STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of cervical spine thrust manipulation and Kinesiotaping applied to the neck on self-reported pain and disability, and cervical range of motion in individuals with mechanical neck pain. BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of cervical manipulation has received considerable attention in the literature. However, because some patients cannot tolerate cervical thrust manipulations, alternative therapeutic options should be investigated. METHODS: Eighty patients (36 females) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: the manipulative group received 2 cervical thrust manipulations, whereas the tape group received Kinesiotaping applied to the neck. Neck pain (11-point numeric pain rating scale), disability (Neck Disability Index), and cervical range of motion data were collected at baseline and 1 week after the intervention by an assessor blinded to the treatment allocation of the patients. Mixed-model ANOVAs were used to examine the effects of the treatment on each outcome variable with group as the between-subject variable and time as the within-subject variable. The primary analysis was the group by time interaction. RESULTS: No significant group by time interactions were found for pain (F = 1.892; p = 0.447) or disability (F = 0.115; p = 0.736). The group by time interaction was statistically significant for right (F = 7.317, p = 0.008) and left (F = 9.525, p = 0.003) cervical rotation range of motion with the patients receiving the cervical thrust manipulation experiencing greater improvement in cervical rotation than those treated with Kinesiotape (p < 0.01). No significant group by time interactions were found for cervical spine range of motion for flexion (F = 0.944; p = 0.334), extension (F = 0.122; p = 0.728), and right (F = 0.220; p = 0.650) and left (F = 0.389, p = 0.535) lateral-flexion. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with mechanical neck pain receiving cervical thrust manipulation or treated with Kinesiotaping exhibited similar reductions in neck pain intensity and disability and similar changes in active cervical range of motion except for rotation. Changes in neck pain surpassed the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), whereas changes in disability did not. Changes in cervical range of motion were small and not clinically meaningful. Because we did not include a control or placebo group in this study, we cannot rule out placebo effect or natural changes over time as potential reasons for the improvements measured in both groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 1b.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help

• DOI
• PubMed
• PDF locator
• publisher