Panacea Index Logo

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Experimental integrative muscular movement technique enhances cervical range of motion in patients with chronic neck pain: a pilot study.

Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.)
April 1, 2015
Benjamin G Rohe et al. (5 authors)
Comparative StudyJournal ArticleRandomized Controlled TrialResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tHuman StudyClinical
Study Details

Study Goal

The researchers aimed to compare the efficacy of integrative muscular movement technique (IMMT) and Swedish massage on neck pain and cervical range of motion in women of occupational age.

Results Summary

IMMT significantly improved cervical range of motion in all measured movements and reduced pain more effectively than Swedish massage. The absolute change in pain was -1.75 units for IMMT compared to -0.3 units for Swedish massage.

Population

Women of occupational age with neck pain.

Effective Dosage

Eight 30-minute treatments over 4 weeks.

Duration

4 weeks

Interactions

None mentioned

Extracted Claims (9)
InterventionDirectionEndpointPopulationDosageImpactClaim #
integrative muscular movement technique (IMMT)
increase
ROM in cervical flexion
women of occupation age
-
experienced a significant increase
#1
integrative muscular movement technique (IMMT)
increase
ROM in cervical extension
women of occupation age
-
experienced a significant increase
#2
integrative muscular movement technique (IMMT)
increase
ROM in cervical sidebending
women of occupation age
-
experienced a significant increase
#3
integrative muscular movement technique (IMMT)
increase
ROM in cervical rotation
women of occupation age
-
experienced a significant increase
#4
integrative muscular movement technique (IMMT)
decrease
pain
women of occupation age
-1.75 units
Absolute change in pain
#5
Swedish massage
decrease
pain
women of occupation age
-0.3 units
Absolute change in pain
#6
integrative muscular movement technique (IMMT)
increase
cervical ROM in every movement measured
patients with neck pain
-
demonstrated significantly improved
#7
integrative muscular movement technique (IMMT)
decrease
pain
patients with chronic neck pain
-
may lead to decreased
#8
integrative muscular movement technique (IMMT)
increase
cervical ROM
patients with chronic neck pain
-
may lead to increased
#9
Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Neck pain presents a tremendous physical and financial burden. This study compared the efficacy of the complementary and alternative medical treatments of integrative muscular movement technique (IMMT) and Swedish massage on neck pain in women of occupation age, the largest demographic group with neck pain. METHODS: A total of 38 women were assigned to IMMT (n=28) or Swedish massage (n=10) in a blinded manner. Both groups received eight 30-minute treatments over 4 weeks. Cervical range of motion (ROM) in flexion, extension, sidebending, and rotation was measured before and after treatment. Each patient's pain was assessed by using an analogue pain scale of 0-10. RESULTS: Compared with the Swedish massage group, patients receiving IMMT experienced a significant increase in ROM in cervical flexion (p<0.001), extension (p<0.001), sidebending (p<0.05), and rotation (p<0.001). Absolute change in pain for IMMT was -1.75 units compared with -0.3 units for Swedish massage (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving the IMMT demonstrated significantly improved cervical ROM in every movement measured compared with Swedish massage. Inclusion of the IMMT in a treatment regimen for chronic neck pain may lead to decreased pain and increased cervical ROM. These positive effects of the IMMT intervention may have a role in enhancing functional outcomes in patients with neck pain.

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
AdultCervical VertebraeChronic PainExercise TherapyFemaleHumansMassageMiddle AgedMovementNeckNeck PainPain MeasurementPilot ProjectsRange of Motion, ArticularRotationTherapy, Soft TissueTreatment OutcomeYoung Adult
Study Links
Quality Scores
SafetyNot Assessed
Efficacy85/10
Quality75/10
Citation Metrics
Total Citations7
Citations/Year0.7
Relative Citation Ratio0.48
NIH Percentile25.8%
Research Impact Scores
APT Score0.25
Weight Score1.55
Normalized Score0.69
Related Supplements