Manual Therapy, Physical Therapy, or Continued Care by the General Practitioner for Patients With Neck Pain

Effectiveness and safety of manual therapy when compared with oral pain medications in patients with neck pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis seeks to investigate the effectiveness and safety of manual therapy (MT) interventions compared to oral pain medication in the management of neck pain.

METHODS

We searched from inception to March 2023, in Cochrane Central Register of Controller Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCO) for randomized controlled trials that examined the effect of manual therapy interventions for neck pain when compared to medication in adults with self-reported neck pain, irrespective of radicular findings, specific cause, and associated cervicogenic headaches. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool to assess the potential risk of bias in the included studies, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to grade the quality of the evidence.

RESULTS

Nine trials (779 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. We found low certainty of evidence that MT interventions may be more effective than oral pain medication in pain reduction in the short-term (Standardized Mean Difference: -0.39; 95% CI -0.66 to -0.11; 8 trials, 676 participants), and moderate certainty of evidence that MT interventions may be more effective than oral pain medication in pain reduction in the long-term (Standardized Mean Difference: - 0.36; 95% CI - 0.55 to - 0.17; 6 trials, 567 participants). We found low certainty evidence that the risk of adverse events may be lower for patients that received MT compared to the ones that received oral pain medication (Risk Ratio: 0.59; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.79; 5 trials, 426 participants).

CONCLUSIONS

MT may be more effective for people with neck pain in both short and long-term with a better safety profile regarding adverse events when compared to patients receiving oral pain medications. However, we advise caution when interpreting our safety results due to the different level of reporting strategies in place for MT and medication-induced adverse events. Future MT trials should create and adhere to strict reporting strategies with regards to adverse events to help gain a better understanding on the nature of potential MT-induced adverse events and to ensure patient safety.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023421147.

The majority of clinical trials assessing mobilization and manipulation for neck pain lack a pragmatic approach: a systematic review of 174 trials

BACKGROUND

Disorders of the cervical spine are some of the costliest musculoskeletal conditions to manage globally. Joint mobilization and manipulation have been shown to be an effective treatment for neck pain. However, the generalizability and clinical translation depends on the nature of the trial designs that inform its use. The extent to which randomized control trials (RCTs) assessing manual therapy treatments for cervical spine disorders fall on the efficacy (explanatory) -effectiveness (pragmatic) spectrum often informs how the findings are translated into clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to determine where RCTs of manual therapy for neck disorders fall on the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum.

METHODS

A search of three electronic databases including PubMed, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were completed for trials published from inception to May 2023. RCTs in which joint mobilization or manipulation were used to treat cervical spine disorders were assessed on the effectiveness-efficacy spectrum using the Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool and risk of bias using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

RESULTS

A total of 174 trials met eligibility. RITES domain two trial setting (71.3% vs 16.1%), domain three flexibility of intervention(s) (62.1% vs 23%), and domain four clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention(s) (51.7% vs 29.3%) all favored efficacy over effectiveness. Domain one participant characteristic(s) had a slightly greater emphasis on effectiveness compared to efficacy (36.8% vs 44.8%). Most studies (96%) had at least some risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Over half of the RCTs assessing the treatment effect of joint mobilization and manipulation for neck pain favor efficacy (explanatory) over effectiveness (pragmatic) designs. Future RCTs on this topic should consider a greater emphasis on pragmatic trial design components in order to better reflect real-world translation to clinical practice.

The effects of basic body awareness therapy on balance in patients with chronic neck pain: a randomised crossover trial

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the effects of basic body awareness therapy (BBAT) and conventional treatments (CT) on balance in patients with chronic neck pain.

METHODS

Thirty-five patients with neck pain participated in this randomised two-period crossover trial. Patients were divided into A (BBAT/CT) (n = 17) and B (CT/BBAT) (n = 18) groups. Group A received BBAT twice a week for 6 weeks, whereas Group B received CT within the same parameters. After a 5-week washout period, the treatments received by the groups were changed. The primary outcome was balance, assessed via the sensory organisation test (SOT) using the computerised dynamic posturography device. The secondary outcome was pain assessed by the visual analogue scale. Assessments were performed before and after primary and secondary treatments.

RESULTS

In Group A, the SOT conditions 4, 5, 6; composites score; and visual and vestibular system scores increased after BBAT; however, only condition five scores and vestibular system scores increased (p < .05) in Group B, which started with CT. Within the groups, both treatments were effective for easing pain (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Although patients who started the therapy with BBAT showed more improvement in balance, no differences were observed between the therapies.

Manual therapy versus advice to stay active for nonspecific back and/or neck pain: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Low back and neck pain are the most common musculoskeletal disorders worldwide, and imply suffering and substantial societal costs, hence effective interventions are crucial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of manual therapy compared with advice to stay active for working age persons with nonspecific back and/or neck pain.

METHODS

The two interventions were: a maximum of 6 manual therapy sessions within 6 weeks, including spinal manipulation/mobilization, massage and stretching, performed by a naprapath (index group), respectively information from a physician on the importance to stay active and on how to cope with pain, according to evidence-based advice, at 2 occasions within 3 weeks (control group). A cost-effectiveness analysis with a societal perspective was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial including 409 persons followed for one year, in 2005. The outcomes were health-related Quality of Life (QoL) encoded from the SF-36 and pain intensity. Direct and indirect costs were calculated based on intervention and medication costs and sickness absence data. An incremental cost per health related QoL was calculated, and sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The difference in QoL gains was 0.007 (95% CI - 0.010 to 0.023) and the mean improvement in pain intensity was 0.6 (95% CI 0.068-1.065) in favor of manual therapy after one year. Concerning the QoL outcome, the differences in mean cost per person was estimated at - 437 EUR (95% CI - 1302 to 371) and for the pain outcome the difference was - 635 EUR (95% CI - 1587 to 246) in favor of manual therapy. The results indicate that manual therapy achieves better outcomes at lower costs compared with advice to stay active. The sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main results.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that manual therapy for nonspecific back and/or neck pain is slightly less costly and more beneficial than advice to stay active for this sample of working age persons. Since manual therapy treatment is at least as cost-effective as evidence-based advice from a physician, it may be recommended for neck and low back pain. Further health economic studies that may confirm those findings are warranted. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56954776. Retrospectively registered 12 September 2006, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN56954776 .

Effects of non-surgical decompression therapy in addition to routine physical therapy on pain, range of motion, endurance, functional disability and quality of life versus routine physical therapy alone in patients with lumbar radiculopathy; a randomized controlled trial

Background

Lumbar radiculopathy is an extensively common complaint reported by patients of low back pain (LBP), resulting in several impairments. A comparatively novel technique, non-surgical spinal decompression (NSD), is introduced, which uses a sensitive computerized feedback mechanism and decompresses the spinal nerve roots through segmental distraction. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of NSD therapy in addition to routine physical therapy on pain, lumbar range of motion (ROM), functional disability, back muscle endurance (BME), and quality of life (QOL) in patients with lumbar radiculopathy.

Methods

A total of sixty patients with lumbar radiculopathy were randomly allocated into two groups, an experimental (n = 30) and a control (n = 30) group, through a computer-generated random number table. Baseline values were recorded before providing any treatment by using a visual analogue scale (VAS), Urdu version of Oswestry disability index (ODI-U), modified-modified Schober’s test (MMST), prone isometric chest raise test, and Short Form 36-Item Survey (SF-36) for measuring the pain at rest, functional disability, lumbar ROM, BME, and QOL, respectively. All patients received twelve treatment sessions over 4 weeks, and then all outcome measures were again recorded.

