Reliability of 3 assessment tools used to evaluate randomized controlled trials for treatment of neck pain

Massage for neck pain

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia in patients with chronic pain - A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Several randomized controlled trials have implemented cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) for patients with comorbid insomnia and chronic pain. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effectiveness of CBT-I on patient-reported sleep, pain, and other health outcomes (depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and fatigue) in patients with comorbid insomnia and chronic non-cancer pain. A systematic literature search was conducted using eight electronic databases. Upon duplicate removal, 6374 records were screened against the inclusion criteria. Fourteen randomized controlled trials were selected for the review, with twelve (N = 762 participants) included in the meta-analysis. At post-treatment, significant treatment effects were found on global measures of sleep (standardized mean difference = 0.89), pain (0.20), and depressive symptoms (0.44). At follow-up (up to 12 mo), CBT-I significantly improved sleep (0.56). Using global measures of sleep, we found a probability of 81% and 71% for having better sleep after CBT-I at post-treatment and final follow-up, respectively. The probability of having less pain after CBT-I at post-treatment and final follow-up was 58% and 57%, respectively. There were no statistically significant effects on anxiety symptoms and fatigue at either assessment point. Future trials with sufficient power, longer follow-up periods, and inclusion of CBT for pain components are warranted.

Quality versus risk of bias assessment of palliative care trials: comparison of two tools

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of palliative care interventions are challenging to conduct and evaluate. Tools used to judge the quality of RCTs do not account for the complexities of conducting research in seriously ill populations and may artificially downgrade confidence in palliative care research.

OBJECTIVE

To compare assessments from the Palliative Care Trial Assessment Tool (PCTAT) and Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool.

DESIGN

Reviewers assessed 43 RCTs using PCTAT and RoB. We compared assessments of each trial, assessed overall agreement (weighted kappa (Kw)) and examined (dis)agreement for comparable items. We assessed quality of life at 1-3 months among trials grouped according to RoB or PCTAT score (using meta-analysis) and whether RoB or quality improved over time (Cochran-Armitage trend test).

RESULTS

Of 43 trials, those rated low RoB had a mean PCTAT score of 73 (SD 10); those rated high RoB had a mean PCTAT score of 56 (SD 14). Overall Kw was 0.33 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.42). Total agreement between comparable items was observed for 56% of trials (24/43) and total disagreement for 21% (8/43). The standardised mean difference in quality of life was statistically significant among RCTs with low RoB and high PCTAT, but not for those with medium/low PCTAT or high/unclear RoB. Quality of reporting improved over time, whereas RoB did not.

CONCLUSION

Although there was fair agreement between tools, areas of disagreement/non-comparability suggest the tools capture different aspects of bias/quality. A specific tool to evaluate quality of palliative care trials may be warranted.

Quality of evidence in a post-Soviet country: evaluation of methodological quality of controlled clinical trials published in national journals from Uzbekistan

Background

Most researchers in Uzbekistan prefer to publish their reports in journals of their home country. Moreover, the proportion of healthcare practitioners who prefer to use these national sources of information also remains high. However, the quality of publications from national journals, in post-Soviet countries, has not been systematically evaluated until now. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials’ (RCTs) reports published in medical journals from Uzbekistan. We supposed that reports had at least minimal quality to contribute to the higher quality of healthcare.

Methods

To evaluate the quality of RCTs, we selected two journals from the list of national medical journals for which background information was provided. We decided to select articles from journals that had the highest subscription rate and were likely to have the highest impact on clinical decisions. The journals were Medical Journal of Uzbekistan and Paediatrics. Only issues published in 2007–2017 were considered for evaluation. Two evaluators independently scored RCTs and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) reported in the journals. The 5-point scale developed by Jadad et al. was used to evaluate the quality of reports. Consensus-based decision was made about the final score of each report.

