Comparison between effectiveness of Mechanical and Manual Traction combined with mobilization and exercise therapy in Patients with Cervical Radiculopathy

Protocol for the development of a 'trustworthy' living systematic review and meta analyses of manual therapy interventions to treat neuromusculoskeletal impairments

BACKGROUND

Preprocessed research resources are believed to be highly 'trustworthy' when translating research to clinical practice. However, the overall 'trustworthiness' is unknown if this evidence contains randomized clinical trials (RCTs) where prospective has not been/cannot be verified, has low confidence in estimated effects, and if they are not up to date.

OBJECTIVES

This protocol will be used to create a baseline benchmark for a series of trustworthy living systematic reviews (SRs) regarding manual therapy interventions.

METHODS

Data will originate from RCTs related to manual therapy neuromusculoskeletal interventions, indexed in 6 search engines in English from 1 January 2010, to the present. Two blinded reviewers will identify the RCTs and extract data using Covidence. The data will be synthesized based on consensus and analyzed using the Cochrane collaboration's Review Manager.

EXPECTED OUTCOMES

It is expected that there will be a shortage of RCTs with at least a moderate confidence in estimated effects that will allow for strong practice recommendations.

DISCUSSION

Identifying evidence that can be translated into strong practice recommendations is essential to identify beneficial and harmful interventions, decrease practice variability, and identify neuromusculoskeletal manual therapy interventions that require further disciplined methodological focus.

Manual therapy for non-radicular cervical spine related impairments: establishing a 'Trustworthy' living systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To establish a 'trustworthy' living systematic review (SR) with a meta-analysis of manual therapy for treating non-radicular cervical impairments.

DESIGN

SR with meta-analysis.

LITERATURE SEARCH

Articles published between January 2010 and September 2022 were included from: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); CINAHL; MEDLINE; PubMed; PEDro, and ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health.

METHODS

This SR included English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of manual therapy involving adults used to treat non-radicular cervical impairments. The primary outcomes were pain and region-specific outcome measures. Cervicogenic headaches and whiplash were excluded to improve homogeneity. Two reviewers independently assessed RCTs. The prospective plan was to synthesize results with high confidence in estimated effects using GRADE.

RESULTS

Thirty-five RCTs were screened for registration status. Twenty-eight were not registered or registered prospectively. In 5 studies, the discussion and conclusion did not match the registry, or this could not be determined. One study did not meet the external validity criterion, and another was rated as having a high risk of bias. One study met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, so practice recommendations could not be made. The remaining study did not identify any clinically meaningful group differences.

DISCUSSION

Only one prospectively registered RCT met this SR's strict, high-quality standards. The single identified paper provides initial high-quality evidence on this topic.

CONCLUSION

This SR establishes a foundation of trustworthiness and can be used to generate research agendas to determine the potential clinical utility of manual therapy directed at the cervical spine for non-radicular cervical complaints.

Manual Therapy in Cervical and Lumbar Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review of the Literature

The aim of this study was to describe and update current knowledge of manual therapy accuracy in treating cervical and lumbar radiculopathy, to identify the limitations in current studies, and to suggest areas for future research. The study was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. A comprehensive literature review was conducted using PubMed and Web of Science databases up to April 2020. The following inclusion criteria were used: (1) presence of radiculopathy; (2) treatment defined as manual therapy (i.e., traction, manipulation, mobilization); and (3) publication defined as a Randomized Controlled Trial. The electronic literature search resulted in 473 potentially relevant articles. Finally, 27 articles were accepted: 21 on cervical (CR) and 6 in lumbar radiculopathy (LR). The mean PEDro score for CR was 6.6 (SD 1.3), and for LR 6.7 (SD 1.6). Traction-oriented techniques are the most frequently chosen treatment form for CR and are efficient in reducing pain and improving functional outcomes. In LR, each of the included publications used a different form of manual therapy, which makes it challenging to summarize knowledge in this group. Of included publications, 93% were either of moderate or low quality, which indicates that quality improvement is necessary for this type of research.

Manual Therapy as a Management of Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Cervical radiculopathy is defined as a disorder involving dysfunction of the cervical nerve roots characterised by pain radiating and/or loss of motor and sensory function towards the root affected. There is no consensus on a good definition of the term. In addition, the evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual therapy in radiculopathy is contradictory.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of manual therapy in improving pain, functional capacity, and range of motion in treating cervical radiculopathy with and without confirmation of altered nerve conduction.

METHODS

Systematic review of randomised clinical trials on cervical radiculopathy and manual therapy, in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, PEDro, and Cochrane Library Plus databases. The PRISMA checklist was followed. Methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale and RoB 2.0. tool.

RESULTS

17 clinical trials published in the past 10 years were selected. Manual therapy was effective in the treatment of symptoms related to cervical radiculopathy in all studies, regardless of the type of technique and dose applied.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review did not establish which manual therapy techniques are the most effective for cervical radiculopathy with electrophysiological confirmation of altered nerve conduction. Without this confirmation, the application of manual therapy, regardless of the protocol applied and the manual therapy technique selected, appears to be effective in reducing chronic cervical pain and decreasing the index of cervical disability in cervical radiculopathy in the short term. However, it would be necessary to agree on a definition and diagnostic criteria of radiculopathy, as well as the definition and standardisation of manual techniques, to analyse the effectiveness of manual therapy in cervical radiculopathy in depth.

Traction Therapy for Cervical Radicular Syndrome is Statistically Significant but not Clinically Relevant for Pain Relief. A Systematic Literature Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

Aim: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of traction therapy in reducing pain by performing a systematic review with meta-analysis. We also explore the best modality for administering traction to patients with cervical radicular syndrome (CRS). Methods: We searched the Medline, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) electronic databases. Two reviewers independently selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared traction in addition to other treatments versus the effectiveness of other treatments alone for pain outcome. We calculated the mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used Cochrane’s tool to assess risk of bias and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate the quality of evidence and summarize the study conclusions. Results: A total of seven studies (589 patients), one with low risk of bias, were evaluated. An overall estimate of treatment modalities showed low evidence that adding traction to other treatments is statistically significant (MD −5.93 [95% CI, −11.81 to −0.04] P = 0.05 and I² = 57%) compared to other treatments alone. The subgroup analyses were still statistically significant only for mechanical and continuous modalities. Conclusions: Overall analysis showed that, compared to controls, reduction in pain intensity after traction therapy was achieved in patients with cervical radiculopathy. However, the quality of evidence was generally low and none of these effects were clinically meaningful.