The long-term effects of naprapathic manual therapy on back and neck pain - results from a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

Management of non-specific thoracic spine pain: a cross-sectional study among physiotherapists

BACKGROUND

The thoracic area has mainly been neglected in research compared to the lumbar and cervical regions. No clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for non-specific thoracic spine pain (TSP) have been compiled. Therefore, it can be argued that the absence of specific CPGs raises questions about the management of non-specific TSP. Hence, this study aimed at determining the management of non-specific TSP among physiotherapists in Italy.

METHODS

A web cross-sectional survey investigating physiotherapists' management of non-specific TSP was conducted. The survey instrument was divided into three sections. The first section obtained participants' characteristics. The second section determined participants' agreement with 29 statements regarding the clinical management of non-specific TSP utilising a five-point Likert scale. Participants who partially or completely agreed (scores 4-5) were considered to agree with the statements. A ≥ 70% of agreement with a statement was considered as consensus according to previous literature. The third section asked the participants to indicate how often they adopted several treatments to manage non-specific TSP with a 5-point scale (always - often - sometimes - rarely - never). The frequencies of answers were calculated, and a visual representation through a bar chart was reported. The online version of the survey instrument was delivered through the newsletter of the Italian Association of Physiotherapists and the postgraduate master's degree in Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation of the University of Genova (Genova, Italy).

RESULTS

In total, 424 physiotherapists (mean age (SD): 35.1 years (10.5); 50% female) completed the survey. In the second section, physiotherapists achieved consensus for 22/29 statements. Those statements addressed the importance of psychosocial factors, exercise, education, and manual therapy techniques in managing non-specific TSP. In the third section, 79.7% of participants indicated they would always adopt a multimodal treatment (education, therapeutic exercise, manual therapy), followed by education and information (72.9%), therapeutic exercise (62.0%), soft tissue manual therapy (27.1%), and manual therapy (16.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Study participants considered fundamentally using a multimodal programme based on education, exercise and manual therapy to manage non-specific TSP. This approach aligns with the CPGs for other chronic musculoskeletal pain than non-specific TSP.

Cost-effectiveness of specialised manual therapy versus orthopaedic care for musculoskeletal disorders: long-term follow-up and health economic model

Background

Physiotherapy is usually the first line of treatment for musculoskeletal disorders. If pain persists, an appointment with an orthopaedic surgeon is indicated, but many disorders for which patients are placed on orthopaedic waiting lists cannot be treated in an orthopaedic clinic. Specialised manual therapy, although not mainstream, can be an effective alternative to orthopaedic care, although its cost-effectiveness beyond 12 months is unknown.

Objectives

To perform an 8-year follow-up of the quality of life and costs of specialised manual therapy versus standard orthopaedic care for working-age patients with common nonsurgical musculoskeletal disorders referred to orthopaedic surgeons and to develop a health economic model.

Design

Cost-effectiveness study using Markov modelling.

Methods

The index group of a previously published pragmatic randomised controlled trial received a maximum of five treatment sessions of specialised manual therapy, while the control group received orthopaedic 'care as usual'. At 3, 6, 12 and 96 months, Health-Related Quality of Life and costs were measured with Short Form Health Survey 36, Short Form Health Survey 6D and Diagnostic Related Groups. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated, a Markov model was developed and a sensitivity analysis was performed.

Results

Overall, 95% (n = 75) of the participants completed the 8-year follow-up. Recovery rates during the first 3 months ('per protocol') in the index and control group were 69% and 58%, respectively. The index group had 0.159 more gains in quality-adjusted life years and cost 40,270 SEK (€4027) less per patient over 8 years. The sensitivity analysis results were consistent with the main results.

Conclusion

Specialised manual therapy dominated standard care after 8 years. The results of this small but very first study are promising; therefore, further exploration within other health care professions, clinics and/or countries is required. Our study raises questions about the triaging of orthopaedic outpatients, cost-effectiveness and resource allocation.

Registration

Not applicable per the information provided by ClinicalTrials.gov.