Results

We reviewed 1311 studies in the two journals and found 380 clinical trials reports for the final evaluation. Our main finding was that none of the reports received a final score of more than 1, with an absolute agreement between evaluators. A median score of the studied reports was equal to 0, predicting a very low quality of controlled trials reported in the national journals (Wilcoxon signed-rank test p = 1.0; 95% CI = 0–0).

Conclusions

We believe that quality of reports about controlled trials, in Uzbekistan, can be considered insufficient to contribute to the higher quality of care and patients’ safety. In the worst case, such condition can cause serious damage to the public health and lead to ineffective use of resources in the country. Therefore, the better reporting and organization of RCTs and CCTs should become a main goal of all stakeholders interested in the effective and safe healthcare in the country.

Risk of bias and reporting completeness of randomised controlled trials in burn care: protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Burn care represents a healthcare and economic burden to patients internationally. Choice of the most clinically effective treatment strategies requires evidence which is best obtained through high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCT). The number of published RCTs of burn care is increasing. However, trial quality and reporting standards are unclear. This study will assess the risk of bias and adequacy of reporting in recent burn care RCTs using tools endorsed by the Cochrane Collaboration.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic literature review will be undertaken, assessing parallel group RCTs evaluating therapeutic interventions for patients with cutaneous burns. Literature searches will use Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Separate searches for each database will include medical subject heading and free text terms including 'burn', 'scald', 'thermal injury' and 'RCT'. Two reviewers will independently assess each study for inclusion. Risk of bias (RoB) will be assessed with the revised tool (RoB 2) and reporting completeness with the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 guidelines. We will report a narrative synthesis of all studies, including domain specific, and overall risk of bias for the primary outcome of each trial. Inter-rater agreement for RoB 2 will be reported using Fleiss's Kappa. For adherence to the CONSORT guidelines, we will generate a completeness of reporting index for the five domains.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethics approval is required because published documents will be used. Findings of the study will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018111020.

Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

The Cochrane risk of bias tool is commonly criticized for having a low reliability. We aimed to investigate whether training of raters, with objective and standardized instructions on how to assess risk of bias, can improve the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

METHODS

In this pilot study, four raters inexperienced in risk of bias assessment were randomly allocated to minimal or intensive standardized training for risk of bias assessment of randomized trials of physical therapy treatments for patients with knee osteoarthritis pain. Two raters were experienced risk of bias assessors who served as reference. The primary outcome of our study was between-group reliability, defined as the agreement of the risk of bias assessments of inexperienced raters with the reference assessments of experienced raters. Consensus-based assessments were used for this purpose. The secondary outcome was within-group reliability, defined as the agreement of assessments within pairs of inexperienced raters. We calculated the chance-corrected weighted Kappa to quantify agreement within and between groups of raters for each of the domains of the risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

A total of 56 trials were included in our analysis. The Kappa for the agreement of inexperienced raters with reference across items of the risk of bias tool ranged from 0.10 to 0.81 for the minimal training group and from 0.41 to 0.90 for the standardized training group. The Kappa values for the agreement within pairs of inexperienced raters across the items of the risk of bias tool ranged from 0 to 0.38 for the minimal training group and from 0.93 to 1 for the standardized training group. Between-group differences in Kappa for the agreement of inexperienced raters with reference always favored the standardized training group and was most pronounced for incomplete outcome data (difference in Kappa 0.52, p < 0.001) and allocation concealment (difference in Kappa 0.30, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive, standardized training on risk of bias assessment may significantly improve the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

