Effectiveness of manual therapy compared to usual care by the general practitioner for chronic tension-type headache: design of a randomised clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patients with Chronic Tension Type Headache (CTTH) report functional and emotional impairments (loss of workdays, sleep disturbances, emotional well-being) and are at risk for overuse of medication. Manual therapy may improve symptoms through mobilisation of the spine, correction of posture, and training of cervical muscles.</p> <p>We present the design of a randomised clinical trial (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of manual therapy (MT) compared to usual care by the general practitioner (GP) in patients with CTTH.</p> <p>Methods and design</p> <p>Patients are eligible for participation if they present in general practice with CTTH according to the classification of the International Headache Society (IHS).</p> <p>Participants are randomised to either usual GP care according to the national Dutch general practice guidelines for headache, or manual therapy, consisting of mobilisations (high- and low velocity techniques), exercise therapy for the cervical and thoracic spine and postural correction. The primary outcome measures are the number of headache days and use of medication. Secondary outcome measures are severity of headache, functional status, sickness absence, use of other healthcare resources, active cervical range of motion, algometry, endurance of the neckflexor muscles and head posture. Follow-up assessments are conducted after 8 and 26 weeks.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This is a pragmatic trial in which interventions are offered as they are carried out in everyday practice. This increases generalisability of results, but blinding of patients, GPs and therapists is not possible.</p> <p>The results of this trial will contribute to clinical decision making of the GP regarding referral to manual therapy in patients with chronic tension headache.</p

Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, ventilation management, and outcomes in invasively ventilated intensive care unit patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a pooled analysis of four observational studies

Background: Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, the practice of ventilation, and outcome in invasively ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain unexplored. In this analysis we aim to address these gaps using individual patient data of four large observational studies. Methods: In this pooled analysis we harmonised individual patient data from the ERICC, LUNG SAFE, PRoVENT, and PRoVENT-iMiC prospective observational studies, which were conducted from June, 2011, to December, 2018, in 534 ICUs in 54 countries. We used the 2016 World Bank classification to define two geoeconomic regions: middle-income countries (MICs) and high-income countries (HICs). ARDS was defined according to the Berlin criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patients in MICs versus HICs. The primary outcome was the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) for the first 3 days of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were key ventilation parameters (tidal volume size, positive end-expiratory pressure, fraction of inspired oxygen, peak pressure, plateau pressure, driving pressure, and respiratory rate), patient characteristics, the risk for and actual development of acute respiratory distress syndrome after the first day of ventilation, duration of ventilation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality. Findings: Of the 7608 patients included in the original studies, this analysis included 3852 patients without ARDS, of whom 2345 were from MICs and 1507 were from HICs. Patients in MICs were younger, shorter and with a slightly lower body-mass index, more often had diabetes and active cancer, but less often chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure than patients from HICs. Sequential organ failure assessment scores were similar in MICs and HICs. Use of LTVV in MICs and HICs was comparable (42\ub74% vs 44\ub72%; absolute difference \u20131\ub769 [\u20139\ub758 to 6\ub711] p=0\ub767; data available in 3174 [82%] of 3852 patients). The median applied positive end expiratory pressure was lower in MICs than in HICs (5 [IQR 5\u20138] vs 6 [5\u20138] cm H2O; p=0\ub70011). ICU mortality was higher in MICs than in HICs (30\ub75% vs 19\ub79%; p=0\ub70004; adjusted effect 16\ub741% [95% CI 9\ub752\u201323\ub752]; p&lt;0\ub70001) and was inversely associated with gross domestic product (adjusted odds ratio for a US$10 000 increase per capita 0\ub780 [95% CI 0\ub775\u20130\ub786]; p&lt;0\ub70001). Interpretation: Despite similar disease severity and ventilation management, ICU mortality in patients without ARDS is higher in MICs than in HICs, with a strong association with country-level economic status. Funding: No funding

Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories. The strength/quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>By September 2009, 26 categories of conditions were located containing RCT evidence for the use of manual therapy: 13 musculoskeletal conditions, four types of chronic headache and nine non-musculoskeletal conditions. We identified 49 recent relevant systematic reviews and 16 evidence-based clinical guidelines plus an additional 46 RCTs not yet included in systematic reviews and guidelines.</p> <p>Additionally, brief references are made to other effective non-pharmacological, non-invasive physical treatments.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Spinal manipulation/mobilization is effective in adults for: acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain; migraine and cervicogenic headache; cervicogenic dizziness; manipulation/mobilization is effective for several extremity joint conditions; and thoracic manipulation/mobilization is effective for acute/subacute neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for cervical manipulation/mobilization alone for neck pain of any duration, and for manipulation/mobilization for mid back pain, sciatica, tension-type headache, coccydynia, temporomandibular joint disorders, fibromyalgia, premenstrual syndrome, and pneumonia in older adults. Spinal manipulation is not effective for asthma and dysmenorrhea when compared to sham manipulation, or for Stage 1 hypertension when added to an antihypertensive diet. In children, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the effectiveness for otitis media and enuresis, and it is not effective for infantile colic and asthma when compared to sham manipulation.</p> <p>Massage is effective in adults for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for knee osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain syndrome, migraine headache, and premenstrual syndrome. In children, the evidence is inconclusive for asthma and infantile colic.</p