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; Nasrin Bharti; Ahmad H Alghadir; Amir Iqbal; Naiyer Shahzad; Abeer R Ibrahim

doi:10.1155/2023/1799005

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

Pain Res Manag. 2023 Aug 14:2023:1799005. doi: 10.1155/2023/1799005. eCollection 2023.

Authors

Shahnaz Hasan¹, Nasrin Bharti², Ahmad H Alghadir³, Amir Iqbal³, Naiyer Shahzad⁴, Abeer R Ibrahim^{5

6}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Physical Therapy and Health Rehabilitation, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Majmaah University, Al-Majmaah 11952, Saudi Arabia.
² Department of Physiotherapy, Buddha Paramedical College, GIDA, Gorakhpur, UP 273209, India.
³ Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11433, Saudi Arabia.
⁴ Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Medicine, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah 21955, Saudi Arabia.
⁵ Department of Physiotherapy, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah 21955, Saudi Arabia.
⁶ Department of Basic Science, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Cairo University, Giza 12613, Egypt.

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).

Publication types

Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Biofeedback, Psychology
Headache
Humans
Muscle, Skeletal
Musculoskeletal Manipulations*
Pain
Post-Traumatic Headache*
Resistance Training*

Associated data

ClinicalTrials.gov/NCT05692232