WITHDRAWN: Acupuncture for neck disorders

BACKGROUND

Neck pain is one of the three most frequently reported complaints of the musculoskeletal system. Treatments for neck pain are varied, as are perceptions of benefit. Acupuncture has been used as an alternative to more conventional treatment for musculoskeletal pain. This review summarises the most current scientific evidence on the effectiveness of acupuncture for acute, subacute and chronic neck pain. This update replaces our 2006 Cochrane review update on this topic.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of acupuncture for adults with neck pain, with focus on pain relief, disability or functional measures, patient satisfaction and global perceived effect.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Manual, Alternative and Natural Therapy Index System (MANTIS), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL) from their beginning to August 2015. We searched reference lists, two trial registers and the acupuncture database Traditional Chinese Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System (TCMLARS) in China to 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published trials that used random assignment to intervention groups, in full text or abstract form. We excluded quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors made independent decisions for each step of the review: article inclusion, data abstraction and assessment of quality of trial methods. We assessed study quality by using the Cochrane Back Review Group 'Risk of bias' tool. We used consensus to resolve disagreements, and when clinical heterogeneity was absent, we combined studies by using random-effects meta-analysis models.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 27 included studies, three represented individuals with whiplash-associated disorders (WADs) ranging from acute to chronic (205 participants), five explored chronic myofascial neck pain (186 participants), five chronic pain due to arthritic changes (542 participants), six chronic non-specific neck pain (4011 participants), two neck pain with radicular signs (43 participants) and six subacute or chronic mechanical neck pain (5111 participants).For mechanical neck pain, we found that acupuncture is beneficial at immediate-term follow-up compared with sham acupuncture for pain intensity; at short-term follow-up compared with sham or inactive treatment for pain intensity; at short-term follow-up compared with sham treatment for disability; and at short-term follow-up compared with wait-list control for pain intensity and neck disability improvement. Statistical pooling was appropriate for acupuncture compared with sham for short-term outcomes due to statistical homogeneity (P value = 0.83; I2 = 20%). Results of the meta-analysis favoured acupuncture (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.20 to -0.07; P value = 0.0006). This effect does not seem sustainable over the long term. Whether subsequent repeated sessions would be successful was not examined by investigators in our primary studies.Acupuncture appears to be a safe treatment modality, as adverse effects are minor. Reported adverse effects include increased pain, bruising, fainting, worsening of symptoms, local swelling and dizziness. These studies reported no life-threatening adverse effects and found that acupuncture treatments were cost-effective.Since the time of our previous review, the quality of RCTs has improved, and we have assessed many of them as having low risk of bias. However, few large trials have provided high-quality evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence suggests that acupuncture relieves pain better than sham acupuncture, as measured at completion of treatment and at short-term follow-up, and that those who received acupuncture report less pain and disability at short-term follow-up than those on a wait-list. Moderate-quality evidence also indicates that acupuncture is more effective than inactive treatment for relieving pain at short-term follow-up.

Populations and Interventions for Palliative and End-of-Life Care: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Evidence supports palliative care effectiveness. Given workforce constraints and the costs of new services, payers and providers need help to prioritize their investments. They need to know which patients to target, which personnel to hire, and which services best improve outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To inform how payers and providers should identify patients with "advanced illness" and the specific interventions they should implement, we reviewed the evidence to identify (1) individuals appropriate for palliative care and (2) elements of health service interventions (personnel involved, use of multidisciplinary teams, and settings of care) effective in achieving better outcomes for patients, caregivers, and the healthcare system.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases (1/1/2001-1/8/2015).

RESULTS

Randomized controlled trials (124) met inclusion criteria. The majority of studies in cancer (49%, 38 of 77 studies) demonstrated statistically significant patient or caregiver outcomes (e.g., p < 0.05), as did those in congestive heart failure (CHF) (62%, 13 of 21), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; 58%, 11 of 19), and dementia (60%, 15 of 25). Most prognostic criteria used clinicians' judgment (73%, 22 of 30). Most interventions included a nurse (70%, 69 of 98), and many were nurse-only (39%, 27 of 69). Social workers were well represented, and home-based approaches were common (56%, 70 of 124). Home interventions with visits were more effective than those without (64%, 28 of 44; vs. 46%, 12 of 26). Interventions improved communication and care planning (70%, 12 of 18), psychosocial health (36%, 12 of 33, for depressive symptoms; 41%, 9 of 22, for anxiety), and patient (40%, 8 of 20) and caregiver experiences (63%, 5 of 8). Many interventions reduced hospital use (65%, 11 of 17), but most other economic outcomes, including costs, were poorly characterized. Palliative care teams did not reliably lower healthcare costs (20%, 2 of 10).

