4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Neck-specific strengthening exercise compared with placebo sham ultrasound in patients with migraine: a randomized controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Migraine patients have musculoskeletal disorders and pain in the cervical. And, despite the pathophysiology demonstrating the relationship between migraine and the cervical spine, the effectiveness of craniocervical exercises in these patients has not been verified. So, the aimed of this study was verify the effectiveness of craniocervical muscle-strengthening exercise (CMSE) in reducing the frequency and intensity of headache in migraine patients. 

          Methods

          A two-armed, parallel-group randomized controlled trial with a 3-month follow-up was performed. For eight weeks, the volunteers in the intervention group ( n = 21) performed a protocol of CMSE, while those in the sham ultrasound group ( n = 21) received the application of disconnected therapeutic ultrasound in the upper trapezius and guideline for home-stretching. The primary outcomes were the frequency and intensity of the headache. The secondary outcomes were questionnaires about migraine and neck disability, and satisfaction with the treatment, cervical range of motion, the pressure pain threshold, craniocervical flexion test (CCFT), cervical muscle strength and endurance test, and the cervical muscle activity during the physical tests.

          Results

          No differences were observed for the changes observed in primary outcomes after eight weeks and at the 3-months follow up ( p > 0.05). For the secondary outcomes, craniocervical exercises improved the sensitivity of the frontal muscle ( p = 0.040) and promoted a reduced amplitude of muscle activity of the anterior scalene and upper trapezius in the last stages of CCFT ( p ≤ 0.010). There was also reduced muscle activity of the anterior scalene and splenius capitis in the endurance test ( p ≤ 0.045), as evaluated by surface electromyography.

          Conclusion

          CMSE were insufficient in reducing the frequency and intensity of headache, improving the performance of the cervical muscles, or reducing migraine and neck pain-related disabilities. This was found despite a decreased electromyographic activity of the cervical muscles during the last stages of CCFT and increased median frequency during the endurance test.

          Trial registration

          Accession code RBR-8gfv5j, registered 28/11/2016 in the Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos (ReBEC).

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12883-022-02650-0.

          Related collections

          Most cited references57

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS) The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition

          (2018)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            CONSORT Statement for Randomized Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatments: A 2017 Update and a CONSORT Extension for Nonpharmacologic Trial Abstracts.

            Incomplete and inadequate reporting is an avoidable waste that reduces the usefulness of research. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement is an evidence-based reporting guideline that aims to improve research transparency and reduce waste. In 2008, the CONSORT Group developed an extension to the original statement that addressed methodological issues specific to trials of nonpharmacologic treatments (NPTs), such as surgery, rehabilitation, or psychotherapy. This article describes an update of that extension and presents an extension for reporting abstracts of NPT trials. To develop these materials, the authors reviewed pertinent literature published up to July 2016; surveyed authors of NPT trials; and conducted a consensus meeting with editors, trialists, and methodologists. Changes to the CONSORT Statement extension for NPT trials include wording modifications to improve readers' understanding and the addition of 3 new items. These items address whether and how adherence of participants to interventions is assessed or enhanced, description of attempts to limit bias if blinding is not possible, and specification of the delay between randomization and initiation of the intervention. The CONSORT extension for abstracts of NPT trials includes 2 new items that were not specified in the original CONSORT Statement for abstracts. The first addresses reporting of eligibility criteria for centers where the intervention is performed and for care providers. The second addresses reporting of important changes to the intervention versus what was planned. Both the updated CONSORT extension for NPT trials and the CONSORT extension for NPT trial abstracts should help authors, editors, and peer reviewers improve the transparency of NPT trial reports.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods

              The measurement of subjective pain intensity continues to be important to both researchers and clinicians. Although several scales are currently used to assess the intensity construct, it remains unclear which of these provides the most precise, replicable, and predictively valid measure. Five criteria for judging intensity scales have been considered in previous research: ease of administration of scoring; relative rates of incorrect responding; sensitivity as defined by the number of available response categories; sensitivity as defined by statistical power; and the magnitude of the relationship between each scale and a linear combination of pain intensity indices. In order to judge commonly used pain intensity measures, 75 chronic pain patients were asked to rate 4 kinds of pain (present, least, most, and average) using 6 scales. The utility and validity of the scales was judged using the criteria listed above. The results indicate that, for the present sample, the scales yield similar results in terms of the number of subjects who respond correctly to them and their predictive validity. However, when considering the remaining 3 criteria, the 101-point numerical rating scale appears to be the most practical index.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                mariana.benatto@gmail.com
                Journal
                BMC Neurol
                BMC Neurol
                BMC Neurology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2377
                2 April 2022
                2 April 2022
                2022
                : 22
                : 126
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.11899.38, ISNI 0000 0004 1937 0722, Department of Health Sciences, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, , University of São Paulo, ; Ribeirão Preto, SP Brazil
                [2 ]GRID grid.28479.30, ISNI 0000 0001 2206 5938, Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, , Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, ; Alcorcón, Spain
                [3 ]GRID grid.11899.38, ISNI 0000 0004 1937 0722, Department of Neurosciences and Behavioral Sciences, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, , University of São Paulo, ; Ribeirão Preto, SP Brazil
                Article
                2650
                10.1186/s12883-022-02650-0
                8976325
                34979972
                a2b8efaf-4f17-4015-814b-50a829bc9b6e
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 18 January 2022
                : 21 March 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Neurology
                migraine disorders,neck pain,craniocervical exercises,electromyography
                Neurology
                migraine disorders, neck pain, craniocervical exercises, electromyography

                Comments

                Comment on this article