Is a combined programme of manual therapy and exercise more effective than usual care in patients with non-specific chronic neck pain? A randomized controlled trial

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.

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.

The combined effects of manual therapy and exercise on pain and related disability for individuals with nonspecific neck pain: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neck pain is among the most prevalent and costly musculoskeletal disorders. Manual therapy and exercise are two standard treatment approaches to manage neck pain. In addition, clinical practice guidelines recommend a multi-modal approach, including both manual therapy and exercise for the treatment of neck pain; however, the specific effects of these combined interventions have not recently been reported in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect of manual therapy combined with exercise on pain, disability, and quality of life in individuals with nonspecific neck pain.

DESIGN

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

METHODS

Electronic database searches were completed in PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, Ovid, and SportDiscus, with publication dates of January 2000 to December 2022. The risk of bias in the included articles was completed using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 2). Raw data were pooled using standardized mean differences and mean differences for pain, disability, and quality of life outcomes, and forest plots were computed in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included in the final review. With moderate certainty of evidence, three studies demonstrated no significant difference between manual therapy plus exercise and manual therapy alone in pain (SMD of -0.25 (95% CI: -0.52, 0.02)) or disability (-0.37 (95% CI: -0.92, 0.18)). With a low certainty of evidence, 16 studies demonstrated that manual therapy plus exercise is significantly better than exercise alone for reducing pain (-0.95 (95%CI: -1.38, -0.51)). Similarly, with low certainty of evidence, 13 studies demonstrated that manual therapy plus exercise is significantly better than exercise alone for reducing disability (-0.59 (95% CI: -0.90, -0.28)). Four studies demonstrated that manual therapy plus exercise is significantly better than a control intervention for reducing pain (moderate certainty) (-2.15 (95%CI: -3.58, -0.73)) and disability (low certainty) (-2.39 (95% CI: -3.80, -0.98)). With a high certainty of evidence, four studies demonstrated no significant difference between manual therapy plus exercise and exercise alone in quality of life (SMD of -0.02 (95% CI: -0.21, 0.18)).

CONCLUSION

Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis, a multi-modal treatment approach including exercise and manual therapy appears to provide similar effects as manual therapy alone, but is more effective than exercise alone or other interventions (control, placebo, 'conventional physical therapy', etc.) for the treatment of nonspecific neck pain and related disability. Some caution needs to be taken when interpreting these results given the general low to moderate certainty of the quality of the evidence.

Effect of a telerehabilitation exercise program versus a digital booklet with self-care for patients with chronic non-specific neck pain: a protocol of a randomized controlled trial assessor-blinded, 3 months follow-up

BACKGROUND

Neck pain is the fourth worldwide leading cause of disability and represents 22% of musculoskeletal disorders. Conservative intervention has been strongly recommended to treat chronic neck pain and Telerehabilitation is the alternative for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions. There is a lack of high-quality research on the effects of telerehabilitation in patients with neck pain and functional disability. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the effect of a telerehabilitation exercise program versus a digital booklet only with self-care information in individuals with non-specific chronic neck pain.

METHODS

This is a prospectively registered, assessor-blinded, two-arm randomized controlled trial comparing a telerehabilitation exercise program versus a digital booklet with self-care information. Seventy patients will be recruited with non-specific chronic neck pain. Follow-ups will be conducted post-treatment, 6 weeks, and 3 months after randomization. The primary outcome will be disability at post-treatment (6 weeks) measured using neck pain disability. Secondary outcomes will be pain intensity levels, global perceived effect, self-efficacy, quality of life, kinesiophobia, and adherence to treatment. In our hypothesis, patients allocated to the intervention group experience outcomes that are similar to those of those assigned to the self-care digital booklet. Our hypothesis can then be approved or disapproved based on the results of the study.

DISCUSSION

This randomized clinical trial will provide reliable information on the use of telerehabilitation to treat patients with chronic non-specific neck pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was prospectively registered at the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (number: RBR-10h7khvk). Registered on 16 September 2022.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of manipulative therapy for patients with chronic neck pain

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of people suffer from chronic neck pain due to increased telecommuting. Manual therapy is considered a safe and less painful method and has been increasingly used to alleviate chronic neck pain. However, there is controversy about the effectiveness of manipulation therapy on chronic neck pain. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to determine the effectiveness of manipulative therapy for chronic neck pain.

METHODS

A search of the literature was conducted on seven databases (PubMed, Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Medline, CNKI, WanFang, and SinoMed) from the establishment of the databases to May 2022. This study included RCTs on chronic neck pain managed with manipulative therapy compared with sham, exercise, and other physical therapies. The retrieved records were independently reviewed by two researchers. Further, the methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale. All statistical analyses were performed using RevMan V.5.3 software. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) assessment was used to evaluate the quality of the study results.

RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs, including 1190 participants, were included in this meta-analysis. Manipulative therapy showed better results regarding pain intensity and neck disability than the control group. Manipulative therapy was shown to relieve pain intensity (SMD = -0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] = [-1.04 to -0.62]; p < 0.0001) and neck disability (MD = -3.65; 95% CI = [-5.67 to - 1.62]; p = 0.004). However, the studies had high heterogeneity, which could be explained by the type and control interventions. In addition, there were no significant differences in adverse events between the intervention and the control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Manipulative therapy reduces the degree of chronic neck pain and neck disabilities.

The effects of osteopathic manipulative treatment on pain and disability in patients with chronic neck pain: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Neck pain (NP) affects up to 70% of individuals at some point in their lives. Systematic reviews indicate that manual treatments can be moderately effective in the management of chronic, nonspecific NP. However, there is a paucity of studies specifically evaluating the efficacy of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of OMT in reducing pain and disability in patients with chronic NP.

DESIGN

Single-blinded, cross-over, randomized-controlled trial.

SETTING

University-based, osteopathic manipulative medicine outpatient clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

Ninety-seven participants, 21 to 65 years of age, with chronic, nonspecific NP.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to two trial arms: immediate OMT intervention or waiting period first. The intervention consisted of three to four OMT sessions over 4 to 6 weeks, after which the participants switched groups.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measures were pain intensity (average and current) on the numerical rating scale and Neck Disability Index. Secondary outcomes included Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 (PROMIS-29) health domains and Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire. Outcomes obtained prior to the cross-over allocation were evaluated using general linear models and after adjusting for baseline values.

RESULTS

A total of 38 and 37 participants were available for the analysis in the OMT and waiting period groups, respectively. The results showed significantly better primary outcomes in the immediate OMT group for reductions in average pain (-1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.72, -0.32; p = .005), current pain (-1.02, 95% CI -1.75, -0.30; p = .006), disability (-5.30%, 95% CI -9.2%, -1.3%; p = .010) and improved secondary outcomes (PROMIS) related to sleep (-3.25, 95% CI -6.95, -1.54; p = .003), fatigue (-3.26, 95% CI -6.04, -0.48; p = .022), and depression (-2.59, 95% CI -4.73, -0.45; p = .018). The effect sizes were in the clinically meaningful range between 0.5 and 1 standard deviation. No study-related serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

OMT is relatively safe and effective in reducing pain and disability along with improving sleep, fatigue, and depression in patients with chronic NP immediately following treatment delivered over approximately 4 to 6 weeks.

Predictors of failure to achieve minimal clinical important difference for pain and disability after mechanical diagnosis and therapy (MDT)-based multimodal rehabilitation for neck pain: a retrospective analysis of 4998 patients

PURPOSE

To determine predictors of failure to achieve minimal clinical important difference (MCID) for pain and disability at discharge after mechanical diagnosis and therapy (MDT)-based multimodal rehabilitation for neck pain (NP).

METHODS

Pre- and post-treatment numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) and neck disability index (NDI) in patients with mechanical NP were analysed in this retrospective study. Multivariate analysis was performed to investigate the effect of covariates such as age, gender, lifestyle, body mass index, presentation, diabetes, osteoporosis, response to repeated movement testing, treatment sessions, compliance rate, and pre-treatment NPRS and NDI scores on failure to achieve MCID of ≥ 30% for NPRS and NDI scores post-treatment.

RESULTS

In the 4998 patients analysed for this study, 7% and 14.5% of patients failed to achieve MCID for NPRS and NDI scores, respectively, at the end of treatment. Age > 70 years, diabetes, osteoporosis, partial or non-response to repeated movements, lesser treatment sessions, and lower compliance rate were associated with increased risk for failure to achieve MCID for NPRS and NDI scores. A higher pre-treatment NDI score was associated with failure to achieve MCID for NPRS score, whereas lower pre-treatment NPRS and NDI scores were associated with failure to achieve MCID for NDI score.

CONCLUSION

Although MDT-based multimodal rehabilitation helped to achieve significant reduction in pain and disability in mechanical NP, several baseline risk factors were associated with failure to achieve MCID for pain and disability after treatment. Identifying and modifying these factors as part of rehabilitation treatment may help to achieve better outcomes in mechanical NP.

Dry Needling Adds No Benefit to the Treatment of Neck Pain: A Sham-Controlled Randomized Clinical Trial With 1-Year Follow-up

OBJECTIVE

To examine the short- and long-term effectiveness of dry needling on disability, pain, and patient-perceived improvements in patients with mechanical neck pain when added to a multimodal treatment program that includes manual therapy and exercise.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Seventy-seven adults (mean ± SD age, 46.68 ± 14.18 years; 79% female) who were referred to physical therapy with acute, subacute, or chronic mechanical neck pain were randomly allocated to receive 7 multimodal treatment sessions over 4 weeks of (1) dry needling, manual therapy, and exercise (needling group); or (2) sham dry needling, manual therapy, and exercise (sham needling group). The primary outcome of disability (Neck Disability Index score) and secondary outcomes of pain (current and 24-hour average) and patient-perceived improvement were assessed at baseline and follow-ups of 4 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year by blinded assessors. Between-group differences were analyzed with a 2-way, repeated-measures analysis of variance. Global rating of change was analyzed with a Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

There were no group-by-time interactions for disability (Neck Disability Index: F_2.37,177.47 = 0.42, P = .69), current pain (visual analog scale: F_2.84,213.16 = 1.04, P = .37), or average pain over 24 hours (F_2.64,198.02 = 0.01, P = .10). There were no between-group differences for global rating of change at any time point (P≥.65). Both groups improved over time for all variables (Neck Disability Index: F_2.37,177.47 = 124.70, P<.001; current pain: F_2.84,213.16 = 64.28, P<.001; and average pain over 24 hours: F_2.64,198.02 = 76.69, P<.001).

CONCLUSION

There were no differences in outcomes between trigger point dry needling and sham dry needling when added to a multimodal treatment program for neck pain. Dry needling should not be part of a first-line approach to managing neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(1):37-45. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.9864.