|
|
|
|
|
Sponsored by: |
Parker College of Chiropractic |
Information provided by: | Parker College of Chiropractic |
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: | NCT00163124 |
There are a variety of treatment approaches used by the chiropractic profession. Some of these require forceful joint manipulation and some do not. This study is designed to compare outcomes of two such techniques that are common to chiropractic practice. The hypothesis is that there is no difference between forceful and non-forceful approaches to treatment.
Condition | Intervention |
Low Back Pain Headache Shoulder Pain |
Procedure: spinal manipulation & patient education/nutrition |
MedlinePlus related topics: | Back Pain |
Study Type: | Interventional |
Study Design: | Treatment, Randomized, Single Blind, Active Control, Factorial Assignment, Efficacy Study |
Official Title: | A Randomized Controlled Trial of Best Approach to Care Compared to Diversified Adjustive Technique |
Estimated Enrollment: | 155 |
Study Start Date: | March 2005 |
Estimated Study Completion Date: | August 2005 |
The comparison will permit a one month treatment period for both techniques and a three week follow-up. Patients will be assessed at baseline (intake), and at specified intervals and at three weeks following the termination of care.
Ages Eligible for Study: | 18 Years to 90 Years |
Genders Eligible for Study: | Both |
Accepts Healthy Volunteers: | No |
Inclusion Criteria:
chronic musculoskeletal pain ability to communicate in English
Exclusion Criteria:
pregnancy contraindications to manipulation pending litigation chiropractic care within the last month
United States, Texas | |||||
Parker College of Chiropractic | |||||
Dallas, Texas, United States, 75229 |
Parker College of Chiropractic |
Principal Investigator: | Cheryl Hawk, PhD DC | Parker College of Chiropractic |
Study ID Numbers: | PCC2005-003 |
First Received: | September 9, 2005 |
Last Updated: | September 12, 2005 |
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: | NCT00163124 |
Health Authority: | United States: Institutional Review Board |
|
|
|
|