Clinimetric Properties of Self-reported Disability Scales for Whiplash: A Systematic Review for the Whiplash Core Outcome Set (CATWAD)

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.

Recommendations for a core outcome measurement set for clinical trials in whiplash associated disorders

ABSTRACT

Inconsistent reporting of outcomes in clinical trials of treatments for whiplash associated disorders (WAD) hinders effective data pooling and conclusions about treatment effectiveness. A multidisciplinary International Steering Committee recently recommended 6 core outcome domains: Physical Functioning, Perceived Recovery, Work and Social Functioning, Psychological Functioning, Quality of Life and Pain. This study aimed to reach consensus and recommend a core outcome set (COS) representing each of the 6 domains. Forty-three patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were identified for Physical Functioning, 2 for perceived recovery, 37 for psychological functioning, 17 for quality of life, and 2 for pain intensity. They were appraised in 5 systematic reviews following COSMIN methodology. No PROMs of Work and Social Functioning in WAD were identified. No PROMs had undergone evaluation of content validity in patients with WAD, but some had moderate-to-high-quality evidence for sufficient internal structure. Based on these results, the International Steering Committee reached 100% consensus to recommend the following COS: Neck Disability Index or Whiplash Disability Questionnaire (Physical Functioning), the Global Rating of Change Scale (Perceived Recovery), one of the Pictorial Fear of Activity Scale-Cervical, Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Harvard Trauma Questionnaire, or Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale (Psychological Functioning), EQ-5D-3L or SF-6D (Quality of Life), numeric pain rating scale or visual analogue scale (Pain), and single-item questions pertaining to current work status and percent of usual work (Work and Social Functioning). These recommendations reflect the current status of research of PROMs of the 6 core outcome domains and may be modified as evidence grows.

Measurement Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Medication Adherence in Cardiovascular Disease: A COSMIN Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Several medication adherence patient-reported outcome measures (MA-PROMs) are available for use in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, little evidence is available on the most suitable MA-PROM to measure medication adherence in patients with CVD. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise the measurement properties of MA-PROMs for patients with CVD and identify the most suitable MA-PROM for use in clinical practice or future research in patients with CVD.

METHODS

An electronic search of nine databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ProQuest Health and Medicine, Cochrane Library, PsychInfo, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science) was conducted to identify studies that have reported on at least one of the measurement properties of MA-PROMs in patients with CVD. The methodological quality of the studies included in the systematic review was evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 40 MA-PROMs were identified in the 84 included studies. This review found there is a lack of moderate-to-high quality evidence of sufficient content validity for all MA-PROMs for patients with CVDs. Only eight MA-PROMs were classified in COSMIN recommendation category A. They exhibited sufficient content validity with very low-quality evidence, and moderate-to-high quality evidence for sufficient internal consistency. The 28 MA-PROMs that meet the requirements for COSMIN recommendation category 'B' require further validation studies. Four MA-PROMs including Hill-Bone Compliance Medication Scale (HBMS), the five-item Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS-5), Maastricht Utrecht Adherence in Hypertension (MUAH), and MUAH-16 have insufficient results with high quality evidence for at least one measurement property and consequently are not recommended for use in patients with CVD. Two MA-PROMs (Adherence to Refills and Medications Scale [ARMS] and ARMS-7) are comprehensive and have moderate to high quality evidence for four sufficient measurement properties.

CONCLUSION

From the eight MA-PROMs in COSMIN recommendation category A, ARMS and ARMS-7 were selected as the most suitable MA-PROMs for use in patients with CVD. They are the most comprehensive with be best quality evidence to support their use in clinical practice and research.

A systematic review shows minimal evidence for measurement properties of psychological functioning outcomes in whiplash

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to systematically identify, synthesize, and appraise studies on the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for anxiety, depression, fear of movement, pain catastrophizing, post-traumatic stress, self-efficacy, and stress in people with whiplash-associated disorders (WAD).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PILOTS, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched (November 9, 2021). Studies evaluating any measurement property of relevant PROMs in WAD were included. Two reviewers independently screened the studies and assessed the measurement properties in accordance with the COSMIN guidelines.

RESULTS

Measurement properties of 10 PROMs were evaluated in WAD: Pictorial Fear of Activity Scale-Cervical (PFActS-C), Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia-11, Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ), PSEQ-4 item, PSEQ-2a, PSEQ-2b, Self-Efficacy Scale, Harvard Trauma Questionnaire, and Post-Traumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale. Content validity was not examined in any of these PROMs in whiplash. Moderate- or high-quality evidence showed adequate internal structure for the PSEQ, PCS, and PFActS-C, whereas the original structures of the remaining seven PROMs were not confirmed in whiplash.

