Spinal manipulations for migraine: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Pawel Posadzki,Andrzej T. Klimek,Edzard Ernst

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02719-6

2024-12-01

Systematic Reviews

Abstract:This update of a systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of spinal manipulations as a treatment for migraine headaches.

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Evaluating Modern Therapeutic Interventions for Migraine Management: A Systematic Review

Lovett S Achiatar,Iqra Nasir,Zainab Zia,Hind Jameel,Yogesh Raut,Hamza Sher,Abdullah Shehryar,Benazir Shafqat,Khadija A Palekar,Lyba Nisar,Abdur Rehman,Moosa Khan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.67397

2024-08-21

Cureus

Abstract:This systematic review evaluates the efficacy and safety of contemporary migraine treatments, synthesizing evidence from recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The focus is on both pharmacological interventions, such as calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies and non-specific oral migraine preventives, and non-pharmacological approaches like myofascial release. Through a detailed examination of the studies, this review identifies superior strategies for acute and preventive migraine management, assessing their impact on patient-reported outcomes and determining the prevalence of associated adverse events. Findings suggest that while CGRP monoclonal antibodies show promise as first-line treatments due to their efficacy and safety, myofascial release offers considerable benefits for pain and disability in tension-type and cervicogenic headaches. Challenges such as the variability in individual response and potential side effects emphasize the need for personalized treatment plans. This review underscores the importance of integrating new therapeutic discoveries into clinical practice to enhance the quality of care for migraine sufferers.
Myofascial Release for the Treatment of Tension-Type, Cervicogenic Headache or Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Zhoupeng Lu,Hui Zou,Peng Zhao,Jialin Wang,Ruirui Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/2042069

2024-04-01

Pain Research and Management

Abstract:Objective. To assess the effectiveness of myofascial release (MFR) techniques on the intensity of headache pain and associated disability in patients with tension-type headache (TTH), cervicogenic headache (CGH), or migraine. Design. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods. Eight databases were searched on September 15, 2023, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, and Wanfang Database. The risk of bias was evaluated utilizing the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. Results. Pooled results showed that MFR intervention significantly reduces pain intensity [SMD = −2.01, 95% CI (−2.98, −1.03), = 90%, ] and improves disability [SMD = −1.3, 95% CI (−1.82, −0.79), = 74%, ]. Subgroup analysis based on the type of headache revealed significant reductions in pain intensity for CGH [SMD = −2.01, 95% CI (−2.73, −1.29), = 63%, ], TTH [SMD = −0.86, 95% CI (−1.52, −0.20), = 50%, ] and migraine [SMD = −6.52, 95% CI (−8.15, −4.89), ] and in disability for CGH [SMD = −1.45, 95% CI (−2.07, −0.83), = 0%, ]; TTH [SMD = −0.98, 95% CI (−1.32, −0.65), = 0%, ] but not migraine [SMD = −2.44, 95% CI (−6.04, 1.16), = 97%, ]. Conclusion. The meta-analysis results indicate that MFR intervention can significantly alleviate pain and disability in TTH and CGH. For migraine, however, the results were inconsistent, and there was only moderate quality evidence of disability improvement for TTH and CGH. In contrast, the quality of other evidence was low or very low.

clinical neurology
Adverse Events After Cervical Spinal Manipulation - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Natalie Pankrath,Svenja Nilsson,Nikolaus Ballenberger

