Shi-Style Cervical Mobilizations Versus Massage for Cervical Vertigo: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.

Objectives: Large sample and high-quality evidence to evaluate the preliminary safety of the mobilizations and massage for cervical vertigo are not yet available. Thus, the present study aimed to investigate the comparative effectiveness and preliminary safety of Shi-style cervical mobilizations (SCM) compared with traditional massage (TM) in cervical vertigo patients. Design: A prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled clinical trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio. Settings: Five academic medical centers. Subjects: A total of 360 adult patients with a diagnosis of cervical vertigo. Interventions: The patients were randomly allocated to either an SCM (n = 180) or TM (n = 180) group. The patients were treated during six sessions over 2 weeks. The primary outcome was the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) total scale score, and secondary outcomes included the DHI subscales, Chinese version of the Short-Form 36 Health Survey (CSF-36), and adverse events (AEs). Outcomes were assessed in the short term at 2 weeks, 1 month, and 3 months, and in the intermediate term at 6 months after randomization. Results: Significant changes were observed from the baseline in the DHI total scale and subscales at 2 weeks and 1, 3, and 6 months in both groups (all p < 0.05). However, the differences between the two groups were not significant (all p > 0.05). Furthermore, we noted significant changes from the baseline in SF-36 scores at 2 weeks in both groups (all p < 0.05), whereas CSF-36 scores were not significantly higher in the SCM group (all p > 0.05) compared with the TM group. No serious AEs were reported in either of the two groups. Conclusions: No differences in outcomes were detected between the SCM and TM groups in terms of treatment of cervicogenic dizziness. Efficacy trials are required to determine whether the improvement observed for each treatment was causally related to the interventions.

Shi-style cervical manipulations for cervical radiculopathy: A multicenter randomized-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of high-quality evidence supporting the use of manipulation therapy for patients with cervical radiculopathy (CR). This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of Shi-style cervical manipulations (SCMs) versus mechanical cervical traction (MCT) for CR. METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label, controlled trial carried out at 5 hospitals in patients with CR for at least 2 weeks and neck pain. The patients received 6 treatments of SCM (n = 179) or MCT (n = 180) over 2 weeks. The primary outcome was participant-rated disability (neck disability index), measured 2 weeks after randomization. The secondary outcomes were participant-rated pain (visual analog scale) and health-related quality of life (36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]). Assessments were performed before, during, and after (2, 4, 12, and 24 weeks) intervention. RESULTS: After 2 weeks of treatment, the SCM group showed a greater improvement in participant-rated disability compared with the control group (P = .018). The SCM group reported less disability compared with the control group (P < .001) during the 26-week follow-up. The difference was particularly important at 6 months (mean -28.91 ±â€Š16.43, P < .001). Significant improvements in SF-36 were noted in both groups after 2 weeks of treatment, but there were no differences between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: SCM could be a better option than MCT for the treatment of CR-related pain and disability.