CONCLUSIONS

Palliative care improves cancer, CHF, COPD, and dementia outcomes. Effective models include nurses, social workers, and home-based components, and a focus on communication, psychosocial support, and the patient or caregiver experience. High-quality research on intervention costs and cost outcomes in palliative care is limited.

Empirical evaluation of the Q-Genie tool: a protocol for assessment of effectiveness

INTRODUCTION

Meta-analyses of genetic association studies are affected by biases and quality shortcomings of the individual studies. We previously developed and validated a risk of bias tool for use in systematic reviews of genetic association studies. The present study describes a larger empirical evaluation of the Q-Genie tool.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and the Human Genome Epidemiology Network will be searched for published meta-analyses of genetic association studies. Twelve reviewers in pairs will apply the Q-Genie tool to all studies in included meta-analyses. The Q-Genie will then be evaluated on its ability to (i) increase precision after exclusion of low quality studies, (ii) decrease heterogeneity after exclusion of low quality studies and (iii) good agreement with experts on quality rating by Q-Genie. A qualitative assessment of the tool will also be conducted using structured questionnaires.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review will quantitatively and qualitatively assess the Q-Genie's ability to identify poor quality genetic association studies. This information will inform the selection of studies for inclusion in meta-analyses, conduct sensitivity analyses and perform metaregression. Results of this study will strengthen our confidence in estimates of the effect of a gene on an outcome from meta-analyses, ultimately bringing us closer to deliver on the promise of personalised medicine.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

An updated Q-Genie tool will be made available from the Population Genomics Program website and the results will be submitted for a peer-reviewed publication.

Acupuncture for neck disorders

BACKGROUND

Neck pain is one of the three most frequently reported complaints of the musculoskeletal system. Treatments for neck pain are varied, as are perceptions of benefit. Acupuncture has been used as an alternative to more conventional treatment for musculoskeletal pain. This review summarises the most current scientific evidence on the effectiveness of acupuncture for acute, subacute and chronic neck pain. This update replaces our 2006 Cochrane review update on this topic.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of acupuncture for adults with neck pain, with focus on pain relief, disability or functional measures, patient satisfaction and global perceived effect.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Manual, Alternative and Natural Therapy Index System (MANTIS), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL) from their beginning to August 2015. We searched reference lists, two trial registers and the acupuncture database Traditional Chinese Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System (TCMLARS) in China to 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published trials that used random assignment to intervention groups, in full text or abstract form. We excluded quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors made independent decisions for each step of the review: article inclusion, data abstraction and assessment of quality of trial methods. We assessed study quality by using the Cochrane Back Review Group 'Risk of bias' tool. We used consensus to resolve disagreements, and when clinical heterogeneity was absent, we combined studies by using random-effects meta-analysis models.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 27 included studies, three represented individuals with whiplash-associated disorders (WADs) ranging from acute to chronic (205 participants), five explored chronic myofascial neck pain (186 participants), five chronic pain due to arthritic changes (542 participants), six chronic non-specific neck pain (4011 participants), two neck pain with radicular signs (43 participants) and six subacute or chronic mechanical neck pain (5111 participants).For mechanical neck pain, we found that acupuncture is beneficial at immediate-term follow-up compared with sham acupuncture for pain intensity; at short-term follow-up compared with sham or inactive treatment for pain intensity; at short-term follow-up compared with sham treatment for disability; and at short-term follow-up compared with wait-list control for pain intensity and neck disability improvement. Statistical pooling was appropriate for acupuncture compared with sham for short-term outcomes due to statistical homogeneity (P value = 0.83; I(2) = 20%). Results of the meta-analysis favoured acupuncture (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.20 to -0.07; P value = 0.0006). This effect does not seem sustainable over the long term. Whether subsequent repeated sessions would be successful was not examined by investigators in our primary studies.Acupuncture appears to be a safe treatment modality, as adverse effects are minor. Reported adverse effects include increased pain, bruising, fainting, worsening of symptoms, local swelling and dizziness. These studies reported no life-threatening adverse effects and found that acupuncture treatments were cost-effective.Since the time of our previous review, the quality of RCTs has improved, and we have assessed many of them as having low risk of bias. However, few large trials have provided high-quality evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence suggests that acupuncture relieves pain better than sham acupuncture, as measured at completion of treatment and at short-term follow-up, and that those who received acupuncture report less pain and disability at short-term follow-up than those on a wait-list. Moderate-quality evidence also indicates that acupuncture is more effective than inactive treatment for relieving pain at short-term follow-up.

Reporting health care decision models: a prospective reliability study of a multidimensional evaluation framework

The aim of this study was to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of the Phillips-checklist, a proposed framework for the quality assessment of modeling studies. Six raters evaluated nine modeling studies from three different medical specialties. Intra-class correlation (ICC) and corresponding variance components were estimated from these studies. Raters were asked to comment on their experience with the framework. While overall the mean inter-rater reliability showed no significant rater-effect (ICC = 0.69, p = 0.064), there was - presumably as a result of a lower study variability - a significant rater effect for clopidogrel only (p < 0.001). The framework allowed a more structured methodological assessment but several items remained unclear. Regarding the quality assessment of modeling studies with the proposed framework, the rater variability is similar or even higher than variability because of studies or residual effects. Several scoring items can and should be improved to ease interpretation.

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.

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.

Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

The Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool has been widely embraced by the systematic review community, but several studies have reported that its reliability is low. We aim to investigate whether training of raters, including objective and standardized instructions on how to assess risk of bias, can improve the reliability of this tool. We describe the methods that will be used in this investigation and present an intensive standardized training package for risk of bias assessment that could be used by contributors to the Cochrane Collaboration and other reviewers.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a pilot study. We will first perform a systematic literature review to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that will be used for risk of bias assessment. Using the identified RCTs, we will then do a randomized experiment, where raters will be allocated to two different training schemes: minimal training and intensive standardized training. We will calculate the chance-corrected weighted Kappa with 95% confidence intervals to quantify within- and between-group Kappa agreement for each of the domains of the risk of bias tool. To calculate between-group Kappa agreement, we will use risk of bias assessments from pairs of raters after resolution of disagreements. Between-group Kappa agreement will quantify the agreement between the risk of bias assessment of raters in the training groups and the risk of bias assessment of experienced raters. To compare agreement of raters under different training conditions, we will calculate differences between Kappa values with 95% confidence intervals.

DISCUSSION

This study will investigate whether the reliability of the risk of bias tool can be improved by training raters using standardized instructions for risk of bias assessment. One group of inexperienced raters will receive intensive training on risk of bias assessment and the other will receive minimal training. By including a control group with minimal training, we will attempt to mimic what many review authors commonly have to do, that is-conduct risk of bias assessment in RCTs without much formal training or standardized instructions. If our results indicate that an intense standardized training does improve the reliability of the RoB tool, our study is likely to help improve the quality of risk of bias assessments, which is a central component of evidence synthesis.

Recommendations for physical therapists on the treatment of lumbopelvic pain during pregnancy: a systematic review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVES

To review and assess the peer-reviewed literature on the effectiveness of physical therapy interventions in treating lumbopelvic pain during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines on interventions for lumbopelvic pain during pregnancy differ in their recommendations for assessment and intervention. Recent publications may allow revising current recommendations for the treatment of this complex problem.

METHODS

An electronic search strategy was conducted in PubMed, PEDro, Scopus, and CINAHL of literature published from January 1992 to November 2013. Two authors independently assessed all abstracts for eligibility. Articles were independently rated for quality by 2 authors, using the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria for methodological quality. Where possible, effect sizes were calculated for the different interventions.