CONCLUSION

Until further research on the measurement properties of these PROMs is available, researchers may opt to use the PSEQ, PCS, or PFActS-C if the construct is aligned with research aims.

Cervical Motor and Nociceptive Dysfunction After an Acute Whiplash Injury and the Association With Long-Term Non-Recovery: Revisiting a One-Year Prospective Cohort With Ankle Injured Controls

Aims

To explore the development of cervical motor and nociceptive dysfunction in patients with whiplash (WPs) and non-recovery based on injury-related work disability 1-year after injury when compared with ankle-injured controls (ACs).

Methods

A 1-year observational prospective study examining consecutive WPs and age- and sex-matched ACs at 1 week,3 months, 6 months, and 1 year post-injury using semi-structured interviews; global pain rating (VAS0-10) and the pain rating index (PRI-T) and number-of-words-chosen (NWC) from the McGill Pain Questionnaire; examining nociceptive functioning using the cold pressor test (CPT), pressure algometry, and methodic palpation, and central pain processing using counter-stimulation; and examining motor functioning by active cervical range-of-motion (CROM), and neck strength [maximal voluntary contraction flexion/extension (MVC)]. One-year work disability/non-recovery was determined using a semi-structured interview.

Results

A total of 141 WPs and 40 ACs were included. Total pain rating index (PRI-T) NWC were higher in ACs after 1 week but higher in WPs after 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. Ongoing global pain was higher in WPs after 1 week and after 3 and 6 months but not after 1 year. Pressure pain thresholds were reduced, and palpation was higher in the neck and jaw in WPs after 1 week but was not consistently different afterward from ACs. Cervical mobility was reduced in WPs after 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months but not after 1 year, and MVC was significantly reduced in WPs when compared with ACs after 1 week and 1 year but not after 3 and 6 months. One-year non-recovery was only encountered in 11 WPs and not in the AC group. Non-recovered WPs (N-WPs) had consistently significantly higher VAS₀₋₁₀, PRI-T, NWC, reduced pressure pain thresholds, raised muscle-tenderness, reduced active cervical range-of-motion, reduced active-neck-flexion/extension, and reported higher neck disability scores than recovered WPs. Of special interest, there was increasing tenderness in trigeminal-derived muscles based on palpation scores, and marked reduction of PPDT was most pronounced in N-WPs when compared with recovered WPs and ACs.

Conclusion

Cervical motor dysfunction and segmental nociceptive sensitization were present from early after injury in WPs and prolonged in N-WPs. Differences in trigeminal and cervical motor and sensory function in N-WPs could be of interest for future treatment studies.

Development and validation of the ND10 to measure neck-related functional disability

BACKGROUND

Previous neck-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have tended to measure both symptoms and disability. This multi-staged study developed and evaluated a neck-specific PROM focusing on functional disability.

METHODS

This study integrated findings from systematic reviews on neck-specific outcome measures, patient interviews, qualitative studies on neck disability, and iterative item testing to develop a 10-item measure of neck-related disability (ND10). Content validity was assessed by classifying items using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and perspective linking. Patients (n = 78) with neck pain completed cognitive interviews, exploring items of the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and ND10, and completed structured questions related to literacy and relevance. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients, Bland Altman graphs, and Cronbach's alpha. Concurrent convergent validity was evaluated by comparing the ND10 to the NDI, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH). Known group validity was determined by comparing ND10 scores from patients, who rated their neck as more or less than 1/2 of "normal" on the SANE, using t-tests.

RESULTS

The ND10 requires respondents to make rational judgements about their neck-related body function and disability. It has high internal consistency (0.94) and re-test reliability (0.87; SEM = 3.2/100; MDC = 7.5); and no re-test bias (mean re-test difference of 0.6). It followed expected correlation patterns, being highly correlated with related multi-item PROMs (r = 0.85-0.91), and moderately correlated to the single-item SANE. More patients agreed that the ND10 was easily readable than did so for the NDI (84% vs 68%; p < 0.05). All the PROMs distinguished the patients who perceived themselves as being abnormal/normal defined by a dichotomized SANE (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The ND10 is reliable and valid for measuring neck-related functional disability. Longitudinal and cross-cultural translation studies are needed to support future use.