Musculoskeletal Diseases
Conditions
Interventions
Sponsors
University of Johannesburg
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: In order to be included into the study, participants needed to comply with the following criteria: • Symptomatic males and females who have a forward head posture. Patients are considered to have a forward head posture when their head and cervical spine leans anteriorly to the plumb line that passes the lateral malleolus in sagittal view.9 • Participants between the ages of 18 and 50 years. These are the individuals who are most susceptible to developing a forward head posture due to continual studying positions, work positions and sleeping positions.10 Participants had to be suffering from tension-type headaches. The diagnostic criteria for tension-type headaches, according to the International Headache Society are:11 A) At least 10 previous headache episodes fulfilling criteria B through D. B) Headaches lasting anywhere from 30 minutes to seven days. C) At least two of the following characteristics: - A pressing or tightening (non-pulsating) quality around the head; - Mild to moderate intensity; - Bilateral location; and - No aggravation from walking stairs or similar routine activities. D) Absence of the following: - Nausea or vomiting; and - Phonophobia and photophobia; one may be present but not both.
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: Participants were excluded if they presented with the following: • Any known congenital anomalies that can result in a forward head posture e.g. wedge vertebrae. • Contraindication to cervical spine manipulative therapy. • History of cervical spine surgery. • Participants demonstrating a forward head posture but are asymptomatic for headaches. • Red flags of headaches
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| The primary outcome of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two different treatment approaches on the same condition. It was found that all three groups showed a clinical improvement but that spinal manipulations was more effective with pain relief and the soft tissue protocol was more effective with correcting posture. | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| A secondary outcome was to determine if a combination of the two would have an additive effect, this was found not to be the case. | — |
Countries
South Africa
Contacts
Public ContactChristopher Yelverton
Head of Department
Outcome results
None listed