Massage for mechanical neck disorders

Description of massage interventions in randomised clinical trials for neck pain; a review using the TIDieR checklist

OBJECTIVE

How interventions are reported can impact the ability to implement these intervention in clinical practice. Therefore, our aim is to assess the reporting of massage interventions in randomised controlled trials for patients with neck pain.

DATA SOURCES

This manuscript concerns a secondary analysis of trials evaluating massage for neck pain selected for a scoping review. An updated literature search was completed using four databases to 31 July 2023.

REVIEW METHODS

Trials were selected that evaluate massage interventions. Two independent assessors extracted descriptive information, methodological quality (PEDro-scale) and assessed completeness of reporting of the intervention using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDier-checklist). We present frequencies of the extracted data.

RESULTS

We included 35 trials (2840 patients) with neck pain. Most trials (n = 23) included patients with chronic non-specific neck pain. We found a wide variety of massage interventions from Chinese massage, Swedish massage to myofascial release. In addition, the dose, number of sessions and the duration of the intervention varied widely. The methodological quality overall was fair to good (varied between 4-8/10), and we found a moderate completeness of reporting. All trials provided the name of the intervention, 30 (86%) provided a rationale and 26 (74%) trials described details of the massage intervention.

CONCLUSION

The massage interventions were moderately described in trials in patients with neck pain, but provided enough information to guide the decision making for designing future Network Meta-analysis as to what trials need to be considered when grouping massage interventions in a clinically relevant way.

Massage for neck pain

BACKGROUND

Massage is widely used for neck pain, but its effectiveness remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of massage compared to placebo or sham, no treatment or exercise as an adjuvant to the same co-intervention for acute to chronic persisting neck pain in adults with or without radiculopathy, including whiplash-associated disorders and cervicogenic headache.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Index to Chiropractic Literature, trial registries) to 1 October 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any type of massage with sham or placebo, no treatment or wait-list, or massage as an adjuvant treatment, in adults with acute, subacute or chronic neck pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We transformed outcomes to standardise the direction of the effect (a smaller score is better). We used a partially contextualised approach relative to identified thresholds to report the effect size as slight-small, moderate or large-substantive.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 33 studies (1994 participants analysed). Selection (82%) and detection bias (94%) were common; multiple trials had unclear allocation concealment, utilised a placebo that may not be credible and did not test whether blinding to the placebo was effective. Massage was compared with placebo (n = 10) or no treatment (n = 8), or assessed as an adjuvant to the same co-treatment (n = 15). The trials studied adults aged 18 to 70 years, 70% female, with mean pain severity of 51.8 (standard deviation (SD) 14.1) on a visual analogue scale (0 to 100). Neck pain was subacute-chronic and classified as non-specific neck pain (85%, including n = 1 whiplash), radiculopathy (6%) or cervicogenic headache (9%). Trials were conducted in outpatient settings in Asia (n = 11), America (n = 5), Africa (n = 1), Europe (n = 12) and the Middle East (n = 4). Trials received research funding (15%) from research institutes. We report the main results for the comparison of massage versus placebo. Low-certainty evidence indicates that massage probably results in little to no difference in pain, function-disability and health-related quality of life when compared against a placebo for subacute-chronic neck pain at up to 12 weeks follow-up. It may slightly improve participant-reported treatment success. Subgroup analysis by dose showed a clinically important difference favouring a high dose (≥ 8 sessions over four weeks for ≥ 30 minutes duration). There is very low-certainty evidence for total adverse events. Data on patient satisfaction and serious adverse events were not available. Pain was a mean of 20.55 points with placebo and improved by 3.43 points with massage (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.16 better to 1.29 worse) on a 0 to 100 scale, where a lower score indicates less pain (8 studies, 403 participants; I2 = 39%). We downgraded the evidence to low-certainty due to indirectness; most trials in the placebo comparison used suboptimal massage doses (only single sessions). Selection, performance and detection bias were evident as multiple trials had unclear allocation concealment, utilised a placebo that may not be credible and did not test whether blinding was effective, respectively. Function-disability was a mean of 30.90 points with placebo and improved by 9.69 points with massage (95% CI 17.57 better to 1.81 better) on the Neck Disability Index 0 to 100, where a lower score indicates better function (2 studies, 68 participants; I2 = 0%). We downgraded the evidence to low-certainty due to imprecision (the wide CI represents slight to moderate benefit that does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change) and risk of selection, performance and detection biases. Participant-reported treatment success was a mean of 3.1 points with placebo and improved by 0.80 points with massage (95% CI 1.39 better to 0.21 better) on a Global Improvement 1 to 7 scale, where a lower score indicates very much improved (1 study, 54 participants). We downgraded the evidence to low-certainty due to imprecision (single study with a wide CI that does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change) and risk of performance as well as detection bias. Health-related quality of life was a mean of 43.2 points with placebo and improved by 5.30 points with massage (95% CI 8.24 better to 2.36 better) on the SF-12 (physical) 0 to 100 scale, where 0 indicates the lowest level of health (1 study, 54 participants). We downgraded the evidence once for imprecision (a single small study) and risk of performance and detection bias. We are uncertain whether massage results in increased total adverse events, such as treatment soreness, sweating or low blood pressure (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.08 to 11.55; 2 studies, 175 participants; I2 = 77%). We downgraded the evidence to very low-certainty due to unexplained inconsistency, risk of performance and detection bias, and imprecision (the CI was extremely wide and the total number of events was very small, i.e < 200 events).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The contribution of massage to the management of neck pain remains uncertain given the predominance of low-certainty evidence in this field. For subacute and chronic neck pain (closest to 12 weeks follow-up), massage may result in a little or no difference in improving pain, function-disability, health-related quality of life and participant-reported treatment success when compared to a placebo. Inadequate reporting on adverse events precluded analysis. Focused planning for larger, adequately dosed, well-designed trials is needed.

