Craig A. Wassinger, Dustin Rich, Nicholas Cameron, Shelley Clark, Scott Davenport, Maranda Lingelbach, Albert Smith, G. David Baxter, Joshua Davidson
Abstract
Emerging evidence suggests that cervical and thoracic joint manipulations may be advocated in treating patients with shoulder pain.
To determine the acute effects of cervical, cervicothoracic, and thoracic joint manipulations on outcomes of self-reported pain and pain pressure threshold in experimentally induced shoulder pain.
Repeated measures.
Twenty (20) healthy volunteers were tested on two sessions. Session 1 consisted on baseline assessment of pain pressure threshold testing over the infraspinatus bilaterally and self-reported shoulder pain using the shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI) pain scale. An isokinetic exercise protocol was used to induce delayed onset muscle soreness. In session 2 (24-48 h later), all variables were reassessed before and immediately after a combination of cervical, cervicothoracic and thoracic manipulations.
SPADI pain scale scores were significantly different between time points (p < 0.001): the exercise protocol significantly increased reported pain [mean increase 14.1, p < 0.001] while the manipulation significantly decreased reported pain (mean decrease 5.60, p < 0.001)) although pain remained higher than baseline levels. Pain pressure threshold differences were also found between time points (p = 0.001): manipulation significantly increased pain threshold bilaterally (p < 0.001) similar to baseline levels.
Cervical, cervicothoracic, and thoracic joint manipulations acutely increased pain pressure threshold and decreased self-reported shoulder pain in participants with experimentally induced shoulder pain. Physiotherapists may consider the combination of such techniques to achieve short-term hypoalgesic effects and facilitate the application of more active interventions.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 June 2018.
All research outputs
#4,168,784
of 27,781,301 outputs
Outputs from Manual Therapy
#165
of 560 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,936
of 281,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Manual Therapy
#7
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,781,301 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 560 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,969 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
