Study: No benefit conferred from manual therapy on acute wry neck at 20 year follow up
Results of a long awaited 20 year longitudinal cohort study have been published in the March issue of the Journal of Independence & Self-Efficacy. The trial investigated the effect of manual therapy treatment on a cohort of patients suffering an “acute wry neck”. Researchers measured participant pain and neck function scores at regular intervals from the commencement of treatment through to a final 20 year follow up interval.
As the title of the paper indicates, no benefit was conferred from manual therapy on acute wry neck at a 20 year follow interval. Interestingly, the results do indicate a significant benefit from manual therapy during the days and weeks following the onset of an “acute wry neck”. The control group reported higher pain scores and a slower return to normal function in the four weeks following commencement of treatment. The Good Health Tribune spoke with the study’s lead author, Professor Frankie McTouche, who provided us with a more in depth breakdown of the data.
“Yes, you’re correct to point out that the data demonstrates a clear benefit from manual therapy in the early days and weeks following an acute episode of neck pain. But it is crucial that we look at how the data trends over time. When we compare these groups 20 years after the fact, we see no benefit from the application of manual therapy” explained Professor McTouche. “I’m sure you’ll agree that there’s not much point feeling better now if you’re no better off in 20 years time, right? So based on our data and a splash of unconscious bias, it’s our recommendation that manual therapy is, at best, of little value to patients suffering an acute wry neck.
Our reporter politely pressed the Professor on this point, querying why observed benefits in the short term did not inform the study’s conclusions and recommendations.
“Ah, well you see. The value of those observed improvements in pain and function at those early follow up intervals must be weighed against the hypothesised risk that the very interventions that led to the observed improvements, actually cause patients to suffer an irreparable loss of self-efficacy that dooms them to a life of health seeking behaviours and dependency on the healthcare system”.
When asked if he was aware of research that had been carried out to test the hypothesis that patient self-efficacy is so fragile, he replied “I don’t think we need to bother. I think it’s sufficient to simply downplay the value of manual therapy in these and all other contexts, while continuing a disproportionate emphasis on the idea that patients are incapable of receiving manual therapy without crumbling in a pile of healthcare dependency”.