Plain Language Summary

Specialised manual therapy is more cost-effective than 'care as usual' for working-age patients referred to an orthopaedist. This study provides an 8-year follow-up of the cost effects and quality of life of a previously published trial. Why was this study conducted? The standard care for musculoskeletal pain consists of exercises with a physiotherapist in primary care. If the pain persists, a referral to an orthopaedic clinic is often made. Many of these referrals are inappropriate because they concern pain from muscles and joints that do not benefit from surgery or the resources available in an orthopaedic clinic. There is a gap in competence and treatment between primary and specialised care that is costly, time- and resource-consuming and causes prolonged patient suffering. Although specialised manual therapy (MT) is effective, its use is not mainstream. Costs and effects after more than 12 months of treatment that may shorten waiting lists have never been evaluated. What did the researchers do? Quality of life and costs were compared in 75 patients with nonsurgical disorders referred to orthopaedic surgeons at 8 years after treatment with specialised MT or standard orthopaedic care. A health economics model for the probability of recovery was also developed and tested. What did the researchers find? Compared with the control group, the study participants treated with specialised MT had a better quality of life, required fewer health care interventions, underwent less surgery, incurred significantly lower costs and demonstrated an increased probability of recovery. What do these findings mean? It seems probable that using specialised MT for an old, well-known structural problem may yield better treatment effects at a significantly lower cost. Our study findings suggest that policy recommendations should focus on costs and effects rather than resource utilisation alone. The study is small and requires expansion using its economic health model.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Naprapathy versus orthopaedic standard care for common musculoskeletal disorders: an 8-year follow-up of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial in Sweden

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal pain is among the most common reasons for seeking care, specialist competence for its treatment in primary care limited and waiting lists for orthopaedics often amongst the longest. Many referrals to orthopaedics do not concern disorders that benefit from surgery. Manual therapy is effective, yet not integrated in national health care systems, and there is a lack of research on other than neck and low back pain, and a lack of long-term follow-ups. The present study evaluates the long-term effects of a manual therapy (naprapathy) for common orthopaedic disorders.

METHODS

An 8-year follow-up (96 months) of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of naprapathy (experimental group) versus standard orthopaedic care (control group) for non-surgical patients of working age with the most common musculoskeletal disorders on the waiting lists (n = 78). Bodily pain, physical function (SF36), Quality of life (QoL; SF6D), and data on health care utilization were collected. The treatments lasted from January 2007 to November 2007.

RESULTS

N = 75 participants in the original study sample completed the 8-year follow-up. The differences in bodily pain (21.7 (95% CI: 9.1-34.3)), physical function (17.6 (6.7-28.4)), and QoLs (0.823 (95% CI: 0.785-0.862) compared with 0.713 (95% CI: 0.668-0.758)) were statistically significantly in favor of the experimental group (p-values < 0.01). After sensitivity analysis the experimental group had altogether 260 health care visits compared with 1161 in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Naprapathy is a continuously effective treatment. Together with earlier research our study suggests that specialized manual therapy should be considered when triaging patients with common non-surgical musculoskeletal disorders in national health care systems.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable, as per information given by ClinicalTrials.gov.

Effectiveness of deep tissue massage therapy, and supervised strengthening and stretching exercises for subacute or persistent disabling neck pain. The Stockholm Neck (STONE) randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of deep tissue massage, supervised strengthening and stretching exercises, and a combined therapy (exercise followed by massage) (index groups), with advice to stay active (control group).

METHODS

Randomized controlled trial of 619 adults with subacute or persistent neck pain allocated to massage (n = 145), exercise (n = 160), combined therapy (n = 169) or advice (n = 147). Primary outcomes were minimal clinically important improvements in neck pain intensity and pain-related disability based on adapted questions from the Chronic Pain Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were perceived recovery and sickness absence. Outcomes were measured at seven, 12, 26 and 52 weeks.