Results

By using the ANCOVA test, a statistically significant (p < 0.05) between-group improvement was observed in VAS, ODI-U, BME, lumbar ROM, role physical (RP), and bodily pain (BP) domains of SF-36, which was in favour of NSD therapy group. The between-group difference was 1.07 ± 0.32 cm (p < .001) for VAS, 5.65 ± 1.48 points (p < .001) for ODI-U, 13.93 ± 5.85 s (p = 0.002) for BME, 2.62 ± 0.27 cm (p < .001) for lumbar flexion, 0.96 ± 0.28 (p < .001) for lumbar extension, 5.77 ± 2.39 (p = 0.019) for RP and 6.33 ± 2.52 (p = 0.016) for BP domain of SF-36. For these outcomes, a medium to large effect size (d = 0.61–2.47, 95% CI: 0.09–3.14) was observed.

Conclusion

It was concluded that a combination of non-surgical spinal decompression therapy with routine physical therapy is more effective, statistically and clinically, than routine physical therapy alone in terms of improving pain, lumbar range of motion, back muscle endurance, functional disability, and physical role domain of quality of life, in patients with lumbar radiculopathy, following 4 weeks of treatment.

Trial registration

WHO Iranian registry of clinical trials (IRCT20190717044238N1) Dated: 23.12.2019.

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.

Can the neck contribute to persistent symptoms post concussion? Long-term follow up from a prospective descriptive case series

OBJECTIVE

To describe individual long-term outcomes of people with persistent symptoms following a concussion who received neck treatment as part of multidisciplinary concussion care. A secondary objective is to report on how participants describe the outcomes of neck treatmentMethods: Long-term follow-up for a subgroup of participants in a prospective case series (n = 11). Data were collected at initial assessment, completion of neck treatment, 6 and 12 months including standard questionnaires (Rivermead post-concussion symptoms questionnaire, neck disability index, dizziness handicap inventory); patient-reported measures of headache, dizziness and neck pain and participant descriptions of the effects of neck treatmentResults: Grouped measures of post-concussion symptoms were further improved or sustained at 6 and 12 months. Ten of the 11 participants reported neck treatment as a beneficial part of their care and described the effects on the neck, multiple symptoms and their overall recovery. However, seven participants experienced recurrent headache, neck pain or dizziness at 6- or 12-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Long-term follow-up of individuals receiving neck treatment shows improvement across a range of patient reported outcomes, yet highlights frequent recurrence of symptoms. Neck treatment can play a valuable role in people's recovery that extends beyond local effects on the neck.

Chuna Manual Therapy vs Usual Care for Patients With Nonspecific Chronic Neck Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The incidence rate of neck pain is increasing worldwide, and the disease is associated with a high social burden. Manual therapy has been widely applied in the treatment of neck pain, but a high-quality, pragmatic randomized clinical trial for this treatment has not been conducted to date.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy with that of usual care for patients with chronic neck pain.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A multicenter, assessor-blinded, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial was conducted between October 18, 2017, and June 28, 2019. This intention-to-treat analysis included 108 patients with chronic neck pain persisting for at least 3 months; patients were recruited from 5 hospitals in Korea.

INTERVENTIONS

Ten sessions (2 sessions per week for 5 weeks) of Chuna manual therapy or usual care (electrotherapy and oral medication) were conducted.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was the difference in visual analog scale (VAS) score for chronic neck pain between baseline and 5 weeks after randomization.

RESULTS

This randomized clinical trial recruited 108 patients (mean [SD] age, 38.4 [9.3] years; 73 women [67.6%]). Fifty-four patients were allocated to the Chuna therapy group, and 54 received usual care. At 5 weeks after randomization, manual therapy showed statistically superior results compared with usual care in terms of pain (difference in chronic neck pain VAS, 16.8 mm; 95% CI, 10.1-23.5 mm), function (difference in Neck Disability Index, 8.6%; 95% CI, 4.2%-13.1%), and quality of life (difference in the European Quality of Life-5 Dimension 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) scores, -0.07 points; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.02 points). Regarding the 1-year cumulative values measured using area under the curve analyses, superior outcomes were attained in the manual therapy group in terms of the numerical rating scale for chronic neck pain (1.3 points; 95% CI, 0.5-2.0 points), Neck Disability Index (6.7%; 95% CI, 2.5%-10.9%), Neck Pain Questionnaire (7.4%; 95% CI, 2.3%-12.6%), and EQ-5D-5L scores (-0.03 points; -0.07 to 0.00 points).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial, for patients with chronic neck pain, Chuna manual therapy was more effective than usual care in terms of pain and functional recovery at 5 weeks and 1 year after randomization. These results support the need to consider recommending manual therapies as primary care treatments for chronic neck pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03294785.

Approaches to cervical spine mobilization for neck pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Study design

Pilot randomized controlled trial.

Background

Better understanding of the relative effectiveness of different approaches to cervical spine mobilization has been identified as a research priority in manual therapy practice. Two distinct approaches to the practice of mobilization have emerged in recent years, based on different reasoning models for selection of mobilization techniques. The objective of this pilot study was to assess feasibility aspects for a future randomized clinical trial by exploring short-term pain and disability outcomes after a single treatment with pragmatic versus prescriptive approaches to cervical mobilization for people with recent-onset neck pain at 48-h follow-up after randomization.

Methods

Twenty adults with a new episode of mechanical neck pain were randomly allocated to either pragmatic or prescriptive mobilization intervention groups. The pragmatic group received a single treatment of cervical mobilization with the technique, target segment, and grade selected by their treating therapist. The prescriptive group received a single treatment of standardized mobilization with techniques similar to a previous mobilization clinical trial. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment rates, randomization audit and completion of treatment and follow-up per protocol. The primary clinical outcome of interest was disability level measured at 48-h follow-up after randomization.

Results

Recruitment rates were approximately 2.5 participants per week and 100% of eligible participants were deemed suitable for treatment with cervical mobilization. There was sufficient variety in the range of pragmatic treatments selected and the data collection process imposed minimal burden on participants.

Conclusions

Our results provide supporting evidence for the feasibility of a future larger scale randomized clinical trial.

Trial registration

Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616000446460). Registered 6th April 2016. https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=370448&isReview=true

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12998-020-00348-z.

Effects of an active intervention based on myofascial release and neurodynamics in patients with chronic neck pain: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

While neck pain can be severely disabling and costly, treatment options have shown moderate evidence of effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to explore the effects of a 4-week active program based on myofascial release and neurodynamics on trigger point (TrP) examination, pain, and functionality in patients with chronic neck pain.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trial. A total of 40 patients with chronic neck pain were randomly allocated to an experimental or a control group (n = 20). The primary outcome measure was TrP examination. Secondary outcomes were pain, assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory and a visual analogue scale, and functionality, evaluated with the Neck Outcome Score.

RESULTS

A between-group analysis showed significant differences (p < .05) in the percentage of active TrPs in the following muscles: suboccipital (50 vs. 92.4% in the right muscle and 37.5 vs. 89.6% in the left muscle), left scalene and levator scapulae. Significant differences (p < .05) were also found in pain severity, average pain, and functionality (i.e. symptoms, sleep, and participation).

CONCLUSIONS

A 4-week self-administered program for patients with chronic neck pain was effective in reducing the presence of active TrPs. Pain severity, average pain, and some aspects of functionality also improved significantly after the intervention.

Effect of adding stretching to standardized procedures on cervical range of motion, pain, and disability in patients with non-specific mechanical neck pain: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

to investigate the benefit of adding stretching exercises to cervical joint mobilization and active rotation exercises for patients with non-specific mechanical neck pain.

