Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2023 Aug 14:2023:1799005.
doi: 10.1155/2023/1799005. eCollection 2023.

The Efficacy of Manual Therapy and Pressure Biofeedback-Guided Deep Cervical Flexor Muscle Strength Training on Pain and Functional Limitations in Individuals with Cervicogenic Headaches: A Randomized Comparative Study

Shahnaz Hasan  1 , Nasrin Bharti  2 , Ahmad H Alghadir  3 , Amir Iqbal  3 , Naiyer Shahzad  4 , Abeer R Ibrahim  5   6
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

The Efficacy of Manual Therapy and Pressure Biofeedback-Guided Deep Cervical Flexor Muscle Strength Training on Pain and Functional Limitations in Individuals with Cervicogenic Headaches: A Randomized Comparative Study

Shahnaz Hasan et al. Pain Res Manag. .

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of manual therapy and pressure biofeedback-guided DCFM strength training on pain intensity and functional limitations in individuals with CGH. Trial Design. A double-blinded, two-arm parallel group randomized comparative design.

Methods: After applying the eligibility criteria, sixty out of eighty-nine CGH patients were recruited from King Saud University Medical Center in Riyadh and randomly allocated to intervention groups using simple random sampling. Group 1 underwent pressure biofeedback-guided DCFM strength training and conventional treatment, while Group 2 received manual therapy and conventional treatment for three consecutive weeks. The main outcome measures were scores on the visual analog scale (VAS) and the headache disability index (HDI). One assessor and two physical therapists were blinded to group allocation.

Results: Sixty out of eighty participants aged 29-40 years were randomized into intervention groups (n = 30/group; age (mean ± standard deviation): group 1 = 35.0 ± 2.82; group 2 = 34.87 ± 2.60), and their data were analyzed. A significant improvement (95% CI, p < 0.05) was observed within each group when comparing the VAS and HDI scores between baseline and postintervention. In contrast, between-group comparisons for the outcome score of VAS and HDI revealed nonsignificant differences in the first, second, and third weeks after intervention, except for the VAS score, which showed a significant difference in weeks 2 and 3 after intervention. Cohen's d-value indicated that the intervention effect size for reducing pain was larger in group 1 than in group 2 at weeks 2 and 3.

Conclusion: Compared with manual therapy, pressure biofeedback-guided DCFM strength training showed a greater reduction in pain intensity (assessed using the VAS) at weeks two and three. However, both treatments were equally effective in lowering headache-related functional limitations in patients with CGH. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrial.gov PRS (Identifier ID: NCT05692232).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A CONSORT (2010) flow diagram shows the study procedures, such as participant enrollment, randomization, group allocation, intervention received, follow-up, and analysis.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The participants' demographic characteristics mean and standard deviation scores within each group (1 vs. 2).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of the VAS mean scores between groups (1 vs. 2) at multiple time points.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Comparison of the HDI mean scores between groups (1 vs. 2) at multiple time points.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Biondi D. M. Cervicogenic headache: a review of diagnostic and treatment strategies. Journal of the American Osteopathic Association . 2005;105(4 Suppl 2):16–22. - PubMed
    1. Shahid A., Shahzad T., Zaheer M., et al. Cervicogenic headache: diagnostic evaluation and outcomes of various physiotherapy modes. Annals of Medical and Health Sciences Research . 2022;15
    1. Knackstedt H., Bansevicius D., Aaseth K., Grande R. B., Lundqvist C., Russell M. B. Cervicogenic headache in the general population: the Akershus study of chronic headache. Cephalalgia . 2010;30(12):1468–1476. doi: 10.1177/0333102410368442. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Antonaci F., Sjaastad O. Cervicogenic headache: a real headache. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports . 2011;11(2):149–155. doi: 10.1007/s11910-010-0164-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bovim G., Berg R., Dale L. G. Cervicogenic headache: anesthetic blockades of cervical nerves (C2-C5) and facet joint (C2/C3) Pain . 1992;49(3):315–320. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(92)90237-6. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources