consistent with current standards for interpreting clinical findings. The GDC did not rate observational studies, case series, or case reports because of their uncontrolled nature and probable low methodological quality vs CCTs. This approach is consistent with updated methods for SRs published by the Cochrane Back Review Group.[8] If multiple SRs were published by the same authors on a given topic, only the most recent publication was counted and used for evidence synthesis. Systematic reviews of SRs were also excluded to avoid double counting of research results.
Literature Assessment and Interpretation
Quality ratings of CCTs or RCTs included 11 criteria answered by �yes (score 1)� or �no (score 0)/do not know (score 0)� (Table 1). The GDC documented 2 additional criteria of interest: (1) researchers’ use of IHS diagnostic criteria for subject enrollment and (2) evaluation of side effects (Table 1, columns L and M). Use of IHS criteria[4] was relevant to this Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) process to confirm diagnostic specificity within and across research studies. Studies were excluded if IHS diagnostic criteria were not applied by the researchers for subject inclusion into a study (Appendix C); and if before 2004, before cervicogenic headache was included in the IHS classification, the diagnostic criteria of the Cervicogenic Headache International Study Group[9] were not used. Side effects were reviewed as a proxy for potential risk(s) with treatment. No weighting factor(s) was applied to individual criteria, and possible quality ratings ranged from 0 to 11. Both blinding of subjects and care providers were rated in the research articles by the GDC, since these items are listed in the quality rating tool.[6] The GDC’s methods did not adapt or alter the rating tool. The rationale for this approach was that certain treatment modalities (eg, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation [TENS], ultrasound) and trial designs may achieve patient and/or practitioner blinding.[10] The GDC did not limit the evaluation of these benchmarks of quality if indeed they were reported in clinical studies for the treatment of headache disorders. The GDC also considered it outside their scope of expertise to modify, without validation, a widely used rating tool used to assess the clinical literature.[6] New research tools for the analysis and rating of the manual therapy literature, however, are urgently needed and are noted as an area for future research in the discussion section below.
Literature assessors were project contributors separate from the GDC and were unblinded as to study authors, institutions, and source journals. Three members of the GDC (MD, RR, and LS) corroborated quality rating methods by completing quality assessments on a random subset of 10 articles.[11-20] A high level of agreement was confirmed across quality ratings. Complete agreement on all items was achieved for 5 studies: in 10 of 11 items for 4 studies and 8 of 11 items for the 1 remaining study. All discrepancies were easily resolved through discussion and�consensus by the GDC (Table 1). Due to heterogeneity of research methods across trials, no meta-analysis or statistical pooling of trial results was done. Trials scoring more than half of the total possible rating (ie, ?6) were considered high quality. Trials scoring 0 through 5 were considered low quality. Studies with major methodological flaws or investigating specialized treatment techniques were excluded (eg, treatment not considered relevant by the GDC for the chiropractic care of patients with headache; Appendix Table 3).
Quality rating of SRs included 9 criteria answered by yes (score 1) or no (score 0)/do not know (score 0) and a qualitative response for item J �no flaws,� �minor flaws,� or �major flaws� (Table 2). Possible ratings ranged from 0 to 9. The determination of overall scientific quality of SRs with major flaws, minor flaws, or no flaws, as listed in column J (Table 2), was based on the literature raters’ answers to the previous 9 items. The following parameters were used to derive the overall scientific quality of a SR: if the no/do not know response was used, an SR was likely to have minor flaws at best. However, if �No� was used on items B, D, F, or H, the review was likely to have major flaws.[21] Systematic reviews scoring more than half of the total possible rating (ie, ?5) with no or minor flaws were rated as high quality. Systematic reviews scoring 4 or less and/or with major flaws were excluded.
Reviews were defined as systematic if they included an explicit and repeatable method for searching and analyzing the literature and if inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies were described. Methods, inclusion criteria, methods for rating study quality, characteristics of included studies, methods for synthesizing data, and results were evaluated. Raters achieved complete agreement for all rating items for 7 SRs[22-28] and for 7 of 9 items for the 2�additional SRs.[29,30] The discrepancies were deemed minor and easily resolved through GDC review and consensus (Table 2).
Developing Recommendations for Practice
The GDC interpreted the evidence relevant to chiropractic treatment of headache patients. A detailed summary of the relevant articles will be posted to the CCA/Federation Clinical Practice Guidelines Project web site.
Randomized, controlled trials and their findings were appraised to inform treatment recommendations. To assign an overall strength of evidence (strong, moderate, limited, conflicting, or no evidence),[6] the GDC considered the number, quality, and consistency of research results (Table 3). Strong evidence was considered only when multiple high-quality RCTs corroborated the findings of other researchers in other settings. Only high-quality SRs were appraised in relation to the body of evidence and to inform treatment recommendations. The GDC considered treatment modalities to have proven benefit(s) when supported by a minimum of moderate level of evidence.
Recommendations for practice were developed in collaborative working group meetings.
Results
Literature
From the literature searches, initially 6206 citations were identified. Twenty-one articles met final criteria for inclusion and were considered in developing practice recommendations (16 CCTs/RCTs[11-20,31-36] and 5 SRs[24-27,29]). Quality ratings of the included articles are provided in Tables 1 and 2. Appendix Table 3 lists articles excluded in final screening by the GDC and reason(s) for their exclusion. Absence of subject and practitioner blinding and unsatisfactory descriptions of cointerventions were commonly identified methodological limitations of the controlled trials. Headache types evaluated in these trials included migraine (Table 4), tension-type headache (Table 5), and cervicogenic headache (Table 6). Consequently, only these headache types are represented by the evidence and practice recommendations in this CPG. Evidence summaries of SRs are provided in Table 7.
Practice Recommendations: Treatment of Migraine
Spinal manipulation is recommended for the management of patients with episodic or chronic migraine with or without aura. This recommendation is based on studies that used a treatment frequency 1 to 2 times per week for 8 weeks (evidence level, moderate). One high-quality RCT,[20] 1 low-quality RCT,[17] and 1 high- quality SR[24] support the use of spinal manipulation for patients with episodic or chronic migraine (Tables 4 and 7).
Weekly massage therapy is recommended for reducing episodic migraine frequency and for improving affective symptoms potentially linked to headache pain (evidence level, moderate). One high-quality RCT[16] supports this practice recommendation (Table 4). Researchers used a 45-minute massage with focus on neuromuscular and trigger point framework of the back, shoulder, neck, and head.
Multimodal multidisciplinary care (exercise, relaxation, stress and nutritional counseling, massage therapy) is recommended for the management of patients with episodic or chronic migraine. Refer as appropriate (evidence level, moderate). One high-quality RCT[32] supports the effectiveness of multi-modal multidisciplinary intervention for migraine (Table 4). The intervention prioritizes a general management approach consisting of exercise, education, lifestyle change, and self-management.
There are insufficient clinical data to recommend for or against the use of exercise alone or exercise combined with multimodal physical therapies for the management of patients with episodic or chronic migraine (aerobic exercise, cervical range of motion [cROM], or whole body stretching). Three low-quality CCTs[13,33,34] contribute to this conclusion (Table 4).
Practice Recommendations: Tension-Type Headache
Low-load craniocervical mobilization (eg, Thera-Band, Resistive Exercise Systems; Hygenic Corporation, Akron, OH) is recommended for longer term (eg, 6 months) management of patients with episodic or�chronic tension-type headaches (evidence level, moderate). One high-quality RCT[36] showed that low-load mobilization significantly reduced symptoms of tension-type headaches for patients during the longer term (Table 5).
Spinal manipulation cannot be recommended for the management of patients with episodic tension-type headache (evidence level, moderate). There is moderate-level evidence that spinal manipulation after premanipulative soft tissue therapy provides no additional benefit for patients with tension-type headaches. One high-quality RCT[12] (Table 5) and observations reported in 4 SRs[24-27] (Table 7) suggest no benefit of spinal manipulation for patients with episodic tension-type headaches.
A recommendation cannot be made for or against the use of spinal manipulation (2 times per week for 6 weeks) for patients with chronic tension-type headache. Authors of 1 RCT[11] rated as high quality by the quality assessment tool[6] (Table 1), and summaries of this study in 2 SRs[24,26] suggest that spinal manipulation may be effective for chronic tension-type headache. However, the GDC considers the RCT[11] difficult to interpret and inconclusive (Table 5). The trial is inadequately controlled with imbalances in the number of subject-clinician encounters between study groups (eg, 12 visits for subjects in the soft tissue therapy plus spinal manipulation group vs 2 visits for subjects in the amitriptyline group). There is no way of knowing whether a comparable level of personal attention for subjects in the amitriptyline group may have impacted the study outcomes. These considerations and interpretations from 2 other SRs[25,27]contribute to this conclusion (Table 7).
There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the use of manual traction, connective tissue manipulation, Cyriax’s mobilization, or exercise/ physical training for patients with episodic or chronic tension-type headache. Three low-quality inconclusive studies[19,31,35] (Table 5), 1 low-quality negative RCT,[14] and 1 SR[25] contribute to this conclusion (Table 7).
Practice Recommendations: Cervicogenic Headache
Spinal manipulation is recommended for the management of patients with cervicogenic headache. This recommendation is based on 1 study that used a treatment frequency of 2 times per week for 3 weeks (evidence level, moderate). In a high-quality RCT, Nilsson et al[18] (Table 6) showed a significantly positive effect of high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation for patients with cervicogenic headache. Evidence synthesis from 2 SRs[24,29] (Table 7) supports this practice recommendation.
Joint mobilization is recommended for the management of patients with cervicogenic headache (evidence level, moderate). Jull et al[15] examined the effects of Maitland joint mobilization 8 to 12 treatments for 6 weeks in a high-quality RCT (Table 6). Mobilization followed typical clinical practice, in which the choice of low-velocity and high-velocity techniques was based on initial and progressive assessments of patients’ cervical joint dysfunction. Beneficial effects were reported for headache frequency, intensity, as well as neck pain and disability. Evidence synthesis from 2 SRs[24,29] (Table 7) supports this practice recommendation.
Deep neck flexor exercises are recommended for the management of patients with cervicogenic headache (evidence level, moderate). This recommendation is based on a study of 2 times daily for 6 weeks. There is no consistently additive benefit of combining deep neck flexor exercises and joint mobilization for cervicogenic headache. One high-quality RCT[15] (Table 6) and observations provided in 2 SRs[24,29] (Table 7) support this practice recommendation.
Safety
Practitioners select treatment modalities in conjunction with all available clinical information for a given patient. Of the 16 CCTs/RCTS[11-20,31-36] included in the body of evidence for this CPG, only 6 studies[11,12,15,20,32,36] adequately assessed or discussed patient side effects or safety parameters (Table 1, column M). Overall, reported risks were low. Three of the trials reported safety information for spinal manipulation.[11,12,20] Boline et al[11] reported that 4.3% of subjects experienced neck stiffness after initial spinal manipulation that disappeared for all cases after the first 2 weeks of treatment. Soreness or increase in headaches after spinal manipulation (n = 2) were reasons for treatment discontinuation cited by Tuchin et al.[20] No side effects were experienced by any subjects studied by Bove et al[12] using spinal manipulation for the treatment of episodic tension-type headache. Treatment trials to evaluate efficacy outcomes may not enroll adequate numbers of subjects to assess the incidence of rare adverse events. Other research methods are required to�develop a full understanding of the balance between benefits and risks.
Discussion
Spinal manipulation and other manual therapies commonly used in chiropractic have been studied in several CCTs that are heterogeneous in subject enrollment, design, and overall quality. Patient and headache types systematically represented in the evidence base are migraine, tension-type headaches, and cervicogenic headache. The primary health status outcomes reported are typically headache frequency, intensity, duration, and quality-of-life measures. The evidence is no greater than a moderate level at this time.
The evidence supports the use of spinal manipulation for the chiropractic management of patients with migraine or cervicogenic headaches but not tension-type headaches. For migraine, multidisciplinary care using weekly 45-minute massage therapy and multimodal care (exercise, relaxation, and stress and nutritional counseling) may also be effective. Alternatively, joint mobilization or deep neck flexor exercises are recommended for improving symptoms of cervicogenic headache. There appears to be no consistently additive benefit of combining joint mobilization and deep neck flexor exercises for patients with cervicogenic headache. Moderate evidence support the use of low-load craniocervical mobilization for longer term management of tension-type headaches.
