Effects of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment on Neuromuscular Control of the Head-neck System

NCT02261259 — Not applicable, Completed, 154 participants, Michigan State University

ClinicalTrials Daily  ·  Areas  ·  Conditions  ·  Drugs  ·  Sponsors  ·  
RegistryNCT02261259
StatusCompleted
PhaseNot applicable
Study typeInterventional; randomized, crossover, masking: triple, basic science
Enrollment154 (Actual)
SponsorMichigan State University (Other); collaborators: National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH)
ConditionsNeck Pain
InterventionsOsteopathic manipulative treatment, No intervention (Procedure, other)
Datesstart 2014-06-26, primary completion 2017-11-13, completion 2017-11-13, first posted 2014-10-10, last updated 2026-10-20
Locations3 sites in United States

Related Papers Related Patents Related Grants Related Experts
All trials for Neck Pain All trials of Osteopathic manipulative treatment All trials of No intervention

-Summary

The overall goal of this project is to develop sensitive and objective clinical research tools for the assessment of head-neck motor control. In order to accomplish this goal, the investigators aim to quantify changes in head-neck motor control before and after osteopathic manipulative treatment. The investigators hypothesize that head-neck motor control will improve in neck pain participants after 4-weeks of treatment. Additionally, the investigators will compare position and force head-neck motor control between healthy controls and neck pain patients. The investigators hypothesize that baseline tests of position and force head-neck motor control will be better in healthy individuals than neck pain patients.

Expand all sections  ·  Collapse all

+Arms and interventions

ArmTypeInterventionsDescription
OMT first, then No interventionExperimentalProcedure: Osteopathic manipulative treatment; Other: No interventionThis arm received osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) for approximately 4 weeks (once per week), then received no intervention after for approximately 4 weeks.
No intervention, then OMTExperimentalProcedure: Osteopathic manipulative treatment; Other: No interventionThis arm received no intervention after for approximately 4 weeks, then received osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) for approximately 4 weeks (once per week).
Healthy control (no neck pain)No interventionIn this arm, healthy controls are tested at baseline.
  • Osteopathic manipulative treatment (Procedure): Up to 4 sessions of osteopathic manipulative treatment (once per week)
  • No intervention (Other): No interventions for approximately 4 weeks

+Outcome measures

Primary outcomes

  • Head Position Tracking Accuracy (Flexion/Extension) [Measurements from Baseline, Week 4 and Week 8]: Participants will be seated in an upright position with their upper body secured to a backrest and will wear a head harness with an attached position sensor. The angular position of the head will be displayed on a monitor 1 meter in front of the participants and they will be asked to follow a moving target by moving their head. Accuracy will be determined by taking the difference between the target position signal and the actual head position (root mean square error measured in degrees with string potentiometers).
  • Head Force Tracking Accuracy [Baseline, Week 4, and Week 8]: Participants will be seated in an upright position with their upper body secured to a backrest and will be asked to generate force with their head against a fixed pad. The pad will be attached to a load cell that monitors how much force is being generated by their head. The force level will be displayed on a monitor 1 meter in front of the participants and they will be asked to follow a moving target by generating force with their head. Accuracy will be determined by taking the difference between target force signal and the actual head force (measured in Newtons with the load cell).
  • Head Position Stabilization Accuracy [Baseline, Week 4, and Week 8]: Participants will be sitting upright in a seat mounted to a robotic platform (Mikrolar Hexapod Robot) with their upper body secured to a backrest and will wear a head harness with an attached position sensor. The robotic platform will provide an angular perturbation to the participant about the cervical spine in the sagittal plane while the participant is asked to maintain (stabilize) their head position in the upright posture with their eyes open. Accuracy will be determined by measuring the amount of head displacement (measured in degrees with string potentiometers) during the perturbation trial.
  • Neck Force Variability [Baseline, Week 4 (crossover), Week 8]: Participants will be seated in an upright position with their upper body secured to a backrest and will be asked to generate force with their head against a fixed pad. They will be asked to performed 6-seconds isometric exertions in different directions. Measured forces are converted to moments (in Newton meters), and standard deviation of the moments are reported for flexion and extension. Larger the number in the variability indicates worse performance.
  • Neck Muscle Activation Directionality [Baseline, Week 4 (crossover), Week 8]: Participants will be seated in an upright position with their upper body secured to a backrest and will be asked to generate force with their head against a fixed pad. They will be asked to performed 6-seconds isometric exertions in different directions. Surface EMG will be recorded from the sternocliedomastoid (SCM), splenius capitis (SPC), and upper trapezius (UT) muscles. Muscle directionality will be determined from the EMG magnitude in each direction of exertion and represented as specificity index. Specificity index ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates no muscle activity and 1 indicates the highest muscle activity. Higher number indicates worst outcome.