An overview of systematic reviews examining the quantitative sensory testing-derived hypoalgesic effects of manual therapy for musculoskeletal pain

BACKGROUND

Changes in quantitative sensory testing (QST) after manual therapy can provide insight into pain relief mechanisms. Prior systematic reviews have evaluated manual-therapy-induced QST change. This overview of systematic reviews aims to consolidate this body of literature and critically review evidence on the hypoalgesic effects of manual therapy in clinical populations.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Embase. Peer-reviewed systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis were eligible if the reviews examined the effect of manual therapy compared to non-manual therapy interventions on QST outcomes in clinical populations. Methodological quality was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool. Meta-analysis results and qualitative (non-meta-analysis) interpretations were summarized by type of manual therapy. Overlap of studies was examined with the corrected covered area (CCA) index.

RESULTS

Thirty systematic reviews, including 11 meta-analyses, met inclusion. There was a slight overlap in studies (CCA of 1.72% for all reviews and 1.69% for meta-analyses). Methodological quality was predominantly low to critically low. Eight (27%) reviews examined studies with a range of manual therapy types, 13 (43%) reviews focused on joint-biased manual therapy, 7 (23%) reviews focused on muscle-biased manual therapy, and 2 (7%) reviews focused on nerve-biased manual therapy. Twenty-nine (97%) reviews reported on pressure pain threshold (PPT). Meta-analytic results demonstrated conflicting evidence that manual therapy results in greater hypoalgesic effects compared to other interventions or controls.

CONCLUSION

Our overview of QST effects, which has relevance to mechanisms underlying hypoalgesia, shows conflicting evidence from mostly low to critically low systematic reviews.

Clinical validation of grouping conservative treatments in neck pain for use in a network meta-analysis: a Delphi consensus study

BACKGROUND

A network meta-analysis aims to help clinicians make clinical decisions on the most effective treatment for a certain condition. Neck pain is multifactorial, with various classification systems and treatment options. Classifying patients and grouping interventions in clinically relevant treatment nodes for a NMA is essential, but this process is poorly defined.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim is to obtain consensus among experts on neck pain classifications and the grouping of interventions into nodes for a future network meta-analysis.

DESIGN

A Delphi consensus study involving neck pain experts worldwide.

METHODS

We invited authors of neck pain clinical practice guidelines published from 2014 onwards. The Delphi baseline questionnaire was developed based on the findings of a scoping review, including four items on classifications and 19 nodes. Participants were asked to record their level of agreement on a seven-point Likert scale or using Yes/No/Not sure answer options for the various statements. We used descriptive analysis to summarise the responses on each statement with content analysis of the free-text comments.

RESULTS

In total, 18/80 experts (22.5%) agreed to participate in one or more Delphi rounds. We needed three rounds to reach consensus for two classification of neck pain: one based on aetiology and one on duration. In addition, we also reached consensus on the grouping of interventions, including a definition of each node, with the number of nodes reduced to 17.

CONCLUSION

With this consensus we clinically validated two neck pain classifications and grouped conservative treatments into 17 well-defined and clinically relevant nodes.

Summarizing the effects of different exercise types in chronic neck pain - a systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

To date, no consensus exists as to whether one exercise type is more effective than another in chronic neck pain. This systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews aimed to summarize the literature on the effect of various exercise types used in chronic neck pain and to assess the certainty of the evidence.

METHODS

We searched the databases Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, SportDiscus, and Web of Science (Core Collection) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on adults between 18 and 70 years with chronic neck pain lasting ≥ 12 weeks which investigated the effects of exercises on pain and disability. The included reviews were grouped into motor control exercise (MCE), Pilates exercises, resistance training, traditional Chinese exercise (TCE), and yoga. Study quality was assessed with AMSTAR-2 and the level of certainty for the effects of the exercise through GRADE. A narrative analysis of the results was performed and in addition, meta-analyses when feasible.

RESULTS

Our database search resulted in 1,794 systematic reviews. We included 25 systematic reviews and meta-analyses including 17,321 participants (overlap not accounted for). The quality of the included reviews ranged from critically low to low (n = 13) to moderate to high (n = 12). We found low to high certainty of evidence that MCE, Pilates exercises, resistance training, TCE, and yoga have short-term positive effects on pain and that all exercise types except resistance training, show positive effects on disability compared to non-exercise controls. We found low to moderate certainty of evidence for conflicting results on pain and disability when the exercise types were compared to other exercise interventions in the short-term as well as in intermediate/long-term apart for yoga, as no long-term results were available.

CONCLUSION

Overall, our findings show low to high certainty of evidence for positive effects on pain and disability of the various exercise types used in chronic neck pain compared to non-exercise interventions, at least in the short-term. Based on our results, no optimal exercise intervention for patients with chronic neck pain can be recommended, since no large differences between the exercise types were shown here. Because the quality of the included systematic reviews varied greatly, future systematic reviews need to increase their methodological quality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospero CRD42022336014.