RESULTS

We found improvement in pain intensity favouring massage and combined therapy compared to advice; at seven weeks (RR = 1.36; 95%CI:1.04-1.77) and 26 weeks (RR = 1.23; 95%CI:0.97-1.56); and seven (RR = 1.39; 95%CI:1.08-1.81) and 12 weeks (RR = 1.28; 95%CI:1.02-1.60) respectively, but not at later follow-ups. Exercise showed higher improvement of pain intensity at 26 weeks (RR = 1.31; 95%CI:1.04-1.65). Perceived recovery was higher in the index groups than in the advice group at all follow-ups. We found no consistent differences in pain related disability or sickness absence.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, at 12-months follow-up, none of the index therapies were more effective than advice in terms of pain intensity in the long term or in terms of pain-related disability in the short or long term. However, the index therapies led to higher incidence of improvement in pain intensity in the short term, and higher incidence of favorable perceived recovery in the short and in the long term than advice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN01453590. Registered 3 July 2014.

Do adverse events after manual therapy for back and/or neck pain have an impact on the chance to recover? A cohort study

Background

Manual therapy is a commonly used treatment for patients with back and neck pain. Studies have shown that manual therapy-related adverse events are mainly short in duration and mild or moderate by their intensity, affecting up to 50% of the patients. If the presence of adverse events has an impact on the chance to recover from back/neck pain is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to investigate if mild or moderate adverse events after manual therapy has an impact on the chance to recover from back/neck pain in men and women.

Methods

A prospective cohort study of 771 patients with at least three treatment sessions in a randomized controlled trial performed in January 2010 – December 2013. Adverse events within 24 h after each treatment were measured with questionnaires and categorized as: no, mild or moderate, based on bothersomeness. Outcome measure was the perceived recovery at seven weeks and at three months follow-up. Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated by Logistic regression to investigate the associations between the exposure and outcome, and to test and adjust for potential confounding.

Results

There were no statistically significant associations observed between the experience of mild or moderate adverse events and being recovered at the seven weeks follow-up. The only statistically significant association observed at the three months follow-up was for mild adverse events in men with an OR of 2.44, 95% CI: 1.24–4.80 in comparison to men with no adverse events.

Conclusion

This study indicates that mild adverse events after manual therapy may be related to a better chance to recover in men.

Trial registration

The study is based on data from a trial registered in Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN92249294).

Manipulation and Mobilization for Treating Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for an Appropriateness Panel

BACKGROUND

Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used by patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain; however, questions remain around efficacy, dosing, and safety, as well as how these approaches compare to other therapies.

OBJECTIVES

Based on published trials, to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic nonspecific neck pain.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We identified studies published between January 2000 and September 2017, by searching multiple electronic databases, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation and/or mobilization therapies to sham, no treatment, each other, and other active therapies, or when combined as multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias by using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. When possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project was funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under award number U19AT007912 and ultimately used to inform an appropriateness panel.

RESULTS

A total of 47 randomized trials (47 unique trials in 53 publications) were included in the systematic review. These studies were rated as having low risk of bias and included a total of 4,460 patients with nonspecific chronic neck pain who were being treated by a practitioner using various types of manipulation and/or mobilization interventions. A total of 37 trials were categorized as unimodal approaches and involved thrust or nonthrust compared with sham, no treatment, or other active comparators. Of these, only 6 trials with similar intervention styles, comparators, and outcome measures/timepoints were pooled for meta-analysis at 1, 3, and 6 months, showing a small effect in favor of thrust plus exercise compared to an exercise regimen alone for a reduction in pain and disability. Multimodal approaches appeared to be effective at reducing pain and improving function from the 10 studies evaluated. Health-related quality of life was seldom reported. Some 22/47 studies did not report or mention adverse events. Of the 25 that did, either no or minor events occurred.