Limitations
Shortcomings for this guideline include the quantity and quality of supporting evidence found during the searches. No recent adequately controlled high-quality research studies with reproducible clinical findings have been published for the chiropractic care of headache patients. Studies are needed to further our understanding of specific manual therapies in isolation or in well-controlled combinations for the treatment of migraine, tension-type headache, cervicogenic headache, or other headache types presenting to clinicians (eg, cluster, posttraumatic head- ache). Another shortcoming of this literature synthesis is the reliance on published research studies with small sample sizes (Tables 4-6), short-term treatment paradigms, and follow-up periods. Well-designed clinical trials with sufficient numbers of subjects, longer term treatments, and follow-up periods need to be funded to advance chiropractic care, and spinal manipulation in particular, for the management of patients with headache disorders. As with any literature review and clinical practice guideline, foundational information and published literature are evolving. Studies that may have informed this work may have been published after the conclusion of this study.[37-39]
Considerations for Future Research
The GDC consensus is that there is a need for further chiropractic studies with patients with headache disorders.
More high-quality clinical research is needed. Future research requires study designs using active comparators and nontreatment and/or placebo group(s) to enhance the evidence base for patient care. Patient blinding to physical interventions to manage expectancy results is needed and has been explored by researchers in chiropractic for other pain conditions.[10] The lack of systematically reported studies presents a practical challenge for generating evidence-based treatment recommendations. All future studies should be structured using systematic validated methods (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] and Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-randomized Designs [TREND]).
Systematic reporting of safety data is needed in chiropractic research. All clinical trials must collect and report on potential side effects or harms even if none are observed.
Develop novel quantitative tools for evaluating manual therapy research. Blinding serves to control expectancy effects and nonspecific effects of subject-provider interactions across study groups. It is typically not possible to blind subjects and providers in efficacy studies of manual therapies. Despite inherent limitations, both blinding of subjects and care providers were rated in the research articles by the GDC, since these items are included in high-quality rating instruments.[6] Advanced research tools for analyzing and subsequent rating of the manual therapy literature are urgently needed.
To advance research on functional outcomes in the chiropractic care of headache. This guideline identified that headache studies use a variable range of measures in evaluating the effect of treatment on health outcomes. Headache frequency, intensity, and duration are the most consistently used outcomes (Tables 4-6). Serious efforts are needed to include validated patient-centered outcome measures in chiropractic research that are congruent with improvements in daily living and resumption of meaningful routines.
Cost-effectiveness. No research studies were retrieved on cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation for the treatment of headache disorders. Future clinical trials of spinal manipulation should evaluate cost-effectiveness.
Other research methods are required to develop a full understanding of the balance between benefits and risks. This CPG does not provide a review of all chiropractic treatments. Any omissions reflect gaps in the clinical literature. The type, frequency, dosage, and duration of treatment(s) should be based on guideline recommendations, clinical experience, and knowledge of the patient until higher levels of evidence are available.
Conclusions
There is a baseline of evidence to support chiropractic care, including spinal manipulation, for the management of migraine and cervicogenic headaches. The type, frequency, dosage, and duration of treatment(s) should be based on guideline recommendations, clinical experience, and knowledge of the patient. Evidence for the use of spinal manipulation as an isolated intervention for patients with tension-type headache remains equivocal. More research is needed.
Practice guidelines link the best available evidence to good clinical practice and are only 1 component of an evidence-informed approach to providing good care. This guideline is intended to be a resource for the delivery of chiropractic care for patients with headache. It is a �living document� and subject to revision with the emergence of new data. Furthermore, it is not a substitute for a practitioner’s clinical experience and expertise. This document is not intended to serve as a standard of care. Rather, the guideline attests to the commitment of the profession to advance evidence-based practice through engaging a knowledge exchange and transfer process to support the movement of research knowledge into practice.
Practical Applications
This guideline is a resource for the delivery of chiropractic care for patients with headache.
Spinal manipulation is recommended for the management of patients with migraine or cervicogenic headaches.
Multimodal multidisciplinary interventions including massage may benefit patients with migraine.
Joint mobilization or deep neck flexor exercises may improve symptoms of cervicogenic headache.
Low-load craniocervical mobilization may improve tension-type headaches.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the following for input on this guideline: Ron Brady, DC; Grayden Bridge, DC; H James Duncan; Wanda Lee MacPhee, DC; Keith Thomson, DC, ND; Dean Wright, DC; and Peter Waite (Members of the Clinical Practice Guidelines Task Force). The authors thank the following for assistance with the Phase I literature search assessment: Simon Dagenais, DC, PhD; and Thor Eglinton, MSc, RN. The authors thank the following for assistance with the Phase II additional literature search and evidence rating: Seema Bhatt, PhD; Mary-Doug Wright, MLS. The�authors thank Karin Sorra, PhD for assistance with literature searches, evidence rating, and editorial support.
Funding Sources and Potential Conflicts of Interest
Funding was provided by the CCA, Canadian Chiropractic Protective Association, and provincial chiropractic contributions from all provinces except British Columbia. This work was sponsored by The CCA and the Federation. No conflicts of interest were reported for this study.
In conclusion, headache is one of the most common reasons people seek medical attention. Although many healthcare professionals can treat headaches, chiropractic care is a well-known alternative treatment option frequently used to treat a variety of health issues, including several types of headaches. According to the article above, evidence suggests that chiropractic care, including spinal adjustments and manual manipulations, can improve headache and migraine. Information referenced from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). The scope of our information is limited to chiropractic as well as to spinal injuries and conditions. To discuss the subject matter, please feel free to ask Dr. Jimenez or contact us at 915-850-0900 .
Curated by Dr. Alex Jimenez
Additional Topics: Back Pain
According to statistics, approximately 80% of people will experience symptoms of back pain at least once throughout their lifetimes. Back pain is a common complaint which can result due to a variety of injuries and/or conditions. Often times, the natural degeneration of the spine with age can cause back pain. Herniated discs occur when the soft, gel-like center of an intervertebral disc pushes through a tear in its surrounding, outer ring of cartilage, compressing and irritating the nerve roots. Disc herniations most commonly occur along the lower back, or lumbar spine, but they may also occur along the cervical spine, or neck. The impingement of the nerves found in the low back due to injury and/or an aggravated condition can lead to symptoms of sciatica.
1. Robbins MS, Lipton RB. The epidemiology of primary headache disorders. Semin Neurol 2010;30:107-19.
2. Stovner LJ, Andree C. Prevalence of headache in Europe: a review for the Eurolight project. J Headache Pain Aug 2010; 11:289-99.
3. Coulter ID, Hurwitz EL, Adams AH, Genovese BJ, Hays R, Shekelle PG. Patients using chiropractors in North America: who are they, and why are they in chiropractic care? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27(3):291-6 [discussion 297-98].
4. International Headache Society. The International Classifi- cation of Headache Disorders, 2nd ed. Cephalalgia 2004;24: 9-160 (Suppl 1).
5. Bogduk N, Govind J. Cervicogenic headache: an assessment of the evidence on clinical diagnosis, invasive tests, and treatment. Lancet Neurol 2009;8:959-68.
6. van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L. Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003; 28:1290-9.
7. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44:1271-8.
8. Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M. 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34:1929-41.
9. Sjaastad O, Fredriksen TA, Pfaffenrath V. Cervicogenic headache: diagnostic criteria. The Cervicogenic Headache International Study Group. Headache 1998;38:442-5.
10. Hawk C, Long CR, Reiter R, Davis CS, Cambron JA, Evans R. Issues in planning a placebo-controlled trial of manual methods: results of a pilot study. J Altern Complement Med 2002;8:21-32.
11. Boline PD, Kassak K, Bronfort G, Nelson C, Anderson AV. Spinal manipulation vs. amitriptyline for the treatment of chronic tension-type headaches: a randomized clinical trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1995;18:148-54.
12. Bove G, Nilsson N. Spinal manipulation in the treatment of episodic tension-type headache: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;280:1576-9.
13. Dittrich SM, Gunther V, Franz G, Burtscher M, Holzner B, Kopp M. Aerobic exercise with relaxation: influence on pain and psychological well-being in female migraine patients. Clin J Sport Med 2008;18:363-5.
14. Donkin RD, Parkin-Smith GF, Gomes N. Possible effect of chiropractic manipulation and combined manual traction and manipulation on tension-type headache: a pilot study. J Neuromusculoskeletal Systen 2002;10:89-97.
15. Jull G, Trott P, Potter H, et al. A randomized controlled trial of exercise and manipulative therapy for cervicogenic headache. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27:1835-43 [discussion 1843].
16. Lawler SP, Cameron LD. A randomized, controlled trial of massage therapy as a treatment for migraine. Ann Behav Med 2006;32:50-9.
17. Nelson CF, Bronfort G, Evans R, Boline P, Goldsmith C, Anderson AV. The efficacy of spinal manipulation, amitrip- tyline and the combination of both therapies for the prophylaxis of migraine headache. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1998;21:511-9.
18. Nilsson N, Christensen HW, Hartvigsen J. The effect of spinal manipulation in the treatment of cervicogenic headache. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1997;20:326-30.
19. Soderberg E, Carlsson J, Stener-Victorin E. Chronic tension- type headache treated with acupuncture, physical training and relaxation training. Between-group differences. Cephalalgia 2006;26:1320-9.
20. Tuchin PJ, Pollard H, Bonello R. A randomized controlled trial of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for migraine. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2000;23:91-5.
21. Chou R, Huffman LH. Nonpharmacologic therapies for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med 2007;147: 492-504.
22. Astin JA, Ernst E. The effectiveness of spinal manipulation for the treatment of headache disorders: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Cephalalgia 2002;22:617-23.
23. Biondi DM. Physical treatments for headache: a structured review. Headache 2005;45:738-46.
24. Bronfort G, Nilsson N, Haas M, et al. Non-invasive physical treatments for chronic/recurrent headache. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004:CD001878.
25. Fernandez-de-Las-Penas C, Alonso-Blanco C, Cuadrado ML, Miangolarra JC, Barriga FJ, Pareja JA. Are manual therapies effective in reducing pain from tension-type headache?: a systematic review. Clin J Pain 2006;22:278-85.
26. Hurwitz EL, Aker PD, Adams AH, Meeker WC, Shekelle PG. Manipulation and mobilization of the cervical spine. A systematic review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996;21:1746-59.
27. Lenssinck ML, Damen L, Verhagen AP, Berger MY, Passchier J, Koes BW. The effectiveness of physiotherapy and manipulation in patients with tension-type headache: a systematic review. Pain 2004;112:381-8.
28. Vernon H, McDermaid CS, Hagino C. Systematic review of randomized clinical trials of complementary/alternative ther- apies in the treatment of tension-type and cervicogenic headache. Complement Ther Med 1999;7:142-55.
29. Fernandez-de-Las-Penas C, Alonso-Blanco C, Cuadrado ML, Pareja JA. Spinal manipulative therapy in the management of cervicogenic headache. Headache 2005;45:1260-3.
30. Maltby JK, Harrison DD, Harrison D, Betz J, Ferrantelli JR, Clum GW. Frequency and duration of chiropractic care for headaches, neck and upper back pain. J Vertebr Subluxat Res 2008;2008:1-12.
31. Demirturk F, Akarcali I, Akbayrak T, Cita I, Inan L. Results of two different manual therapy techniques in chronic tension- type headache. Pain Clin 2002;14:121-8.
32. Lemstra M, Stewart B, Olszynski WP. Effectiveness of multidisciplinary intervention in the treatment of migraine: a randomized clinical trial. Headache 2002;42:845-54.
33. Marcus DA, Scharff L, Mercer S, Turk DC. Nonpharmaco- logical treatment for migraine: incremental utility of physical therapy with relaxation and thermal biofeedback. Cephalalgia 1998;18:266-72.
34. Narin SO, Pinar L, Erbas D, Ozturk V, Idiman F. The effects of exercise and exercise-related changes in blood nitric oxide level on migraine headache. Clin Rehabil 2003;17:624-30.
35. Torelli P, Jensen R, Olesen J. Physiotherapy for tension-type headache: a controlled study. Cephalalgia 2004;24:29-36.