METHODS

Thirty-eight subjects with non-specific mechanical neck pain were randomly assigned to a standard procedure group (passive cervical mobilization and active cervical rotation range of motion exercise) or a combined procedure (passive cervical mobilization, active cervical rotation range of motion exercises, and stretching procedures). Mixed factorial analysis of variance was used to compare changes between groups over time in active cervical range of motion, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, Neck Disability Index, Global Rating of Change, and Pressure Pain Threshold.

RESULTS

There was a significant change in mean active range of motion in all directions, Pressure Pain Threshold, perceived pain, disability levels, and global rating of change over time (p < 0.001). There was a significant group by time interaction in mean active range of motion during extension (p = 0.01), right rotation (p = 0.004), right and left lateral flexion (p = 0.05, and p = 0.02 respectively). However, there was no significant group by time interaction in mean active range of motion during flexion, left rotation, pain intensity (p = 0.09), right and left pressure pain threshold (p = 0.30, 0.47, respectively), and disability (p = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Both study groups improved significantly in all subjective and objective outcome measures. However, data from this study suggest that adding stretching to the standard procedures may be more effective than the standard procedure alone at improving cervical extension, right rotation, and lateral flexion active range of motion, but not pain and disability.

Evaluation of a novel intervention to improve physical activity for adults with whiplash associated disorders: Protocol for a multiple-baseline, single case experimental study

Half of individuals with a whiplash injury experience ongoing pain and disability. Many are insufficiently active for good health, increasing their risk of preventable morbidity and mortality, and compounding the effects of the whiplash injury. This paper describes a protocol for evaluating the efficacy of a physical activity promotion intervention in adults with whiplash associated disorders. A multiple-baseline, single case experimental design will be used to evaluate the effects of a physical activity (PA) intervention that includes evidence-based behaviour change activities and relapse prevention strategies for six adults with chronic whiplash. A structured visual analysis supplemented with statistical analysis will be used to analyse: accelerometer-measured PA, confidence completing PA in the presence of neck pain, and pain interference.

Visceral Origin: An Underestimated Source of Neck Pain. A Systematic Scoping Review

The diagnosis of neck pain is challenging. Many visceral disorders are known to cause it, and clinical practice guidelines recommend to rule them out during neck pain diagnosis. However, the absence of suspicion of any cause impedes one from establishing that specific aetiology as the final diagnosis. To investigate the degree of consideration given to visceral aetiology, a systematic search of trials about neck pain was carried out to evaluate their selection criteria. The search yielded 309 eligible articles, which were screened by two independent reviewers. The PEDro scale score was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. The following information was retrieved: number of authors affiliated to a clinical or non-clinical institution, number of citations in the Web of Science, study aims, characteristics of participants, and eligibility criteria. The top 15 most cited trials, and the 15 most recent studies about treatment efficacy in neck pain, published in first quartile journals of the Journal Citation Reports, were selected. Females represented 67.5% of participants. A single study was of poor methodological quality (4/10). Based on the eligibility criteria of the articles that were systematically reviewed, it would appear that visceral aetiology was not considered in eighty percent of the trials on neck pain, showing a low level of suspicion both in research and clinical settings.

Neck pain in South Africa: An overview of the prevalence, assessment and management for the contemporary clinician

BACKGROUND

Neck pain is a prevalent condition and is associated with high levels of disability and pain. The long-term prognosis can be poor, and therefore effective management in the acute stage is important.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the prevalence of neck pain and physiotherapy management and to provide evidence-informed recommendations for clinical practice within a South African context.

METHOD

The literature was reviewed considering prevalence, risk factors and examination. Management recommendations were derived from the highest levels of evidence of clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews and randomised clinical trials.

RESULTS

Neck pain is classified into four grades, and three trajectories of recovery have been identified. Although the incidence of neck pain globally is high, in the South African context the majority of the population have limited access to physiotherapy management. Sound clinical reasoning is important in the assessment and decision-making process for management. Exercise, and mobilisation or manipulation are effective treatment options in the management of most types of neck pain. Other physical modalities such as needling, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, laser and intermittent traction may be used as an adjunct to management.

CONCLUSION

The burden of neck pain globally is high; however, there is a lack of information on current practice, prevalence and burden of neck pain in the South African context. Sound evidence-informed clinical reasoning to inform a working diagnosis and to enable patient-centred management is important.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

A thorough assessment is essential to gather information to formulate hypotheses regarding diagnosis and prognosis for neck pain. Exercise, and mobilisation or manipulation are effective management options.

Reliability and diagnostic accuracy of cervicothoracic differentiation testing and regional unloading for identifying improvement after thoracic manipulation in individuals with neck pain

BACKGROUND & PURPOSE

The cervicothoracic differentiation test (CTDT), cervical and thoracic unloading are used clinically to guide treatment. This study sought to determine the reliability and diagnostic accuracy of these tests.

METHODS

A prospective diagnostic accuracy study was performed at two outpatient clinics and one university research center. A convenience sample of 48 individuals with neck pain was recruited. Cervical and thoracic unloading tests and CTDT were performed with symptom relief considered a positive test. Pain was assessed using a visual analog pain scale (VAS) at rest and during provocative movements. The reference standard was pain relief following thoracic manipulation. Change in pain was used to identify improvement at the MCID (15 mm) and 50% improvement thresholds.

RESULTS

All three tests demonstrated high levels of inter-rater reliability, K = 0.90[0.77-1.00]. Of 48 individuals who completed the study, 39 (81.3%) were improved ≥ MCID; compared to 34 (70.8%) at the 50% threshold. As a single test, the CTDT yielded the strongest diagnostic utility (at MCID threshold) based on ROC curve: AUC 0.791 s.e. 0.078; with high specificity (0.89[51.75-99.72]); LR+ 6.23 [0.97-40]; LR- 0.35 [0.20-0.58]; and PPV 96.43. Unloading tests demonstrated high sensitivity, but poor specificity and likelihood ratios. Composite tests improved specificity, but with lower accuracy and minimal changes in ROC area compared to the CTDT in isolation.

CONCLUSIONS

The CTDT is a specific test with significant diagnostic utility to identify individuals who will experience immediate pain relief following thoracic manipulation. The CTDT should be considered during the clinical decision making process when treating individuals with neck pain.

Is a government-regulated rehabilitation guideline more effective than general practitioner education or preferred-provider rehabilitation in promoting recovery from acute whiplash-associated disorders? A pragmatic randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of a government-regulated rehabilitation guideline compared with education and activation by general practitioners, and to a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation programme on self-reported global recovery from acute whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) grade I-II.

DESIGN

Pragmatic randomised clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment.

SETTING

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation clinics and general practitioners in Ontario, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

340 participants with acute WAD grade I and II. Potential participants were sampled from a large automobile insurer when reporting a traffic injury.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised to receive one of three protocols: government-regulated rehabilitation guideline, education and activation by general practitioners or a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Our primary outcome was time to self-reported global recovery. Secondary outcomes included time on insurance benefits, neck pain intensity, whiplash-related disability, health-related quality of life and depressive symptomatology at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months postinjury.

RESULTS

The median time to self-reported global recovery was 59 days (95% CI 55 to 68) for the government-regulated guideline group, 105 days (95% CI 61 to 126) for the preferred-provider group and 108 days (95% CI 93 to 206) for the general practitioner group; the difference was not statistically significant (Χ²=3.96; 2 df: p=0.138). We found no clinically important differences between groups in secondary outcomes. Post hoc analysis suggests that the general practitioner (hazard rate ratio (HRR)=0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77) and preferred-provider groups (HRR=0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96) had slower recovery than the government-regulated guideline group during the first 80 days postinjury. No major adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Time-to-recovery did not significantly differ across intervention groups. We found no differences between groups with regard to neck-specific outcomes, depression and health-related quality of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00546806.

