[Effectiveness of an individualised physiotherapy program versus group therapy on neck pain and disability in patients with acute and subacute mechanical neck pain]

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.

Is the combination of exercise therapy and health education more effective than usual medical care in the prevention of non-specific back pain? A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines emphasize the importance of the prevention and treatment of non-specific back pain through exercise therapy and health education. However, it has not yet been confirmed that the combination of exercise plus education is more effective than usual medical care.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine if the combination of exercise plus education is more effective for the prevention of non-specific back pain than usual medical care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Medline was conducted with the terms Back Pain, Neck Pain, Musculoskeletal Pain, Exercise, Exercise Therapy, Health Education, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Primary Prevention, Secondary Prevention and Clinical Trial. The inclusion criteria were: articles published from 2016 to 2021, the intervention included exercise and education, and the sample consisted of non-specific back pain patients.

RESULTS

A total of 4 randomized controlled trials were selected (average PEDro score 6.5 points). The meta-analysis showed statistically significant differences in the pain intensity, standardized mean differences was found to be -0.75 (95% CI = -1.41 to -0.08; p = 0.03); and in disability, standardized mean differences was found to be -0.24 (95% CI = -0.38 to -0.1; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions combining exercise and education seem to have a greater preventive effect on non-specific back pain than usual medical care.Key messagesExercise therapy and health education combination prevent better non-specific back pain than usual care.Combining exercise with educational interventions has a higher improvement on disability and kinesophobia than usual care.

Effectiveness of self-applied acupressure for cervical pain of benign origin (EDIDO-CUH): a randomized controlled clinical trial

Background:

Cervical pain is a problem with a high prevalence of ~13% of the population, and is more common in women (16.5%). The most affected age group is 65–74 years. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of self-applied acupressure for decreasing benign-origin cervical pain, under the supervision of a health professional and in combination with usual treatment, as well as to examine its impact on the patient’s self-perceived health condition and their opinion of the technique.

Methods:

Pragmatic, multicenter, controlled clinical trial randomized by healthcare center. A total of 160 patients with benign-origin cervical pain between 18 and 65 years of age who attended primary care were included from 12 healthcare centers in the autonomous community of Madrid by consecutive sampling, and randomly assigned to a control or intervention group. The main outcome variable was pain intensity measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS) and secondary variables were self-perceived quality of life (EuroQol-5D utility index) and functional ability (neck disability index). An explanative model of generalized estimating equations was built taking into account the lack of independence among observations. The analysis was performed over 6 months.

Results:

In total, 150 patients completed the study. Mean age was 45 years (SD: 10.7), 86.7% were women, 86.2% were currently employed, and 57.9% did not perform any physical exercise. Average days experiencing pain was 32.9 (SD: 2.8) and 80% were undergoing previous pharmacological treatment. The quality of life utility index after 3 months was 1.6 points (95% CI: 0.54–2.71) higher in the intervention group. The pain score on the VAS was 0.16 points (95% CI: 0.80–0.48) lower in the intervention group. The health professional explained 10.4% of the reduction in pain observed on the VAS throughout the medical visits.

Conclusion:

Acupressure applied in addition to usual practice appeared to improve cervical pain in the long term. The effectiveness of this technique was partially explained by the health professional that trained the participants on technique application.

Trial registration number::

NCT01855893