36. van Ettekoven H, Lucas C. Efficacy of physiotherapy
including a craniocervical training programme for tension- type headache; a randomized clinical trial. Cephalalgia 2006; 26:983-91.
37. Vavrek D, Haas M, Peterson D. Physical examination and self-reported pain outcomes from a randomized trial on chronic cervicogenic headache. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2010;33:338-48.
38. Haas M, Aickin M, Vavrek D. A preliminary path analysis of expectancy and patient-provider encounter in an open-label randomized controlled trial of spinal manipulation for cervicogenic headache. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2010; 33:5-13.
39. Toro-Velasco C, Arroyo-Morales M, Ferna?ndez-de-Las- Pen?as C, Cleland JA, Barrero-Herna?ndez FJ. Short-term effects of manual therapy on heart rate variability, mood state, and pressure pain sensitivity in patients with chronic tension-type headache: a pilot study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2009;32:527-35.
40. Allais G, De Lorenzo C, Quirico PE, et al. Non-pharmaco- logical approaches to chronic headaches: transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, lasertherapy and acupuncture in transformed migraine treatment. Neurol Sci 2003;24(Suppl 2): S138-42.
41. Nilsson N. A randomized controlled trial of the effect of spinal manipulation in the treatment of cervicogenic head- ache. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1995;18:435-40.
42. Annal N, Soundappan SV, Palaniappan KMC, Chadrasekar S. Introduction of transcutaneous, low-voltage, non-pulsatile direct current (DC) therapy for migraine and chronic headaches. A comparison with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). Headache Q 1992;3:434-7.
43. Nilsson N, Christensen HW, Hartvigsen J. Lasting changes in passive range motion after spinal manipulation: a randomized, blind, controlled trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1996;19: 165-8.
44. Anderson RE, Seniscal C. A comparison of selected osteopathic treatment and relaxation for tension-type head- aches. Headache 2006;46:1273-80.
45. Ouseley BR, Parkin-Smith GF. Possible effects of chiropractic spinal manipulation and mobilization in the treatment of chronic tension-type headache: a pilot study. Eur J Chiropr 2002;50:3-13.
46. Fernandez-de-las-Penas C, Fernandez-Carnero J, Plaza Fernandez A, Lomas-Vega R, Miangolarra-Page JC. Dorsal manipulation in whiplash injury treatment: a randomized controlled trial. J Whiplash Related Disorders 2004;3:55-72.
47. Parker GB, Pryor DS, Tupling H. Why does migraine improve during a clinical trial? Further results from a trial of cervical manipulation for migraine. Aust N Z J Med 1980; 10:192-8.
48. Parker GB, Tupling H, Pryor DS. A controlled trial of cervical manipulation of migraine. Aust N Z J Med 1978;8:589-93.
49. Foster KA, Liskin J, Cen S, et al. The Trager approach in the treatment of chronic headache: a pilot study. Altern Ther Health Med 2004;10:40-6.
50. Haas M, Groupp E, Aickin M, et al. Dose response for chiropractic care of chronic cervicogenic headache and associated neck pain: a randomized pilot study. J Manipula- tive Physiol Ther 2004;27:547-53.
51. Sjogren T, Nissinen KJ, Jarvenpaa SK, Ojanen MT, Vanharanta H, Malkia EA. Effects of a workplace physical exercise intervention on the intensity of headache and neck and shoulder symptoms and upper extremity muscular strength of office workers: a cluster randomized controlled cross-over trial. Pain 2005;116:119-28.
52. Hanten WP, Olson SL, Hodson JL, Imler VL, Knab VM, Magee JL. The effectiveness of CV-4 and resting position techniques on subjects with tension-type headaches. J Manual Manipulative Ther 1999;7:64-70.
53. Solomon S, Elkind A, Freitag F, Gallagher RM, Moore K, Swerdlow B, et al. Safety and effectiveness of cranial electrotherapy in the treatment of tension headache. Headache 1989;29:445-50.
54. Hall T, Chan HT, Christensen L, Odenthal B, Wells C, Robinson K. Efficacy of a C1-C2 self-sustained natural apophyseal glide (SNAG) in the management of cervicogenic headache. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2007;37:100-7.
55. Solomon S, Guglielmo KM. Treatment of headache by transcutaneous electrical stimulation. Headache 1985;25: 12-5.
56. Hoyt WH, Shaffer F, Bard DA, Benesler ES, Blankenhorn GD, Gray JH, et al. Osteopathic manipulation in the treatment of muscle-contraction headache. J Am Osteopath Assoc 1979;78:322-5.
57. Vernon H, Jansz G, Goldsmith CH, McDermaid C. A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of chiropractic and medical prophylactic treatment of adults with tension-type headache: results from a stopped trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2009;32:344-51.
58. Mongini F, Ciccone G, Rota E, Ferrero L, Ugolini A, Evangelista A, et al. Effectiveness of an educational and physical programme in reducing headache, neck and shoulder pain: a workplace controlled trial. Cephalalgia 2008;28: 541-52.
59. Fernandez-de-las-Penas C, Alonso-Blanco C, San-Roman J, Miangolarra-Page JC. Methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of spinal manipulation and mobilization in tension-type headache, migraine, and cervicogenic headache. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2006;36:160-9.
60. Lew HL, Lin PH, Fuh JL, Wang SJ, Clark DJ, Walker WC. Characteristics and treatment of headache after traumatic brain injury: a focused review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 85:619-27.
Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a condition that is not as straightforward as other illnesses. The symptoms can often mimic other states, including some that are pretty serious, so they must all be ruled out before a diagnosis of CFS can be determined.
This is usually not a quick process, so the patient is left dealing with troubling and often debilitating symptoms and no real answers for months or even years. By the time a patient receives a diagnosis of CFS, they are usually physically and emotionally exhausted.
Contents
Overview Of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), more than one million people in the United States have CFS. It is more prevalent in the U.S. than lupus, multiple sclerosis, and many types of cancer.
It is found more often in women than men; women are four times more likely to get it. While anyone of any age can get CFS, it seems to be most common in people in their 40s and 50s. Researchers have found no evidence to suggest that CFS is contagious, but they believe there may be a genetic or familial link.
Complications that can come from CFS include depression, increased absence from work, lifestyle restrictions, and inability to carry out normal daily activities like caring for children, housekeeping, or wedding functions. It can cause significant social isolation and loneliness.
Chiropractic For Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Many people have found that chiropractic for CFS helps reduce the pain that accompanies the condition and increases injury in some patients. The chiropractor uses spinal manipulation to treat the CFS patient, allowing many symptoms associated with the disease without invasive treatments or medication.
Many CFS patients report more energy, less pain or no pain, greater flexibility, increased mobility, and reduced inflammation of joints after just a few chiropractic adjustments. Often, the patient will be recommended to attend several sessions a week for spinal adjustments and counseling on supplements and diet. All these treatments work together to relieve the symptoms, strengthen the immune system, and help the patient feel more in control of their body and condition.
Whole Patient Treatment
One of the benefits of chiropractic treatment for CFS is that it treats the whole patient, not just the symptoms. A doctor of chiropractic may recommend various chiropractic services such as spinal adjustments. Still, they will also sit with the patient and discuss that patient’s diet, daily routine, and any medications or supplements they are taking.
The chiropractor will then make dietary recommendations, including supplements that help CFS, such as:
Omega 3 fatty acids
Eiscosapentaenoic acid (EPA)
Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)
Magnesium
Malic Acid
Linoleic Acid
Depending on the patient, they may also recommend a liver detox program and a more structured diet and exercise program.
Hope For Patients With CFS
Chiropractic care can give much-needed hope to patients with CFS. The whole patient care they receive helps not only the physical and emotional suffering as well.
The changes in diet, recommended supplements, and chiropractic treatments help the patient’s physical symptoms but also address the emotional ones, particularly depression and frustration. It is essential that patients with CFS know that there is someone who hears them, understands their difficulties, and wants to help them on every level, not just symptom control. Chiropractic care addresses all of these for optimal whole patient care.
Clinic News – Dr. Jimenez Takes A Look At Stress Management
George Lara, now retired, found relief with Dr. Alex Jimenez, back pain specialist and chiropractor, for his degenerative disk disease following two back injuries he experienced several years ago. After using drugs/medications and experiencing constant symptoms due to his DDD, Mr. Lara describes how Dr. Jimenez’s chiropractic treatment greatly helped restore his quality of life as well as promote his overall health and wellness. George Lara highly recommends Dr. Alex Jimenez as a non-surgical treatment choice for degenerative disc disease, and praises his dedication for treating his patients.
Degenerative disk disease, or DDD, refers to the natural breakdown of an intervertebral disk of the spine. Despite its title, DDD isn’t regarded as a disorder, nor is it degenerative. To the contrary, disk degeneration is frequently the consequence of ordinary daily stresses and minor accidents that cause spinal disks to slowly eliminate water in the anulus fibrosus, or even through the stiff outer layer of a disk. As water content decreases, they start to collapse. This could lead to pressure being placed on the nerves causing weakness and pain. While not necessarily symptomatic, DDD may lead to acute or chronic low back or neck pain in addition to nerve pain based on the positioning of the affected disk and the amount of strain it puts around the surrounding nerve roots.
Please Recommend Us: If you have enjoyed this video and/or we have helped you in any way please feel free to recommend us. Thank You.
Hydration: There is no denying that a healthy diet is integral to overall wellness and staying hydrated is absolutely vital. Every organ, every cell in your body contains water. In fact, when you don�t drink enough water and keep your body properly hydrated, it does not function as it should.
The health of your spine and back depends heavily on whether you are properly hydrated. In fact, if you don�t drink enough water plain, pure water, it could affect your back, causing pain and limiting mobility.
Contents
Hydration
Overview Of Spinal Construction
To understand water�s role in spinal health, you first need to understand how the spine is constructed. The row of bones that make up the spine are called vertebrae. Between each vertebrae is a disc. This disc works like a shock absorber so as you bend, flex, and move about the disc provides a buffer so the bones do not rub together.
Each disc is comprised of two parts. The center of the disc is the nucleus pulposis. It is made up mostly of water. The nucleus pulposis is surrounded by a tough, flexible ring that contains a gelatinous substance. It protects the inner area which is the cushion for the vertebrae. Two factors that further complicate the rehydration of the discs are aging and sedentary lifestyles.
How Water Is Good For Your Back
As you go about your daily activities, each time you move, the spine compresses the disc, squeezing out the water within. Even walking or sitting upright can cause this as gravity causes the spine to compress. When the disc does not have adequate water, the result is pain and lack of mobility as well as increased risk of spinal injury.
When you are not properly hydrated your body cannot replenish the water in the discs, causing them to remain compressed. Beverages like soda are not adequate for effective hydration. You need to make sure that you drink enough water every day.
For years we were told that 8 eight ounce glasses of water a day was the rule for proper hydration, and that works for many people. However, an article in the Harvard Health Letter suggests that the body can be properly hydrated with 30 to 50 ounces of water a day. The article goes on to suggest that water can also be found in foods like spinach, watermelon, soups, and lettuce are also good sources for hydration.
Spinal Problems Caused By Dehydration
When the body is dehydrated the discs remain compressed instead of refilling. When that happens the overall function of the spine is compromised. Your constant back pain may actually be caused by dehydration. When the discs cannot refill they can�t do their job. This leads to immobility and a compromised range of motion.
Hydration also plays an important role in how the cerebrospinal fluid moves and works. While it does require more than water to function properly, water does play an important role. When the body is dehydrated this fluid cannot move as it should which can even affect brain function.
On a larger scale, when the body is dehydrated it begins to retrieve water from other parts of the body so it can reroute it to the vital organs and sustain life. The extremities are the first places it pulls water from and the spine is another. When it deprives the spine of water in order to supply the organs then you remain in a constant deficit which can cause pain and mobility problems.
How The Spine Rehydrates
As the body rehydrates itself, it does not assign the spine as a priority. The vital organs take precedence so the spine basically gets what is left over. If there is already a deficiency present, then there is nothing left over to rehydrate the spine.
When there is adequate water in the body, normal activity and movement aids in the rehydration of the discs. The most significant rehydration occurs while you sleep though. When you lie down and rest your body is best able to initiate the process of rehydrating your spinal discs via osmosis.