RESULTS

A total of 22 articles (all randomized controlled trials) reporting on 22 independent studies were included. Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was moderate. Data for 4 types of interventions were considered: a combination of interventions (7 studies, n = 1202), exercise therapy (9 studies, n = 2149), manual therapy (5 studies, n = 360), and material support (1 study, n = 115).

CONCLUSION

All included studies on exercise therapy, and most of the studies on interventions combined with patient education, reported a positive effect on pain, disability, and/or sick leave. Evidence-based recommendations can be made for the use of exercise therapy for the treatment of lumbopelvic pain during pregnancy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapy, level 1a-. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2014;44(7):464-473. Epub 10 May 2014. doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.5098.

Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool in physical therapy trials

OBJECTIVES

To test the inter-rater reliability of the RoB tool applied to Physical Therapy (PT) trials by comparing ratings from Cochrane review authors with those of blinded external reviewers.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PT were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for meta-analysis of PT interventions. RoB assessments were conducted independently by 2 reviewers blinded to the RoB ratings reported in the Cochrane reviews. Data on RoB assessments from Cochrane reviews and other characteristics of reviews and trials were extracted. Consensus assessments between the two reviewers were then compared with the RoB ratings from the Cochrane reviews. Agreement between Cochrane and blinded external reviewers was assessed using weighted kappa (κ).

RESULTS

In total, 109 trials included in 17 Cochrane reviews were assessed. Inter-rater reliability on the overall RoB assessment between Cochrane review authors and blinded external reviewers was poor (κ  =  0.02, 95%CI: -0.06, 0.06]). Inter-rater reliability on individual domains of the RoB tool was poor (median κ  = 0.19), ranging from κ  =  -0.04 ("Other bias") to κ  =  0.62 ("Sequence generation"). There was also no agreement (κ  =  -0.29, 95%CI: -0.81, 0.35]) in the overall RoB assessment at the meta-analysis level.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of bias assessments of RCTs using the RoB tool are not consistent across different research groups. Poor agreement was not only demonstrated at the trial level but also at the meta-analysis level. Results have implications for decision making since different recommendations can be reached depending on the group analyzing the evidence. Improved guidelines to consistently apply the RoB tool and revisions to the tool for different health areas are needed.

Physician-delivered injection therapies for mechanical neck disorders: a systematic review update (non-oral, non-intravenous pharmacological interventions for neck pain)

Background:

Controversy persists regarding medicinal injections for mechanical neck disorders (MNDs).

Objectives:

To determine the effectiveness of physician-delivered injections on pain, function/disability, quality of life, global perceived effect and patient satisfaction for adults with MNDs.

Search Methods:

We updated our previous searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE from December 2006 through to March 2012.

Selection Criteria:

We included randomized controlled trials of adults with neck disorders treated by physician-delivered injection therapies.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Two authors independently selected articles, abstracted data and assessed methodological quality. When clinical heterogeneity was absent, we combined studies using random-effects models.

Results:

We included 12 trials (667 participants). No high or moderate quality studies were found with evidence of benefit over control. Moderate quality evidence suggests little or no difference in pain or function/disability between nerve block injection of steroid and bupivacaine vs bupivacaine alone at short, intermediate and long-term for chronic neck pain. We found limited very low quality evidence of an effect on pain with intramuscular lidocaine vs control for chronic myofascial neck pain. Two low quality studies showed an effect on pain with anaesthetic nerve block vs saline immediately post treatment and in the short-term. All other studies were of low or very low quality with no evidence of benefit over controls.

Authors' Conclusions:

Current evidence does not confirm the effectiveness of IM-lidocaine injection for chronic mechanical neck pain nor anaesthetic nerve block for cervicogenic headache. There is moderate evidence of no benefit for steroid blocks vs controls for mechanical neck pain.

Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) for Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression

PURPOSE

This systematic review update evaluated low level laser therapy (LLLT) for adults with neck pain.