Efficacy of Yijinjing combined with Tuina for patients with non-specific chronic neck pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Non-specific chronic neck pain (NCNP) is a common musculoskeletal disorder which has caused a huge economic burden due to its expensive health costs and high re-occurrence rate. Yijinjing and Tuina are widely used for non-specific chronic neck pain in China. But there is little scientific evidence to evaluate their efficacy for NCNP. The aim of this research is to compare the efficacy of Yijinjng combined with Tuina versus Tuina for patients with NCNP.

METHODS/DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial in which 102 patients with non-specific chronic neck pain will be recruited and randomly allocated to either the Tuina group or the Yijinjng combined with Tuina group in a 1:1 ratio. The interventions for both groups will be carried out three times a week for 8 weeks. The patients in the two groups will receive follow-up 1 month after the intervention. The primary outcome will be the changes in the visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes will be measured by the Neck Disability Index (NDI), Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), and Tissue Hardness and Active Range of Motion (AROM). The data will be analyzed at the baseline, 4 weeks during the intervention, at the end of the intervention, and 1 month after the intervention. The significance level sets as 5%. The safety of interventions will be evaluated after each treatment session.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this trial is to determine whether Yijinjing combined with Tuina is not inferior to Tuina for patients with NCNP. This study will provide clinicians and stakeholders much-needed knowledge for a complementary and alternative therapy for patients with non-specific chronic neck pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR registry (ChiCTR) 2000036805 . Registered on August 25, 2020.

Predicting the evolution of neck pain episodes in routine clinical practice

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to develop models for predicting the evolution of a neck pain (NP) episode.

METHODS

Three thousand two hundred twenty-five acute and chronic patients seeking care for NP, were recruited consecutively in 47 health care centers. Data on 37 variables were gathered, including gender, age, employment status, duration of pain, intensity of NP and pain referred down to the arm (AP), disability, history of neck surgery, diagnostic procedures undertaken, imaging findings, clinical diagnosis, and treatments used. Three separate multivariable logistic regression models were developed for predicting a clinically relevant improvement in NP, AP and disability at 3 months.

RESULTS

Three thousand one (93.5%%) patients attended follow-up. For all the models calibration was good. The area under the ROC curve was ≥0.717 for pain and 0.664 for disability. Factors associated with a better prognosis were: a) For all the outcomes: pain being acute (vs. chronic) and having received neuro-reflexotherapy. b) For NP: nonspecific pain (vs. pain caused by disc herniation or spinal stenosis), no signs of disc degeneration on imaging, staying at work, and being female. c) For AP: nonspecific NP and no signs of disc degeneration on imaging. d) For disability: staying at work and no signs of facet joint degeneration on imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

A prospective registry can be used for developing valid predictive models to quantify the odds that a given patient with NP will experience a clinically relevant improvement.

Massage for Pain: An Evidence Map

Objectives: Massage therapy has been proposed for painful conditions, but it can be difficult to understand the breadth and depth of evidence, as various painful conditions may respond differently to massage. The authors conducted an evidence mapping process and generated an "evidence map" to visually depict the distribution of evidence available for massage and various pain indications to identify gaps in evidence and to inform future research priorities. Design: The authors searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for systematic reviews reporting pain outcomes for massage therapy. The authors assessed the quality of each review using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) criteria. The authors used a bubble plot to depict the number of included articles, pain indication, effect of massage for pain, and strength of findings for each included systematic review. Results: The authors identified 49 systematic reviews, of which 32 were considered high quality. Types of pain frequently included in systematic reviews were cancer pain, low back pain, and neck pain. High quality reviews concluded that there was low strength of evidence of potential benefits of massage for labor, shoulder, neck, low back, cancer, arthritis, postoperative, delayed onset muscle soreness, and musculoskeletal pain. Reported attributes of massage interventions include style of massage, provider, co-interventions, duration, and comparators, with 14 high-quality reviews reporting all these attributes in their review. Conclusion: Prior reviews have conclusions of low strength of evidence because few primary studies of large samples with rigorous methods had been conducted, leaving evidence gaps about specific massage type for specific pain. Primary studies often do not provide adequate details of massage therapy provided, limiting the extent to which reviews are able to draw conclusions about characteristics such as provider type.

Scoping review of systematic reviews of complementary medicine for musculoskeletal and mental health conditions

OBJECTIVE

To identify potentially effective complementary approaches for musculoskeletal (MSK)-mental health (MH) comorbidity, by synthesising evidence on effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety from systematic reviews (SRs).

DESIGN

Scoping review of SRs.

METHODS

We searched literature databases, registries and reference lists, and contacted key authors and professional organisations to identify SRs of randomised controlled trials for complementary medicine for MSK or MH. Inclusion criteria were: published after 2004, studying adults, in English and scoring >50% on Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR); quality appraisal checklist). SRs were synthesised to identify research priorities, based on moderate/good quality evidence, sample size and indication of cost-effectiveness and safety.

