Does focus of attention alter craniocervical flexion test motor learning? A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of three different foci of attention (internal, external and mixed) on motor learning using craniocervical flexion test in inexperienced participants. METHODS: Ninety healthy young adults, with no experience in the task, practiced the craniocervical flexion test under three different focus of attention: a) Mixed Focus (internal plus external), b) Internal Focus, and c) External Focus. We assessed immediate, post-training, and retention (one week after the last training session) aspects of motor learning by quantifying (i) the activity of the superficial cervical flexors muscles, (ii) craniocervical range of motion, and (iii) the performance on the craniocervical flexion test. RESULTS: None of the groups showed any significant immediate, post-training, or retention effects on superficial neck flexors activity and craniocervical range of motion progression. At immediate assessment, mixed focus had greater craniocervical flexion performance than external (MD 0.9, 95%CI 0.2 to 1.5), and internal foci (MD 1.4, 95%CI 0.8 to 2.1). At post-training, mixed focus led to better craniocervical performance compared to external (MD 1.6, 95%CI 0.8 to 2.4) and internal foci (MD 2.7, 95%CI 1.9 to 3.5). External focus had better scores on the craniocervical flexion test performance than internal focus (MD 1.1, 95%CI 0.3 to 1.9). Results remained similar at retention, with mixed focus being superior to internal (MD 2.3, 95%CI 1.7 to 3) and external foci (MD 1.5, 95%CI 0.9 to 2.1) on craniocervical flexion test performance. Similarly, the performance on the craniocervical flexion test performance remained similar at retention between external and internal foci (MD 0.9, 95%CI 0.2 to 1.5). CONCLUSION: In inexperienced asymptomatic participants, different foci of attention were not able to change cervical muscle activity and craniocervical range of motion during the craniocervical flexion test. Mixed focus was better than external and internal focus on the craniocervical flexion test. These findings were retained after one week.

Dry Needling Combined With Guideline-Based Physical Therapy Provides No Added Benefit in the Management of Chronic Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the added benefit of combining dry needling with a guideline-based physical therapy treatment program consisting of exercise and manual therapy on pain and disability in people with chronic neck pain. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Participants were randomized to receive either guideline-based physical therapy or guideline-based physical therapy plus dry needling. The primary outcomes, measured at 1 month post randomization, were average pain intensity in the previous 24 hours and previous week, measured with a numeric pain-rating scale (0-10), and disability, measured with the Neck Disability Index (0-100). The secondary outcomes were pain and disability measured at 3 and 6 months post randomization and global perceived effect, quality of sleep, pain catastrophizing, and self-efficacy measured at 1, 3, and 6 months post randomization. RESULTS: One hundred sixteen participants were recruited. At 1 month post randomization, people who received guideline-based physical therapy plus dry needling had a small reduction in average pain intensity in the previous 24 hours (mean difference, 1.56 points; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11, 2.36) and in the previous week (mean difference, 1.20 points; 95% CI: 1.02, 2.21). There was no effect of adding dry needling to guideline-based physical therapy on disability at 1 month post randomization (mean difference, -2.08 points; 95% CI: -3.01, 5.07). There was no effect for any of the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: When combined with guideline-based physical therapy for neck pain, dry needling resulted in small improvements in pain only at 1 month post randomization. There was no effect on disability. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(8):447-454. Epub 9 Apr 2020. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.9389.