METHODS

Computerized searches (root up to Feb 2012) included pain, function/disability, quality of life (QoL) and global perceived effect (GPE). GRADE, effect-sizes, heterogeneity and meta-regression were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 17 trials, 10 demonstrated high risk of bias. For chronic neck pain, there was moderate quality evidence (2 trials, 109 participants) supporting LLLT over placebo to improve pain/disability/QoL/GPE up to intermediate-term (IT). For acute radiculopathy, cervical osteoarthritis or acute neck pain, low quality evidence suggested LLLT improves ST pain/function/QoL over a placebo. For chronic myofascial neck pain (5 trials, 188 participants), evidence was conflicting; a meta-regression of heterogeneous trials suggests super-pulsed LLLT increases the chance of a successful pain outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

We found diverse evidence using LLLT for neck pain. LLLT may be beneficial for chronic neck pain/function/QoL. Larger long-term dosage trials are needed.

Inconsistency in the items included in tools used in general health research and physical therapy to evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials: a descriptive analysis

Background

Assessing the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is crucial to understand how biases affect treatment effect estimates. A number of tools have been developed to evaluate risk of bias of RCTs; however, it is unknown how these tools compare to each other in the items included. The main objective of this study was to describe which individual items are included in RCT quality tools used in general health and physical therapy (PT) research, and how these items compare to those of the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool.

Methods

We used comprehensive literature searches and a systematic approach to identify tools that evaluated the methodological quality or risk of bias of RCTs in general health and PT research. We extracted individual items from all quality tools. We calculated the frequency of quality items used across tools and compared them to those in the RoB tool. Comparisons were made between general health and PT quality tools using Chi-squared tests.

Results

In addition to the RoB tool, 26 quality tools were identified, with 19 being used in general health and seven in PT research. The total number of quality items included in general health research tools was 130, compared with 48 items across PT tools and seven items in the RoB tool. The most frequently included items in general health research tools (14/19, 74%) were inclusion and exclusion criteria, and appropriate statistical analysis. In contrast, the most frequent items included in PT tools (86%, 6/7) were: baseline comparability, blinding of investigator/assessor, and use of intention-to-treat analysis. Key items of the RoB tool (sequence generation and allocation concealment) were included in 71% (5/7) of PT tools, and 63% (12/19) and 37% (7/19) of general health research tools, respectively.

Conclusions

There is extensive item variation across tools that evaluate the risk of bias of RCTs in health research. Results call for an in-depth analysis of items that should be used to assess risk of bias of RCTs. Further empirical evidence on the use of individual items and the psychometric properties of risk of bias tools is needed.

Assessments of the quality of randomized controlled trials published in International Journal of Urology from 1994 to 2011

OBJECTIVES

Randomized controlled trials are one of the most reliable resources for assessing the effectiveness and safety of medical treatments. Low quality randomized controlled trials carry a large bias that can ultimately impair the reliability of their conclusions. The present study aimed to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials published in International Journal of Urology by using multiple quality assessment tools.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials articles published in International Journal of Urology were found using the PubMed MEDLINE database, and qualitative analysis was carried out with three distinct assessment tools: the Jadad scale, the van Tulder scale and the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. The quality of randomized controlled trials was analyzed by publication year, type of subjects, intervention, presence of funding and whether an institutional review board reviewed the study.

RESULTS

A total of 68 randomized controlled trial articles were published among a total of 1399 original articles in International Journal of Urology. Among these randomized controlled trials, 10 (2.70%) were from 1994 to 1999, 23 (4.10%) were from 2000 to 2005 and 35 (4.00%) were from 2006 to 2011 (P = 0.494). On the assessment with the Jadad and van Tulder scale, the numbers and percentage of high quality randomized controlled trials increased over time. The studies that had institutional review board reviews, funding resources or that were carried out in multiple institutions had an increased percentage of high quality articles.

CONCLUSIONS

The numbers and percentage of high-quality randomized controlled trials published in International Journal of Urology have increased over time. Furthermore, randomized controlled trials with funding resources, institutional review board reviews or carried out in multiple institutions have been found to be of higher quality compared with others not presenting these features.

