Unpublished MSc thesis, Michigan State University, 2011/01, 206. doi: 10.25335/M54Z1B, type of study: ,mms,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Free full text   (https://d.lib.msu.edu/etd/1213)

Keywords:

cervical spine [319]
diagnosis [412]
kinematics [17]
mixed method study [114]
OMT [3924]
osteopathic manipulative treatment [3945]
range of motion [116]

Abstract:

The purpose of this research was to evaluate the differences in motions within an examiner, across examiners and between active and passive motions using three-dimensional kinematic data collected during a standard manual cervical diagnostic. Additionally, kinematic differences before and after a manual treatment were evaluated for subjects experiencing pain. Kinematic data of healthy individuals (n=22) and individuals experiencing neck pain (n=19) were obtained using motion capture, and assessed through Euler angles. The motions from passive evaluations performed by two blinded osteopathic physicians as well as active motions performed independently by the subjects were analyzed. Analyses included cervical ranges of motion for lateral flexions (primary motion) and axial rotations (secondary motion), the rate at which lateral flexions were performed, and the root mean square error of multiple trials. Statistical evaluations demonstrated that diagnostic motions were performed consistently within an examiner but not across examiners, active range and rates of motion were greater than passive motions, healthy subjects performed motions more symmetrically and at larger ranges of motions than subjects experiencing neck pain, and the effects of treatment were present and reduced longitudinally.