RESULTS

We included 84 MSK SRs and 27 MH SRs. Only one focused on MSK-MH comorbidity. Meditative approaches and yoga may improve MH outcomes in MSK populations. Yoga and tai chi had moderate/good evidence for MSK and MH conditions. SRs reported moderate/good quality evidence (any comparator) in a moderate/large population for: low back pain (LBP) (yoga, acupuncture, spinal manipulation/mobilisation, osteopathy), osteoarthritis (OA) (acupuncture, tai chi), neck pain (acupuncture, manipulation/manual therapy), myofascial trigger point pain (acupuncture), depression (mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), meditation, tai chi, relaxation), anxiety (meditation/MBSR, moving meditation, yoga), sleep disorders (meditative/mind-body movement) and stress/distress (mindfulness). The majority of these complementary approaches had some evidence of safety-only three had evidence of harm. There was some evidence of cost-effectiveness for spinal manipulation/mobilisation and acupuncture for LBP, and manual therapy/manipulation for neck pain, but few SRs reviewed cost-effectiveness and many found no data.

CONCLUSIONS

Only one SR studied MSK-MH comorbidity. Research priorities for complementary medicine for both MSK and MH (LBP, OA, depression, anxiety and sleep problems) are yoga, mindfulness and tai chi. Despite the large number of SRs and the prevalence of comorbidity, more high-quality, large randomised controlled trials in comorbid populations are needed.

Clinical Policy Recommendations from the VHA State-of-the-Art Conference on Non-Pharmacological Approaches to Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain

As a large national healthcare system, Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is ideally suited to build on its work to date and develop a safe, evidence-based, and comprehensive approach to the care of chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions that de-emphasizes opioid use and emphasizes non-pharmacological strategies. The VHA Office of Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) held a state-of-the-art (SOTA) conference titled "Non-pharmacological Approaches to Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Management" in November 2016. Goals of the conference were (1) to establish consensus on the current state of evidence regarding non-pharmacological approaches to chronic musculoskeletal pain to inform VHA policy in this area and (2) to begin to identify priorities for the future VHA research agenda. Workgroups were established and asked to reach consensus recommendations on clinical and research priorities for the following treatment strategies: psychological/behavioral therapies, exercise/movement therapies, manual therapies, and models for delivering multimodal pain care. Participants in the SOTA identified nine non-pharmacological therapies with sufficient evidence to be implemented across the VHA system as part of pain care. Participants further recommended that effective integration of these non-pharmacological approaches across the VHA and especially into VHA primary care, pain care, and mental health settings should be a priority, and that these treatments should be offered early in the course of pain treatment and delivered in a team-based, multimodal treatment setting concurrently with active self-care and self-management approaches. In addition, we recommend that VHA leadership and policy makers systematically address the barriers to implementation of these approaches by expanding opportunities for clinician and veteran education on the effectiveness of these strategies; supporting and funding further research to determine optimal dosage, duration, sequencing, combination, and frequency of treatment; emphasizing multimodal care with rigorous evaluation grounded in team-based approaches to test integrated models of delivery and stepped-care approaches; and working to address socioeconomic and cultural barriers to veterans' access to non-pharmacological approaches.

Has the quality of physiotherapy care in patients with Whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) improved over time? A retrospective study using routinely collected data and quality indicators

PURPOSE

To develop valid quality indicators (QIs) for physiotherapy care based on best available evidence, and to use these QIs to explore trends in the quality of physiotherapy care of patients with Whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) using guideline-based routinely collected data (RCD) gathered between 1996 and 2011.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study consisted of two phases: 1) development of QIs and 2) analysis of patient records. A set of QIs was developed based on recommendations in the scientific literature and the Dutch Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) "Physiotherapy Management and WAD". QIs were expressed as percentages, allowing target performance levels to be defined (≥80% or ≤30% depending on whether desired performance required a high or low score on a QI). We then analyzed WAD patient data (N = 810) collected over a period of 16 years in two physiotherapy practices, separating patients into two groups defined as before (Group A 1996-2002; n = 353) and after (Group B 2003-2011; n = 457) implementation and transition to the Dutch CPG "Physiotherapy Management and WAD".

RESULTS

Using an iterative process and input from both experts and users, 28 QIs were developed and subsequently classified per step of the clinical reasoning process for physiotherapy care. Based on 16 years of RCD, we found that the clinical reasoning process differed significantly (P ≤ 0.05) between the groups, in favor of Group B. Twelve of the 25 indicators (48.0%) in Group A and 19 of 26 indicators (73.1%) in Group B met predetermined performance targets. The number of target indicators also differed significantly between groups, favoring Group B (P ≤ 0.05).

CONCLUSION

A preliminary set of novel QIs was developed. Using RCD and these QIs, we conclude that physiotherapy care in our study setting improved over the period 1996-2011. Furthermore, the QIs met the performance targets set for the clinical reasoning process after the transition to the Dutch CPG "Physiotherapy Management and WAD".

Dry Needling for Patients With Neck Pain: Protocol of a Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Neck pain is a costly and common problem. Current treatments are not adequately effective for a large proportion of patients who continue to experience recurrent pain. Therefore, new treatment strategies should be investigated in an attempt to reduce the disability and high costs associated with neck pain. Dry needling is a technique in which a fine needle is used to penetrate the skin, subcutaneous tissues, and muscle with the intent to mechanically disrupt tissue without the use of an anesthetic. Dry needling is emerging as a treatment modality that is widely used clinically to address a variety of musculoskeletal conditions. Recent studies of dry needling in mechanical neck pain suggest potential benefits, but do not utilize methods typical to clinical practice and lack long-term follow-up. Therefore, a clinical trial with realistic treatment time frames and methods consistent with clinical practice is needed to examine the effectiveness of dry needling on reducing pain and enhancing function in patients presenting to physical therapy with mechanical neck pain.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this trial will be to examine the short- and long-term effectiveness of dry needling delivered by a physical therapist on pain, disability, and patient-perceived improvements in patients with mechanical neck pain.