IF: 4.396

Pain Physician

Abstract:Background: Cervical manipulations are widely used by physiotherapists, chiropractors, osteopaths, and medical doctors for musculoskeletal dysfunctions like neck pain and cervicogenic headache. The use of cervical manipulation remains controversial, since it is often considered to pose a risk for not only benign adverse events (AEs), such as aggravation of pain or muscle soreness, but also severe AEs such as strokes in the vertebrobasilar or carotid artery following dissections. Studies finding an association between cervical manipulation and serious AEs such as artery dissections are mainly case control studies or case reports. These study designs are not appropriate for investigating incidences and therefore do not imply causal relationships. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard study designs for assessing the unconfounded effects of benefits and harms, such as AEs, associated with therapies. Objective: Due to the unclear risk level of AEs associated with high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) cervical manipulation, the aim of this study was to extract available information from RCTs and thereby synthesize the comparative risk of AEs following cervical manipulation to that of various control interventions. Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed and Cochrane databases. This search included RCTs in which cervical HVLA manipulations were applied and AEs were reported. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, the methodological quality assessment, and the GRADE approach. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated. The study quality was assessed by using the risk of bias 2 (RoB-2) tool, and the certainty of evidence was determined by using the GRADE approach. Results: Fourteen articles were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled IRR indicates no statistically significant differences between the manipulation and control groups. All the reported AEs were classified as mild, and none of the AEs reported were serious or moderate. Limitations: The search strategy was limited to literature in English or German. Furthermore, selection bias may have occurred, since only PubMed and Cochrane were used as databases, and searching was done by hand. RCTs had to be excluded if the results did not indicate the group in which the AEs occurred. A mandatory criterion for inclusion in the meta-analysis was a quantitative reproduction of the frequencies of AEs that could be attributed to specific interventions. Conclusion: In summary, HVLA manipulation does not impose an increased risk of mild or moderate AEs compared to various control interventions. However, these results must be interpreted with caution, since RCTs are not appropriate for detecting the rare serious AEs. In addition, future RCTs should follow a standardized protocol for reporting AEs in clinical trials.
Effectiveness of musculoskeletal manipulations in patients with neck pain: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Gong,Z.,Gao,Y.,Liu,W.,Liu,X.,Chen,Q.,Zhang,S.,Liu,L.,Li,J.,Li,W.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077951

IF: 3.006

2024-02-10

BMJ Open

Abstract:Introduction Neck pain is a common problem that severely affects physical and mental health. While musculoskeletal manipulations are recommended as the first-line treatment for adults with neck pain, the comparative effectiveness of different musculoskeletal manipulations remains unclear. This systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) will compare the effectiveness of different types of musculoskeletal manipulations, with the overarching aim of guiding clinical practice. Methods and analysis Two independent reviewers will search four English electronic databases (Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed) and three Chinese electronic databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science and Technology Journal Database, Wanfang) for relevant RCTs published from 1 January 2013 to 30 April 2023. The Clinical Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) will be searched for completed but unpublished RCTs. English and Chinese will be used to search English databases and Chinese databases, respectively. RCTs of musculoskeletal manipulations for adults (aged ≥18 years) with neck pain will be considered eligible for inclusion. A pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis will be performed, and pooled risk ratios, standardised mean differences and 95% CIs will be determined. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required as this study is a literature review. The results of this review will be published in peer-reviewed journals or disseminated at conferences. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023420775.

medicine, general & internal
Effectiveness and safety of thoracic manipulation in the treatment of neck pain: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Jiao Yang,Sha Zhao,Rui Zhang,Cheng Huang,Ke-Yao Huang,Ying Cheng,Cheng-Qi He,Ling-Xin Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/thc-248034

IF: 1.6

2024-05-15

Technology and Health Care

Abstract:BACKGROUND: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of thoracic manipulation (TM) in patients with neck pain (NP). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of thoracic manipulation (TM) in patients with neck pain (NP). METHODS: Seven electronic databases were searched from their inception through October 2023 by two authors. The methodological quality assessments were performed with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. Pain, cervical range of motion (ROM), disability, and quality of life (QOL) were estimated for TM treatment in patients with NP. RESULTS: Eighteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 914 patients were included with a PEDro score of 6.923 ± 3.120. Pooled effect sizes of pain (SMD =-0.481, 95% CI -0.653 to -0.309, P= 0.000), disability (SMD =-1.435, 95% CI -2.480 to -0.390, P= 0.007), QOL-physical component score (PCS) (SMD = 0.658, 95% CI 0.290 to 1.025, P= 0.000), ROM of flexion (SMD = 0.921, 95% CI 0.287 to 1.555, P= 0.000), ROM of extension (SMD = 0.572, 95% CI 0.321 to 0.822, P= 0.000), ROM of left lateral flexion (SMD = 0.593, 95% CI 0.075 to 1.112, P= 0.025) and ROM of left rotation (SMD = 0.230, 95% CI 0.010 to 0.450, P= 0.04) were favored by the TM group. CONCLUSIONS: TM provides short-term effect on relieving neck pain, increasing cervical ROM, and disability in patients with NP without serious side effects. Continuous therapy and distraction therapy are recommended as optimal choice on reducing pain and improving cervical ROM, especially in patients with chronic NP (> 3 months). The TM-induced improvements in the QOL of patients with NP should be verified by more further high-quality RCTs.

engineering, biomedical,health care sciences & services
Manual joint mobilisation techniques, supervised physical activity, psychological treatment, acupuncture and patient education in migraine treatment. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Dagmar Beier,Henriette E Callesen,Louise N Carlsen,Kirsten Birkefoss,Hanna Tómasdóttir,Hanne Wűrtzen,Henrik W Christensen,Lotte S Krøll,Mette Jensen,Christel V Høst,Jakob M Hansen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024211034489