Chiropractic care is another way to adjust the spine and encourage the refilling of the discs. That depends, of course, on proper water intake. Be good to your spine; it�s the only one you have.
George Lara, now a retired construction contractor, experienced a back injury 20 years ago which affected his original state of well-being. Although he was promptly treated at the time of the incident, Mr. Lara suffered another back injury which manifested into sciatic nerve pain. George Lara had been greatly affected by his back injury, fortunately, he found Dr. Alex Jimenez, a back pain specialist, who restored his quality of life. Mr. Lara expresses his gratitude towards Dr. Alex Jimenez’s services and he greatly recommends chiropractic care as the non-surgical choice for alleviating back pain and sciatica.
Sciatic nerve pain�is a medical condition characterized by radiating pain down the leg from the lower back. Onset is often sudden following tasks like heavy lifting, even though slow onset may also occur. Normally, symptoms are only on one side of the body. Certain triggers, however, could lead to pain on both sides. Weakness or numbness may occur in a variety of areas of the affected leg and foot. About 90 percent of the time sciatica is due to a spinal disc herniation pressing on the lumbar or sacral nerve roots. Other problems that may bring about sciatica comprise of spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis, piriformis syndrome, pelvic tumors, and compression.
Please Recommend Us: If you have enjoyed this video and/or we have helped you in any way please feel free to recommend us.
Migraine headaches have been considered to be one of the most frustrating ailments when compared to other common health issues. Generally triggered by stress, the symptoms of migraines, including the debilitating head pain, sensitivity to light and sound as well as the nausea, can tremendously affect a migraineur’s quality of life. However, research studies have found that chiropractic care can help reduce the frequency and the severity of your migraine pain. Many healthcare professionals have demonstrated that a spinal misalignment, or subluxation, may be the source of migraine headache pain. The purpose of the article below is to demonstrate the outcome measures of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for migraine.
Contents
Chiropractic Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Migraine: a Three?Armed, Single?Blinded, Placebo, Randomized Controlled Trial
Abstract
Background and purpose: To investigate the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) for migraineurs.
Methods: This was a prospective three?armed, single?blinded, placebo, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 17 months duration including 104 migraineurs with at least one migraine attack per month. The RCT was conducted at Akershus University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. Active treatment consisted of CSMT, whereas placebo was a sham push manoeuvre of the lateral edge of the scapula and/or the gluteal region. The control group continued their usual pharmacological management. The RCT consisted of a 1?month run?in, 3 months intervention and outcome measures at the end of the intervention and at 3, 6 and 12 months follow?up. The primary end?point was the number of migraine days per month, whereas secondary end?points were migraine duration, migraine intensity and headache index, and medicine consumption.
Results: Migraine days were significantly reduced within all three groups from baseline to post?treatment (P < 0.001). The effect continued in the CSMT and placebo group at all follow?up time points, whereas the control group returned to baseline. The reduction in migraine days was not significantly different between the groups (P > 0.025 for interaction). Migraine duration and headache index were reduced significantly more in the CSMT than the control group towards the end of follow?up (P = 0.02 and P = 0.04 for interaction, respectively). Adverse events were few, mild and transient. Blinding was strongly sustained throughout the RCT.
Conclusions: It is possible to conduct a manual?therapy RCT with concealed placebo. The effect of CSMT observed in our study is probably due to a placebo response.
Neck pain and headaches are the third most common reason people seek chiropractic care. Many research studies have demonstrated that chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy is a safe and effective alternative treatment option for migraines. Chiropractic care can carefully correct any spinal misalignment, or subluxation, found along the length of the spine, which has been shown to be a source for migraine headaches. In addition, spinal adjustments and manual manipulations can help reduce stress and muscle tension by decreasing the amount of pressure being placed against the complex structures of the spine as a result of a spinal misalignment, or subluxation. By realigning the spine as well as reducing stress and muscle tension, chiropractic care can improve migraine symptoms and decrease their frequency.
Introduction
The socio?economic costs of migraine are enormous due to its high prevalence and disability during attacks [1, 2, 3]. Acute pharmacological treatment is usually the first treatment option for migraine in adults. Migraineurs with frequent attacks, insufficient effect and/or contraindication to acute medication are potential candidates for prophylactic treatment. Migraine prophylactic treatment is often pharmacological, but manual therapy is not unusual, especially if pharmacological treatment fails or if the patient wishes to avoid medicine [4]. Research has suggested that spinal manipulative therapy may stimulate neural inhibitory systems at different spinal cord levels because it might activate various central descending inhibitory pathways [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].
Pharmacological randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are usually double?blinded, but this is not possible in manual?therapy RCTs, as the interventional therapist cannot be blinded. At present there is no consensus on a sham procedure in manual?therapy RCTs that mimics placebo in pharmacological RCTs [11]. Lack of a proper sham procedure is a major limitation in all previous manual?therapy RCTs [12, 13]. Recently, we developed a sham chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) procedure, where participants with migraine were unable to distinguish between real and sham CSMT evaluated after each of 12 individual interventions over a 3?month period [14].
The first objective of this study was to conduct a manual?therapy three?armed, single?blinded, placebo RCT for migraineurs with a methodological standard similar to that of pharmacological RCTs.
The second objective was to assess the efficacy of CSMT versus sham manipulation (placebo) and CSMT versus controls, i.e. participants who continued their usual pharmacological management.
Methods
Study Design
The study was a three?armed, single?blinded, placebo RCT over 17 months. The RCT consisted of a 1?month baseline, 12 treatment sessions over 3 months with follow?up measures at the end of intervention, 3, 6 and 12 months later.
Participants were, before baseline, randomized equally into three groups: CSMT, placebo (sham manipulation) and control (continued their usual pharmacological management).
The design of the study conformed to the recommendations of the International Headache Society (IHS) and CONSORT (Appendix S1) [1, 15, 16]. The Norwegian Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics and the Norwegian Social Science Data Services approved the project. The RCT was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ID no: NCT01741714). The full trial protocol has been published previously [17].
Participants
Participants were recruited from January to September 2013 primarily through the Department of Neurology, Akershus University Hospital. Some participants were also recruited through General Practitioners from Akershus and Oslo Counties or media advertisement. All participants received posted information about the project followed by a telephone interview.
Eligible participants were migraineurs of 18�70 years old with at least one migraine attack per month and were allowed to have concomitant tension?type headache but no other primary headaches. All participants were diagnosed by a chiropractor with experience in headache diagnostics during the interview and according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders?II (ICHD?II) 2. A neurologist had diagnosed all migraineurs from Akershus University Hospital.
Exclusion criteria were contraindication to spinal manipulative therapy, spinal radiculopathy, pregnancy, depression and CSMT within the previous 12 months. Participants who received manual therapy [18], changed their prophylactic migraine medicine or became pregnant during the RCT were informed that they would be withdrawn from the study at that time and regarded as drop?outs. Participants were allowed to continue and change acute migraine medication throughout the study period.
Eligible participants were invited to an interview and physical assessment including meticulous spinal column investigation by a chiropractor (A.C.). Participants randomized to the CSMT or the placebo group had a full spine radiographic examination.
Randomization and Masking
After written consent was obtained, participants were equally randomized into one of the three study arms by drawing one single lot. Numbered sealed lots with the three study arms were each subdivided into four subgroups by age and gender, i.e. 18�39 or 40�70 years, and men or women.
After each treatment session, the participants in the CSMT and the placebo group completed a questionnaire on whether they believed CSMT treatment was received, and how certain they were that active treatment was received on a 0�10 numeric rating scale, where 10 represented absolute certainty [14].
Both the block randomization and the blinding questionnaire were exclusively administered by a single external party.
Interventions
The CSMT group received spinal manipulative therapy using the Gonstead method, a specific contact, high?velocity, low?amplitude, short?lever spinal with no post?adjustment recoil that was directed to spinal biomechanical dysfunction (full spine approach) as diagnosed by standard chiropractic tests at each individual treatment session [19].
The placebo group received sham manipulation, a broad non?specific contact, low?velocity, low?amplitude sham push manoeuvre in a non?intentional and non?therapeutic directional line of the lateral edge of the scapula and/or the gluteal region [14]. All of the non?therapeutic contacts were performed outside the spinal column with adequate joint slack and without soft tissue pre?tension so that no joint cavitations occurred. The sham manipulation alternatives were pre?set and equally interchanged among the placebo participants according to protocol during the 12?week treatment period to strengthen the study validity. The placebo procedure is described in detail in the available trial protocol [17].
Each intervention session lasted for 15 min and both groups underwent the same structural and motion assessments prior to and after each intervention. No other intervention or advice was given to participants during the trial period. Both groups received interventions at Akershus University Hospital by a single experienced chiropractor (A.C.).
The control group continued their usual pharmacological management without receiving manual intervention by the clinical investigator.
Outcomes
The participants filled in a validated diagnostic headache diary throughout the study and returned them on a monthly basis [20]. In the case of unreturned diaries or missing data, the participants were contacted by phone to secure compliance.
The primary end?point was number of migraine days per month (30 days/month). At least 25% reduction of migraine days from baseline to end of intervention, with the same level maintained at 3, 6 and 12 months follow?up was expected in the CSMT group.
Secondary end?points were migraine duration, migraine intensity and headache index (HI), and medicine consumption. At least 25% reduction in duration, intensity and HI, and at least 50% reduction in medicine consumption were expected from baseline to end of intervention, with the same level maintained at 3, 6 and 12 months follow?up in the CSMT group.
No change was expected for primary and secondary end?point in the placebo and the control group.
A migraine day was defined as a day on which migraine with aura, migraine without aura or probable migraine occurred. Migraine attacks lasting for >24 h were calculated as one attack unless pain?free intervals of ?48 h had occurred [21]. If a patient fell asleep during a migraine attack and woke up without a migraine, in accordance with the ICHD?III ?, the duration of the attack was recorded as persisting until the time of awakening [22]. The minimum duration of a migraine attack was 4 h unless a triptan or drug containing ergotamine was used, in which case we specified no minimum duration. HI was calculated as mean migraine days per month (30 days) � mean migraine duration (h/day) � mean intensity (0�10 numeric rating scale).
The primary and secondary end?points were chosen based on the Task Force of the IHS Clinical Trial Subcommittee’s clinical trial guidelines [1, 15]. Based on previous reviews on migraine, a 25% reduction was considered to be a conservative estimate [12, 13].
The outcome analyses were calculated during the 30 days after the last intervention session and 30 days after the follow?up time points, i.e. 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively.
All adverse events (AEs) were recorded after each intervention in accordance with the recommendations of CONSORT and the IHS Task Force on AEs in migraine trials [16, 23].
Statistical Analysis
We based the power calculation on a recent study of topiramate in migraineurs [24]. We hypothesized the average difference in reduction of number of migraine days per month between the active and the placebo, and between the active and the control groups of 2.5 days, with SD of 2.5 for reduction in each group. As primary analysis includes two group comparisons, the significance level was set at 0.025. For the power of 80%, a sample size of 20 patients was required in each group to detect a significant difference in reduction of 2.5 days.
Patient characteristics at baseline were presented as means and SD or frequencies and percentages in each group and compared by independent samples t?test and ? 2 test.
Time profiles of all end?points were compared between the groups. Due to repeated measurements for each patient, linear mixed models accounting for the intra?individual variations were estimated for all end?points. Fixed effects for (non?linear) time, group allocation and interaction between the two were included. Random effects for patients and slopes were entered into the model. As the residuals were skewed, the bootstrap inference based on 1000 cluster samples was used. Pairwise comparisons were performed by deriving individual time point contrasts within each group at each time point with the corresponding P?values and 95% confidence intervals. Medicine consumption within groups was reported by mean doses with SD, and groups were compared by an independent samples median test. A dose was defined as a single administration of a triptan or ergotamine; paracetamol 1000 mg � codeine; non?steroidal anti?inflammatory drugs (tolfenamic acid, 200 mg; diclofenac, 50 mg; aspirin, 1000 mg; ibuprofen, 600 mg; naproxen, 500 mg); and morphinomimetics (tramadol, 50 mg). None of the patients changed study arm and none of the drop?outs filled in headache diaries after withdrawal from the study. Hence, only per protocol analysis was relevant.