LIMITATIONS

The current evidence is heterogeneous, and sample sizes are generally small.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies published since January 2000 provide low-moderate quality evidence that various types of manipulation and/or mobilization will reduce pain and improve function for chronic nonspecific neck pain compared to other interventions. It appears that multimodal approaches, in which multiple treatment approaches are integrated, might have the greatest potential impact. The studies comparing to no treatment or sham were mostly testing the effect of a single dose, which may or may not be helpful to inform practice. According to the published trials reviewed, manipulation and mobilization appear safe. However, given the low rate of serious adverse events, other types of studies with much larger sample sizes would be required to fully describe the safety of manipulation and/or mobilization for nonspecific chronic neck pain.

KEY WORDS

Chronic neck pain, nonspecific, chiropractic, manipulation, mobilization, systematic review, meta-analysis, appropriateness.

Manipulation and mobilization for treating chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used to benefit patients with chronic low back pain. However, questions remain about their efficacy, dosing, safety, and how these approaches compare with other therapies.

PURPOSE

The present study aims to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The present study measures self-reported pain, function, health-related quality of life, and adverse events.

METHODS

We identified studies by searching multiple electronic databases from January 2000 to March 2017, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation or mobilization therapies with sham, no treatment, other active therapies, and multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Where possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project is funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under Award Number U19AT007912.

RESULTS

Fifty-one trials were included in the systematic review. Nine trials (1,176 patients) provided sufficient data and were judged similar enough to be pooled for meta-analysis. The standardized mean difference for a reduction of pain was SMD=-0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.09, p=.004; I2=57% after treatment; within seven trials (923 patients), the reduction in disability was SMD=-0.33, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.03, p=.03; I2=78% for manipulation or mobilization compared with other active therapies. Subgroup analyses showed that manipulation significantly reduced pain and disability, compared with other active comparators including exercise and physical therapy (SMD=-0.43, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.00; p=.05, I2=79%; SMD=-0.86, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.45; p<.0001, I2=46%). Mobilization interventions, compared with other active comparators including exercise regimens, significantly reduced pain (SMD=-0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.04; p=.01; I2=0%) but not disability (SMD=-0.10, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.07; p=.25; I2=21%). Studies comparing manipulation or mobilization with sham or no treatment were too few or too heterogeneous to allow for pooling as were studies examining relationships between dose and outcomes. Few studies assessed health-related quality of life. Twenty-six of 51 trials were multimodal studies and narratively described.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate-quality evidence that manipulation and mobilization are likely to reduce pain and improve function for patients with chronic low back pain; manipulation appears to produce a larger effect than mobilization. Both therapies appear safe. Multimodal programs may be a promising option.

Experiences of Older Adults With Mobile Phone Text Messaging as Reminders of Home Exercises After Specialized Manual Therapy for Recurrent Low Back Pain: A Qualitative Study

Background

Clinical experience of manual therapy for musculoskeletal pain is that patients often suffer from recurrent pain and disorders, but that they do not continue to perform their physical home exercises when they are free from symptoms. The chance of positive long-term effects of manual therapy would probably increase if patients were reminded that they are to continue to perform their exercises. Mobile phone text messaging (short messaging service, SMS) is increasingly used as an innovative intervention to remind patient to exercise. However, there are only a few studies on such interventions in the field of low back pain (LBP). Qualitative studies of patients’ experiences of receiving text messages as reminders of home exercises after manual treatment for recurrent LBP have to the best of our knowledge never been published.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to explore older persons’ common experiences of receiving reminders of home exercises through mobile phone text messaging after specialized manual therapy for recurrent LBP.

Methods

A total of 7 men and 8 women (67-86 years), who had sought specialized manual therapy (Naprapathic manual therapy) for recurrent LBP were included in the study. Individual one-way text messages as reminders of home exercises (to be performed on a daily basis) were sent to each patient every third day for 3 weeks, then once a week for another 2 weeks. Semistructured interviews with 2 broad, open-ended questions were held and data were analyzed with systematic text condensation, based on Giorgi’s principles of psychological phenomenological analysis.

Results

The participants appreciated the messages, which were perceived as timely and usable, and also stimulated memorizing. The messages made the participants reflect on the aim of the exercise, value of being reminded, and on their improvement in pain. During the interviews, the participants created their own routines for continued adherence to the exercises.