Few promising multivariable prognostic models exist for recovery of people with non-specific neck pain in musculoskeletal primary care: a systematic review

QUESTION

Which multivariable prognostic model(s) for recovery in people with neck pain can be used in primary care?

DESIGN

Systematic review of studies evaluating multivariable prognostic models.

PARTICIPANTS

People with non-specific neck pain presenting at primary care.

DETERMINANTS

Baseline characteristics of the participants.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Recovery measured as pain reduction, reduced disability, or perceived recovery at short-term and long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

Fifty-three publications were included, of which 46 were derivation studies, four were validation studies, and three concerned combined studies. The derivation studies presented 99 multivariate models, all of which were at high risk of bias. Three externally validated models generated usable models in low risk of bias studies. One predicted recovery in non-specific neck pain, while two concerned participants with whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). Discriminative ability of the non-specific neck pain model was area under the curve (AUC) 0.65 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.71). For the first WAD model, discriminative ability was AUC 0.85 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.91). For the second WAD model, specificity was 99% (95% CI 93 to 100) and sensitivity was 44% (95% CI 23 to 65) for prediction of non-recovery, and 86% (95% CI 73 to 94) and 55% (95% CI 41 to 69) for prediction of recovery, respectively. Initial Neck Disability Index scores and age were identified as consistent prognostic factors in these three models.

CONCLUSION

Three externally validated models were found to be usable and to have low risk of bias, of which two showed acceptable discriminative properties for predicting recovery in people with neck pain. These three models need further validation and evaluation of their clinical impact before their broad clinical use can be advocated.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016042204. [Wingbermühle RW, van Trijffel E, Nelissen PM, Koes B, Verhagen AP (2018) Few promising multivariable prognostic models exist for recovery of people with non-specific neck pain in musculoskeletal primary care: a systematic review. Journal of Physiotherapy 64: 16-23].

The efficacy of manual therapy and exercise for treating non-specific neck pain: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To review and update the evidence for different forms of manual therapy (MT) and exercise for patients with different stages of non-specific neck pain (NP).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Cochrane-Register-of-Controlled-Trials, PEDro, EMBASE.

METHOD

A qualitative systematic review covering a period from January 2000 to December 2015 was conducted according to updated-guidelines. Specific inclusion criteria only on RCTs were used; including differentiation according to stages of NP (acute - subacute [ASNP] or chronic [CNP]), as well as sub-classification based on type of MT interventions: MT1 (HVLA manipulation); MT2 (mobilization and/or soft-tissue-techniques); MT3 (MT1 + MT2); and MT4 (Mobilization-with-Movement). In each sub-category, MT could be combined or not with exercise and/or usual medical care.

RESULTS

Initially 121 studies were identified for potential inclusion. Based on qualitative and quantitative evaluation criteria, 23 RCTs were identified for review. Evidence for ASNP: MODERATE-evidence: In favour of (i) MT1 to the cervical spine (Cx) combined with exercises when compared to MT1 to the thoracic spine (Tx) combined with exercises; (ii) MT3 to the Cx and Tx combined with exercise compared to MT2 to the Cx with exercise or compared to usual medical care for pain and satisfaction with care from short to long-term. Evidence for CNP: STRONG-evidence: Of no difference of efficacy between MT2 at the symptomatic Cx level(s) in comparison to MT2 on asymptomatic Cx level(s) for pain and function. MODERATE to STRONG-evidence: In favour of MT1 and MT3 on Cx and Tx with exercise in comparison to exercise or MT alone for pain, function, satisfaction with care and general-health from short to moderate-terms. MODERATE-evidence: In favour (i) of MT1 as compared to MT2 and MT4, all applied to the Cx, for neck mobility, and pain in the very short term; (ii) of MT2 using sof-tissue-techniques to the Cx and Tx or MT3 to the Cx and Tx in comparison to no-treatment in the short-term for pain and disability.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review updates the evidence for MT combined or not with exercise and/or usual medical care for different stages of NP and provides recommendations for future studies. Two majors points could be highlighted, the first one is that combining different forms of MT with exercise is better than MT or exercise alone, and the second one is that mobilization need not be applied at the symptomatic level(s) for improvements of NP patients. These both points may have clinical implications for reducing the risk involved with some MT techniques applied to the cervical spine.

PNF and manual therapy treatment results of patients with cervical spine osteoarthritis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of PNF and manual therapy methods in the treatment of patients with cervical spine osteoarthritis, especially their efficacy in reducing pain and improving functionality in everyday life. Long-term results were also compared in order to determine which method of treatment is more effective.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Eighty randomly selected females aged 45-65 were included in the study. They were randomly divided into two groups of 40 persons. One group received PNF treatment and the other received manual therapy (MAN.T). To evaluate functional capabilities, the Functional Rating Index was used. To evaluate changes in pain, a shortened version of the McGill Questionnaire was used.

RESULT

The PNF group achieved a greater reduction in pain than the MAN.T group. The PNF group showed a greater improvement in performing daily activities such as sleeping, personal care, travelling, work, recreation, lifting, walking and standing as well as decreased intensity and frequency of pain compared to the MAN.T group.

CONCLUSION

The PNF method proved to be more effective in both short (after two weeks) and long (after three months) term.

Myofascial Release Therapy in the Treatment of Occupational Mechanical Neck Pain: A Randomized Parallel Group Study

OBJECTIVE

As myofascial release therapy is currently under development, the objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of myofascial release therapy with manual therapy for treating occupational mechanical neck pain.

DESIGN

A randomized, single-blind parallel group study was developed. The sample (n = 59) was divided into GI, treated with manual therapy, and GII, treated with myofascial release therapy. Variables studied were intensity of neck pain, cervical disability, quality of life, craniovertebral angle, and ranges of cervical motion.

RESULTS

At five sessions, clinical significance was observed in both groups for all the variables studied, except for flexion in GI. At this time point, an intergroup statistical difference was observed, which showed that GII had better craniovertebral angle (P = 0.014), flexion (P = 0.021), extension (P = 0.003), right side bending (P = 0.001), and right rotation (P = 0.031). A comparative analysis between therapies after intervention showed statistical differences indicating that GII had better craniovertebral angle (P = 0.000), right (P = 0.000) and left (P = 0.009) side bending, right (P = 0.024) and left (P = 0.046) rotations, and quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment of occupational mechanical neck pain by myofascial release therapy seems to be more effective than manual therapy for correcting the advanced position of the head, recovering range of motion in side bending and rotation, and improving quality of life.

Manual therapy compared with physical therapy in patients with non-specific neck pain: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Manual therapy according to the School of Manual Therapy Utrecht (MTU) is a specific type of passive manual joint mobilization. MTU has not yet been systematically compared to other manual therapies and physical therapy. In this study the effectiveness of MTU is compared to physical therapy, particularly active exercise therapy (PT) in patients with non-specific neck pain.

Methods

Patients neck pain, aged between 18–70 years, were included in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial with a one-year follow-up. Primary outcome measures were global perceived effect and functioning (Neck Disability Index), the secondary outcome was pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale for Pain). Outcomes were measured at 3, 7, 13, 26 and 52 weeks. Multilevel analyses (intention-to-treat) were the primary analyses for overall between-group differences. Additional to the primary and secondary outcomes the number of treatment sessions of the MTU group and PT group was analyzed. Data were collected from September 2008 to February 2011.

Results

A total of 181 patients were included. Multilevel analyses showed no statistically significant overall differences at one year between the MTU and PT groups on any of the primary and secondary outcomes. The MTU group showed significantly lower treatment sessions compared to the PT group (respectively 3.1 vs. 5.9 after 7 weeks; 6.1 vs. 10.0 after 52 weeks).