METHODS

We will conduct a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in accordance with the CONSORT guidelines. A total of 76 patients over the age of 18 with acute or chronic mechanical neck pain resulting from postural dysfunction, trauma, or insidious onset who are referred to physical therapy will be enrolled after meeting the eligibility criteria. Subjects will be excluded if they have previous history of surgery, whiplash in the last 6 weeks, nerve root compression, red flags, or contraindications to dry needling or manual therapy. Participants will be randomized to receive (1) dry needling, manual therapy, and exercise or (2) sham dry needling, manual therapy, and exercise. Participants will receive seven physical therapy treatments lasting 45 minutes each over a maximum of 4 weeks. The primary outcome will be disability as measured by the Neck Disability Index. Secondary outcomes include the following: pain, patient-perceived improvement, patient expectations, and successful blinding to the needling intervention. Outcome measures will be assessed at 4 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months by an assessor who is blind to the group allocation of the participants to determine the short- and long-term treatment effects. We will examine the primary aim with a two-way, repeated-measures analysis of variance with treatment group as the between-subjects variable and time as the within-subjects variable. The hypothesis of interest will be the two-way group by time interaction. An a priori alpha level of .05 will be used for all analyses.

RESULTS

Recruitment is currently underway and is expected to be completed by the end of 2017. Data collection for long-term outcomes will occur throughout 2017 and 2018. Data analysis, preparation, and publication submission is expected to occur throughout the final three quarters of 2018.

CONCLUSIONS

The successful completion of this trial will provide evidence to demonstrate whether dry needling is effective for the management of mechanical neck pain when used in a combined treatment approach, as is the common clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02731014; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02731014 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6ujZgbhsq).

Effective treatment options for musculoskeletal pain in primary care: A systematic overview of current evidence

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Musculoskeletal pain, the most common cause of disability globally, is most frequently managed in primary care. People with musculoskeletal pain in different body regions share similar characteristics, prognosis, and may respond to similar treatments. This overview aims to summarise current best evidence on currently available treatment options for the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations (back, neck, shoulder, knee and multi-site pain) in primary care.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted. Initial searches identified clinical guidelines, clinical pathways and systematic reviews. Additional searches found recently published trials and those addressing gaps in the evidence base. Data on study populations, interventions, and outcomes of intervention on pain and function were extracted. Quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR, and strength of evidence rated using a modified GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Moderate to strong evidence suggests that exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions are effective for relieving pain and improving function for musculoskeletal pain. NSAIDs and opioids reduce pain in the short-term, but the effect size is modest and the potential for adverse effects need careful consideration. Corticosteroid injections were found to be beneficial for short-term pain relief among patients with knee and shoulder pain. However, current evidence remains equivocal on optimal dose, intensity and frequency, or mode of application for most treatment options.

CONCLUSION

This review presents a comprehensive summary and critical assessment of current evidence for the treatment of pain presentations in primary care. The evidence synthesis of interventions for common musculoskeletal pain presentations shows moderate-strong evidence for exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions, with short-term benefits only from pharmacological treatments. Future research into optimal dose and application of the most promising treatments is needed.

Clinical Evidence of Chinese Massage Therapy (Tui Na) for Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective. The review is to assess the current evidence of Chinese massage therapy (Tui Na) for cervical radiculopathy. Methods. Seven databases were searched. Randomised controlled trials incorporating Tui Na alone or Tui Na combined with conventional treatment were enrolled. The authors in pairs independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted the data. Results. Five studies involving 448 patients were included. The pooled analysis from the 3 trials indicated that Tui Na alone showed a significant lowering immediate effects on pain score (SMD = -0.58; 95% CI: -0.96 to -0.21; Z = 3.08, P = 0.002) with moderate heterogeneity compared to cervical traction. The meta-analysis from 2 trials revealed significant immediate effects of Tui Na plus cervical traction in improving pain score (MD = -1.73; 95% CI: -2.01 to -1.44; Z = 11.98, P < 0.00001) with no heterogeneity compared to cervical traction alone. No adverse effect was reported. There was very low quality or low quality evidence to support the results. Conclusions. Tui Na alone or Tui Na plus cervical traction may be helpful to cervical radiculopathy patients, but supportive evidence seems generally weak. Future clinical studies with low risk of bias and adequate follow-up design are recommended.

Three combinations of manual therapy techniques within naprapathy in the treatment of neck and/or back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Manual therapy as spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, stretching and massage are common treatment methods for neck and back pain. The objective was to compare the treatment effect on pain intensity, pain related disability and perceived recovery from a) naprapathic manual therapy (spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, stretching and massage) to b) naprapathic manual therapy without spinal manipulation and to c) naprapathic manual therapy without stretching for male and female patients seeking care for back and/or neck pain.

Method

Participants were recruited among patients, ages 18–65, seeking care at the educational clinic of Naprapathögskolan - the Scandinavian College of Naprapathic Manual Medicine in Stockholm. The patients (n = 1057) were randomized to one of three treatment arms a) manual therapy (i.e. spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, stretching and massage), b) manual therapy excluding spinal manipulation and c) manual therapy excluding stretching. The primary outcomes were minimal clinically important improvement in pain intensity and pain related disability. Treatments were provided by naprapath students in the seventh semester of eight total semesters. Generalized estimating equations and logistic regression were used to examine the association between the treatments and the outcomes.

