@article{ref1,
title="Retrospective review: Effectiveness of cervical proprioception retraining for dizziness after mild traumatic brain injury in a military population with abnormal cervical proprioception",
journal="Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics",
year="2019",
author="Hammerle, Miriam and Swan, Alicia A. and Nelson, Jeremy T. and Treleaven, Julia M.",
volume="ePub",
number="ePub",
pages="ePub-ePub",
abstract="OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the outcomes of 2 treatments for patients with dizziness after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) who demonstrate abnormal cervical spine proprioception (CSP). <br><br>METHODS: A retrospective records review was conducted on the medical charts of patients treated for dizziness after mTBI who received either standard care (vestibular rehabilitation therapy [VRT]) or cervical spine proprioceptive retraining (CSPR) from 2009 to 2013. All patients included in the analysis were active-duty military with recurring dizziness after mTBI who had at least 1 abnormal CSP test. Patients were excluded for dizziness with a clear peripheral vestibular or central symptom origin, incomplete data, or no CSP assessment, or if both treatments were administered. Forty-eight total patients were included in the final dataset (22 VRT; 26 CSPR). Traditional VRT was compared with CSPR when abnormal CSP tests were present, regardless of the presence or absence of neck pain. A clinician review of records was used to determine improvement of dizziness based on patient reports of symptoms at discharge evaluation (ie, no symptoms for at least 2 weeks). <br><br>RESULTS: Patients who received CSPR were 30 times more likely to report improvement in dizziness symptoms compared with those who received VRT (adjusted odds ratio: 30.12; 95% confidence interval 4.44-204.26, P <.001) when abnormal CSP tests were present. Patients with dizziness over 1 year were significantly less likely to improve. <br><br>CONCLUSION: These results suggest that patients with dizziness after mTBI and who had abnormal CSP assessments responded better to CSPR compared with those who received VRT.<br><br>Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0161-4754",
doi="10.1016/j.jmpt.2018.12.002",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2018.12.002"
}