Conclusions

Patients with neck pain improved in both groups without statistical significantly or clinically relevant differences between the MTU and PT groups during one-year follow-up.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00713843.

The effects of neck mobilization in patients with chronic neck pain: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of mobilization and routine physiotherapy on pain, disability, neck range of motion (ROM) and neck muscle endurance (NME) in patients having chronic mechanical neck pain (NP).

METHODS

Sixty eight patients with chronic mechanical NP were randomly allocated into two groups by using a computer generated random sequence table with 34 patients in the multi-modal mobilization group and 34 patients in the routine physiotherapy group. Baseline values for pain, disability, NME, and neck ROM were recorded using visual analogue scale (VAS), neck disability index (NDI), neck flexor muscle endurance test and universal goniometer respectively, before the treatment. Each patient received 10 treatment sessions over a period of four weeks and at the end of four weeks all the outcome measures were recorded again.

RESULTS

A paired t-test revealed significant pre to post treatment differences for all outcome measures in both groups (p ≤ 0.001 in all instances). An independent t-test revealed statistically significant differences for pain, disability, NME, and neck ROM in favor of the multi-modal mobilization group with a between group difference of 1.57 cm for VAS (p < 0.001), 11.74 points for NDI (p = 0.001), 18.45 s for NME (p < 0.001) and 6.06-8.24° for neck ROM (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that a combination of cervical mobilization with routine physiotherapy is more effective for reducing pain and disability and improving NME and neck ROM in patients with chronic mechanical NP compared to routine physiotherapy alone.

Short-duration therapeutic massage reduces postural upper trapezius muscle activity

Massage therapy has historically been used as a therapeutic treatment to help reduce pain and promote relaxation. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of therapeutic massage on the upper trapezius muscles, which are commonly associated with increased muscle tension. This was a randomized crossover study. Seventeen healthy individuals (nine women; 24.5±4.0 years) participated in the study. All individuals participated in two sessions that were held 24 h apart. In one of the sessions, the participants received a moderate pressure massage applied to the shoulders and neck. In the other session, participants sat quietly. The order of the sessions was counterbalanced across participants. Muscle activity, as measured by surface electromyography, of the upper trapezius muscles was recorded. The amount of muscle activity change following massage was compared with the change in muscle activity following quiet sitting. Muscle activity of the upper trapezius reduced significantly (19.3%; P=0.004) following massage compared with muscle activity following quiet sitting (1.0%). Our findings suggest that short-duration moderate pressure massage leads to a reduction in upper trapezius muscle activity. This result has potential implications for clinical populations such as those with chronic neck pain.

Is multimodal care effective for the management of patients with whiplash-associated disorders or neck pain and associated disorders? A systematic review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Little is known about the effectiveness of multimodal care for individuals with whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) and neck pain and associated disorders (NAD).

PURPOSE

To update findings of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders and evaluate the effectiveness of multimodal care for the management of patients with WAD or NAD.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Systematic review and best-evidence synthesis.

PATIENT SAMPLE

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Self-rated recovery, functional recovery (eg, disability, return to activities, work, or school), pain intensity, health-related quality of life, psychological outcomes (eg, depression, fear), or adverse events.

METHODS

We systematically searched five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 2000 to 2013. RCTs, cohort, and case-control studies meeting our selection criteria were eligible for critical appraisal. Random pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Scientifically admissible studies were summarized using evidence tables and synthesized following best-evidence synthesis principles.

RESULTS

We retrieved 2,187 articles, and 23 articles were eligible for critical appraisal. Of those, 18 articles from 14 different RCTs were scientifically admissible. There were a total of 31 treatment arms, including 27 unique multimodal programs of care. Overall, the evidence suggests that multimodal care that includes manual therapy, education, and exercise may benefit patients with grades I and II WAD and NAD. General practitioner care that includes reassurance, advice to stay active, and resumption of regular activities may be an option for the early management of WAD grades I and II. Our synthesis suggests that patients receiving high-intensity health care tend to experience poorer outcomes than those who receive fewer treatments for WAD and NAD.

CONCLUSIONS

Multimodal care can benefit patients with WAD and NAD with early or persistent symptoms. The evidence does not indicate that one multimodal care package is superior to another. Clinicians should avoid high utilization of care for patients with WAD and NAD.

Why Neck Pain Patients Are Not Referred to Manual Therapy: A Qualitative Study among Dutch Primary Care Stakeholders

BACKGROUND

Treatment of neck pain with manual therapy demonstrated to be more effective and cost-effective than general practitioner (GP) care or physiotherapy in a high quality RCT in the Netherlands in 2002. However, referral to manual therapy for neck pain is still relatively low. This study aims to explore the barriers and facilitators affecting the implementation of manual therapy in neck pain management in primary care.

METHODS

An explorative study was conducted comprising semi-structured interviews with GPs (n = 13), physiotherapists (n = 10), manual therapists (n = 7) and their patients with neck pain (n = 27), and three focus groups with additional stakeholders (n = 10-12 per group). A thematic analysis approach was used.

RESULTS

Different barriers and facilitators for referral were found for patients, GPs and physiotherapists on the individual level, but also in the interaction between stakeholders and their context. Individual perceptions such as knowledge and beliefs about manual therapy for neck pain either impeded or facilitated referral. Fear for complications associated with cervical manipulation was an important barrier for patients as well as GPs. For GPs and physiotherapists it was important whether they perceived it was part of their professional role to refer for manual therapy. Existing relations formed referral behavior, and the trust in a particular practitioner was a recurrent theme among GPs and physiotherapist as well as patients. The contextual factor availability of manual therapy played a role for all stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS

Barriers and facilitators were found especially in individual perceptions on manual therapy for neck pain (e.g. knowledge and beliefs), the interaction between stakeholders (e.g. collaboration and trust) and the organizational context. Implementation strategies that focus on these different aspects seem to be likely to optimize referral rates and the use of manual therapy in primary care management of neck pain.

A comparison of the effects of Mulligan's mobilization and Kinesio taping on pain, range of motion, muscle strength, and neck disability in patients with cervical spondylosis: A randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Cervical Spondylosis (CS) is a degenerative and painful pathology, which needs conservative treatment to relieve symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to investigate the effects of Mulligan's mobilization (MM) and Kinesio taping (KT) on pain, range of motion (ROM), muscle strength, and function in CS.

METHODS

Forty-five subjects were randomly placed into three groups: Group 1: control group (conventional rehabilitation-CR); Group 2: MM and CR; Group 3: KT and CR. Assessments including neck pain, cervical ROM, muscle strength and Neck Disability index (NDI) were conducted at baseline, after three-week treatment, and at one-month follow up. Results were analyzed using ANCOVA.

RESULTS

In all groups, pain and NDI scores reduced, cervical ROM and muscle strength increased with time (p< 0.001). Greater improvements in neck extension, left and right rotation were obtained in the KT and MM groups when compared to the control group (p< 0.05). In the KT group, improvement in right lateral flexion ROM was greater than the control and deep cervical flexor muscle strength was greater than the MM and the control groups (p< 0.05).

CONCLUSION

KT and MM contributed to CR for increasing cervical ROM and deep cervical flexor muscle strength in patients with CS.

Management of neck pain and associated disorders: A clinical practice guideline from the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration

PURPOSE

To develop an evidence-based guideline for the management of grades I-III neck pain and associated disorders (NAD).

METHODS

This guideline is based on recent systematic reviews of high-quality studies. A multidisciplinary expert panel considered the evidence of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, societal and ethical values, and patient experiences (obtained from qualitative research) when formulating recommendations. Target audience includes clinicians; target population is adults with grades I-III NAD <6 months duration.