Results

At 12 weeks follow-up, 64 % had a minimal clinically important improvement in pain intensity and 42 % in pain related disability. The corresponding chances to be improved at the 52 weeks follow-up were 58 % and 40 % respectively. No systematic differences in effect when excluding spinal manipulation and stretching respectively from the treatment were found over 1 year follow-up, concerning minimal clinically important improvement in pain intensity (p = 0.41) and pain related disability (p = 0.85) and perceived recovery (p = 0.98). Neither were there disparities in effect when male and female patients were analyzed separately.

Conclusion

The effect of manual therapy for male and female patients seeking care for neck and/or back pain at an educational clinic is similar regardless if spinal manipulation or if stretching is excluded from the treatment option.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN92249294

Randomized clinical trial assessing whether additional massage treatments for chronic neck pain improve 12- and 26-week outcomes

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

This is the first study to systematically evaluate the value of a longer treatment period for massage. We provide a framework of how to conceptualize an optimal dose in this challenging setting of nonpharmacologic treatments.

PURPOSE

The aim was to determine the optimal dose of massage for neck pain.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Two-phase randomized trial for persons with chronic nonspecific neck pain. Primary randomization to one of five groups receiving 4 weeks of massage (30 minutes 2x/or 3x/wk or 60 minutes 1x, 2x, or 3x/wk). Booster randomization of participants to receive an additional six massages, 60 minutes 1x/wk, or no additional massage.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 179 participants from Group Health and the general population of Seattle, WA, USA recruited between June 2010 and August 2011 were included.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes self-reported neck-related dysfunction (Neck Disability Index) and pain (0-10 scale) were assessed at baseline, 12, and 26 weeks. Clinically meaningful improvement was defined as greater than or equal to 5-point decrease in dysfunction and greater than or equal to 30% decrease in pain from baseline.

METHODS

Clinically meaningful improvement for each primary outcome with both follow-up times was analyzed using adjusted modified Poisson generalized estimating equations (GEEs). Secondary analyses for the continuous outcomes used linear GEEs.

RESULTS

There were no observed differences by primary treatment group at 12 or 26 weeks. Those receiving booster dose had improvements in both dysfunction and pain at 12 weeks (dysfunction: relative risk [RR]=1.56 [1.08-2.25], p=.018; pain: RR=1.25 [0.98-1.61], p=.077), but those were nonsignificant at 26 weeks (dysfunction: RR=1.22 [0.85-1.74]; pain: RR=1.09 [0.82-1.43]). Subgroup analysis by primary and booster treatments found the booster dose only effective among those initially randomized to one of the 60-minute massage groups.

CONCLUSIONS

"Booster" doses for those initially receiving 60 minutes of massage should be incorporated into future trials of massage for chronic neck pain.

The effect of massage therapy and/or exercise therapy on subacute or long-lasting neck pain--the Stockholm neck trial (STONE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Neck pain is a major health problem in populations worldwide and an economic burden in modern societies due to its high prevalence and costs in terms of health care expenditures and lost productivity. Massage and exercise therapy are widely used management options for neck pain. However, there is a lack of scientific evidence regarding their effectiveness for subacute and long-lasting neck pain. This study protocol describes a randomized controlled trial aiming to determine the effect of massage and/or exercise therapy on subacute and long-lasting neck pain over the course of 1 year.

METHODS/DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial in which at least 600 study participants with subacute or long-lasting nonspecific neck pain will be recruited and randomly allocated to one of four treatment arms: massage therapy (A), exercise therapy (B), exercise therapy plus massage therapy (C) and advice to stay active (D). The study has an E-health approach, and study participants are being recruited through advertising with a mix of traditional and online marketing channels. Web-based self-report questionnaires measure the main outcomes at 7, 12, 26 and 52 weeks after inclusion. The primary outcomes are a clinically important improvement in pain intensity and pain-related disability at follow-up, measured with a modified version of the Chronic Pain Questionnaire (CPQ). The secondary outcomes are global improvement, health-related quality of life (EQ-5D), sick leave, drug consumption and healthcare utilization. Adverse events are measured by questionnaires at return visits to the clinic, and automated text messages (SMSes) survey neck pain intensity and pain-related disability every week over one year.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study will provide clinicians and stakeholders much needed knowledge to plan medical care for subacute and long-lasting neck pain disorders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN01453590. Date of registration: 3 July 2014.

Immediate Effect of Therapeutic Massage on Pain Sensation and Unpleasantness: A Consecutive Case Series

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal pain is a common condition that poses a significant burden to its sufferers and costs the US economy billions of dollars each year in lost productivity. Individuals complaining of musculoskeletal pain make up a large proportion of clients treated by massage therapists in community practices, yet few studies have examined the immediate effect of therapeutic massage on this type of pain in the practice setting.

PURPOSE

To assess the immediate effect of therapeutic massage on musculoskeletal pain sensation and unpleasantness in a community setting.

SETTING

Solo private practice in central Virginia, United States.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred sixteen first-time clients who complained of musculoskeletal pain as a presenting symptom.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Prospective, consecutive practice-based case series.

INTERVENTION

A single 60-minute session of individualized therapeutic massage; techniques used included Swedish massage employing effleurage, petrissage, and friction,;deep tissue; myofascial; positional release; passive and resisted joint mobilization; and biofield modalities.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Visual Analog Scales for pain sensation and unpleasantness.