Massage for mechanical neck disorders

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of mechanical neck disorders (MND) is known to be both a hindrance to individuals and costly to society. As such, massage is widely used as a form of treatment for MND.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of massage on pain, function, patient satisfaction, global perceived effect, adverse effects and cost of care in adults with neck pain versus any comparison at immediate post-treatment to long-term follow-up.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, CINAHL, and ICL databases from date of inception to 4 Feburary 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies using random assignment were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted citation identification, study selection, data abstraction and methodological quality assessment. Using a random-effects model, we calculated the risk ratio and standardised mean difference.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen trials met the inclusion criteria. The overall methodology of all the trials assessed was either low or very low GRADE level. None of the trials were of strong to moderate GRADE level. The results showed very low level evidence that certain massage techniques (traditional Chinese massage, classical and modified strain/counter strain technique) may have been more effective than control or placebo treatment in improving function and tenderness. There was very low level evidence that massage may have been more beneficial than education in the short term for pain bothersomeness. Along with that, there was low level evidence that ischaemic compression and passive stretch may have been more effective in combination rather than individually for pain reduction. The clinical applicability assessment showed that only 4/15 trials adequately described the massage technique. The majority of the trials assessed outcomes at immediate post-treatment, which is not an adequate time to assess clinical change. Due to the limitations in the quality of existing studies, we were unable to make any firm statement to guide clinical practice. We noted that only four of the 15 studies reported side effects. All four studies reported post-treatment pain as a side effect and one study (Irnich 2001) showed that 22% of the participants experienced low blood pressure following treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No recommendations for practice can be made at this time because the effectiveness of massage for neck pain remains uncertain.As a stand-alone treatment, massage for MND was found to provide an immediate or short-term effectiveness or both in pain and tenderness. Additionally, future research is needed in order to assess the long-term effects of treatment and treatments provided on more than one occasion.

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders

BACKGROUND

Neck disorders are common, disabling and costly. The effectiveness of exercise as a physiotherapy intervention remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

Computerized searches were conducted up to February 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included single therapeutic exercise randomized controlled trials for adults with neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radiculopathy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and clinical relevance. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Relative risk and standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated.  After judging clinical and statistical heterogeneity, we performed meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Six of the 21 selected trials had low risk of bias. Moderate quality evidence shows that combined cervical, scapulothoracic stretching and strengthening are beneficial for pain relief post treatment (pooled SMD -0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.60, -0.10) and at intermediate follow-up (pooled SMD -0.31, 95% CI: -0.57, -0.06), and improved function short term and intermediate term (pooled SMD -0.45, 95% CI: -0.72, -0.18) for chronic neck pain. Moderate quality evidence demonstrates patients are very satisfied with their care when treated with therapeutic exercise. Low quality evidence shows exercise is of benefit for pain in the short term and for function up to long-term follow-up for chronic neck pain. Low to moderate quality evidence shows that chronic neck pain does not respond to upper extremity stretching and strengthening or a general exercise program.Low to moderate quality evidence supports self-mobilization, craniocervical endurance and low load cervical-scapular endurance exercises in reducing pain, improving function and global perceived effect in the long term for subacute/chronic cervicogenic headache. Low quality evidence supports neck strengthening exercise in acute cervical radiculopathy for pain relief in the short term.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low to moderate quality evidence supports the use of specific cervical and scapular stretching and strengthening exercise for chronic neck pain immediately post treatment and intermediate term, and cervicogenic headaches in the long term. Low to moderate evidence suggests no benefit for some upper extremity stretching and strengthening exercises or a general exercise program.  Future trials should consider using an exercise classification system to establish similarity between protocols and adequate sample sizes. Factorial trials would help determine the active treatment agent within a treatment regimen where a standardized representation of dosage is essential. Standardized reporting of adverse events is needed for balancing the likelihood of treatment benefits over potential harms.