Effects of Instrumental, Manipulative and Soft Tissue Approaches for the Suboccipital Region in Subjects with Chronic Mechanical 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.

Effectiveness of myofascial release for adults with chronic neck pain: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Every second human will experience a phase of neck pain in their lifetime and a high rate of chronicity exists. Because of the complexity and multiple influencing factors, chronic pain conditions are associated with a long treatment and diagnostic process. This leads to a prolonged healing process and high costs.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of myofascial release on the variables of pain and range of motion in patients with chronic neck pain.

METHOD

Selection criteria were set to create a search algorithm for a systematic search in the databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, EBM Reviews, Medline, CINAHL, PEDro, and Science Direct. The risk of bias and the methodological quality was analyzed with the PEDro scale.

RESULT

Ten randomized controlled trials, with 549 participants met the eligibility criteria. The methodological quality was ranked from good to excellent. The myofascial release showed a significant difference in pain (p =  0.03), rotation to the right (p =  0.05), and lateral flexion to the right (p =  0.04), compared to other treatment methods. No significant effect was found for improvements in pressure pain threshold.

CONCLUSION

Modest effects are observed in pain reduction, suggesting potential benefits of myofascial release in managing chronic neck pain. Further research with standardized protocols and direct comparisons to established therapies is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of myofascial release efficacy.

CONTRIBUTION OF THE PAPER

What does the meta-analysis add to the current literature.

The impact of suboccipital muscle inhibition on postural stability in young individuals

Introduction. Postural stability is the result of cooperation between the musculoskeletal and nervous systems. The stability of standing posture ensures the spatial arrangement of the body, where the center of gravity falls within the center of the support base. FHT (Forward Head Posture) increases the extension in the occipito-cervical joint and upper cervical spine, deepening the flexion of the lower cervical segment, causing improper contraction of the suboccipital muscles. Disorders in the tone of the suboccipital muscles may affect the balance. Objective. The research hypothesis was made that a single 4-minute suboccipital muscle inhibition procedure influences the change in postural stability values with open and closed eyes in individuals with cranio vertebral angle (CVA) within the normal range and below. Materials and Methods. Healthy participants (10 women and 8 men) with an age of 22.7 ± 0.58. The participants took part in the study. They were classified into research groups based on the CVA angle assessment. Postural stability analysis used the Koordynacja stabilometric platform. Measurements were taken with open and closed eyes, before and immediately after suboccipital muscle inhibition. Results. The suboccipital muscle inhibition was observed to affect anterior-posterior (A-P) displacements in group A (CVA < 50) p-value = 0.0168, with no significant impact in group B (CVA ≥ 50), p-value = 0.3695. Conclusion. A single 4-minute suboccipital muscle inhibition procedure does not significantly influence postural stability parameters in the examined groups, except for A-P displacements with open eyes in the CVA < 50 group.

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.

Does manual therapy meaningfully change quantitative sensory testing and patient reported outcome measures in patients with musculoskeletal impairments related to the spine?: A 'trustworthy' systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To perform a 'trustworthy' systematic review (SR) with meta-analysis on the potential mechanisms of manual therapy used to treat spinal impairments.

DESIGN

SR with meta-analysis.

LITERATURE SEARCH

Articles published between January 2010 and October 2022 from CENTRAL, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, ProQuest, and PEDro.

METHODS

This SR included English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving manual therapy to treat spinal impairments in adults. The primary outcome was pressure pain thresholds (PPTs). To synthesize RCTs with high confidence in estimated effects using the GRADE, RCTs with questionable prospective, external, and internal validity, and high risk of bias (RoB) were excluded.

RESULTS

Following title and abstract screening, 89 full-text RCTs were reviewed. Twenty-two studies included the criteria of interest. Sixteen were not prospectively registered, two contained discussion/conclusions judged to be inconsistent with the registry, and one was rated as having a high RoB. Three studies met the inclusion criteria; heterogeneous interventions and locations for PPT testing prevented synthesis into practice recommendations. The two studies with high confidence in estimated effects had small effect sizes, and one study had confidence intervals that crossed zero for the outcome measures of interest.

