Expert consensus on the important chronic non-specific neck pain motor control and segmental exercise and dosage variables: An international e-Delphi study

Building consensus on priority areas for Sub-Saharan Africa's ageing population research: An e-Delphi study protocol

BACKGROUND

Improvement in medico-social services has increased life expectancy and population ageing in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). It was estimated that about 163 million people aged 65 and older will be resident in SSA by 2050. There is inadequate ageing research capacity in SSA which necessitates this study to (a) identify a decade-long ageing research opportunities, challenges, and solutions, and (b) prioritize critical ageing research areas and methodologies relevant to the SSA.

METHODS

We designed an e-Delphi protocol following the Reporting Guideline for Priority Setting of Health Research with Stakeholder. The stakeholders will be researchers, practitioners, older adults, and caregivers purposively selected through snowballing quota sampling to complete three rounds of e-Delphi surveys. Round 1 will involve open-ended questions derived from the study objectives. Responses from round 1 will be prepared as a checklist for stakeholders to rate during rounds 2 & 3, using a 9-point scale: low priority (1-3), moderate priority (4-6), and high priority (7-9). The criterion for reaching a consensus will be ≥ 70% of stakeholders rating an item "high priority" and ≤ 15% as "low priority." Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test will be used to assess the stability of stakeholders' responses, and qualitative comments will be analysed using content analysis.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Setting aging research/practice priorities will help maximize the benefits of research investment and provide valuable direction for allocating public and private research funds to areas of strategic importance.

Exercise therapy including the cervical extensor muscles in individuals with neck pain: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To review the use (dosage parameters and combination with other therapeutic interventions) of cervical extensor muscle exercises and their effect on pain, disability (primary outcomes), range of motion, endurance and strength (secondary outcomes) in people with neck pain.

DATA SOURCES

An extensive literature search was conducted through MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus (Elsevier) and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) up to May 2023. The reference lists of all included studies and relevant reviews were screened for additional studies.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomised controlled trials reporting the use of cervical extensor muscle exercises (alone or combined) applied to adults with idiopathic or traumatic neck pain were included. Study selection, data extraction and critical appraisal (PEDro assessment scale) were performed by two blinded reviewers. Data extraction included dosage parameters, other modalities combined with these exercises and outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty-five randomised controlled trails (eight of which were complementary analyses) with 2409 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twenty-six were of moderate to high quality. In most studies, cervical extensor muscle exercises were combined with various other therapeutic modalities and applied at different dosages. Only two studies (one high and one low quality) specifically assessed their effectiveness. The high-quality study showed significant improvements in neck pain and disability, pressure point threshold and neck mobility after both low load and high load training for 6 weeks.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest cervical extensor muscle exercises may reduce neck pain and disability; however firm conclusions cannot be drawn because of the few studies that addressed this question and the heterogeneity of the dosage parameters.

Spinal manipulation characteristics: a scoping literature review of force-time characteristics

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulation (SM) is a recommended and effective treatment for musculoskeletal disorders. Biomechanical (kinetic) parameters (e.g. preload/peak force, rate of force application and thrust duration) can be measured during SM, quantifying the intervention. Understanding these force-time characteristics is the first step towards identifying possible active ingredient/s responsible for the clinical effectiveness of SM. Few studies have quantified SM force-time characteristics and with considerable heterogeneity evident, interpretation of findings is difficult. The aim of this study was to synthesise the literature describing force-time characteristics of manual SM.

METHODS

This scoping literature review is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) statement. Databases were searched from inception to October 2022: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, ICL, PEDro and Cochrane Library. The following search terms and their derivatives were adapted for each platform: spine, spinal, manipulation, mobilization or mobilisation, musculoskeletal, chiropractic, osteopathy, physiotherapy, naprapathy, force, motor skill, biomechanics, dosage, dose-response, education, performance, psychomotor, back, neck, spine, thoracic, lumbar, pelvic, cervical and sacral. Data were extracted and reported descriptively for the following domains: general study characteristics, number of and characteristics of individuals who delivered/received SM, region treated, equipment used and force-time characteristics of SM.

RESULTS

Of 7,607 records identified, 66 (0.9%) fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. Of these, SM was delivered to the cervical spine in 12 (18.2%), the thoracic spine in 40 (60.6%) and the lumbopelvic spine in 19 (28.8%) studies. In 6 (9.1%) studies, the spinal region was not specified. For SM applied to all spinal regions, force-time characteristics were: preload force (range: 0-671N); peak force (17-1213N); rate of force application (202-8700N/s); time to peak thrust force (12-938ms); and thrust duration (36-2876ms).