Secondary outcomes

  • Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) [Measurements from Baseline and Week 4 (crossover point)]: Assesses weekly changes in physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep, satisfaction with social role, and pain with PROMIS-29 questionnaire.
  • Change in Concomitant Medication [Baseline, Week 4, Week 8]: Assesses weekly changes in the use of medication with a questionnaire. Patients were asked to report medications used within the past 7 days.
  • Change in Neck Disability [Measurements from Baseline, Week 4 (crossover point), and Week 8]: Assesses weekly changes in functional activities related to neck disability with the Neck Disability Index questionnaire.
  • Change in Fear Avoidance Behavior [Measurements from Baseline, Week 4 (crossover point), and Week 8]: Assesses weekly changes in fear avoidance behavior using the Fear Avoidance Beliefs questionnaire, assessing effects of fear-avoidance beliefs about physical activity and work. Patients rated statements on a scale from 0 (completely disagree) to 6 (completely agree). Scores are then summed for each category: "Physical activity" (total of 4 statements, ranges from 0 to 24), and "Work" (total of 7 statements ranges from 0 to 42). Higher scores indicate stronger fear-avoidance belief (i.e. worse outcome).

+Eligibility

Sex: All, ages: 21 Years to 65 Years, accepts healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

All participants must meet all of the inclusion criteria to participate in the study. Below is a list of inclusion criteria for ALL participants:

* Age 21-65 years
* Independently ambulatory
* Able to speak and read English
* Able to understand study procedures and to comply with them for the entire length of the study.

Below is an additional list of inclusion criteria for NECK PAIN participants:

* Willing to be randomized to either immediate or delayed treatment group.
* Musculoskeletal pain - primarily in the cervical region lasting longer than 3 months
* Pain rating greater than or equal to 3 out of 10 as indicated on the Numeric Rating Scale for Pain
* Neck Disability greater than or equal to 30% as indicated on the Neck Disability Index

Exclusion Criteria:

All candidates meeting any of the exclusion criteria at baseline will be excluded from study participation. Exclusion criteria will be self-reported. However, during each treatment session, the physicians will be watching for clinical signs and symptoms not consistent with physical findings that are suggestive of the presence of any of the exclusion criteria. In such a case, further treatment will be discontinued and the subject will be excluded.

Below is a list of exclusion criteria for ALL participants:

* Inability or unwillingness of individual to give written informed consent.
* Physical therapy or any other form of manual medicine (e.g., Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine, Chiropractic Manipulation, etc.), acupuncture or spinal injections within one month prior to study enrollment
* Workers' compensation benefits in the past 3 months or ongoing medical legal issues
* Possibly pregnant
* Extreme obesity (BMI>36)
* Currently using electrical implants (e.g., cardiac pacemakers, drug delivery pumps, etc.)

History of:

* Spinal surgery
* Spinal fracture
* Spinal infection (e.g., osteomyelitis)
* Cancer

Unresolved symptoms from:

* Head trauma
* Inner ear infection with associated balance and coordination problems
* Orthostatic hypotension
* Uncontrolled hypertension
* Vestibular disorder (e.g. vertigo)

Current diagnosis of:

* Significant spinal deformity (e.g., scoliosis > 20 degrees, torticollis)
* Ankylosing spondylitis
* Spondylolisthesis grades III or IV
* Rheumatoid arthritis
* Osteoporosis
* Angina or congestive heart failure symptoms
* Active bleeding or infection in the back
* Blindness
* Seizures
* Neurologic disease (e.g., Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, Alzheimer's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, stroke or transient ischemic attack in the past year, cervical dystonia)

Conditions recognized by a physician any time during the study:

* Significant or worsening signs of neurologic deficit
* Symptoms are not consistent with mechanical findings
* Other conditions impeding protocol implementation

Below is an additional exclusion criterion for healthy control participants:

• Based on the minimal clinically important difference of 2 points (Childs et al., 2005), "healthy controls" with 2 points or greater pain on NRS will not be eligible to participate.

+Posted results

Participant flow

MilestoneOMT First, Then No InterventionNo Intervention, Then OMTHealthy Control (no Neck Pain)
Started494841
Visit 1 - patient reported outcome (baseline)444340
Visit 1 - biomechanical testing (baseline)413940
Visit 2 - patient reported outcome (cross over)38370
Visit 2 - biomechanical testing (cross over)37370
Visit 3 - patient reported outcome37370
Visit 3 - biomechanical testing37370
Completed373740
Not completed12111