DISCUSSION

Standardized PPT testing, as a potential measure of centrally mediated pain, could provide clues regarding the mechanisms of manual therapy or help identify/refine research questions.

CONCLUSION

High-quality RCTs could not be synthesized into strong conclusions secondary to the dissimilarity in research designs. Future research regarding quantitative sensory testing should develop RCTs with high confidence in estimated effects that can be translated into strong recommendations.

Effects of elongation longitudinaux avec decoaption osteo-articulaire and post-facilitation stretching technique on pain and functional disability in mobile users with text neck syndrome during COVID-19 pandemic: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Adolescent smartphone users have developed a variety of musculoskeletal conditions due to their use of smartphones. ELDOA (Elongation longitudinaux avec decoaption osteo-articulaire) is based on maximizing facial and spinal stretching by assuming specific posture for 1 minute and post facilitation stretching is also a type of muscle energy technique that is used for chronically shortened or tight muscles. This aimed to compare the effects of post-facilitation stretching technique and ELDOA on neck pain and functional disability in mobile users experiencing Text neck syndrome during COVID-19.

METHODS

This single-blinded randomized control trial with a parallel group design was conducted at the Department of Physiotherapy Safi Hospital (Faisalabad, Pakistan) from September 2021 to April 2022. Forty smartphone users between the ages of 18 and 35 who had a Neck Disability Index score of >10 due to neck pain without unilateral arm symptoms participated in the study. Of the 40 participants, twenty were randomly assigned to the ELDOA group and twenty were assigned to the post facilitation stretching group, and each group received 3 weekly sessions of treatment for 6 weeks. The Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Smartphone Addiction Scale (SAS) were used to measure pain intensity, functional disability, and smartphone addiction at baseline and after 18 sessions of treatment. SPSS version 22 was used to enter and analyze the data. To find comparisons between groups an independent sample t test was used, and a paired sample t test was used to find the difference within each group.

RESULTS

Post-treatment values showed statistically significant difference between groups. ELDOA group showed greater improvement in pain (P < .03) with 95% CI [-1.33, -0.068] and functional disability (P < .05) with 95% CI [-4.44, 0.143] at 6th week. There was no statistically significant difference (P = .35) with 95% CI [-28.6, 10.4] between the two groups regarding smartphone addiction. The NPRS, NDI, SAS scores were significantly different within each group with P < .05.

CONCLUSION

The study concluded that ELDOA method and post-facilitation stretching both were effective in treating neck pain and functional disability. However, ELDOA method was superior to post-facilitation stretching effects on neck pain and functional disability among patients with text neck syndrome.

Current Concept of Quantitative Sensory Testing and Pressure Pain Threshold in Neck/Shoulder and Low Back Pain

In recent years, several published articles have shown that quantitative sensory testing (QST) and pressure pain threshold (PPT) are useful in the analysis of neck/shoulder and low back pain. A valid reference for normal PPT values might be helpful for the clinical diagnosis of abnormal tenderness or muscle pain. However, there have been no reliable references for PPT values of neck/shoulder and back pain because the data vary depending on the devices used, the measurement units, and the area examined. In this article, we review previously published PPT articles on neck/shoulder and low back pain, discuss the measurement properties of PPT, and summarize the current data on PPT values in patients with chronic pain and healthy volunteers. We also reveal previous issues related to PPT evaluation and discuss the future of PPT assessment for widespread use in general clinics. We outline QST and PPT measurements and what kinds of perceptions can be quantified with the PPT. Ninety-seven articles were selected in the present review, in which we focused on the normative values and abnormal values in volunteers/patients with neck/shoulder and low back pain. We conducted our search of articles using PubMed and Medline, a medical database. We used a combination of “Pressure pain threshold” and “Neck shoulder pain” or “Back pain” as search terms and searched articles from 1 January 2000 to 1 June 2022. From the data extracted, we revealed the PPT values in healthy control subjects and patients with neck/shoulder and low back pain. This database could serve as a benchmark for future research with pressure algometers for the wide use of PPT assessment in clinics.