RESULTS

Both pain sensation and unpleasantness were significantly reduced by a single session of therapeutic massage. Mean pain sensation decreased from 3.76 (SD=1.87) prior to massage to .89 (SD=1.35) following massage, with t=18.87, P<.001. Mean pain unpleasantness decreased from 5.21 (SD=2.48) prior to massage to .64 (SD=1.23) following massage, with t =20.45, P<.001. Effect sizes were 1.76 and 1.90, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this case series, therapeutic massage appeared to be an effective intervention for common musculoskeletal pain that influenced both the physical and affective dimension of the pain experience. Although care was taken to reduce potential bias through limiting eligibility to first time clients and use of a standardized script, practice-based case series have inherent limitations. Issues in conducting practice-based research by massage therapists and recommendations for future research are discussed.

Jingtong Granule: A Chinese Patent Medicine for Cervical Radiculopathy

Objective. This paper systematically assessed the efficacy and safety of Jingtong granule (JG) for cervical radiculopathy (CR). Methods. Randomized controlled trials comparing JG with no intervention, placebo, or conventional therapies were retrieved. The trials testing JG combined with conventional therapies versus conventional therapies were also enrolled. Study selection, methodological assessment, data extraction, and analysis were conducted in accordance with the Cochrane standards. The strength of evidence was evaluated according to GRADE approach. Results. Three trials with 400 participants were included. Methodological quality was evaluated as generally low. One study found that JG showed significant difference on decreasing pain scores compared with placebo. Meta-analysis indicated that JG plus conventional analgesic exhibited a significant immediate effect on the pain scores (WMD = 1.63; 95% CI: 1.29 to 1.98; P < 0.00001). Additionally, JG combined with analgesic presented beneficial immediate effect on neck disability index. However, the treatment effects of JG demonstrated in the trials were not large, and the safety of JG was unproven. Finally the evidence level was evaluated to be low. Conclusions. Our results indicated that JG showed some potential benefits for CR. Nevertheless, treatment effects are uncertain due to both the methodological concerns and the very modest reported improvements.

Development of an attention-touch control for manual cervical distraction: a pilot randomized clinical trial for patients with neck pain

Background

Manual cervical distraction (MCD) is a traction-based therapy performed with a manual contact over the cervical region producing repeating cycles while patients lie prone. This study evaluated a traction force-based minimal intervention for use as an attention-touch control in clinical trials of MCD for patients with chronic neck pain.

Methods

We conducted a mixed-methods, pilot randomized clinical trial in adults with chronic neck pain. Participants were allocated to three traction force ranges of MCD: low force/minimal intervention (0-20 N), medium force (21-50 N), or high force (51-100 N). Clinicians delivered five treatments over two weeks consisting of three sets of five cycles of MCD at the C5 vertebra and occiput. Traction forces were measured at each treatment. Patient-reported outcomes included a pain visual analogue scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ), and adverse effects. A qualitative interview evaluated treatment group allocation perceptions.

Results

We randomized 48 participants, allocating an average of five each month. Forty-five participants completed the trial with three participants lost to follow-up. Most participants were women (65 %) and white (92 %) with a mean (SD) age of 46.8 (12.5) years. Mean traction force values were within the prescribed force ranges for each group at the C5 and occiput levels. Neck pain VAS demonstrated a benefit for high traction force MCD compared to the low force group [adjusted mean difference 15.6; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.6 to 29.7]. Participants in the medium traction force group demonstrated improvements in NDI compared to the low force group (adjusted mean difference 3.0; 95 % CI 0.1 to 5.9), as did participants in the high traction force group (adjusted mean difference 2.7; 95 % CI -0.1 to 5.6). CEQ favored the high force group. Most low force participants correctly identified their treatment allocation in the qualitative interview. No serious adverse events were documented.

Conclusions

This pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of a clinical trial protocol and the utility of a traction-based, minimal intervention as an attention-touch control for future efficacy trials of MCD for patients with neck pain.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01765751 (Registration Date 30 May 2012)

Role of rehabilitation medicine and physical agents in the treatment of cancer-associated pain

PURPOSE

To provide an overview of rehabilitation medicine- and physical modality-based approaches to cancer pain management, and to highlight the fact that these approaches are generally used in conjunction and that a majority are focused on minimizing pain during periods of mobility and the performance of activities of daily living.

METHODS

We performed a nonsystematic literature review and provide a description of the current standard of care.

RESULTS

Rehabilitative and physical modalities used to manage pain can be grouped into four categories: those that modulate nociception, stabilize or unload painful structures, influence physiological processes that indirectly influence nociception, or alleviate pain arising from the overloading of muscles and connective tissues that often occurs after surgery or with sarcopenia in late-stage cancer. Most modalities have been pragmatically refined over the years, and many have an evidence base, although few have been explicitly validated in the oncologic setting. With few exceptions, they are patient controlled and free of adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Physical modalities and rehabilitation medicine offer a range of pain management approaches that may serve as beneficial adjuncts to the conventional systemic and interventional analgesic strategies used to control cancer-related pain. These approaches may be particularly beneficial to patients with movement-associated pain and those who are ambivalent regarding pharmacoanalgesia.

Identifying and treating the causes of neck pain

Future studies are needed to further understand the pathophysiology of mechanical neck pain. Robust scientific evidence is sparse on which noninvasive treatments are the most beneficial and how to better select patients for particular noninvasive or invasive treatments.