The analyses were blinded to treatment allocation and conducted in SPSS v22 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA) and STATA v14 (JSB) (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA). A significance level of 0.025 was applied for the primary end?point, whereas elsewhere a level of 0.05 was used.
Ethics
Good clinical practice guidelines were followed [25]. Oral and written information about the project was provided in advance of inclusion and group allocation. Written consent was obtained from all participants. Participants in the placebo and control group were promised CSMT treatment after the RCT, if the active intervention was found to be effective. Insurance was provided through the Norwegian System of Compensation to Patients (Patient Injury Compensation), an independent national body that compensates patients injured by treatments provided by the Norwegian health service. A stopping rule was defined for withdrawing participants from this study in accordance with the recommendations in the CONSORT extension for Better Reporting of Harms [26]. All AEs were monitored during the intervention period and acted on as they occurred according to the recommendations of CONSORT and the IHS Task Force on AEs in migraine trials [16, 23]. In case of severe AE, the participant would be withdrawn from the study and referred to the General Practitioner or hospital emergency department depending on the event. The investigator (A.C.) was available by mobile phone at any time throughout the study treatment period.
Results
Figure ?1 shows a flow chart of the 104 migraineurs included in the study. Baseline and demographic characteristics were similar across the three groups (Table 1).
Figure 1: Study flow chart.
Outcome Measures
The results on all end?points are presented in Fig. ?2a�d and Tables 2, 3, 4.
Figure 2: (a) Headache days; (b) headache duration; (c) headache intensity; (d) headache index. Time profiles in primary and secondary end?points, means and error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. BL, baseline; control, control group (�); CSMT, chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (?); placebo, sham manipulation (?); PT, post?treatment; 3 m, 3?month follow?up; 6 m, 6?month follow?up; 12 m, 12?month follow?up; VAS, visual analogue scale.
Primary end?point. Migraine days were significantly reduced within all groups from baseline to post?treatment (P < 0.001). The effect continued in the CSMT and the placebo groups at 3, 6 and 12 months follow?up, whereas migraine days reverted to baseline level in the control group (Fig. ?2a). The linear mixed model showed no overall significant differences in change in migraine days between the CSMT and the placebo groups (P = 0.04) or between the CSMT and the control group (P = 0.06; Table 2). However, the pairwise comparisons at individual time points showed significant differences between the CSMT and the control group at all time points starting at post?treatment (Table 3).
Secondary end?points. There was a significant reduction from baseline to post?treatment in migraine duration, intensity and HI in the CSMT (P = 0.003, P = 0.002 and P < 0.001, respectively) and the placebo (P < 0.001, P = 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively) groups, and the effect continued at 3, 6 and 12 months follow?up.
The only significant differences between the CSMT and control groups were change in migraine duration (P = 0.02) and in HI (P = 0.04; Table 2).
At 12 months follow?up, change in consumption of paracetamol was significantly lower in the CSMT group as compared with the placebo (P = 0.04) and control (P = 0.03) groups (Table 4).
Blinding. After each of the 12 intervention sessions, >80% of the participants believed they had received CSMT regardless of group allocation. The odds ratio for believing that CSMT treatment was received was >10 at all treatment sessions in both groups (all P < 0.001).
Adverse effects. A total of 703 of the potential 770 intervention sessions were assessed for AEs (355 in the CSMT group and 348 in the placebo group). Reasons for missed AE assessment were drop?out or missed intervention sessions. AEs were significantly more frequent in the CSMT than the placebo intervention sessions (83/355 vs. 32/348; P < 0.001). Local tenderness was the most common AE reported by 11.3% (95% CI, 8.4�15.0) in the CSMT group and 6.9% (95% CI, 4.7�10.1) in the placebo group, whereas tiredness on the intervention day and neck pain were reported by 8.5% and 2.0% (95% CI, 6.0�11.8 and 1.0�4.0), and 1.4% and 0.3% (95% CI, 0.6�3.3 and 0.1�1.9), respectively. All other AEs (lower back pain, face numbness, nausea, provoked migraine attack and fatigue in arms) were rare (<1%). No severe or serious AEs were reported.
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first manual?therapy RCT with a documented successful blinding. Our three?armed, single?blinded, placebo RCT evaluated the efficacy of CSMT in the treatment of migraine versus placebo (sham chiropractic) and control (usual pharmacological treatment). The results showed that migraine days were significantly reduced within all three groups from baseline to post?treatment. The effect continued in the CSMT and placebo groups at all follow?up time points, whereas the control group returned to baseline. AEs were mild and transient, which is in accordance with previous studies.
The study design adhered to the recommendations for pharmacological RCTs as given by the IHS and CONSORT [1, 15, 16]. Manual?therapy RCTs have three major obstacles as compared with pharmacological RCTs. Firstly, it is impossible to blind the investigator in relation to the applied treatment. Secondly, consensus on an inert placebo treatment is lacking [11]. Thirdly, previous attempts to include a placebo group have omitted validating the blinding, thus, it remains unknown whether active and placebo treatment were concealed [27]. Due to these challenges we decided to conduct a three?armed, single?blinded RCT, which also included a control group that continued usual pharmacological treatment in order to obtain an indication of the magnitude of the placebo response.
It has been suggested that, in pharmacological double?blind placebo RCTs, only 50% will believe that they receive active treatment in each group, if the blinding is perfect. However, this may not be true in manual?therapy RCTs, because the active and placebo physical stimulus might be more convincing than a tablet [28]. A single investigator reduces inter?investigator variability by providing similar information to all participants and it is generally recommended that the placebo intervention should resemble the active treatment in terms of procedure, treatment frequency and time spent with the investigator to allow for similar expectations in both groups [28]. The importance of our successful blinding is emphasized by the fact that all previous manual?therapy RCTs on headache lack placebo. Thus, we believe that our results discussed below are valid at the same level as a pharmacological RCT [14].
Prospective data are more reliable than retrospective data in terms of recall bias; however, non?compliance can be a challenge, especially at the end of the study. We believe the frequent contact between participants and the investigator, including monthly contact in the follow?up period, probably maintained high compliance throughout our study.
Although our study sample ended with 104 participants in the three groups, the power calculation assumption and the high completion rate support the data achieved being valid for the investigated population. The Gonstead method is used by 59% of chiropractors [19] and, thus, the results are generalizable for the profession. Diagnostic certainty is one of our major strengths as nearly all of the participants had been diagnosed by a neurologist according to the ICHD?II [2]. In contrast to previous chiropractic migraine RCTs that recruited participants through media such as newspapers and radio advertisement [12], the majority of our participants were recruited from the Department of Neurology, Akershus University Hospital, indicating that the migraineurs may have more frequent/severe attacks that are difficult to treat than the general population, as they were referred by their General Practitioner and/or practicing neurologist. Thus, our study is representative of primarily the tertiary clinic population, and the outcome might have been different if participants had been recruited from the general population. The percentage of neck pain has been found to be high in patients with migraine [29] and, thus, the high percentage of non?radicular spinal pain in our study might be a confounder for which effect was seen on migraine days.
Three pragmatic chiropractic manual?therapy RCTs using the diversified technique have previously been conducted for migraineurs [12, 30, 31, 32]. An Australian RCT showed within?group reduction in migraine frequency, duration and intensity of 40%, 43% and 36%, respectively, at 2 months follow?up [30]. An American study found migraine frequency and intensity to reduce within?group by 33% and 42%, respectively, at 1 month follow?up [31]. Another Australian study, which was the only RCT to include a control group, i.e. detuned ultrasound, found a within?group reduction of migraine frequency and duration of 35% and 40%, respectively, at 2 months follow?up in the CSMT group, as compared with a within?group reduction of 17% and 20% in the control group, respectively [32]. The reduction in migraine days was similar to ours (40%) in the CSMT group from baseline to 3 months follow?up, whereas migraine duration and intensity were less reduced at 3 months follow?up, i.e. 21% and 14%, respectively. Long?term follow?up comparisons are impossible as neither of the previous studies included a sufficient follow?up period. Our study design including strong internal validity allows us to interpret the effect seen as a placebo response.
Our RCT had fewer AEs as compared with previous manual?therapy studies, but of similar transient and mild character [33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39]. However, it was not sufficiently powered to detect uncommon serious AEs. In comparison, AEs in pharmacological migraine prophylactic placebo RCTs are common including non?mild and non?transient AEs [40, 41].
Conclusion
The blinding was strongly sustained throughout the RCT, AEs were few and mild, and the effect in the CSMT and placebo group was probably a placebo response. Because some migraineurs do not tolerate medication because of AEs or co?morbid disorders, CSMT might be considered in situations where other therapeutic options are ineffective or poorly tolerated.
Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest
All authors have completed the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors uniform disclosure form and declare no financial or other conflicts of interest.
The authors want to express their sincere gratitude to Akershus University Hospital, which kindly provided the research facilities, and Chiropractor Clinic 1, Oslo, Norway, which performed all x?ray assessments. This study was supported by grants from Extrastiftelsen, the Norwegian Chiropractic Association, Akershus University Hospital and University of Oslo in Norway.
In conclusion, the debilitating symptoms of migraines, including the severe head pain and the sensitivity to light and sound as well as the nausea, can affect an individual’s quality of life, fortunately, chiropractic care has been demonstrated to be a safe and effective treatment option for migraine headache pain. Furthermore, the article above demonstrated that migraineurs experienced reduced symptoms and migraine days as a result of chiropractic care.�Information referenced from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). The scope of our information is limited to chiropractic as well as to spinal injuries and conditions. To discuss the subject matter, please feel free to ask Dr. Jimenez or contact us at 915-850-0900 .
Curated by Dr. Alex Jimenez
Additional Topics: Back Pain
According to statistics, approximately 80% of people will experience symptoms of back pain at least once throughout their lifetimes. Back pain is a common complaint which can result due to a variety of injuries and/or conditions. Often times, the natural degeneration of the spine with age can cause back pain. Herniated discs occur when the soft, gel-like center of an intervertebral disc pushes through a tear in its surrounding, outer ring of cartilage, compressing and irritating the nerve roots. Disc herniations most commonly occur along the lower back, or lumbar spine, but they may also occur along the cervical spine, or neck. The impingement of the nerves found in the low back due to injury and/or an aggravated condition can lead to symptoms of sciatica.