Outcome results

  • Head Position Tracking Accuracy (Flexion/Extension) (Primary), Mean, Degrees: OMT First, Then No Intervention 1.2104 +/- 0.0641; No Intervention, Then OMT 1.2306 +/- 0.0746; Healthy Control (no Neck Pain) 1.2108 +/- 0.0579 (p 0.118)
  • Head Force Tracking Accuracy (Primary), Mean, Newtons: OMT First, Then No Intervention 1.2186 +/- 0.0750; No Intervention, Then OMT 1.2601 +/- 0.1187; Healthy Control (no Neck Pain) 1.1930 +/- 0.0527 (p 0.539)
  • Head Position Stabilization Accuracy (Primary), Mean, Degrees: OMT First, Then No Intervention 1.5560 +/- 0.4951; No Intervention, Then OMT 1.7926 +/- 0.6542; Healthy Control (no Neck Pain) 1.6905 +/- 0.4729 (p 0.880)
  • Neck Force Variability (Primary), Mean, Nm: OMT First, Then No Intervention 0.1513 +/- 0.0884; No Intervention, Then OMT 0.2530 +/- 0.3718; Healthy Control (no Neck Pain) 0.1593 +/- 0.0831 (p 0.075)
  • Neck Muscle Activation Directionality (Primary), Mean, Units on a scale: OMT First, Then No Intervention 0.3863 +/- 0.1556; No Intervention, Then OMT 0.4476 +/- 0.1402; Healthy Control (no Neck Pain) 0.4786 +/- 0.1520 (p 0.297)
  • Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) (Secondary), Least squares mean, t-score: Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment (OMT) 57.04 +/- 0.84; No Intervention 56.97 +/- 0.85 (p 0.950)
  • Change in Concomitant Medication (Secondary), Mean, Number of medication: OMT First, Then No Intervention 2.2 +/- 2.6; No Intervention, Then OMT 1.9 +/- 2.6; Healthy Control (no Neck Pain) 0.7 +/- 1.1 (p 0.3183)
  • Change in Neck Disability (Secondary), Mean, % (out of 50): OMT First, Then No Intervention 34.6 +/- 9.7; No Intervention, Then OMT 37.5 +/- 9.1; Healthy Control (no Neck Pain) 1.9 +/- 3.2 (p 0.010)
  • Change in Fear Avoidance Behavior (Secondary), Mean, scores on a scale: OMT First, Then No Intervention 13.32 +/- 7.91; No Intervention, Then OMT 14.65 +/- 9.10; Healthy Control (no Neck Pain) 4.28 +/- 8.31 (p 0.896)

Adverse events

Time frame: Baseline-Week 8

ArmDeathsSerious adverse eventsOther adverse events
Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment (OMT)0/86 (0.0%)0/86 (0.0%)46/86 (53.5%)
No Intervention0/86 (0.0%)0/86 (0.0%)32/86 (37.2%)
Healthy Control (no Neck Pain)0/40 (0.0%)0/40 (0.0%)8/40 (20.0%)

Other adverse events by term

TermOrgan systemOsteopathic Manipulative Treatment (OMT)No InterventionHealthy Control (no Neck Pain)
Back painMusculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders8/861/860/40
ColdRespiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders6/864/860/40
MyalgiaMusculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders19/8610/864/40
Neck painMusculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders24/8613/863/40
Muscle fatigueMusculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders14/867/861/40
HeadahceNervous system disorders6/865/860/40

+Locations (3)

FacilityCityCountryStatus
MSU Osteopathic Manual MedicineEast Lansing, MichiganUnited States
MSU Musculoskeletal RehabilitationLansing, MichiganUnited States
Michigan State University Center for Orthopedic ResearchLansing, MichiganUnited States

+Publications

  • Reeves NP, Popovich JM Jr, Priess MC, Cholewicki J, Choi J, Radcliffe CJ. Reliability of assessing trunk motor control using position and force tracking and stabilization tasks. J Biomech. 2014 Jan 3;47(1):44-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.10.018. Epub 2013 Oct 22. PMID 24262851
  • Popovich JM Jr, Reeves NP, Priess MC, Cholewicki J, Choi J, Radcliffe CJ. Quantitative measures of sagittal plane head-neck control: a test-retest reliability study. J Biomech. 2015 Feb 5;48(3):549-54. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.11.023. Epub 2014 Nov 27. PMID 25553673
  • Ramadan A, Choi J, Cholewicki J, Reeves NP, Popovich JM, Radcliffe CJ. Feasibility of Incorporating Test-Retest Reliability and Model Diversity in Identification of Key Neuromuscular Pathways During Head Position Tracking. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2019 Feb;27(2):275-282. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2019.2891525. Epub 2019 Jan 10. PMID 30629508
  • Ramadan A, Boss C, Choi J, Peter Reeves N, Cholewicki J, Popovich JM Jr, Radcliffe CJ. Selecting Sensitive Parameter Subsets in Dynamical Models With Application to Biomechanical System Identification. J Biomech Eng. 2018 Jul 1;140(7):0745031-8. doi: 10.1115/1.4039677. PMID 29570752
  • Results publication: Cholewicki J, Popovich JM Jr, Reeves NP, DeStefano LA, Rowan JJ, Francisco TJ, Prokop LL, Zatkin MA, Lee AS, Sikorskii A, Pathak PK, Choi J, Radcliffe CJ, Ramadan A. The effects of osteopathic manipulative treatment on pain and disability in patients with chronic neck pain: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial. PM R. 2022 Dec;14(12):1417-1429. doi: 10.1002/pmrj.12732. Epub 2022 Jan 18. PMID 34719122

+Study documents

+Investigators

+Funding

NIH grants: U19AT006057