Feasibility of RCT on the Efficacy of the Osteopathic Consultation in Computer Users

August 3, 2020 updated by: Rui José Gomes de Pinho Santiago, Universidade do Porto

A Feasibility Study of a Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess the Efficacy of the Osteopathic Consultation on Neck-shoulder Pain in Computer Users

This study investigates the feasibility of conducting a large scale Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) to analyze the efficacy of the osteopathic consultation in reducing the intensity of pain and changing electromyographic activity in the musculature of the neck-shoulder region for the computer user's population.

Study Overview

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

30

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

      • Porto, Portugal, 4200-450
        • Labiomep

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years to 65 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Uses computer for over five hours daily, for over one year
  • Reports non-specific pain over the neck-shoulder region

Exclusion Criteria:

  • No neurologic signs or symptoms
  • No known pathology that could mask the reported pain
  • No knowledge or experience with osteopathy

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Osteopathic consultation
It consists of 1 session. Each osteopathic session is based on a structural evaluation and treatment tailored to the participant-specific complains
A consultation including case history taking, physical assessment, osteopathic manual treatment, exercise prescription, and postural advice.
Sham Comparator: Osteopathic sham consultation
Osteopathic Sham treatment was applied using manual contact on specific bony surfaces using very light pressure. The practitioner was counting the seconds up to 1 minute between the areas where to apply the light touch without any intention to treat or diagnose.
A sham treatment using light touch on bony structures, no diagnosis, advise or prescriptions
No Intervention: Usual Care
Participants will be on a waiting list, and meanwhile, they are advised to deal with their pain in the way they would, but without using any sort of Manual Therapy.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Differences in electrical activity during typing task using surface electromyography
Time Frame: baseline and after 2-4 days of the treatment
Surface electromyography (sEMG) was used to retrieve the electrical activity of the Upper Trapezius (UT) muscles. The electrical signal was normalized through the maximum isometric voluntary contraction (MIVC) and expressed as a percentage of MIVC. sEMG data will be collect at 4 different moments of the 15 minutes typing task. Electrodes placement, data collection and processing was performed according to SENIAM standards.
baseline and after 2-4 days of the treatment
Differences in Pressure-pain Threshold (PPT)
Time Frame: baseline and after 2-4 days of the treatment
A Digital Pressure Algometer (Wagner FORCE ONE FDIX 50', Wagner Instruments, Greenwich, CT, USA) was used on the trapezius muscle, superior fibers, both sides. The exact location on the muscles was defined as 2cm above the medial electrode, on the muscle fiber direction. During the collection of the PPT, the participant stopped the typing task and rested arms on the legs. The algometer pointer was placed perpendicular to the points marked for evaluation, and then, vertical compression force was applied. That force was increased continuously at a rate of 1 kg/cm2 until pain was reported. Measurements were made in the seating position, immediately before and after the writing task. To ensure the maximum reading was obtained, the C-Peak option of the device was enabled. Participants were instructed of the procedures in advance, and simulation on their forearm was performed before the data collection.
baseline and after 2-4 days of the treatment
Difference in the self-reported intensity of pain using the numerical rating scale (NRS)
Time Frame: baseline, after 2-4 days of the treatment and after 1 week of the treatment
This numeric scale, is used on its 11-point version. NRS represents a simple, 1-dimensional measuring instrument for the assessment of pain intensity (0 = no pain, 10 = unbearable pain). Participants were asked to visualize the quantity of pain they were experiencing at that precise moment over the shoulder-neck region, both sides.
baseline, after 2-4 days of the treatment and after 1 week of the treatment

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Satisfaction Level with the experience
Time Frame: 1 week after data collection for all participants.
This questionnaire aims at retrieving satisfaction levels with the recruitment and data collection processes. It was adapted from the one used by Pflugeisen et al., (2016).
1 week after data collection for all participants.

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: José Torres da Costa, Professor, Professor

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

September 17, 2019

Primary Completion (Actual)

February 12, 2020

Study Completion (Actual)

February 20, 2020

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

July 29, 2020

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 3, 2020

First Posted (Actual)

August 6, 2020

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

August 6, 2020

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 3, 2020

Last Verified

August 1, 2020

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • UPorto_DemSSO_RS

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Trapezius Muscle Strain

Clinical Trials on Osteopathic Consultation

3
Subscribe