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable variability in the reported kinetic force-time characteristics of SM exists. Some of this variability is likely due to differences in SM delivery (e.g. different clinicians) and the measurement equipment used to quantify force-time characteristics. However, improved reporting in certain key areas could facilitate more sophisticated syntheses of force-time characteristics data in the future. Such syntheses could provide the foundation upon which dose-response estimates regarding the clinical effectiveness of SM are made.

Effect of high-intensity laser therapy in patients with non-specific chronic neck pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic non-specific neck pain (CNNP) is a prevalent musculoskeletal disorder known for its significant disability and economic burden, ranking second only to low back pain in musculoskeletal conditions. Physical therapy offers effective interventions for CNNP, including low-level laser therapy (LLLT). High-intensity laser therapy (HILT) is a recent treatment for musculoskeletal pain, but studies that support its use in CNNP are limited. The objective of this study is to assess the effect of high-intensity laser therapy on pain intensity in patients with CNNP, given the existing evidence on LLLT for this condition.

METHODS

This is a 2-arm, randomized, placebo-controlled trial with blinded evaluators. The research will be carried out in the laboratory of physical agents at the Andrés Bello University, Campus Casona de las Condes. Eligible participants include the entire internal and external community associated with Andrés Bello University suffering from chronic non-specific NP. Participants will be stratified by sex (4 subgroups) and randomized into 2 study groups: group 1 (HILT and stretching exercises) and group 2 (sham HILT and stretching exercises). Treatments will be performed twice a week for 4 weeks with 3 assessments: before treatment (T0), at the end of treatment (T1), and 12 weeks after treatment (follow-up) (T2). The main outcomes will be pain intensity at rest, pain intensity at movement (active cervical movements: flexion, extension, right and left side bending, and right and left rotation), and pain pressure threshold (average obtained for six evaluation points). Secondary outcome measures will include neck range of motion in the sagittal, coronal, and transverse planes and neck disability.

DISCUSSION

In this study, HILT's effects on patients with non-specific NP will be compared to those of a sham laser intervention. This RCT will offer new evidence regarding the potential benefits of HILT in terms of pain intensity, range of movement, and disability in people suffering with non-specific NP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05689788. January 19, 2023.

Resistance, Motor Control, and Mindfulness-Based Exercises Are Effective for Treating Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis and Dose-Response Meta-Regression

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to analyze the effects and dose-response relationship of the most effective exercises for improving pain and disability in people with chronic nonspecific neck pain. DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the PubMed, PEDro, and CENTRAL databases from their inception to September 30, 2022. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that involved people with chronic neck pain adopting a longitudinal exercise intervention and assessed one pain and/or disability outcome. DATA SYNTHESIS: Restricted maximum-likelihood random-effects meta-analyses were modeled separately for resistance, mindfulness-based, and motor control exercises; standardized mean differences (Hedge's g, standardized mean difference [SMD]) were effect estimators. Meta-regressions (dependent variable: effect sizes of the interventions; independent variables: training dose and control group effects) were conducted to explore the dose-response relationship for therapy success of any exercise type. RESULTS: We included 68 trials. Compared to true control, effects on pain and disability were significantly larger for resistance exercise (pain: SMD, -1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.26, -0.28; |2 = 96%; disability: SMD, -1.76; 95% CI: -3.16, -0.37; |2 = 98%), motor control exercise (pain: SMD, -2.29; 95% CI: -3.82, -0.75; |2 = 98%; disability: SMD, -2.42; 95% CI: -3.38, -1.47; |2 = 94%), and Yoga/Pilates/Tai Chi/Qui Gong exercise (pain: SMD, 1.91; 95% CI:-3.28, -0.55; |2 = 96%; disability: SMD, -0.62; 95% CI: -0.85, -0.38; |2 = 0%). Yoga/Pilates/Tai Chi/Qui Gong exercise was more effective than other exercises (SMD, -0.84; 95% CI: -1.553, -0.13; |2 = 86%) for reducing pain. For disability, motor control exercise was superior to other exercises (SMD, -0.70; 95% CI: -1.23, -0.17; |2 = 98%). There was no dose-response relationship for resistance exercise (R2 = 0.32). Higher frequencies (estimate = -0.10) and longer durations (estimate = -0.11) of motor control exercise had larger effects on pain (R2 = 0.72). Longer sessions (estimate = -0.13) of motor control exercise had larger effects on disability (R2 = 0.61). CONCLUSION: Resistance, mindfulness-based, and motor control exercises were effective for reducing neck pain (very low- to moderate-certainty evidence). Higher frequencies and longer duration of sessions had a significant effect on pain for motor control exercise. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(8):1-41. Epub: 20 June 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11820.