Conclusions

It seems plausible that mobile phone text messaging may serve as a useful tool for patient empowerment with regard to recurrent LBP in older persons. Further studies are needed to explore whether future compliance with the exercises will be as large if the participants are not being interviewed.

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

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

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

PURPOSE

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

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Systematic review and best-evidence synthesis.

PATIENT SAMPLE

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

OUTCOME MEASURES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Three combinations of manual therapy techniques within naprapathy in the treatment of neck and/or back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Manual therapy as spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, stretching and massage are common treatment methods for neck and back pain. The objective was to compare the treatment effect on pain intensity, pain related disability and perceived recovery from a) naprapathic manual therapy (spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, stretching and massage) to b) naprapathic manual therapy without spinal manipulation and to c) naprapathic manual therapy without stretching for male and female patients seeking care for back and/or neck pain.

Method

Participants were recruited among patients, ages 18–65, seeking care at the educational clinic of Naprapathögskolan - the Scandinavian College of Naprapathic Manual Medicine in Stockholm. The patients (n = 1057) were randomized to one of three treatment arms a) manual therapy (i.e. spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, stretching and massage), b) manual therapy excluding spinal manipulation and c) manual therapy excluding stretching. The primary outcomes were minimal clinically important improvement in pain intensity and pain related disability. Treatments were provided by naprapath students in the seventh semester of eight total semesters. Generalized estimating equations and logistic regression were used to examine the association between the treatments and the outcomes.

Results

At 12 weeks follow-up, 64 % had a minimal clinically important improvement in pain intensity and 42 % in pain related disability. The corresponding chances to be improved at the 52 weeks follow-up were 58 % and 40 % respectively. No systematic differences in effect when excluding spinal manipulation and stretching respectively from the treatment were found over 1 year follow-up, concerning minimal clinically important improvement in pain intensity (p = 0.41) and pain related disability (p = 0.85) and perceived recovery (p = 0.98). Neither were there disparities in effect when male and female patients were analyzed separately.

Conclusion

The effect of manual therapy for male and female patients seeking care for neck and/or back pain at an educational clinic is similar regardless if spinal manipulation or if stretching is excluded from the treatment option.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN92249294

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RECOMMENDATION 1

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

RECOMMENDATION 2

Clinicians should assess prognostic factors for delayed recovery from NAD.

RECOMMENDATION 3

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

RECOMMENDATION 4

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

RECOMMENDATION 5

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

RECOMMENDATION 6

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

The effect of massage therapy and/or exercise therapy on subacute or long-lasting neck pain--the Stockholm neck trial (STONE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Neck pain is a major health problem in populations worldwide and an economic burden in modern societies due to its high prevalence and costs in terms of health care expenditures and lost productivity. Massage and exercise therapy are widely used management options for neck pain. However, there is a lack of scientific evidence regarding their effectiveness for subacute and long-lasting neck pain. This study protocol describes a randomized controlled trial aiming to determine the effect of massage and/or exercise therapy on subacute and long-lasting neck pain over the course of 1 year.

METHODS/DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial in which at least 600 study participants with subacute or long-lasting nonspecific neck pain will be recruited and randomly allocated to one of four treatment arms: massage therapy (A), exercise therapy (B), exercise therapy plus massage therapy (C) and advice to stay active (D). The study has an E-health approach, and study participants are being recruited through advertising with a mix of traditional and online marketing channels. Web-based self-report questionnaires measure the main outcomes at 7, 12, 26 and 52 weeks after inclusion. The primary outcomes are a clinically important improvement in pain intensity and pain-related disability at follow-up, measured with a modified version of the Chronic Pain Questionnaire (CPQ). The secondary outcomes are global improvement, health-related quality of life (EQ-5D), sick leave, drug consumption and healthcare utilization. Adverse events are measured by questionnaires at return visits to the clinic, and automated text messages (SMSes) survey neck pain intensity and pain-related disability every week over one year.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study will provide clinicians and stakeholders much needed knowledge to plan medical care for subacute and long-lasting neck pain disorders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN01453590. Date of registration: 3 July 2014.