1.�Tfelt?Hansen P, Block G, Dahlof C,�et al�International Headache Society Clinical Trial Subcommittee. Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine: second edition.�Cephalalgia�2000;�20: 765�786.[PubMed]
2.�Headache Classification Subcommittee of the International Headache Society .�The International Classification of Headache Disorders: 2nd edition.�Cephalalgia�2004;�24(Suppl. 1): 9�160.�[PubMed]
3.�Vos T, Flaxman AD, Naghavi M,�et al�Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990�2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.�Lancet�2012;�380: 2163�2196.�[PubMed]
4.�Diener HC, Charles A, Goadsby PJ, Holle D.�New therapeutic approaches for the prevention and treatment of migraine.�Lancet Neurol�2015;�14: 1010�1022.�[PubMed]
5.�McLain RF, Pickar JG.�Mechanoreceptor endings in human thoracic and lumbar facet joints.�Spine (Phila Pa 1976)�1998;�23: 168�173.�[PubMed]
6.�Vernon H.�Qualitative review of studies of manipulation?induced hypoalgesia.�J Manipulative Physiol Ther�2000;�23: 134�138.�[PubMed]
8.�Boal RW, Gillette RG.�Central neuronal plasticity, low back pain and spinal manipulative therapy.�J Manipulative Physiol Ther�2004;�27: 314�326.�[PubMed]
9.�Bialosky JE, Bishop MD, Price DD, Robinson ME, George SZ.�The mechanisms of manual therapy in the treatment of musculoskeletal pain: a comprehensive model.�Man Ther�2009;�14: 531�538.�[PubMed]
10.�De Camargo VM, Alburquerque?Sendin F, Berzin F, Stefanelli VC, de Souza DP, Fernandez?de?las?Penas C.�Immediate effects on electromyographic activity and pressure pain thresholds after a cervical manipulation in mechanical neck pain: a randomized controlled trial.�J Manipulative Physiol Ther�2011;�34: 211�220.�[PubMed]
11.�Hancock MJ, Maher CG, Latimer J, McAuley JH.�Selecting an appropriate placebo for a trial of spinal manipulative therapy.�Aust J Physiother�2006;�52: 135�138.�[PubMed]
12.�Chaibi A, Tuchin PJ, Russell MB.�Manual therapies for migraine: a systematic review.�J Headache Pain2011;�12: 127�133.�[PubMed]
13.�Chaibi A, Russell MB.�Manual therapies for primary chronic headaches: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.�J Headache Pain�2014;�15: 67.�[PubMed]
14.�Chaibi A, Saltyte Benth J, Bjorn Russell M.�Validation of placebo in a manual therapy randomized controlled trial.�Sci Rep�2015;�5: 11774.�[PubMed]
15.�Silberstein S, Tfelt?Hansen P, Dodick DW,�et al�Task force of the International Headache Society Clinical Trial Subcommittee. Guidelines for controlled trials of prophylactic treatment of chronic migraine in adults.�Cephalalgia�2008;�28: 484�495.�[PubMed]
16.�Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF,�et al�CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.�BMJ�2010;�340: c869.�[PubMed]
17.�Chaibi A, Saltyte Benth J, Tuchin PJ, Russell MB.�Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for migraine: a study protocol of a single?blinded placebo?controlled randomised clinical trial.�BMJ Open2015;�5: e008095.�[PMC free article]�[PubMed]
18.�French HP, Brennan A, White B, Cusack T.�Manual therapy for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee ? a systematic review.�Man Ther�2011;�16: 109�117.�[PubMed]
20.�Russell MB, Rasmussen BK, Brennum J, Iversen HK, Jensen RA, Olesen J.�Presentation of a new instrument: the diagnostic headache diary.�Cephalalgia�1992;�12: 369�374.�[PubMed]
21.�Tfelt?Hansen P, Pascual J, Ramadan N,�et al�Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine: third edition. A guide for investigators.�Cephalalgia�2012;�32: 6�38.�[PubMed]
22.�Headache Classification Subcommittee of the International Headache Society .�The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (beta version).�Cephalalgia�2013;�33: 629�808.[PubMed]
23.�Tfelt?Hansen P, Bjarnason NH, Dahlof C, Derry S, Loder E, Massiou H.�Evaluation and registration of adverse events in clinical drug trials in migraine.�Cephalalgia�2008;�28: 683�688.�[PubMed]
24.�Silberstein SD, Neto W, Schmitt J, Jacobs D.�Topiramate in migraine prevention: results of a large controlled trial.�Arch Neurol�2004;�61: 490�495.�[PubMed]
25.�Dixon JR.�The International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice guideline.�Qual Assur�1998;�6: 65�74.�[PubMed]
26.�Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gotzsche PC,�et al�Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement.�Ann Intern Med�2004;�141: 781�788.�[PubMed]
27.�Scholten?Peeters GG, Thoomes E, Konings S,�et al�Is manipulative therapy more effective than sham manipulation in adults: a systematic review and meta?analysis.�Chiropr Man Therap�2013;�21: 34.�[PMC free article]�[PubMed]
28.�Meissner K, Fassler M, Rucker G,�et al�Differential effectiveness of placebo treatments: a systematic review of migraine prophylaxis.�JAMA Intern Med�2013;�173: 10.�[PubMed]
29.�Ashina S, Bendtsen L, Lyngberg AC, Lipton RB, Hajiyeva N, Jensen R.�Prevalence of neck pain in migraine and tension?type headache: a population study.�Cephalalgia�2015;�35: 211�219.�[PubMed]
30.�Parker GB, Tupling H, Pryor DS.�A controlled trial of cervical manipulation of migraine.�Aust NZ J Med�1978;�8: 589�593.�[PubMed]
31.�Nelson CF, Bronfort G, Evans R, Boline P, Goldsmith C, Anderson AV.�The efficacy of spinal manipulation, amitriptyline and the combination of both therapies for the prophylaxis of migraine headache.�J Manipulative Physiol Ther�1998;�21: 511�519.�[PubMed]
32.�Tuchin PJ, Pollard H, Bonello R.�A randomized controlled trial of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for migraine.�J Manipulative Physiol Ther�2000;�23: 91�95.�[PubMed]
33.�Cagnie B, Vinck E, Beernaert A, Cambier D.�How common are side effects of spinal manipulation and can these side effects be predicted?�Man Ther�2004;�9: 151�156.�[PubMed]
34.�Hurwitz EL, Morgenstern H, Vassilaki M, Chiang LM.�Adverse reactions to chiropractic treatment and their effects on satisfaction and clinical outcomes among patients enrolled in the UCLA Neck Pain Study.�J Manipulative Physiol Ther�2004;�27: 16�25.�[PubMed]
35.�Thiel HW, Bolton JE, Docherty S, Portlock JC.�Safety of chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine: a prospective national survey.�Spine (Phila Pa 1976)�2007;�32: 2375�2378.�[PubMed]
36.�Rubinstein SM, Leboeuf?Yde C, Knol DL, de Koekkoek TE, Pfeifle CE, van Tulder MW.�The benefits outweigh the risks for patients undergoing chiropractic care for neck pain: a prospective, multicenter, cohort study.�J Manipulative Physiol Ther�2007;�30: 408�418.�[PubMed]
37.�Eriksen K, Rochester RP, Hurwitz EL.�Symptomatic reactions, clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction associated with upper cervical chiropractic care: a prospective, multicenter, cohort study.�BMC Musculoskelet Disord�2011;�12: 219.�[PubMed]
38.�Walker BF, Hebert JJ, Stomski NJ,�et al�Outcomes of usual chiropractic. The OUCH randomized controlled trial of adverse events.�Spine�2013;�38: 1723�1729.�[PubMed]
39.�Maiers M, Evans R, Hartvigsen J, Schulz C, Bronfort G.�Adverse events among seniors receiving spinal manipulation and exercise in a randomized clinical trial.�Man Ther�2015;�20: 335�341.�[PubMed]
40.�Jackson JL, Cogbill E, Santana?Davila R,�et al�A comparative effectiveness meta?analysis of drugs for the prophylaxis of migraine headache.�PLoS One�2015;�10: e0130733.�[PubMed]
41.�Ferrari MD, Roon KI, Lipton RB, Goadsby PJ.�Oral triptans (serotonin 5?HT(1B/1D) agonists) in acute migraine treatment: a meta?analysis of 53 trials.�Lancet�2001;�358: 1668�1675.�[PubMed]
Chiropractic Helps:Tendonitis is a condition that occurs when a tendon that connects bone to muscle is injured, overused, or used improperly. The result is inflammation, pain and sometimes swelling. In the case of an injury where the tendon is stressed to otherwise injured, soft tissue around the area may also become involved. Each year more than 4 million people in the U.S. seek medical treatment for symptoms of tendonitis.
Common types of tendonitis include runner�s knee, tennis elbow, and pitcher�s shoulder. However, other tendons in the body can also experience tendonitis symptoms. The Achilles tendon, ankle, wrist, and even fingers can all become inflamed from the condition.
Often a primary care physician diagnoses the injury, but once there is a definitive diagnosis, the best treatment is one that is natural and holistic. Chiropractic care is an outstanding choice for treatment.
Contents
Chiropractic Helps: Thorough Healing
Tendonitis often recurs in many people. This is due, at least in part to improper or incomplete healing. Many people will resume normal activities as soon as the pain subsides when they should continue caring for the injury so that it can heal completely. This leads to inflammation of the area again as the original injury is aggravated, but it can also lead to re-injury in that same area. Chiropractic care can help tendonitis heal completely and help prevent re-injury to the area.
Chiropractic Helps: Tendonitis
Since tendonitis symptoms can mimic other serious conditions, the first step in treatment is confirming the diagnosis. The doctor may use X-rays, MRIs, or CAT scans to make a positive diagnosis of tendonitis.
From there, the chiropractor will work with the patient to develop a treatment plan that is natural and effective, tailored to the patient�s unique needs. At the core of this treatment is a targeted plan that treats the cause of the problem, not just the symptoms.
If there is a great deal of inflammation the chiropractor may employ inflammation reducing techniques such as bracing, rest, ice, electrical muscle stimulation, and other therapies. This helps to loosen the tendon and lessen the inflammation so that treatment can progress.
Once the inflammation is under control, the chiropractor may begin massage, physical therapy, joint manipulation, or strengthening exercises. If the patient has diminished or limited joint mobility then joint manipulation or adjustments may be the best option.
Chiropractic Helps: Length Of Treatment
The initial pain may subside or even disappear within the first two to three weeks. However, that does not mean that the patient is out of the woods. This is where many patients go wrong. They mistakenly believe that once the pain is gone the condition is healed.
This is not true. While the inflammation may indeed decrease over the first three weeks, the complete healing takes around six weeks and often longer. Scar tissue is formed during this time which helps the body repair the injury. Once the injury is repaired though, that scar tissue must be broken down in order for the area to regain its mobility and flexibility.
The chiropractor will use various techniques including massage and ultrasound to break down the scar tissue. Mild stretches may be incorporated into the treatment plan. Once the tissues are fully healed, exercise can aid in breaking down the scar tissue even more. These exercises will work the muscles but they won�t involve the tendons.
Chiropractic Helps: Healing Tendonitis For Good
Tendonitis can be healed completely and a good chiropractor can help. Most chiropractors take a whole body approach, including diet, specific supplements, and lifestyle choices that will help the healing process of tendonitis. Once chiropractic treatment is complete for tendonitis, the patient can usually return to normal activities without the risk of re-injury or re-inflammation.
Migraine headache pain can be characterized as a throbbing pain or a pulsing sensation of varying intensity, which is generally accompanied by nausea as well as extreme sensitivity to light and sound. According to the American Migraine Association, migraines affect about 36 million Americans, or approximately 12 percent of the population in the United States. Because the symptoms can often become very debilitating, many migraine sufferers will have tried everything to attempt to relieve their headache pain, including avoiding triggers and using drugs and/or medications to reduce the symptoms. However, research studies have found that one alternative treatment option can greatly benefit migraineurs: chiropractic care.
Contents
Chiropractor Treating Migraine Pain
Chiropractic care is a safe and effective alternative treatment option which focuses on the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of a variety of injuries and/or conditions associated with the musculoskeletal and nervous system. A doctor of chiropractic, or chiropractor, will commonly utilize a series of chiropractic methods and techniques, including spinal adjustments and manual manipulations, to carefully correct any spinal misalignment, or subluxation, located along the length of the spine. Although the true source of migraines is still misunderstood today, healthcare professionals believe that a misalignment of the cervical spine, or neck, may trigger migraine symptoms. By correcting the alignment of the spine, a chiropractor can release the pressure being placed against the spinal column which may be irritating and/or compressing the complex structures surrounding the spine, manifesting the well-known symptoms of migraines. Furthermore, chiropractic care can decrease muscle tension and increase circulation, eliminating stress in the body which is also known to be a factor behind migraines, promoting further relief.
The Efficacy of Chiropractic Spinal Manipulative Therapy (SMT) in the Treatment of Migraine
Abstract
Objective: To test the efficacy of Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in the treatment of migraine, using an uncontrolled clinical trial.
Design: A clinical trial of six months duration. The trial consisted of 3 stages: two months of pre-treatment, two months of treatment, and two months post treatment. Comparison was made to initial baseline episodes of migraine preceding commencement of SMT.
Setting: Chiropractic Research Centre of Macquarie University
Participants: Thirty two volunteers, between the ages of 23 to 60 were recruited through media advertising. The diagnosis of migraine based on a detailed questionnaire, regarding self reported symptoms or signs, with minimum of one migraine with aura per month.
Interventions: Two months of SMT provided by an experienced chiropractor at a university clinic.
Main Outcome Measures: Participants completed diaries during the entire trial noting the frequency, intensity, duration, disability, associated symptoms and use of medication for each migraine episode. In addition, clinic records were compared to their diary entries of migraine episodes.
Results: A total of fifty nine participants responded to the advertising, with twenty five being excluded or deciding not to continue in the trial. Two participants (5.9%) withdrew during the trial, one due to alteration in work situation and one following soreness after SMT. The Chiropractic SMT group showed statistically significant improvement (p < 0.05) in migraine frequency and duration, when compared to initial baseline levels. Only one participant (3.1%) reported that the migraine episodes were worse after the two months of SMT, and this was not sustained at the two month post treatment follow up period.
Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that Chiropractic SMT is an effective treatment for migraine with aura. However, due to the cyclical nature of migraine with aura, and the finding that episodes usually reduce following any intervention, further research is required. A prospective randomised controlled trial utilising detuned EPT (interferential), a sham manipulation group and an SMT group is nearing conclusion. It is anticipated this trial will provide further information of the efficacy of Chiropractic SMT in the treatment of migraine with aura.
According to the American Chiropractic Association, a 2011 report published in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, or JMPT, found that chiropractic care, including spinal adjustments and manual manipulations, can improve migraine and cervicogenic headache symptoms. Healthcare professionals have associated primary headaches with stress and muscle tension. Chiropractic care can help decrease the frequency of migraines and manage its symptoms by carefully correcting any spinal misalignment, or subluxation, found along the spine. By restoring the proper alignment of the spine, chiropractic care can improve overall spinal function by alleviating pressure on the nervous system, increasing circulation and reducing muscle tension and stress which causes migraine pain.
Introduction
Some studies appear to have demonstrated significant reduction in migraines following chiropractic intervention (1-8). However, this reduction may in part have been due to inaccurate diagnosis or overlapping symptoms (4,9,10). Many different conditions of the cervical spine, including mechanical and joint pathology, have been reported to cause headache (10-16). Sjaastad (17) used the term �cervicogenic headache� to describe a type of the chronic paroxysmal unilateral headache, which is accompanied by autonomic symptoms and provacated by movements of the head and neck. Sjaastad proposed that entrapment of the occipital nerve or a C2-C3 rhizopathy may produce this headache (18).
There are a number of aetiologies of migraines proposed in the literature. These include: vascular (19-21); autonomic (22); biochemical/cellular/immunological (23- 27); psychophysiological (28,29); neurogenic (9,15,25,30) and somatic (1-9,31,32). This has made a common treatment regime difficult. One early medical model was vascular cause of migraine, where a migrainous attack is initiated by a decreased blood flow to the cerebral vasculature or a cerebrovascular spasm, but characterized by extracranial vasodilation during the headache phase (19,20). However, later aetiological models have demonstrated more complex vascular changes with associated neurological changes (9).
Many practitioners involved in the treatment of migraine would, however, accept that a number of aetiological factors are involved and that there is substantial overlap in both aetiology or diagnosis (9,15,26,33,34). In addition, no single model appears to explain all the possible symptoms associated with migraine.
One possible aetiological factor is cervical spondylosis with associated neck pain and stiffness (34). Anthony states �when this is recognised, appropriate treatment can give impressive results…the aim is to relieve pressure on nerve roots in the upper neck thereby reducing activation of the spinal tract of the trigeminal nerve, which is part of the pain centre in the head and neck� (34). Surgical decompression of the lower cervical nerve�roots as carried out by Ghavamian (36) showed relief of migraine symptoms. He proposed that irritation and compression of the deep sympathetic fibres incited such symptomatology.
Vernon (7), proposed a vertebrogenic model which involves components from the different categories previously stated. One part involves lesions in the low cervical/upper thoracic spine and the upper cervical spine. The low cervical spine/upper thoracic spine (C7-T4) model proposed that dysfunction (i.e. somatic dysfunction) at these vertebral levels causes joint fixation and pain. This pain alters the neural messages received, and therefore sent, by the Central Nervous System (CNS). The Autonomic Nervous System which controls, amongst other functions, blood supply, is thus also affected. It is proposed that when certain threshold levels of transient cerebral ischaemia (due to vasoconstriction caused by the above mechanism) are reached, a migraine cascade of symptomatology may be precipitated.
A second part involves somatic dysfunction in the upper cervical spine (Occiput-C2), which produces local pain and fixation leading to increased neural input to the CNS. This results in a reduction in descending pain-inhibiting impulses from the CNS and consequently increases activity within the spinal trigeminal tract (which transmits the majority of sensory afferents and pain signals from the upper cervical region to the brain). Having exceeded a threshold level, this excessive afferent input to the CNS will trigger focal, and spreading vasoconstriction within the intracerebral vasculature. This will in turn promote extra-carotid vasodilation and cranial pain which is mediated by the ipsilateral trigeminal nerve (7).
Another model contends that irritation of the vertebral nerve by cervical lesions can produce a sympathetic syndrome, giving symptoms of headache, vertigo, visual disturbances and tinnitus. However, this model has not been well substantiated and appears more likely a cause of vascular headache as opposed to migraine (11). The source of pain in migraines is found in the intra- and extracranial blood vessels. The blood vessel walls are pain sensitive to distension, traction or displacement. The idiopathic dilation of cranial blood vessels, together with an increase in a pain threshold lowering substance, result in headache of migraine type (26).
Migraine has a well established symptomatology that has been outlined in various studies (4,12,15). The debilitating and frequent nature of symptoms that include head pain, nausea, vomiting, phonophobia, and photophobia, costs our society both socially and economically (4,12,15,20). As such, effective treatment has long been sought, therefore justifying study in this area. However, there is substantial overlap of symptoms between migraine and cervicogenic�headache, and some authors believe elements of the migraine headache continuum involve cervical headache (9,10).
The Headache Classification Committee of the International Headaches Society, has discarded the former terms classical migraine and common migraine in favour of migraine with aura and migraine without aura. In migraine with aura (MA), this condition is defined as recurrent, periodic, unilateral headache which is preceded or accompanied by transient visual, sensory, motor, or other focal neurological symptoms which localise to the cerebral cortex or brainstem. Migraine without aura, (MWA) is defined as a vascular headache without striking prodromal or associated symptoms of cerebral dysfunction (37).
The incidence of migraine in Australia is estimated at 12%, with the cost to industry an estimated $250 million (38). In the USA approximately 8% of headaches diagnosed by medical practitioners are called migraine headaches (39). Migraine, in its various forms, affects an estimated 5-20% of people throughout the world (40).
A review of the literature appears to indicate that migraine is an associated feature of cervical dysfunction. This paper will evaluate chiropractic spinal manipulative treatment directed towards improving vertebral function, and its role in the management of the migraines.
Methodology
Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is defined as a passive manual manoeuvre during which the three joint complex is carried beyond the normal physiological range of movement without exceeding the boundaries of anatomical integrity (41). SMT requires a dynamic force in a specific direction, usually with a short amplitude, to correct a problem of reduced vertebral motion or positional fault.
The study design was based on a previous study which involved 82 subjects who received either chiropractic SMT, physiotherapy manipulation, or a control treatment of medical mobilization (1). Parker et al, concluded that manipulation was not found to be more effective than mobilisation, and chiropractic treatment not more effective than the other two groups (3). However, much criticism was received over the study, especially the statistical analysis (42).
People with migraines were advertised for participation in the study via the radio and newspapers within a local region of Sydney. All applicants completed a questionnaire, developed from Vernon (12), which contains over 25 sections, including details of the initial�history, frequency, severity, location and reaction to the pain, associated symptoms, precipitating or aggravating factors, relieving factors, past treatment for migraines, medical history including medications and other diagnostic tests.
The participants to take part in the trial were selected according to responses in the questionnaire of specific symptoms. The criteria for migraine diagnosis was compliance with at least 5 out of the following indicators: reaction to pain requiring cessation of activities or the need to seek a quiet dark area; pain located around the temples; pain described as throbbing; associated symptoms of nausea, vomiting, aura, photophobia or phonophobia; migraine precipitated by weather changes; migraine aggravated by head or neck movements; previous diagnosis of migraine by a specialist; and a family history of migraine.
Participants also had to experience migraine at least once a month, but not daily, and the migraines could not have been initiated by trauma. Participants were excluded from the study if there were contra-indications to SMT, such as meningitis or cerebral aneurysm. In addition, participants with temporal arteritis, benign intracranial hypertension or space occupying lesions, were also excluded due to safety aspects.
Participants were informed that they were involved in a trial of manipulative therapy for migraine, and that they may be randomly assigned to a control group which would receive a placebo (non effective) treatment, or to an intervention group which would receive Chiropractic SMT. However, because of the small numbers of participants that were involved in the trial, a control group was not used. Participants were also informed that a thorough physical examination would be performed prior to commencement of treatment to assess any physical problems precluding them receiving SMT. Patients were blinded, by believing that they may or may not receive an effective treatment. In addition, practitioners were not aware of ongoing treatment results, therefore they were also �blinded� to the stage of progress of the patients condition or response to treatment.
The trial was conducted over six months, and consisted of 3 stages: two months pretreatment, two months treatment, and two months post treatment. Participants completed diaries during the entire trial noting the frequency, intensity, duration, disability, associated symptoms and use of medication for each migraine episode. In addition, clinic records were compared to their diary entries of migraine episodes. Concurrently, the subjects were contacted by telephone by the author every month and asked to describe the migraine episodes for comparison to their diaries.
Patients were instructed at the beginning of the study on the use of the diary and were given an instruction sheet to use throughout the course of the trial. The diary consisted of a table for entries of each of the outcome measures. This included noting the date of each episode, a number representing a visual analogue score, letters denoting associated symptoms, the length (in hours) of each migraine, the time (in hours) before the person could return to normal duties, type and use of medications and the overall relief from the medication. The diaries were modified from standard diaries used by the Brain Foundation of Australia.
A detailed history of the patient’s subjective pain features was taken during the initial consultation. This included the type of pain, duration, onset, severity, radiation, aggravating and relieving factors. The history also included medical features, a systems review for potential pathologies, previous treatments and its effects.
Factors for assessing subluxation included: orthopaedic and neurological testing, segmental springing, mobility measures such as visual estimation of range of motion, assessment of previous radiographs, specific chiropractic vertebral testing procedures, as well as response of the patient to SMT.
In addition, several vascular investigations were performed where indicated, which included: vertebral artery test, manipulative provocation test, blood pressure assessment, and abdominal aortic aneurysm screening.
During the treatment period, the subjects continued to record migraine episodes in their diary, and receive telephone calls from the authors. Treatment consisted of short amplitude, high velocity spinal manipulative thrusts, or areas of fixation determined by the physical examination. Patients were allowed a maximum of sixteen treatments, and the frequency of treatment was dependent on the clinicians opinion of the severity of the vertebral dysfunction. The majority of patients received a minimum of twelve treatments.
Comparison was made to initial baseline episodes of migraine preceding commencement of SMT. Statistical analysis involved comparing the effects of the different treatment regimes on the incidence, intensity, and duration of migraines throughout the trial. Statistical tests employed were a students t test to test for significant difference between each group and a one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test for changes for all groups. Statistical calculations were performed via a computer software program Minitab for Macintosh.
Results
A total of fifty nine participants responded to the�advertising, with twenty five being excluded or deciding not to continue in the trial. These included: six cases of infrequent recurrence of the migraines (less than one per month); two cases of contraindications to SMT; one case of cluster headache; one case of motor vehicle accident during pre treatment; one case of fear of SMT; fourteen cases where the university clinic was inconvenient or time constraints were too difficult for participants. Two participants (5.9%) withdrew during the trial, one due to alteration in work situation and one following soreness after SMT.
Thirty two participants, between the ages of 23 to 60, joined the study with there being 14 males and 18 females. Table 1 gives the comparative descriptive statistics for the group.
The Chiropractic SMT group showed statistically significant improvement (p < 0.05) in migraine severity (Figure 1), duration (Figure 2) and disability (Figure 3), when compared to initial baseline levels. Only one participant (3.1%) reported that their migraine episodes were worse after the two months of SMT, but this was not sustained at the two month post treatment follow up period. Table 2 demonstrates variate scores in each of the six diary categories for the three phases of the trial.
The greatest area for improvement was with disability scores (p < 0.01), where participants were asked to rate the time that elapsed before they could return to normal activities (Table 3). In addition, the duration of the migraine and the use of medication, reduced significantly following the SMT intervention (p < 0.05). Table 3 shows mean variate scores for the three phases of the trial�and statistical significance by analysis of variance (ANOVA).
There was no apparent difference in the number of associated symptoms and the time taken for treatment to give relief of each migraine episode (Table 3). In addition, self reported possible trigger factors demonstrated no significant findings, predominantly due to the small sample size. Common trigger factors that were cited included stress, lack of sleep, work changes, or family situations. Most participants could not state a particular trigger factor.