2021-08-18

Cephalalgia

Abstract:Background Many people suffering from migraine combine pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide an updated guideline for some widely used non-pharmacological treatment options for migraine. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review of randomized studies of adults with migraine treated with manual joint mobilisation techniques, supervised physical activity, psychological treatment, acupuncture and patient education. The main outcomes measured were days with headache and quality of life. Recommendations were formulated based on the Grade of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach including patient preferences based on expert opinion and questionnaire data. Results The overall level of certainty of the evidence was low to very low. Manual therapy techniques and psychological treatment did not change the studied outcomes. Supervised physical activity might have a positive impact on quality of life, acupuncture on headache frequency, intensity, quality of life and the use of attack-medicine. Patient education might improve self-rated health and quality of life and increase the number of well-informed patients. Conclusion Based on observed effects, the lack of serious adverse events, and patients’ preferences, we make weak recommendations for considering the investigated interventions as a supplement to standard treatment. Protocol registration: Prospero CRD42020220132.

neurosciences,clinical neurology
Acupuncture vs. Pharmacological Prophylaxis of Migraine: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Carlo Maria Giovanardi,Michela Cinquini,Marco Aguggia,Gianni Allais,Manuela Campesato,Sabina Cevoli,Fabio Gentili,Annunzio Matrà,Silvia Minozzi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2020.576272

IF: 3.4

2020-12-15

Frontiers in Neurology

Abstract:Introduction: Migraine is a chronic paroxymal neurological disorder characterized by attacks of moderate to severe headache and reversible neurological and systemic symptoms. Treatment of migraine includes acute therapies, that aim to reduce the intensity of pain of each attack, and preventive therapies that should decrease the frequency of headache recurrence. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for the prophylaxis of episodic or chronic migraine in adult patients compared to pharmacological treatment. Methods: We included randomized-controlled trials published in western languages that compared any treatment involving needle insertion (with or without manual or electrical stimulation) at acupuncture points, pain points or trigger points, with any pharmacological prophylaxis in adult (≥18 years) with chronic or episodic migraine with or without aura according to the criteria of the International Headache Society. Results: Nine randomized trials were included encompassing 1,484 patients. At the end of intervention we found a small reduction in favor of acupuncture for the number of days with migraine per month: (SMD: −0.37; 95% CI −1.64 to −0.11), and for response rate (RR: 1.46; 95% CI 1.16–1.84). We found a moderate effect in the reduction of pain intensity in favor of acupuncture (SMD: −0.36; 95% CI −0.60 to −0.13), and a large reduction in favor of acupuncture in both the dropout rate due to any reason (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.84) and the dropout rate due to adverse event (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.74). Quality of evidence was moderate for all these primary outcomes. Results at longest follow-up confirmed these effects. Conclusions: Based on moderate certainty of evidence, we conclude that acupuncture is mildly more effective and much safer than medication for the prophylaxis of migraine.

neurosciences,clinical neurology
An update on migraine

Teddy Hervias

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.jaa.0000000000000014

2024-04-25

JAAPA

Abstract:ABSTRACT Migraine headache is a common and potentially debilitating disorder often treated by physician associates/assistants (PAs) and other providers. With the recent advances in new drugs and device technology for the treatment of migraine, the American Headache Society has released a consensus statement on both preventive and acute strategies for clinical practice. The US FDA has recently approved various types of medications and devices for the treatment and prevention of migraine attacks including several calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor inhibitors, a selective serotonin receptor agonist (SSRA), noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS), external trigeminal nerve stimulation (e-TNS), and external concurrent occipital and trigeminal neurostimulation (eCOT-NS), among other pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic options. This article provides a review of migraine prevention and acute treatment protocol, highlighting new approaches to both.

medicine, general & internal
Cervical Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Headache Disorders: A Systematic Review

