Title |
The effectiveness of manual therapy in treating cervicogenic dizziness: a systematic review
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Physical Therapy Science, January 2018
|
DOI | 10.1589/jpts.30.96 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Khalid Yaseen, Paul Hendrick, Ayah Ismail, Mohannad Felemban, Mansour Abdullah Alshehri |
Abstract |
[Purpose] This review provides an evaluation of the evidence for the effectiveness of using manual therapy to treat cervicogenic dizziness. [Subjects and Methods] The literature was systematically searched on the May 2, 2016 using the following online databases: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDro. This review included randomised controlled trials and compared the efficacy of manual therapy for the treatment of cervicogenic dizziness, compared to other types of intervention. This study measured changes based on dizziness intensity and frequency. [Results] The primary search found 30 articles, but only four articles met the inclusion criteria. Assessment of methodological quality was performed by two researchers using the PEDro scale. The level of evidence was determined using a recognised grading scale. Three out of the four articles were deemed to have high methodological quality, while the fourth was rated as moderate quality. The attributed level of evidence was moderate (level 2). [Conclusion] Manual therapy is potentially effective for managing cervicogenic dizziness. However, due to the heterogeneity of the results and techniques and the low number of studies, further research is recommended to provide conclusive evidence. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Saudi Arabia | 7 | 23% |
United States | 4 | 13% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 6% |
Brazil | 1 | 3% |
Spain | 1 | 3% |
Israel | 1 | 3% |
Canada | 1 | 3% |
Japan | 1 | 3% |
Italy | 1 | 3% |
Other | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 11 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 24 | 77% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 13% |
Scientists | 2 | 6% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 112 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 18 | 16% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 10% |
Other | 10 | 9% |
Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 9% |
Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
Other | 18 | 16% |
Unknown | 36 | 32% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 24% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 24% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
Sports and Recreations | 4 | 4% |
Engineering | 2 | 2% |
Other | 7 | 6% |
Unknown | 41 | 37% |