Discussion
The majority of people who participated in this trial had chronic migraines that were severe and debilitating. However, the results have demonstrated a significant (p< 0.05) reduction in their�migraine episodes and their associated disability. The mean number of migraine per month reduced from 7.6 to 4.9 episodes.
This trial was conducted using a similar design to a previous study which demonstrated significant improvement in migraines following chiropractic SMT (1,3). The initial trial had limitations due to an inadequate control group, and this could also be a limitation with this study(2). However, the use of self reported, non treatment period as a control, allows flexibility regarding use of medication and any alteration during the trial.
Figure 1: Comparison of visual analogue scores for pre-treatment, treatment and post-treatment group means.
Figure 2: Comparison of duration time of migraine (hours) for pre-treatment, treatment and post-treatment group means.
Figure 3: Comparison of disability time of migraine (hours) for pre-treatment, treatment and post-treatment group means.
A similar design to this study has also been used in a study of headache and SMT (14). The Boline study was a randomised controlled trial using two parallel groups, with a two week baseline, a six week treatment period and a four week post treatment period. The results of this study show that SMT was an effective method of treatment for tension type headaches, and that the benefit was sustained for the four weeks after cessation of the treatment.
The present study was conducted over a six month period which gives the results substantial significance because early criticisms of studies were that the length of the trial was too short to allow for the cyclical nature of migraines. However, the study is limited in the sample size and the fact that the trial was a pragmatic study which did not consider what aspects of chiropractic SMT had contributed to the improvement in the migraine episodes.
In addition, the study is limited due to the lack of a control group. However, the fact that the trial was conducted over a six month period, with two months pre-treatment, it could be argued that participants acted as their own form of control.
A further limitation of this study, as with other studies of migraine or headaches is that there is substantial overlap in diagnosis and classification of migraines. The questionnaire used in this study proved to have good reliability, however, there is strong suggestion that many headache sufferers may have more than one type of headache (12). An advantage with the design of this study is that regardless of the exact �diagnosis� of the migraine, self reported, non-treatment controls still allow assessment of the therapy in question.
The measurement used for relief scores proved to be poor, which was probably due in part to the small scale for response that participants were given. Future studies should address this issue. In addition, associated symptoms did not give a clear result because the study only measured the total number of associated symptoms, and the sample size was too small for a significant percentage breakdown. Future studies should also address this issue.
Conclusion
The results of this study suggest that Chiropractic SMT may be an effective treatment for migraine. However, due to the cyclical nature of migraine, and the finding that episodes usually reduce following any intervention, further research is required. A prospective randomised controlled trial utilising detuned EPT (interferential), a sham manipulation group and an SMT group is nearing�conclusion. It is anticipated this trial will provide further information of the efficacy of Chiropractic SMT in the treatment of migraine.
In conclusion,�chiropractic care is a safe and effective alternative treatment option which can be used to improve migraine symptoms as well as decrease their frequency. A chiropractor will utilize spinal adjustments and manual manipulations to correct spinal misalignments, or subluxations, releasing pressure being placed against the complex structures surrounding the spine, decreasing muscle tension and improving circulation to eliminate stress, ultimately benefitting migraine sufferers. Finally, the purpose of the article above was to demonstrate the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy, or SMT, in the treatment of migraine. Information referenced from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). The scope of our information is limited to chiropractic as well as to spinal injuries and conditions. To discuss the subject matter, please feel free to ask Dr. Jimenez or contact us at 915-850-0900 .
Curated by Dr. Alex Jimenez
Additional Topics: Back Pain
According to statistics, approximately 80% of people will experience symptoms of back pain at least once throughout their lifetimes. Back pain is a common complaint which can result due to a variety of injuries and/or conditions. Often times, the natural degeneration of the spine with age can cause back pain. Herniated discs occur when the soft, gel-like center of an intervertebral disc pushes through a tear in its surrounding, outer ring of cartilage, compressing and irritating the nerve roots. Disc herniations most commonly occur along the lower back, or lumbar spine, but they may also occur along the cervical spine, or neck. The impingement of the nerves found in the low back due to injury and/or an aggravated condition can lead to symptoms of sciatica.
1. Parker GB, Tupling H, Pryor DS. A controlled trial of cervical manipulation for migraine. Aust NZ J Med 1978; 8: 585-93.
2. Parker GB, Tupling H, Pryor DS. Letters to the editor: cervical manipulation for migraine. Aust NZ J Med 1979; 9: 341-2.
3. Parker GB, Tupling H, Pryor DS. Why does migraine improve during a clinical trial? Further results from a trial of cervical manipulation for migraine. Aust NZ J Med 1980; 10: 192-8.
4. Tuchin PJ, Bonello R. Classic migraine or not classic migraine, that is the question. Aust Chiro & Osteo 1996; 5: 66-74.
5. Whittingham W, Ellis WS, Molyneux TP. The effect of manipulation (Toggle recoil technique) for headaches with upper cervical joint dysfunction: a case study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1994; 17(6): 369-75.
6. Wight JS. Migraine: a statistical analysis of chiropractic treatment. J Am Chiro Assoc 1978; 12: 363-7.
7. Vernon H, Steiman I, Hagino C. Cervicogenic dysfunction in muscle contraction headache and migraine: a descriptive study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1992; 15: 418-29
8. Lenhart LJ. Chiropractic management of migraine without aura: a case study. JNMS 1995; 3: 20-6.
9. Nelson CF. The tension headache, migraine continuum: a hypothesis. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1994; 17(3): 157-67.
10. Jull GA. Cervical headache: a review. In: Greive GP, ed. Modern manual therapy of the vertebral column. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1994: 333-46
11. Bogduk N. Cervical causes of headache and dizziness In: Greive GP, ed. Modern manual therapy of the vertebral column. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1994: 317-31.
12. Vernon H. ed. Upper cervical syndrome: cervical diagnosis and treatment. In: Differential diagnosis of headache. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. 1988: l46
13. Vernon HT. Spinal manipulation and headache of cervical origin. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1989; 12: 455-68
14. Boline PD, Kassak K, Bronfort G, Nelson C, Anderson AV. Spinal manipulations vs. amitriptyline for the treatment of chronic tension-type headaches: a randomized clinical trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1995; 18(3): 148-54.
15. Milne E. The mechanism and treatment of migraine and other disorders of cervical and postural dysfunction. Cephalgia 1989; 9 (suppl 10): 381-2.
16. Young K, Dharmi M. The efficacy of cervical manipulation as opposed to pharmocological therapeutics in the treatment of migraine patients. Transactions of the Consortium for Chiropractic Research. 1987
17. Sjaastad O, Saunte C, Hovdahl H, Breivok H, Gronback E. Cervical headache: an hypothesis. Cephalgia 1983; 3: 249-56.
18. Sjaastad O, Fredricksen TA, Stolt-Nielsen A. Cervicogenic headache, C2 rhizopathy, and occipital neuralgia: a connection. Cephalgia 1986; 6: 189-95.
19. Wolff�s Headache and other head pain. Revised by Dalessio DJ. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. 1972.
20. Selby G, Lance JW. Observations on 500 cases of migraine and allied vascular headache. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1960; 23: 23-32.
21. Anderson A, Friberg L, Olsen T, Olsen J. Delayed hyperemia following hypoperfusion in classic migraine. Arch Neurol 1988; 45: 154-9.
22. Appel S, Kiritzky A, Zahavi I, et al. Evidence for instability of the autonomic nervous system in patients with migraine headache. Headache 1992; 32: 10-7.
23. Takasha T, Shimomura T, Kazuro T. Platelet activation in muscle contraction headache and migraine. Cephalgia 1987; 7: 239-43.
24. Lance J, Lambert G, Goadsby P, et al. 5-Hydroxytryptamine and its putative aetiological involvement in migraine. Cephalgia 1989; 9(Suppl 9): 7-13
25. Ferrari M, Odink J, Tapparelli C, et al. Serotonin metabolisminmigraine.Neurology1989;39:1239-42.
26. Dalassio D. The pathology of migraine. Clin J Pain 1990; 6: 235-9.
27. Stellar S, et al. Migraine prevention with timolol. JAMA 1984; 252(18): 2576-80.
28. Couch J, Hassanein R. Amitriptyline in migraine prophylaxis. Arch Neurol 1979; 36: 695-9.
29. Zeigler D, Hurwitz A, Hassanein R, et al. Migraine prophylaxis: a comparison of propranolol and amitriptyline. Arch Neurol 1987; 44: 486-9.
30. Anthony MN, Lance JW. Plasma serotonin in patients with chronic tension headache. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1989; 52: 182-4.
31. Sjasstad 0, Fredricksen TA, Sand T. The localization of the initial pain of attack: a comparison between classic migraine and cervicogenic headache. Functional Neurololgy 1989; 4: 73-8
32. Commission of Enquiry Into Chiropractic. Chiropractic in New Zealand. 1979 NZ PD Hasselburg.
33. Marcus DA. Migraine and tension type headaches: the questionable validity of current classification systems. Pain 1992; 8: 28-36
34. Anthony M. Migraine and its management. Aust
Fam Phys 1986; 15(5): 643-9.
35. Grayham JR. Migraine headache: diagnosis and
management. Headache 1979; 19(3): 133-41.
36. Ghavamian T. Cervical discopathy and a new concept in the sympathetics of the cervical spine and
head. J Bone Joint Surg 1971; 53A: 1233.
37. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society. Classification and diagnostic criteria for headache disorders, cranial neuralgias and facial pain. Cephalgia 1988; 9 (Suppl
7): 1-93.
38. King J. Migraine in the workplace. Brainwaves. Australian Brain Foundation 1995 Hawthorn, Victoria.
39. Lipton RB, Stewart WE. Migraine in the United States: a review of epidemiology and health care use. Neurology 1993; 43(Suppl 3): S6-10.
40. Stewart WE, Lipton RB, Celentous DD, et al. Prevalence of migraine headache in the United States. JAMA 1992; 267: 64-9.
41. Brunarski DJ. Clinical trials of spinal manipulation: a critical appraisal and review of the literature. JMPT 1984; 7(4): 243-7.
42. Marosszeky JE. Letters to the editor: cervical manipulation for migraine. Aust NZ J Med 1979; 9: 339.
Volleyball Injury: James Hill is a school teacher and father of two older sons and his youngest daughter Madison Hill. As a part of an athletic family, Madison has been involved in sports since a young age, however, she experienced many injuries as a result. Fortunately, James Hill and his daughter Madison Hill met Dr. Alex Jimenez and he’s helped her get back up on her feet ever since. They both have learned to believe in chiropractic care due to Dr. Alex Jimenez’s innovative treatment methods and techniques. Mr. Hill expresses how much Dr. Alex Jimenez’s knowledge in sports injury treatment has expanded his overall understanding of the human body’s recovery process. After Madison suffered a recent ankle sprain, she was immediately reassured by Dr. Alex Jimenez regarding how much faster she could return-to-play with chiropractic care. James Hill and Madison Hill highly recommend Dr. Alex Jimenez and his staff as the non-surgical choice for volleyball sports injuries and other types of injuries.
Each year, millions of teenagers take part in high school sports. However, when an injury to a young athlete occurs, it can be disappointing to them and the family as well as to the coaches. The pressure to continue participating in their specific sport or physical activity can cause the young athlete to avoid receiving proper treatment, which could then lead to further injury with long-term effects. Sports injuries among young athletes fall into two primary categories: overuse injuries and acute injuries. Both kinds include injuries to the soft tissues (muscles and ligaments) and bones. Whether an injury is acute or due to overuse, a young athlete who develops a symptom that persists or that impacts their athletic performance ought to be examined by a healthcare professional. Sports injuries that are untreated could lead to permanent disability or damage. Many high school sports injuries can be avoided through proper conditioning, training, and gear.
Please Recommend Us: If you have enjoyed this video and/or we have helped you in any way please feel free to recommend us. Thank You.
IFM's Find A Practitioner tool is the largest referral network in Functional Medicine, created to help patients locate Functional Medicine practitioners anywhere in the world. IFM Certified Practitioners are listed first in the search results, given their extensive education in Functional Medicine
Thank You.
Please Recommend Us: If you have enjoyed this video and/or we have helped you in any way please feel free to recommend us. Thank You.