Michael T. Finnern,Ryan S. D’Souza,Max Y. Jin,Alaa A. Abd-Elsayed

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurom.2022.10.060

2022-12-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVES: Chronic headache remains a major cause of disability and pain worldwide. Although the literature has extensively described pharmacologic options for headache treatment and prophylaxis, there remains a paucity of data on the efficacy of neuromodulation interventions for treatment of headache unresponsive to conventional pharmacologic therapy. The primary aim of this review was to appraise the literature for the efficacy of cervical spinal cord stimulation (cSCS) in treating any intractable chronic headache, including migraine headaches (with or without aura), cluster headache, tension headache, and other types of headaches.MATERIALS AND METHODS: In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, we performed a systematic review by identifying studies in PubMed, Embase (Scopus), Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials that assessed cSCS to treat chronic headache. Data were synthesized qualitatively, with primary outcomes of headache intensity and frequency. The secondary outcome was adverse effects.RESULTS: In total, 16 studies comprising 107 patients met the inclusion criteria. Findings were presented based on type of headache, which included migraine headache with or without aura, cluster headache, trigeminal neuropathy, occipital neuralgia, posttraumatic headache, cervicogenic headache, short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache with autonomic symptoms, and poststroke facial pain. Per the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria, there was very low-quality evidence that cSCS is associated with a decrease in migraine headache frequency, migraine headache intensity, and trigeminal neuropathy intensity. Placement for cSCS leads ranged from C1 to C4.CONCLUSIONS: Our review suggests promising data from observational studies that cSCS may be helpful in decreasing frequency and intensity of chronic intractable headache. Future well-powered, randomized controlled trials are needed.

medicine, research & experimental,clinical neurology
The effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy procedures for spine pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Casper G Nim,Sasha L Aspinall,Chad E Cook,Leticia A Corrêa,Megan Donaldson,Aron S Downie,Steen Harsted,Jan Hartvigsen,Hazel J Jenkins,David McNaughton,Luana Nyirö,Stephen M Perle,Eric J Roseen,James J Young,Anika Young,Gong-He Zhao,Carsten B Juhl

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-023-00487-z

2023-05-24

Abstract:Background: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a guideline-recommended treatment option for spinal pain. The recommendation is based on multiple systematic reviews. However, these reviews fail to consider that clinical effects may depend on SMT "application procedures" (i.e., how and where SMT is applied). Using network meta-analyses, we aim to investigate which SMT "application procedures" have the greatest magnitude of clinical effectiveness for reducing pain and disability, for any spinal complaint, at short-term and long-term follow-up. We will compare application procedural parameters by classifying the thrust application technique and the application site (patient positioning, assisted, vertebral target, region target, Technique name, forces, and vectors, application site selection approach and rationale) against: 1. Waiting list/no treatment; 2. Sham interventions not resembling SMT (e.g., detuned ultrasound); 3. Sham interventions resembling SMT; 4. Other therapies not recommended in clinical practice guidelines; and 5. Other therapies recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Secondly, we will examine how contextual elements, including procedural fidelity (whether the SMT was delivered as planned) and clinical applicability (whether the SMT is similar to clinical practice) of the SMT. Methods: We will include randomized controlled trials (RCT) found through three search strategies, (i) exploratory, (ii) systematic, and (iii) other known sources. We define SMT as a high-velocity low-amplitude thrust or grade V mobilization. Eligibility is any RCT assessing SMT against any other type of SMT, any other active or sham intervention, or no treatment control on adult patients with pain in any spinal region. The RCTs must report on continuous pain intensity and/or disability outcomes. Two authors will independently review title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. Spinal manipulative therapy techniques will be classified according to the technique application and choice of application sites. We will conduct a network-meta analysis using a frequentist approach and multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Discussion: This will be the most extensive review of thrust SMT to date, and will allow us to estimate the importance of different SMT application procedures used in clinical practice and taught across educational settings. Thus, the results are applicable to clinical practice, educational settings, and research studies. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022375836.
The American Headache Society Consensus Statement: Update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice

Jessica Ailani,Rebecca C. Burch,Matthew S. Robbins,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14153

2021-06-23

Abstract:<section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Objective</h3><p>To incorporate recent research findings, expert consensus, and patient perspectives into updated guidance on the use of new acute and preventive treatments for migraine in adults.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Background</h3><p>The American Headache Society previously published a Consensus Statement on the use of newly introduced treatments for adults with migraine. This update, which is based on the expanded evidence base and emerging expert consensus concerning postapproval usage, provides practical recommendations in the absence of a formal guideline.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Methods</h3><p>This update involved four steps: (1) review of data about the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of migraine treatments introduced since the previous Statement was published; (2) incorporation of these data into a proposed update; (3) review and commentary by the Board of Directors of the American Headache Society and patients and advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation; (4) consideration of these collective insights and integration into an updated Consensus Statement.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Results</h3><p>Since the last Consensus Statement, no evidence has emerged to alter the established principles of either acute or preventive treatment. Newly introduced acute treatments include two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists (ubrogepant, rimegepant); a serotonin (5-HT<sub>1F</sub>) agonist (lasmiditan); a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (celecoxib oral solution); and a neuromodulatory device (remote electrical neuromodulation). New preventive treatments include an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (eptinezumab). Several modalities, including neuromodulation (electrical trigeminal nerve stimulation, noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation, single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation) and biobehavioral therapy (cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback, relaxation therapies, mindfulness-based therapies, acceptance and commitment therapy) may be appropriate for either acute and/or preventive treatment; a neuromodulation device may be appropriate for acute migraine treatment only (remote electrical neuromodulation). </p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Conclusions</h3><p>The integration of new treatments into clinical practice should be informed by the potential for benefit relative to established therapies, as well as by the characteristics and preferences of individual patients.</p></section>
The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature

Pierre Côté,Jan Hartvigsen,Iben Axén,Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde,Melissa Corso,Heather Shearer,Jessica Wong,Andrée-Anne Marchand,J David Cassidy,Simon French,Gregory N Kawchuk,Silvano Mior,Erik Poulsen,John Srbely,Carlo Ammendolia,Marc-André Blanchette,Jason W Busse,André Bussières,Carolina Cancelliere,Henrik Wulff Christensen,Diana De Carvalho,Katie De Luca,Alister Du Rose,Andreas Eklund,Roger Engel,Guillaume Goncalves,Jeffrey Hebert,Cesar A Hincapié,Maria Hondras,Amanda Kimpton,Henrik Hein Lauridsen,Stanley Innes,Anne-Laure Meyer,David Newell,Søren O'Neill,Isabelle Pagé,Steven Passmore,Stephen M Perle,Jeffrey Quon,Mana Rezai,Maja Stupar,Michael Swain,Andrew Vitiello,Kenneth Weber,Kenneth J Young,Hainan Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-021-00362-9

2021-02-17

Abstract:Background: A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial. Objectives: We convened a Global Summit of international scientists to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Global summit: The Global Summit took place on September 14-15, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. It was attended by 50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations. At the summit, participants critically appraised the literature and synthesized the evidence. Systematic review of the literature: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 15, 2019 using subject headings specific to each database and free text words relevant to manipulation/manual therapy, effectiveness, prevention, treatment, and non-musculoskeletal disorders. Eligible for review were randomized controlled trials published in English. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria for randomized controlled trials. We synthesized the evidence from articles with high or acceptable methodological quality according to the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) Guideline. The final risk of bias and evidence tables were reviewed by researchers who attended the Global Summit and 75% (38/50) had to approve the content to reach consensus. Results: We retrieved 4997 citations, removed 1123 duplicates and screened 3874 citations. Of those, the eligibility of 32 articles was evaluated at the Global Summit and 16 articles were included in our systematic review. Our synthesis included six randomized controlled trials with acceptable or high methodological quality (reported in seven articles). These trials investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the management of infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. None of the trials evaluated the effectiveness of SMT in preventing the occurrence of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Consensus was reached on the content of all risk of bias and evidence tables. All randomized controlled trials with high or acceptable quality found that SMT was not superior to sham interventions for the treatment of these non-musculoskeletal disorders. Six of 50 participants (12%) in the Global Summit did not approve the final report. Conclusion: Our systematic review included six randomized clinical trials (534 participants) of acceptable or high quality investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function. Governments, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should consider this evidence when developing policies about the use and reimbursement of SMT for non-musculoskeletal disorders.
A Review on Osteopathic Manipulation in Patients With Headache

H V Sharath,Pavan Teja Nadipena,Moh'd Irshad Qureshi,Pratik Phansopkar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.66242

2024-08-05

Cureus

Abstract:Headaches are a common neurological disorder, significantly impacting patients' quality of life. Traditional treatments include pharmacological and nonpharmacological approaches. Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a holistic, hands-on technique used by osteopathic physicians to alleviate pain and improve function by addressing musculoskeletal dysfunctions. This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of osteopathic manipulation in managing headaches, focusing on the different types of headaches, the specific techniques used, and the overall outcomes reported in clinical studies. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, and MEDLINE, to identify relevant studies published in the past two decades. Inclusion criteria were studies involving adult patients diagnosed with headaches and treated with OMT. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were included. The review identified 15 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Evidence suggests that OMT can be beneficial in reducing the frequency, intensity, and duration of headaches, particularly tension-type headaches (TTHs) and migraines. Techniques such as myofascial release, cranial osteopathy, and muscle energy techniques were commonly employed. Many studies reported significant improvements in patients' quality of life and functional status post-treatment. However, the heterogeneity in study designs, sample sizes, and outcome measures warrants cautious interpretation of the results. Osteopathic manipulation shows promise as a complementary approach for managing headaches, with positive effects on pain relief and functional improvement. Further large-scale, high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm these findings and to establish standardized treatment protocols. Integrating OMT into multidisciplinary headache management strategies could potentially enhance patient outcomes and reduce reliance on pharmacological interventions.
Effectiveness and safety of manual therapy when compared with oral pain medications in patients with neck pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Joshua Makin,Lauren Watson,Dimitra V Pouliopoulou,Taylor Laframboise,Bradley Gangloff,Ravinder Sidhu,Jackie Sadi,Pulak Parikh,Anita Gross,Pierre Langevin,Heather Gillis,Pavlos Bobos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-024-00874-w