Treatment preferences amongst physical therapists and chiropractors for the management of neck pain: results of an international survey

Background

Clinical practice guidelines on the management of neck pain make recommendations to help practitioners optimize patient care. By examining the practice patterns of practitioners, adherence to CPGs or lack thereof, is demonstrated. Understanding utilization of various treatments by practitioners and comparing these patterns to that of recommended guidelines is important to identify gaps for knowledge translation and improve treatment regimens.

Aim

To describe the utilization of interventions in patients with neck pain by clinicians.

Methods

A cross-sectional international survey was conducted from February 2012 to March 2013 to determine physical medicine, complementary and alternative medicine utilization amongst 360 clinicians treating patients with neck pain.

Results

The survey was international (19 countries) with Canada having the largest response (38%). Results were analyzed by usage amongst physical therapists (38%) and chiropractors (31%) as they were the predominant respondents. Within these professions, respondents were male (41-66%) working in private practice (69-95%). Exercise and manual therapies were consistently (98-99%) used by both professions but tests of subgroup differences determined that physical therapists used exercise, orthoses and ‘other’ interventions more, while chiropractors used phototherapeutics more. However, phototherapeutics (65%), Orthoses/supportive devices (57%), mechanical traction (55%) and sonic therapies (54%) were not used by the majority of respondents. Thermal applications (73%) and acupuncture (46%) were the modalities used most commonly. Analysis of differences across the subtypes of neck pain indicated that respondents utilize treatments more often for chronic neck pain and whiplash conditions, followed by radiculopathy, acute neck pain and whiplash conditions, and facet joint dysfunction by diagnostic block. The higher rates of usage of some interventions were consistent with supporting evidence (e.g. manual therapy). However, there was moderate usage of a number of interventions that have limited support or conflicting evidence (e.g. ergonomics).

Conclusions

This survey indicates that exercise and manual therapy are core treatments provided by chiropractors and physical therapists. Future research should address gaps in evidence associated with variable practice patterns and knowledge translation to reduce usage of some interventions that have been shown to be ineffective.

Five-week outcomes from a dosing trial of therapeutic massage for chronic neck pain

PURPOSE

This trial was designed to evaluate the optimal dose of massage for individuals with chronic neck pain.

METHODS

We recruited 228 individuals with chronic nonspecific neck pain from an integrated health care system and the general population, and randomized them to 5 groups receiving various doses of massage (a 4-week course consisting of 30-minute visits 2 or 3 times weekly or 60-minute visits 1, 2, or 3 times weekly) or to a single control group (a 4-week period on a wait list). We assessed neck-related dysfunction with the Neck Disability Index (range, 0-50 points) and pain intensity with a numerical rating scale (range, 0-10 points) at baseline and 5 weeks. We used log-linear regression to assess the likelihood of clinically meaningful improvement in neck-related dysfunction (≥5 points on Neck Disability Index) or pain intensity (≥30% improvement) by treatment group.

RESULTS

After adjustment for baseline age, outcome measures, and imbalanced covariates, 30-minute treatments were not significantly better than the wait list control condition in terms of achieving a clinically meaningful improvement in neck dysfunction or pain, regardless of the frequency of treatments. In contrast, 60-minute treatments 2 and 3 times weekly significantly increased the likelihood of such improvement compared with the control condition in terms of both neck dysfunction (relative risk = 3.41 and 4.98, P = .04 and .005, respectively) and pain intensity (relative risk = 2.30 and 2.73; P = .007 and .001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

After 4 weeks of treatment, we found multiple 60-minute massages per week more effective than fewer or shorter sessions for individuals with chronic neck pain. Clinicians recommending massage and researchers studying this therapy should ensure that patients receive a likely effective dose of treatment.

Psychological Care, Patient Education, Orthotics, Ergonomics and Prevention Strategies for Neck Pain: An Systematic Overview Update as Part of the ICON Project

OBJECTIVES

To conduct an overview on psychological interventions, orthoses, patient education, ergonomics, and 1⁰/2⁰ neck pain prevention for adults with acute-chronic neck pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerized databases and grey literature were searched (2006-2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pain, function/disability, global perceived effect, quality-of-life and patient satisfaction were retrieved.

DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS

Two independent authors selected articles, assessed risk of bias using AMSTAR tool and extracted data. The GRADE tool was used to evaluate the body of evidence and an external panel to provide critical review.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved 30 reviews (5-9 AMSTAR score) reporting on 75 RCTs with the following moderate GRADE evidence. For acute whiplash associated disorder (WAD), an education video in emergency rooms (1RCT, 405participants] favoured pain reduction at long-term follow-up thus helping 1 in 23 people [Standard Mean Difference: -0.44(95%CI: -0.66 to -0.23)). Use of a soft collar (2RCTs, 1278participants) was not beneficial in the long-term. For chronic neck pain, a mind-body intervention (2RCTs, 1 meta-analysis, 191participants) improved short-term pain/function in 1 of 4 or 6 participants. In workers, 2-minutes of daily scapula-thoracic endurance training (1RCT, 127participants) over 10 weeks was beneficial in 1 of 4 participants. A number of psychosocial interventions, workplace interventions, collar use and self-management educational strategies were not beneficial.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate evidence exists for quantifying beneficial and non-beneficial effects of a limited number of interventions for acute WAD and chronic neck pain. Larger trials with more rigorous controls need to target promising interventions.