Can baseline features predict a reduction in pain and disability following neck-specific exercise in people with chronic non-specific neck pain?: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

INTRODUCTION

Neck-specific exercises (NSEs) are commonly used for the treatment of chronic non-specific neck pain (CNSNP). However, it remains unclear whether baseline features can predict the response to neck-specific exercise (NSE) in people with CNSNP. This systematic review aims to assess whether baseline features such as age, gender, muscle activity, fatigability, endurance and fear of movement can predict pain and disability reduction following a NSE intervention.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This systematic review and meta-analysis will be reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Protocols guidelines checklist. The Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases; key journals; and grey literature will be searched up until June 2023, including medical subject heading terms and keywords combinations. Included studies will investigate an association between the baseline features and pain and disability outcomes following NSE in people with CNSNP. Two independent reviewers will oversee the searching, screening, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) and Risk-Of-Bias tool for randomised trials 2 (ROB 2). The quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE). Using standardised forms, details regarding study characteristics, baseline features (predictive factors), intervention, primary outcome and effect size (OR and 95% CI of each predictive factor and p value) will be extracted from included studies. Meta-analyses will be considered, if the studies are sufficiently homogeneous and if three or more studies investigate the same or comparable factors that predict the same response (pain intensity or disability). In the event that less than three studies investigated the same factors, a narrative synthesis will be conducted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval will not be required as this review will be based on published studies. The results of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023408332.

A Systematic Review of the Aerobic Exercise Program Variables for Patients with Non-Specific Neck Pain: Effectiveness and Clinical Applications

Studies have shown that aerobic exercise (AE) may improve symptoms related to non-specific neck pain (NNP); however, the variables of the exercise programs and the overall effectiveness of AE have not been evaluated in a systematic review. Therefore, this review aimed to describe and discuss the variables of the AE programs used in clinical trials for patients with NNP. Included studies were analyzed for the selected AE variables such as intensity, frequency, duration, delivery, supervision, and adherence. The PEDro scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. From the literature search, six studies met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. After reviewing all the included studies, it was found that a range of AE interventions were used such as cycling, brisk walking, aerobics, stationary bike, treadmill running, circuit training, and swimming. Further, the duration was between 30 and 45 min for each session, with or without progressive increases from week to week. The intervention periods ranged from 1 month to 6 months in duration. Most studies used AE three times per week. Furthermore, exercise intensity was measured with either subjective (BORG) or objective measures (heartrate reserve). Justification for the specified intensity and reporting of adverse events was reported only in two studies and differed between studies. Exercise interventions were poorly reported. This review showed that moderate-intensity AE undertaken three times per week, in patients with NNP, may be beneficial for pain and function; however, the development of reporting standards is essential for the successful replication of studies.

Considerations on the Obstacles That Lead to Slow Recruitment in a Pain Management Clinical Trial: Experiences from the Belgian PELICAN (PrEgabalin Lidocaine Capsaicin Neuropathic Pain) Pragmatic Study

Background

A qualitative evaluation study of the prematurely terminated PrEgabalin Lidocaine Capsaicin Neuropathic Pain (PELICAN) study was performed. The PELICAN study aimed to examine pain management for localized neuropathic pain (LNP), as epidemiological figures have shown a high percentage of LNP patients in Belgium. The study compared systemic and topical medications according to pain relief, adverse effects, and several measures of quality of life.

Objective

Achieving better study patient recruitment through qualitative research. To investigate and determine the causes of the observed recruitment problems in the PELICAN study, pain centers involved in the study as well as nonrecruiting pain centers were included. Furthermore, it aimed to highlight the positive and negative lessons learned from the conducted study and the number of obstacles the team had to overcome.

Methods

A qualitative study, using a mixed methods approach, was performed. Multiple pain centers in Belgium completed an online survey, after which a structured interview was conducted to elaborate the responses in more detail. The broad topics of these meetings were feedback about the study, reviewing survey answers, and actions undertaken to enhance recruitment.

Results

Different factors contributed to the low recruitment rate in the PELICAN study, such as limited and late referral from the general practitioners to the Belgian pain centers, insufficient internal referrals from nonpain specialists, lack of specific expertise on LNP in some centers, scarcity of staff, limited reimbursement to administer complex analgesic schemes, overestimation of the patient population, and the reluctance of patients to participate in pain research. Additionally, shortcomings in the implemented study design and the need for more logistical investments were identified.

Conclusion

The findings of the qualitative study demonstrate the need for further, more varied LNP research in Belgium, not limited to pharmacological studies. It also sheds important light on the recruitment obstacles that may be faced during these studies. Future studies could support this research by offering better proposals for feasibility and recruitment, for instance, by designing and conducting a compelling pilot study or applying social media during the recruitment phase. Clinical Trials. This trial is registered with NCT03348735. EUDRACT number 2018-003617-17.