RECOMMENDATION 1

Clinicians should rule out major structural or other pathologies as the cause of NAD. Once major pathology has been ruled out, clinicians should classify NAD as grade I, II, or III.

RECOMMENDATION 2

Clinicians should assess prognostic factors for delayed recovery from NAD.

RECOMMENDATION 3

Clinicians should educate and reassure patients about the benign and self-limited nature of the typical course of NAD grades I-III and the importance of maintaining activity and movement. Patients with worsening symptoms and those who develop new physical or psychological symptoms should be referred to a physician for further evaluation at any time during their care.

RECOMMENDATION 4

For NAD grades I-II ≤3 months duration, clinicians may consider structured patient education in combination with: range of motion exercise, multimodal care (range of motion exercise with manipulation or mobilization), or muscle relaxants. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer structured patient education alone, strain-counterstrain therapy, relaxation massage, cervical collar, electroacupuncture, electrotherapy, or clinic-based heat.

RECOMMENDATION 5

For NAD grades I-II >3 months duration, clinicians may consider structured patient education in combination with: range of motion and strengthening exercises, qigong, yoga, multimodal care (exercise with manipulation or mobilization), clinical massage, low-level laser therapy, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer strengthening exercises alone, strain-counterstrain therapy, relaxation massage, relaxation therapy for pain or disability, electrotherapy, shortwave diathermy, clinic-based heat, electroacupuncture, or botulinum toxin injections.

RECOMMENDATION 6

For NAD grade III ≤3 months duration, clinicians may consider supervised strengthening exercises in addition to structured patient education. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer structured patient education alone, cervical collar, low-level laser therapy, or traction. RECOMMENDATION 7: For NAD grade III >3 months duration, clinicians should not offer a cervical collar. Patients who continue to experience neurological signs and disability more than 3 months after injury should be referred to a physician for investigation and management. RECOMMENDATION 8: Clinicians should reassess the patient at every visit to determine if additional care is necessary, the condition is worsening, or the patient has recovered. Patients reporting significant recovery should be discharged.

A Comparison of the Effects of Stabilization Exercises Plus Manual Therapy to Those of Stabilization Exercises Alone in Patients With Nonspecific Mechanical Neck Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the efficacy of providing manual therapy in addition to cervical and scapulothoracic stabilization exercises in people with mechanical neck pain (MNP). Objectives To compare the effects of stabilization exercises plus manual therapy to those of stabilization exercises alone on disability, pain, range of motion (ROM), and quality of life in patients with MNP.

METHODS

One hundred two patients with MNP (18-65 years of age) were recruited and randomly allocated into 2 groups: stabilization exercise without (n = 51) and with (n = 51) manual therapy. The program was carried out 3 days per week for 4 weeks. The Neck Disability Index, visual analog pain scale, digital algometry of pressure pain threshold, goniometric measurements, and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey were used to assess participants at baseline and after 4 weeks.

RESULTS

Improvements in Neck Disability Index score, night pain, rotation ROM, and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey score were greater in the group that received stabilization exercise with manual therapy compared to the group that only received stabilization exercise. Between-group differences (95% confidence interval) were 2.2 (0.1, 4.3) points for the Neck Disability Index, 1.1 (0.0, 2.3) cm for pain at night measured on the visual analog scale, -4.3° (-8.1°, -0.5°) and -5.0° (-8.2°, -1.7°) for right and left rotation ROM, respectively, and -2.9 (-5.4, -0.4) points and -3.1 (-6.2, 0.0) points for the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey physical and mental components, respectively. Changes in resting and activity pain, pressure pain threshold, and cervical extension or lateral flexion ROM did not differ significantly between the groups. Pressure pain threshold increased only in those who received stabilization exercise with manual therapy (P<.05).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that stabilization exercises with manual therapy may be superior to stabilization exercises alone for improving disability, pain intensity at night, cervical rotation motion, and quality of life in patients with MNP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapy, level 1b.

Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment

BACKGROUND

Manipulation and mobilisation are commonly used to treat neck pain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of manipulation or mobilisation alone compared wiith those of an inactive control or another active treatment on pain, function, disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults experiencing neck pain with or without radicular symptoms and cervicogenic headache (CGH) at immediate- to long-term follow-up. When appropriate, to assess the influence of treatment characteristics (i.e. technique, dosage), methodological quality, symptom duration and subtypes of neck disorder on treatment outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

Review authors searched the following computerised databases to November 2014 to identify additional studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to find relevant studies. We updated this search in June 2015, but these results have not yet been incorporated.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken to assess whether manipulation or mobilisation improves clinical outcomes for adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and applied Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods (very low, low, moderate, high quality). We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 51 trials (2920 participants, 18 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus control; 34 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus another treatment, 1 trial had two comparisons). Cervical manipulation versus inactive control: For subacute and chronic neck pain, a single manipulation (three trials, no meta-analysis, 154 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) relieved pain at immediate- but not short-term follow-up. Cervical manipulation versus another active treatment: For acute and chronic neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 446 participants, ranged from moderate to high quality) produced similar changes in pain, function, quality of life (QoL), global perceived effect (GPE) and patient satisfaction when compared with multiple sessions of cervical mobilisation at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. For acute and subacute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation were more effective than certain medications in improving pain and function at immediate- (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality) and long-term follow-up (one trial, 181 participants, moderate quality). These findings are consistent for function at intermediate-term follow-up (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality). For chronic CGH, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 125 participants, low quality) may be more effective than massage in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 65 participants, very low quality) may be favoured over transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain reduction at short-term follow-up. For acute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 20 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than thoracic manipulation in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Thoracic manipulation versus inactive control: Three trials (150 participants) using a single session were assessed at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. At short-term follow-up, manipulation improved pain in participants with acute and subacute neck pain (five trials, 346 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.86 to -0.66) and improved function (four trials, 258 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.40, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.55) in participants with acute and chronic neck pain. A funnel plot of these data suggests publication bias. These findings were consistent at intermediate follow-up for pain/function/quality of life (one trial, 111 participants, low quality). Thoracic manipulation versus another active treatment: No studies provided sufficient data for statistical analyses. A single session of thoracic manipulation (one trial, 100 participants, moderate quality) was comparable with thoracic mobilisation for pain relief at immediate-term follow-up for chronic neck pain. Mobilisation versus inactive control: Mobilisation as a stand-alone intervention (two trials, 57 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) may not reduce pain more than an inactive control. Mobilisation versus another active treatment: For acute and subacute neck pain, anterior-posterior mobilisation (one trial, 95 participants, very low quality) may favour pain reduction over rotatory or transverse mobilisations at immediate-term follow-up. For chronic CGH with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, multiple sessions of TMJ manual therapy (one trial, 38 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than cervical mobilisation in improving pain/function at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. For subacute and chronic neck pain, cervical mobilisation alone (four trials, 165 participants, ranged from low to very low quality) may not be different from ultrasound, TENS, acupuncture and massage in improving pain, function, QoL and participant satisfaction at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. Additionally, combining laser with manipulation may be superior to using manipulation or laser alone (one trial, 56 participants, very low quality).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although support can be found for use of thoracic manipulation versus control for neck pain, function and QoL, results for cervical manipulation and mobilisation versus control are few and diverse. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Research designed to protect against various biases is needed. Findings suggest that manipulation and mobilisation present similar results for every outcome at immediate/short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple cervical manipulation sessions may provide better pain relief and functional improvement than certain medications at immediate/intermediate/long-term follow-up. Since the risk of rare but serious adverse events for manipulation exists, further high-quality research focusing on mobilisation and comparing mobilisation or manipulation versus other treatment options is needed to guide clinicians in their optimal treatment choices.

