No description available.

M.Tech. / Purpose: Posterior mechanical neck pain is considered a debilitating musculoskeletal problem and is one of the most common reasons for visiting an emergency sector (Murphy, 2000). This study aims to compare the effects of Chiropractic manipulative therapy directed at the thoracic spine to that directed at the cervical spine for the treatment of chronic neck pain with regards to pain, disability and cervical range of motion. Method: This study was a comparative study and consisted of two groups of fifteen. The participants were between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, with a half male to female ratio. The potential participants were examined and accepted according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The method of treatment administered to each participant was determined by group allocation. Group 1 received chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy to restriction(s) of the upper thoracic region only. Group 2 received chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy to restriction(s) of the cervical spine only. Objective and subjective findings were based on the above treatment protocols. Procedure: Treatment consisted of six treatment consultations with an additional follow up consultation over a three week period, with two consultations being performed per week interval. Objective and subjective readings were taken at the beginning of the first, fourth and seventh consultations. Subjective readings were taken from the Vernon-Mior Neck Pain and Disability Index as well as from the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Objective readings were taken from measurements taken from the Cervical Range of Motion device (CROM). Analysis of collected data was performed by a statistician. The Chiropractic manipulative techniques used were based on restrictions identified during motion palpation and were applied at the first six consultations, with the seventh consultation consisting of data gathering only. Results: Clinically significant improvements in both Group 1 and Group 2 were seen over the course of the study with regards to cervical spine range of motion, pain and disability. However group 1 showed greater statistically significant improvements in their mean cervical range of motion whereas group 2 showed a greater statistically significant improvement in their subjective readings of pain and disability.