↓ Skip to main content

Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for cervicogenic headache: a study protocol of a single-blinded placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for cervicogenic headache: a study protocol of a single-blinded placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial
Published in
SpringerPlus, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40064-015-1567-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aleksander Chaibi, Jūratė Šaltytė Benth, Peter J. Tuchin, Michael Bjørn Russell

Abstract

Cervicogenic headache (CEH) is a secondary headache which affects 1.0-4.6 % of the population. Although the costs are unknown, the health consequences are substantial for the individual; especially considering that they often suffers chronicity. Pharmacological management has no or only minor effect on CEH. Thus, we aim to assess the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) for CEH in a single-blinded placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial (RCT). According to the power calculations, we aim to recruit 120 participants to the RCT. Participants will be randomized into one of three groups; CSMT, placebo (sham manipulation) and control (usual non-manual management). The RCT consists of three stages: 1 month run-in, 3 months intervention and follow-up analyses at the end of intervention and 3, 6 and 12 months. Primary end-point is headache frequency, while headache duration, headache intensity, headache index (frequency × duration × intensity) and medicine consumption are secondary end-points. Primary analysis will assess a change in headache frequency from baseline to the end of intervention and to follow-up, where the groups CSMT and placebo and CSMT and control will be compared. Due to two group-comparisons, the results with p values below 0.025 will be considered statistically significant. For all secondary end-points and analyses, the significance level of 0.05 will be used. The results will be presented with the corresponding p values and 95 % confidence intervals. To our knowledge, this is the first prospective manual therapy three-armed single-blinded placebo-controlled RCT to be conducted for CEH. Current RCTs suggest efficacy in headache frequency, duration and intensity. However a firm conclusion requires clinical single-blinded placebo-controlled RCTs with few methodological shortcomings. The present study design adheres to the recommendations for pharmacological RCTs as far as possible and follows the recommended clinical trial guidelines by the International Headache Society. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01687881, 2 December 2012.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 24%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Researcher 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 20 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 23 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 October 2016.
All research outputs
#7,469,754
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#493
of 1,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,149
of 390,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#39
of 199 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,849 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 390,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 199 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.