Manual physical therapists' use of biopsychosocial history taking in the management of patients with back or neck pain in clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

To develop and evaluate process indicators relevant to biopsychosocial history taking in patients with chronic back and neck pain.

METHODS

The SCEBS method, covering the Somatic, Psychological (Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior), and Social dimensions of chronic pain, was used to evaluate biopsychosocial history taking by manual physical therapists (MPTs). In Phase I, process indicators were developed while in Phase II indicators were tested in practice.

RESULTS

Literature-based recommendations were transformed into 51 process indicators. Twenty MTPs contributed 108 patient audio recordings. History taking was excellent (98.3%) for the Somatic dimension, very inadequate for Cognition (43.1%) and Behavior (38.3%), weak (27.8%) for Emotion, and low (18.2%) for the Social dimension. MTPs estimated their coverage of the Somatic dimension as excellent (100%), as adequate for Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior (60.1%), and as very inadequate for the Social dimension (39.8%).

CONCLUSION

MTPs perform screening for musculoskeletal pain mainly through the use of somatic dimension of (chronic) pain. Psychological and social dimensions of chronic pain were inadequately covered by MPTs. Furthermore, a substantial discrepancy between actual and self-estimated use of biopsychosocial history taking was noted. We strongly recommend full implementation of the SCEBS method in educational programs in manual physical therapy.

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders

BACKGROUND

Neck pain is common, disabling and costly. Exercise is one treatment approach.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of exercises to improve pain, disability, function, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults with neck pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, MANTIS, ClinicalTrials.gov and three other computerized databases up to between January and May 2014 plus additional sources (reference checking, citation searching, contact with authors).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing single therapeutic exercise with a control for adults suffering from neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radiculopathy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted trial selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment and clinical relevance. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. Meta-analyses were performed for relative risk and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) after judging clinical and statistical heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-seven trials (2485 analyzed /3005 randomized participants) met our inclusion criteria.For acute neck pain only, no evidence was found.For chronic neck pain, moderate quality evidence supports 1) cervico-scapulothoracic and upper extremity strength training to improve pain of a moderate to large amount immediately post treatment [pooled SMD (SMDp) -0.71 (95% CI: -1.33 to -0.10)] and at short-term follow-up; 2) scapulothoracic and upper extremity endurance training for slight beneficial effect on pain at immediate post treatment and short-term follow-up; 3) combined cervical, shoulder and scapulothoracic strengthening and stretching exercises varied from a small to large magnitude of beneficial effect on pain at immediate post treatment [SMDp -0.33 (95% CI: -0.55 to -0.10)] and up to long-term follow-up and a medium magnitude of effect improving function at both immediate post treatment and at short-term follow-up [SMDp -0.45 (95%CI: -0.72 to -0.18)]; 4) cervico-scapulothoracic strengthening/stabilization exercises to improve pain and function at intermediate term [SMDp -14.90 (95% CI:-22.40 to -7.39)]; 5) Mindfulness exercises (Qigong) minimally improved function but not global perceived effect at short term. Low evidence suggests 1) breathing exercises; 2) general fitness training; 3) stretching alone; and 4) feedback exercises combined with pattern synchronization may not change pain or function at immediate post treatment to short-term follow-up. Very low evidence suggests neuromuscular eye-neck co-ordination/proprioceptive exercises may improve pain and function at short-term follow-up.For chronic cervicogenic headache, moderate quality evidence supports static-dynamic cervico-scapulothoracic strengthening/endurance exercises including pressure biofeedback immediate post treatment and probably improves pain, function and global perceived effect at long-term follow-up. Low grade evidence supports sustained natural apophyseal glides (SNAG) exercises.For acute radiculopathy, low quality evidence suggests a small benefit for pain reduction at immediate post treatment with cervical stretch/strengthening/stabilization exercises.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No high quality evidence was found, indicating that there is still uncertainty about the effectiveness of exercise for neck pain. Using specific strengthening exercises as a part of routine practice for chronic neck pain, cervicogenic headache and radiculopathy may be beneficial. Research showed the use of strengthening and endurance exercises for the cervico-scapulothoracic and shoulder may be beneficial in reducing pain and improving function. However, when only stretching exercises were used no beneficial effects may be expected. Future research should explore optimal dosage.

Acute effects of single and multiple level thoracic manipulations on chronic mechanical neck pain: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Thoracic spine manipulation has become a popular alternative to local cervical manipulative therapy for mechanical neck pain. This study investigated the acute effects of single-level and multiple-level thoracic manipulations on chronic mechanical neck pain (CMNP).

METHODS

Forty-eight patients with CMNP were randomly allocated to single-level thoracic manipulation (STM) at T6-T7 or multiple-level thoracic manipulation (MTM), or to a control group (prone lying). Cervical range of motion (CROM), visual analog scale (VAS), and the Thai version of the Neck Disability Index (NDI-TH) scores were measured at baseline, and at 24-hour and at 1-week follow-up.

RESULTS

At 24-hour and 1-week follow-up, neck disability and pain levels were significantly (P<0.05) improved in the STM and MTM groups compared with the control group. CROM in flexion and left lateral flexion were increased significantly (P<0.05) in the STM group when compared with the control group at 1-week follow-up. The CROM in right rotation was increased significantly after MTM compared to the control group (P<0.05) at 24-hour follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences in neck disability, pain level at rest, and CROM between the STM and MTM groups.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that both single-level and multiple-level thoracic manipulation improve neck disability, pain levels, and CROM at 24-hour and 1-week follow-up in patients with CMNP.

Exploring patient satisfaction: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial of spinal manipulation, home exercise, and medication for acute and subacute neck pain

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess satisfaction with specific aspects of care for acute neck pain and explore the relationship between satisfaction with care, neck pain, and global satisfaction.

METHODS

This study was a secondary analysis of patient satisfaction from a randomized trial of spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) delivered by doctors of chiropractic, home exercise and advice (HEA) delivered by exercise therapists, and medication (MED) prescribed by a medical doctors for acute/subacute neck pain. Differences in satisfaction with specific aspects of care were analyzed using a linear mixed model. The relationship between specific aspects of care and (1) change in neck pain (primary outcome of the randomized trial) and (2) global satisfaction were assessed using Pearson's correlation and multiple linear regression.

RESULTS

Individuals receiving SMT or HEA were more satisfied with the information and general care received than MED group participants. Spinal manipulation therapy and HEA groups reported similar satisfaction with information provided during treatment; however, the SMT group was more satisfied with general care. Satisfaction with general care (r = -0.75 to -0.77; R(2) = 0.55-0.56) had a stronger relationship with global satisfaction compared with satisfaction with information provided (r = -0.65 to 0.67; R(2) = 0.39-0.46). The relationship between satisfaction with care and neck pain was weak (r = 0.17-0.38; R(2) = 0.08-0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with acute/subacute neck pain were more satisfied with specific aspects of care received during spinal manipulation therapy or home exercise interventions compared to receiving medication. The relationship between neck pain and satisfaction with care was weak.

Physical dysfunction and nonorganic signs in patients with chronic neck pain: exploratory study into interobserver reliability and construct validity

STUDY DESIGN

Repeated-measurement design.

OBJECTIVES

To explore interobserver reliability of the modified physical dysfunction severity (mPDS) as a measure for impairment of the cervical spine and the modified cervical nonorganic signs (mcNOS) as a measure for behavioral signs, and to explore construct validity of the mPDS and mcNOS.

BACKGROUND

The PDS has been used for evaluation of treatment efficacy in controlled trials in primary care. The cervical nonorganic signs were developed to assess illness behavior in patients with neck pain.