Cognitive-behavioural treatment for subacute and chronic neck pain

EDITORIAL NOTE

EXPRESSION OF CONCERN - Professor Marco Monticone has acted as the first author of this Cochrane review. Readers should be informed that multiple randomized controlled trials authored by Professor Monticone have been scrutinized because of potential research integrity issues, including irregularities in the data (doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002659). One of the trials suspected of research integrity issues is included in this Cochrane review (doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2287-y). The Cochrane editorial team has concerns about the trustworthiness of the trial data and is applying Cochrane's policy on managing potentially problematic studies (https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/editorial-policies#problematic-studies). No major differences to the conclusions of this review were found after performing a sensitivity analysis on the main outcomes, whether the potentially problematic trial was included or excluded. Cochrane will take further action as needed on this review once additional investigations into the potentially problematic trial are concluded. In the meantime, a new version of this review topic is underway with a new author team. The new review will supersede this review.

BACKGROUND

Although research on non-surgical treatments for neck pain (NP) is progressing, there remains uncertainty about the efficacy of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for this population. Addressing cognitive and behavioural factors might reduce the clinical burden and the costs of NP in society.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of CBT among individuals with subacute and chronic NP. Specifically, the following comparisons were investigated: (1) cognitive-behavioural therapy versus placebo, no treatment, or waiting list controls; (2) cognitive-behavioural therapy versus other types of interventions; (3) cognitive-behavioural therapy in addition to another intervention (e.g. physiotherapy) versus the other intervention alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to November 2014. Reference lists and citations of identified trials and relevant systematic reviews were screened.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the use of CBT in adults with subacute and chronic NP.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in each study and extracted the data. If sufficient homogeneity existed among studies in the pre-defined comparisons, a meta-analysis was performed. We determined the quality of the evidence for each comparison with the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 randomised trials (836 participants) in this review. Four trials (40%) had low risk of bias, the remaining 60% of trials had a high risk of bias.The quality of the evidence for the effects of CBT on patients with chronic NP was from very low to moderate. There was low quality evidence that CBT was better than no treatment for improving pain (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to -0.16), disability (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.01), and quality of life (SMD -0.93, 95% CI -1.54 to -0.31) at short-term follow-up, while there was from very low to low quality evidence of no effect on various psychological indicators at short-term follow-up. Both at short- and intermediate-term follow-up, CBT did not affect pain (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.21, low quality, at short-term follow-up; MD -0.89, 95% CI -2.73 to 0.94, low quality, at intermediate-term follow-up) or disability (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.20, moderate quality, at short-term follow-up; SMD -0.24, 95% CI-0.54 to 0.07, moderate quality, at intermediate-term follow-up) compared to other types of interventions. There was moderate quality evidence that CBT was better than other interventions for improving kinesiophobia at intermediate-term follow-up (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.08, I(2) = 0%). Finally, there was very low quality evidence that CBT in addition to another intervention did not differ from the other intervention alone in terms of effect on pain (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.02) and disability (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.36) at short-term follow-up.For patients with subacute NP, there was low quality evidence that CBT was better than other interventions at reducing pain at short-term follow-up (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.00), while no difference was found in terms of effect on disability (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.12) and kinesiophobia.None of the included studies reported on adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

With regard to chronic neck pain, CBT was found to be statistically significantly more effective for short-term pain reduction only when compared to no treatment, but these effects could not be considered clinically meaningful. When comparing both CBT to other types of interventions and CBT in addition to another intervention to the other intervention alone, no differences were found. For patients with subacute NP, CBT was significantly better than other types of interventions at reducing pain at short-term follow-up, while no difference was found for disability and kinesiophobia. Further research is recommended to investigate the long-term benefits and risks of CBT including for the different subgroups of subjects with NP.