IF: 2.367

2024-04-18

BMC Sports Science Medicine and Rehabilitation

Abstract:This systematic review and meta-analysis seeks to investigate the effectiveness and safety of manual therapy (MT) interventions compared to oral pain medication in the management of neck pain.

rehabilitation,sport sciences
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Therapeutic Effect of Acupuncture on Migraine

Ming-Qian Ou,Wei-Hao Fan,Fu-Rong Sun,Wan-Xin Jie,Mei-Jun Lin,Yu-Jie Cai,Shi-Yun Liang,Yang-Sheng Yu,Min-Hua Li,Li-Li Cui,Hai-Hong Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2020.00596

IF: 3.4

2020-06-30

Frontiers in Neurology

Abstract:Background: Migraine is an intractable headache disorder, manifesting as periodic attacks. It is highly burdensome for patients and society. Acupuncture treatment can be beneficial as a supplementary and preventive therapy for migraine.Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for migraine, and to examine transcranial doppler changes after acupuncture.Methods: Reports, conference, and academic papers published before March 15, 2019 in databases including PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WANFANG Database, Chinese journal of Science and Technology, and China Biomedical were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving acupuncture, sham acupuncture, and medication in migraine were included. The Cochrane Collaboration software, RevMan 5.3, was used for data processing and migration risk analysis.Results: Twenty-eight RCTs were included. 15 RCTs included medication only, 10 RCTs included sham acupuncture only, and 3 RCTs included both. The study included 2874 patients, split into 3 groups: acupuncture treatment group (n = 1396), medication control group (n = 865), and sham acupuncture control group (n = 613). The results showed that treatment was more effective in the acupuncture group than in the sham acupuncture group (MD = 1.88, 95% CI [1.61, 2.20], P < 0.00001) and medication group (MD = 1.16, 95% CI [1.12, 1.21], P < 0.00001). Improvement in visual analog scale (VAS) score was greater in the acupuncture group than in the sham acupuncture group (MD = −1.00, 95% CI [-1.27,−0.46], P < 0.00001; MD = −0.59, 95% CI [-0.81,−0.38], P < 0.00001), and their adverse reaction rate was lower than that of the medication group (RR = 0.16, 95% CI [0.05, 0.52], P = 0.002). The improvement of intracranial blood flow velocity by acupuncture is better than that by medication, but the heterogeneity makes the result unreliable.Conclusions: Acupuncture reduced the frequency of migraine attacks, lowered VAS scores, and increased therapeutic efficiency compared with sham acupuncture. Compared with medication, acupuncture showed higher effectiveness with less adverse reactions and improved intracranial blood circulation. However, owing to inter-study heterogeneity, a prospective, multicenter RCT with a large sample is required to verify these results.

neurosciences,clinical neurology
Effectiveness and safety of pharmacological prophylaxis for chronic migraine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Chengqi Zhao,Changxin Li,Xueping Yu,Xiaohong Dai,Wei Zou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-024-12512-z

2024-06-25

Journal of Neurology

Abstract:Background Chronic migraine (CM) significantly impacts both the physical and mental health of patients. Current studies on the safety and effectiveness of different pharmacological prophylaxis interventions for CM are limited. To address this gap, we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare and rank the efficacy and safety of various drugs in preventing CM. Methods Two independent researchers systematically searched four databases from their inception to August 1, 2023, to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Subsequently, they performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias. A NMA was then performed. Continuous outcomes and binary outcomes were displayed as weighted mean difference (WMD) and risk ratio (RR), respectively, and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to rank each intervention separately. Results 24 RCTs involving 8789 patients were included. Compared to placebo, Botulinum toxin A demonstrated the most significant effect in reducing the monthly migraine days for CM patients (MD = 3.88, 95% CI 0.48, 7.28); in terms of improving the response rate by a 50% reduction in monthly migraine days, Topiramate (RR = 50.06, 95% CI 3.18, 787.30) was the most effective; there was no statistically significant difference between all preventive drugs and placebo in improving the migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) score; in terms of the incidence of adverse events, Eptinezumab (RR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.8, 1.54) exhibited the highest safety profile. Conclusion Among all the drugs for the preventive drugs for CM, Botulinum toxin A has the best efficacy and safety profile, closely followed by calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs).