METHODS

Two observers independently assessed the mPDS and mcNOS in 51 patients with chronic neck pain in an outpatient tertiary rehabilitation setting, with a 3-week interval between assessments. Interobserver reliability for total scores of the mPDS and mcNOS was expressed as an intraclass correlation coefficient. Interobserver agreement for individual mcNOS tests was calculated as absolute agreement and Cohen kappa. Construct validity was expressed as Spearman correlation between the mPDS and mcNOS with the Neck Pain and Disability Scale and numeric pain rating scale for pain.

RESULTS

The interobserver reliability of the mPDS and mcNOS had intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.72 and 0.78, respectively. Agreement for individual mcNOS tests ranged from 63% to 88%, and kappa values ranged from 0.14 to 0.54. Correlation with the Neck Pain and Disability Scale was 0.26 for the mPDS and 0.49 for the mcNOS, and the correlation with the numeric pain rating scale was 0.32 for the mPDS and 0.37 for the mcNOS.

CONCLUSION

Interobserver reliability of both the mPDS and mcNOS was acceptable. The interobserver agreement for the individual mcNOS tests ranged from poor to acceptable. Construct validity of the mPDS and mcNOS appeared satisfactory.

Guideline-based development and practice test of quality indicators for physiotherapy care in patients with neck pain

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Little is currently known about the quality of physiotherapy care for patients with musculoskeletal pain. Neck pain was used as an example. The aim is to develop a set of quality indicators, including a practice test.

METHODS

A systematic method is used to develop potential process and outcome indicators. An expert and user panel is used to appraise the potential quality indicators regarding clarity, relevancy, feasibility, acceptability and improvement potential. An invitation to participate in the practice test was sent to physiotherapy practices. The resulting algorithm is used to calculate the degree to which physiotherapists met these indicators (0-100%). Differences in valid outcomes are tested for significance (Student's t-test; α = 0.05) and compared with established values for clinical relevance [minimal clinically important change (MCIC)].

RESULTS

A representative set of 40 quality indicators (28 process indicators and 12 outcome indicators) is selected from 44 initial guidelines and literature-based recommendations. The process indicators (n = 28) are classified per step of the clinical reasoning process of physiotherapy care. Of the 106 potential participants from 27 practices, 38 physiotherapists (35.8%) submitted data on 96 patients with non-specific neck pain. On average, the participating physiotherapists showed a 55.6% adherence to process indicators with a great variation in scores per step of the clinical reasoning process. The outcomes for 'pain', 'headache' and 'daily functioning' were significantly better compared with baseline, and the mean differences exceeded established values for MCICs.

CONCLUSION

Guardedly, we can conclude that a systematic approach is a valuable means to develop a preliminary set of process and outcome indicators for physiotherapy care for patients with non-specific neck pain, and a practice test should be an intrinsic part of such a systematic approach as it provides valuable information on the key attributes of the set indicators.

Natural course of acute neck and low back pain in the general population: the HUNT study

In this prospective cohort study we aimed to describe the natural course of acute neck and low back pain in a general population of Norway. We screened 9056 subjects aged 20-67 years who participated in a general health survey for a new episode of neck or low back pain the previous month. The screening identified 219 subjects who formed the cohort for this study. Pain intensity was reported on a numeric rating scale (0-10) at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months after start of the new pain episode. The course of pain was described for neck and low back pain, different baseline pain levels, age groups, and number of pain sites at baseline. Use of medication and health care was described and associations between pain intensity and seeking health care were estimated. Pain declined rapidly within 1 month after a new pain episode, with a reduction of 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-1.32) for neck pain and 1.40 (95% CI 0.82-1.99) for low back pain with little change thereafter. However, pain remained unchanged over the follow-up year for those with equal pain in the neck and low back areas at baseline and for those reporting 4 or more pain sites at baseline. Only 1 in 5 sought health care for their complaints. Still, the course of pain was comparable to effect sizes reported in interventional studies. This study thus contributes natural course reference data for comparisons of pain outcome in clinical trials and practice.

The outcomes of manipulation or mobilization therapy compared with physical therapy or exercise for neck pain: a systematic review

Study Design Systematic review. Study Rationale Neck pain is a prevalent condition. Spinal manipulation and mobilization procedures are becoming an accepted treatment for neck pain. However, data on the effectiveness of these treatments have not been summarized. Objective To compare manipulation or mobilization of the cervical spine to physical therapy or exercise for symptom improvement in patients with neck pain. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed, the National Guideline Clearinghouse Database, and bibliographies of key articles, which compared spinal manipulation or mobilization therapy with physical therapy or exercise in patients with neck pain. Articles were included based on predetermined criteria and were appraised using a predefined quality rating scheme. Results From 197 citations, 7 articles met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were no differences in pain improvement when comparing spinal manipulation to exercise, and there were inconsistent reports of pain improvement in subjects who underwent mobilization therapy versus physical therapy. No disability improvement was reported between treatment groups in studies of acute or chronic neck pain patients. No functional improvement was found with manipulation therapy compared with exercise treatment or mobilization therapy compared with physical therapy groups in patients with acute pain. In chronic neck pain subjects who underwent spinal manipulation therapy compared to exercise treatment, results for short-term functional improvement were inconsistent. Conclusion The data available suggest that there are minimal short- and long-term treatment differences in pain, disability, patient-rated treatment improvement, treatment satisfaction, health status, or functional improvement when comparing manipulation or mobilization therapy to physical therapy or exercise in patients with neck pain. This systematic review is limited by the variability of treatment interventions and lack of standardized outcomes to assess treatment benefit.

Systematic review of manual therapies for nonspecific neck pain

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of manual therapies in the treatment of nonspecific neck pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medline and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials of manual therapy or mobilization, used alone or with exercises to treat pain and functional impairment related to nonspecific neck pain. Cochrane Back Review Group criteria were used to assess the quality of the trials and the level of evidence (unclear, limited, moderate, or high) for short-, medium-, and long-term effects.

RESULTS

Of 27 identified trials, 18 were of high quality. In acute neck pain, effective treatments were thoracic manipulation combined with electrothermal therapy in the short term and cervical manipulation in the long term. In chronic neck pain and neck pain of variable duration, both pain and function improved consistently at all follow-up time points. None of the manual therapies used alone or in combination was superior over the others. In the long term, exercises alone or combined with manual therapies were superior over manual therapies used alone.

CONCLUSION

Manual therapies contribute usefully to the management of nonspecific neck pain. The level of evidence is moderate for short-term effects of upper thoracic manipulation in acute neck pain, limited for long-term effects of neck manipulation, and limited for all techniques and follow-up durations in chronic neck pain.

Ottawa Panel evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on therapeutic massage for neck pain

OBJECTIVE

To update evidence-based clinical practice guideline (EBCPG) on the use of massage compared to a control or other treatments for adults (>18 years) suffering from sub-acute and chronic neck pain.

METHODS

A literature search was performed from January 1, 1948 to December 31, 2010 for relevant articles. The Ottawa Panel created inclusion criteria focusing on high methodological quality and grading methods. Recommendations were assigned a grade (A, B, C, C+, D, D+, D-) based on strength of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 45 recommendations from ten articles were developed including 8 positive recommendations (6 grade A and 2 grade C+) and 23 neutral recommendations (12 grade C and 11 grade D).

DISCUSSION

Therapeutic massage can decrease pain, tenderness, and improve range of motion for sub-acute and chronic neck pain.

CONCLUSION

The Ottawa Panel was able to demonstrate that the massage interventions are effective for relieving immediate post-treatment neck pain symptoms, but data is insufficient for long-term effects.