Logo of chiroprBiomed Central Web Sitesearchmanuscript Submissionregistrationthis articleJournal Front Page
PMC full text:
Published online 2010 May 24. doi:  10.1186/1746-1340-18-9

Table 3

Participants obtaining 30% and 50% improvement in outcomes: odds ratio*

Improvement criterionSMT (n = 36)LM (n = 39)adjusted odds ratio
(95% CI)
P
Cervicogenic headache pain scale †
30%12 wk47%38%2.2 (0.8, 6.0).142
24 wk58%49%2.3 (0.8, 6.5).122
50%12 wk42%23%3.0 (1.1, 8.3).033
24 wk42%23%3.6 (1.3, 9.7).011
Cervicogenic headache number (in last 4 wk)
30%12 wk72%51%4.4 (1.3, 14.3).015
24 wk78%62%3.1 (0.9, 11.2).082
50%12 wk64%46%2.6 (0.9, 7.5).067
24 wk61%51%1.9 (0.7, 5.2).225
Cervicogenic headache disability scale †
30%12 wk64%51%2.0 (0.7, 5.7).193
24 wk61%64%0.9 (0.3, 2.4).803
50%12 wk64%36%3.8 (1.3, 11.0).014
24 wk56%38%2.2 (0.9, 5.9).102
SMT - spinal manipulative therapy; LM - light massage; NNT - number needed to treat

* Outcomes are presented for the 12-week (short-term) and 24-week (intermediate-term) follow-ups. The SMT and LM group percentages are unadjusted. Missing data were imputed except for five participants with no follow-up data. Odds ratios were adjusted for differences between groups in the baseline value of the outcome and all randomization variables. Ratios greater than 1.0 favor spinal manipulation.

† Modified Von Korff scale (scored from 0 to 100 points before dichotomization).