clinical neurology
Randomized controlled studies evaluating Topiramate, Botulinum toxin type A, and mABs targeting CGRP in patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse headache: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Samita Giri,Erling Tronvik,Mattias Linde,Sindre Andre Pedersen,Knut Hagen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024231156922

2023-03-03

Cephalalgia

Abstract:Cephalalgia, Volume 43, Issue 4, April 2023. BackgroundThis systematic review focuses on chronic migraine patients with medication overuse headache using, respectively, topiramate, botulinum toxin type A, and human monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptor.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science until May 2022. We included randomized controlled trials reporting the outcomes of change in monthly headache/migraine days, ≥50% response rates and change in medication overuse status. Studies were excluded if response rates were not reported. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. The quality of evidence for outcomes across included studies was evaluated according to the five factors outlined in Cochrane GRADE approach.FindingsThe initial search resulted in 1599 records. Following screening, 10 studies met our inclusion criteria, while seven studies with sufficient data were included in the meta-analysis. Studies assessing Botulinum toxin type A included 1139 patients and showed a mean reduction in headache frequency by 1.92 days per month compared to placebo (−1.92; 95% CI −2.68 to −1.16). Studies assessing human monoclonal antibodies included 1982 patients, and showed significant positive effect compared to placebo for all measured outcomes. The overall odds ratio for the ≥50% response rate was 2.90 (95% CI, 2.23 to 3.78). No significant difference was observed in the frequency of adverse effect for both Botulinum toxin type A and low dose of human monoclonal antibodies compared to placebo. There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the impact of topiramate in chronic migraine patients with medication overuse headache.InterpretationBotulinum toxin type A and human monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor were beneficial in reducing monthly migraine days and ≥50% response rate, but uncertainties remained for Botulinum toxin type A regarding response rate. The effect size for human monoclonal antibodies was greater with relatively lower drop-out rate. High-quality randomized trials are required to evaluate the effect of topiramate in chronic migraine patients with medication overuse headache.

neurosciences,clinical neurology
Assessing the risk of stroke from neck manipulation: a systematic review

M. J. Haynes,K. Vincent,C. Fischhoff,A. P. Bremner,O. Lanlo,G. J. Hankey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2012.03004.x

IF: 2.6

2012-09-19

International Journal of Clinical Practice

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Strokes, typically involving vertebral artery dissection, can follow cervical spinal manipulative therapy, and these types of stroke occur rarely. There is disagreement about whether a strong association between neck manipulation and stroke exists. An earlier systematic review found two relevant studies of association that used controls, which also discussed the limitations of the two papers. Our systematic review updates the earlier review, and aims to determine whether conclusive evidence of a strong association exists.METHODS: PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews were followed, and the literature was searched using a strategy that included the terms 'neck manipulation' and 'stroke' from the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus and AMED databases. Citations were included if they met criteria such as being case-control studies, and dealt with neck manipulation and/or neck movement/positioning. Papers were scored for their quality, using similar criteria to the earlier review. For individual criteria, each study was assigned a full positive score if the criterion was satisfied completely.RESULTS: Four case-control studies and one case-control study, which included a case- crossover design, met the selection criteria, but all of them had at least three items in the quality assessment that failed to be completely positive. Two studies were assessed to be the most robustly designed, one indicating a strong association between stroke and various intensities of neck movement, including manipulation, and the other suggesting a much reduced relative association when using primary care practitioners' visits as controls. However, potential biases and confounders render the results inconclusive.CONCLUSION: Conclusive evidence is lacking for a strong association between neck manipulation and stroke, but is also absent for no association. Future studies of association will need to minimise potential biases and confounders, and ideally have sufficient numbers of cases to allow subgroup analysis for different types of neck manipulation and neck movement.

medicine, general & internal
Neuromodulation Techniques for Headache Management

Noora Reffat,Carolina Pusec,Scott Price,Mayank Gupta,Philippe Mavrocordatos,Alaa Abd Elsayed