Maintenance effect of corrective exercises on neck-shoulder pain and workability among office workers: A 1-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

While positive short-term effects from corrective exercise on neck-shoulder pain (NSP) are evident, maintenance effects after cessation of the exercise remain unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the present study was to assess the lasting effects of corrective exercise in NSP and workability after a year of detraining.

METHODS

A cohort study with 1-year follow-up was carried out in two previous training groups (n = 24) using a self-reported paper-based questionnaire, which was completed three times (baseline, 8-week exercise, and 1-year detraining). The subjects (mean±SD age: 39.0±6.4, 38.1±8.0) responded to the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for NSP as the primary outcome. A single validated item from the Workability Index determined workability as the secondary outcome. Between and within-group differences of the two groups were investigated using non-parametric tests, including 12 subjects in each group.

RESULTS

The results indicated that 8-week exercise improvements in NSP and mental and physical workability were largely maintained after one year of detraining. The lasting effects of NSP and physical and mental workability were statistically identified in 8-week and 1-year follow-ups. Nevertheless, it is noticeably warranted to adhere to the exercise program.

CONCLUSION

The current study indicates that a brief 8-week exercise period once per year is sufficient to reduce pain and improve workability among workers. This knowledge can make exercise interventions more feasible and cost-effective for companies aiming to improve employee health.

Therapeutic routine with respiratory exercises improves posture, muscle activity, and respiratory pattern of patients with neck pain: a randomized controlled trial

Neck pain and forward head posture (FHP) are typical in prolonged smartphone users and need to be targeted for treatment. We aimed to compare the effect of a routine therapeutic program with and without respiratory exercises on smartphone users with FHP and non-specific chronic neck pain (NSCNP). Sixty patients (aged 24.7 ± 2.1 years) with FHP and NSCNP were randomly assigned to the routine therapeutic program (n = 20), combined respiratory exercises with a routine therapeutic program (n = 20), or control (n = 20) groups. At baseline, there was no difference among groups at all variables. Each programme was implemented three times a week for eight weeks. Primary Outcome was pain measured by visual analogue scale (VAS), and secondary ones were forward head angle, the activity of specific muscles, and respiratory patterns, measured by photogrammetry, electromyography and manual, respectively. All outcomes were measured at baseline and eight weeks post-treatment. We used the repeated measures analysis of variance to examine the interaction between time and group, paired t-test for intragroup comparison, one-way analysis of variance for intergroup comparison, and Tukey post hoc test at a significant level 95% was used. There were significant differences in the combined group compared with the routine therapeutic group (P = 0.03) for diaphragm muscle activation, respiratory balance (P = 0.01), and the number of breaths (P = 0.02). There were significant within-group changes from baseline to post-treatment in the combined group for all outcomes above, but no changes in the therapeutic exercise routine group. Despite respiratory pattern, none of the secondary outcomes proved to be superior in the combination group compared to the routine therapeutic program in smartphone users with FHP and NSCNP. Future studies with longer follow-up assessments could strengthen these results.Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials using the IRCT website with ID number of, IRCT20200212046469N1 "Prospectively registered" at 04/03/2020.

Safety, efficacy and delivery of isometric resistance training as an adjunct therapy for blood pressure control: a modified Delphi study

Uncontrolled hypertension remains the major risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Isometric resistance training (IRT) has been shown to be a useful nonpharmacological therapy for reducing blood pressure (BP); however, some exercise physiologists and other health professionals are uncertain of the efficacy and safety of IRT. Experts' consensus was sought in light of the current variability of IRT use as an adjunct treatment for hypertension. An expert consensus-building analysis (Delphi study) was conducted on items relevant to the safety, efficacy and delivery of IRT. The study consisted of 3 phases: (1) identification of items and expert participants for inclusion; (2) a two-round modified Delphi exercise involving expert panelists to build consensus; and (3) a study team consensus meeting for a final item review. A list of 50 items was generated, and 42 international experts were invited to join the Delphi panel. Thirteen and 10 experts completed Delphi Rounds 1 and 2, respectively, reaching consensus on 26 items in Round 1 and 10 items in Round 2. The study team consensus meeting conducted a final item review and considered the remaining 14 items for the content list. A final list of 43 items regarding IRT reached expert consensus: 7/10 items on safety, 11/11 items on efficacy, 10/12 items on programming, 8/10 items on delivery, and 7/7 on the mechanism of action. This study highlights that while experts reached a consensus that IRT is efficacious as an antihypertensive therapy, some still have safety concerns, and there is also ongoing conjecture regarding optimal delivery.