Gross range of motion in the cervical spine: The effects of osteopathic muscle energy technique in asymptomatic subjects

Journal of the American Osteopathic Association

Volumn 106, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 137-142

  Burns, Denise K ^a   Wells, Michael R ^a  

^a NEW YORK INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HYPERTONIC SOLUTION;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CERVICAL SPINE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ENERGY EXPENDITURE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MUSCLE CONTRACTION; MUSCLE ISOMETRIC CONTRACTION; OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE; RANGE OF MOTION; SPINE DISEASE;

ADULT; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MANIPULATION, OSTEOPATHIC; MIDDLE AGED; MUSCLE, SKELETAL; PHYSICAL STIMULATION; PROBABILITY; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; REFERENCE VALUES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPINAL DISEASES;

EID: 33645550964     PISSN: 00986151     EISSN: 00986151     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Glossary Review Committee, for the Educational Council on Osteopathic Principles and the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine. Glossary of Osteopathic Terminology. April 2002. Available at: http://www.doonline.osteotech.org/pdf/sir_collegegloss.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2005.
2. Mitchell FL. Structural pelvic function. In: Barnes MW, ed. Year Book 1958: Selected Osteopathic Papers. Carmel, Calif: Academy of Applied Osteopathy; 1958:71-90.
3. Mitchell FL. The Muscle Energy Manual: Concepts and Mechanisms, the Musculo Skeletal Screen, Cervical Region Evaluation and Treatment. East Lansing, Mich: MET Press; 1995.
4. Ehrenfeuchter WC. Muscle Energy Techniques. Indianapolis, Ind: American Academy of Osteopathy; 2000.
5. Ernst E. Does spinal manipulation have specific treatment effects [review]? Fam Pract. 2000;17:554-556. Available at: http://fampra. oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/17/6/554. Accessed October 28, 2005.
6. Cassidy JD, Lopes AA, Yong-Hing K. The immediate effect of manipulation versus mobilization on pain and range of motion in the cervical spine: a randomized controlled trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1992;15:570-575.
7. Grimshaw DN. Cervicogenic headache: manual and manipulative therapies [review]. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2001;5:369-375.
8. Luckenbill-Edds L, Bechill GB. Nerve compression syndromes as models for research on osteopathic manipulative treatment [review]. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1995;95:319-326.
9. Cassidy JD, Quon JA, LaFrance LJ, Yong-Hing K. The effect of manipulation on pain and range of motion in the cervical spine: a pilot study [published correction in: J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1992;15(9)]. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1992;15:495-500.
10. Dabbs V, Lauretti WJ. A risk assessment of cervical manipulation vs. NSAIDs for the treatment of neck pain [review]. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1995;18:530-536.
11. Goodridge JP. Muscle energy technique: definition, explanation, methods of procedure. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1981;81:249-254.
12. Haldeman S, Kohlbeck FJ, McGregor M. Unpredictability of cerebrovascular ischemia associated with cervical spine manipulation therapy: a review of sixty-four cases after cervical spine manipulation [review]. Spine. 2002;27:49-55.
13. Nilsson N, Christensen HW, Hartvigsen J. Lasting changes in passive range motion after spinal manipulation: a randomized, blind, controlled trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1996;19:165-168.