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/life14020173

2024-01-24

Life

Abstract:This narrative review aims to summarize evidence regarding the current utilization and future applications of neuromodulation in patients with headaches, with special attention paid to migraine and chronic cluster headache. A search was conducted in PubMed in August of 2023 to survey the current literature on neuromodulation for the treatment of headache. In total, the search yielded 1989 results, which were further filtered to include only systematic reviews published between 2022 to 2023 to capture the most up-to-date and comprehensive research on this topic. The citation lists of these articles were reviewed to find additional research on neuromodulation and supplement the results presented in this paper with primary literature. Research on the use of neuromodulation for the treatment of headache has predominantly focused on four neuromodulation techniques: peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Outcome measures reported in this article include impact on migraine and headache frequency and/or pain intensity, adverse effects of the neuromodulation technique, and associated costs, when available. We found that neuromodulation has developed utility as an alternative treatment for both chronic cluster headaches and migraines, with a reduction in frequency and intensity of headache most elucidated from the articles mentioned in this review.

biology
Manipulation or mobilisation for neck pain

Anita Gross,Jordan Miller,Jonathan D'Sylva,Stephen J Burnie,Charles H Goldsmith,Nadine Graham,Ted Haines,Gert Brønfort,Jan L Hoving

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004249.pub3

2010-01-20

Abstract:Background: Manipulation and mobilisation are often used, either alone or combined with other treatment approaches, to treat neck pain. Objectives: To assess if manipulation or mobilisation improves pain, function/disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and global perceived effect in adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radicular findings. Search strategy: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 3) and MEDLINE, EMBASE, Manual Alternative and Natural Therapy, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were updated to July 2009. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials on manipulation or mobilisation. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Pooled relative risk and standardised mean differences (SMD) were calculated. Main results: We included 27 trials (1522 participants).Cervical Manipulation for subacute/chronic neck pain : Moderate quality evidence suggested manipulation and mobilisation produced similar effects on pain, function and patient satisfaction at intermediate-term follow-up. Low quality evidence showed manipulation alone compared to a control may provide short- term relief following one to four sessions (SMD pooled -0.90 (95%CI: -1.78 to -0.02)) and that nine or 12 sessions were superior to three for pain and disability in cervicogenic headache. Optimal technique and dose need to be determined.Thoracic Manipulation for acute/chronic neck pain : Low quality evidence supported thoracic manipulation as an additional therapy for pain reduction (NNT 7; 46.6% treatment advantage) and increased function (NNT 5; 40.6% treatment advantage) in acute pain and favoured a single session of thoracic manipulation for immediate pain reduction compared to placebo for chronic neck pain (NNT 5, 29% treatment advantage).Mobilisation for subacute/chronic neck pain: In addition to the evidence noted above, low quality evidence for subacute and chronic neck pain indicated that 1) a combination of Maitland mobilisation techniques was similar to acupuncture for immediate pain relief and increased function; 2) there was no difference between mobilisation and acupuncture as additional treatments for immediate pain relief and improved function; and 3) neural dynamic mobilisations may produce clinically important reduction of pain immediately post-treatment. Certain mobilisation techniques were superior. Authors' conclusions: Cervical manipulation and mobilisation produced similar changes. Either may provide immediate- or short-term change; no long-term data are available. Thoracic manipulation may improve pain and function. Optimal techniques and dose are unresolved. Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.

Spinal manipulations for migraine: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Evaluating Modern Therapeutic Interventions for Migraine Management: A Systematic Review

Myofascial Release for the Treatment of Tension-Type, Cervicogenic Headache or Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Adverse Events After Cervical Spinal Manipulation - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Effectiveness of musculoskeletal manipulations in patients with neck pain: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Effectiveness and safety of thoracic manipulation in the treatment of neck pain: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Manual joint mobilisation techniques, supervised physical activity, psychological treatment, acupuncture and patient education in migraine treatment. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Acupuncture vs. Pharmacological Prophylaxis of Migraine: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

An update on migraine

Cervical Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Headache Disorders: A Systematic Review

The effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy procedures for spine pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

The American Headache Society Consensus Statement: Update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice

The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature

A Review on Osteopathic Manipulation in Patients With Headache

Effectiveness and safety of manual therapy when compared with oral pain medications in patients with neck pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Therapeutic Effect of Acupuncture on Migraine

Effectiveness and safety of pharmacological prophylaxis for chronic migraine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Randomized controlled studies evaluating Topiramate, Botulinum toxin type A, and mABs targeting CGRP in patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse headache: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Assessing the risk of stroke from neck manipulation: a systematic review

Neuromodulation Techniques for Headache Management

Manipulation or mobilisation for neck pain