A randomised controlled trial comparing graded exercise treatment and usual physiotherapy for patients with non-specific neck pain (the GET UP neck pain trial).

Evidence supports exercise-based interventions for the management of neck pain, however there is little evidence of its superiority over usual physiotherapy. This study investigated the effectiveness of a group neck and upper limb exercise programme (GET) compared with usual physiotherapy (UP) for patients with non-specific neck pain. A total of 151 adult patients were randomised to either GET or UP. The primary measure was the Northwick Park Neck pain Questionnaire (NPQ) score at six weeks, six months and 12 months. Mixed modelling identified no difference in neck pain and function between patients receiving GET and those receiving UP at any follow-up time point. Both interventions resulted in modest significant and clinically important improvements on the NPQ score with a change score of around 9% between baseline and 12 months. Both GET and UP are appropriate clinical interventions for patients with non-specific neck pain, however preferences for treatment and targeted strategies to address barriers to adherence may need to be considered in order to maximise the effectiveness of these approaches.

Risk factors for the onset of non-specific neck pain: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Neck pain is a common musculoskeletal disorder, but little is known about which individuals develop neck pain. This systematic review investigated factors that constitute a risk for the onset of non-specific neck pain. DESIGN AND SETTING: A range of electronic databases and reference sections of relevant articles were searched to identify appropriate articles. Studies investigating risk factors for the onset of non-specific neck pain in asymptomatic populations were included. All studies were prospective with at least 1 year follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: 14 independent cohort studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. Thirteen studies were assessed as high quality. Female gender, older age, high job demands, low social/work support, being an ex-smoker, a history of low back disorders and a history of neck disorders were linked to the development of non-specific neck pain. CONCLUSIONS: Various clinical and sociodemographic risk factors were identified that have implications for occupational health and health policy. However, there was a lack of good-quality research investigating the predictive nature of many other variables.

Mechanical traction for neck pain with or without radiculopathy.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is a frequently reported complaint of the musculoskeletal system which can be disabling and costly to society. Mechanical traction is often used as an adjunct therapy in outpatient rehabilitation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of mechanical traction for neck disorders. SEARCH STRATEGY: A research librarian searched computerized bibliographic databases without language restrictions up to March 2008 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the medical, chiropractic, and allied health literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: The RCTs we selected examined adults with neck disorders who received mechanical traction alone or in combination with other treatments compared to a placebo or another treatment. Our outcomes of interest were pain, function, disability, global perceived effect, patient satisfaction, and quality of life measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors with different backgrounds in medicine, physiotherapy, massage therapy and chiropractics independently conducted study selection, risk of bias assessment and data abstraction using pre-piloted forms. We resolved disagreement through consensus. MAIN RESULTS: Of the seven selected RCTs (total participants = 958), only one (N = 100) had a low risk of bias. It found no statistically significant difference (SMD -0.16: 95%CI: -0.59 to 0.27) between continuous traction and placebo traction in reducing pain or improving function for chronic neck disorders with radicular symptoms. Our review found no evidence from RCTs with a low potential for bias that clearly supports or refutes the use of either continuous or intermittent traction for neck disorders. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current literature does not support or refute the efficacy or effectiveness of continuous or intermittent traction for pain reduction, improved function or global perceived effect when compared to placebo traction, tablet or heat or other conservative treatments in patients with chronic neck disorders. Large, well conducted RCTs are needed to first determine the efficacy of traction, then the effectiveness, for individuals with neck disorders with radicular symptoms.

Predictor Variables for a Positive Long-Term Functional Outcome in Patients with Acute and Chronic Neck and Back Pain Treated with a McKenzie Approach: A Secondary Analysis.

A cognitive behavioral approach was previously compared to a biomechanical approach (the McKenzie method) for the treatment of patients with back and neck pain in a randomized trial. Few differences between the treatment interventions were found. The aim of this secondary analysis was to determine if any clinical characteristics distinguished those patients who responded best to the McKenzie approach. Treatment success was defined as 50% reduction in original functional disability scores (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire or Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire); failure to achieve this was defined as treatment failure. A liberal definition of success was 50% improvement retained at either 6 or 12 months, whereas a strict definition of success was 50% improvement at both 6 and 12 months. Ten variables were screened by univariate regression analysis to see if they predicted success. Any significant variables (P < 0.1) underwent multiple regression analysis. Only 21 and 16 patients out of 102 were deemed treatment successes according to the liberal and strict definitions, respectively. With the liberal definition, only centralization (P = 0.065), spine region (back rather than neck pain) (P = 0.089), and duration of pain (P = 0.001) emerged as predictors from the univariate regression analysis. With the strict definition, only the latter two variables emerged: spine region (P = 0.026) and duration of pain (P <0.01). All these variables were retained in the multiple regression analysis. In this study, duration of pain was the strongest predictor of success, although back pain and centralization had some predictive ability.

Randomized trial of a brief physiotherapy intervention compared with usual physiotherapy for neck pain patients: cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of brief physiotherapy intervention versus usual physiotherapy management in patients with neck pain of musculoskeletal origin in the community setting. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a multicenter pragmatic randomized controlled clinical trial. Individuals 18 years of age and older with neck pain of more than 2 weeks were recruited from physiotherapy departments with referrals from general practitioners (GPs) in the East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire regions in the United Kingdom. A total of 139 patients were allocated to the brief intervention, and 129 to the usual physiotherapy. Resource use data were prospectively collected on the number of physiotherapy sessions, hospital stay, specialist, and GP visits. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using EQ-5D data collected at baseline, 3 and 12 months from the start of the treatment. The economic evaluation was conducted from the U.K. National Health System perspective. RESULTS: On average, brief intervention produced lower costs (pounds--68; 95 percent confidence interval [CI], pounds--103 to pounds--35) and marginally lower QALYs (-0.001; 95 percent CI, -0.030 to 0.028) compared with usual physiotherapy, resulting in an incremental cost per QALY of pounds 68,000 for usual physiotherapy. These results are sensitive to patients' treatment preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Usual physiotherapy may not be good value for money for the average individual in this trial but could be a cost-effective strategy for those who are indifferent toward which treatment they receive.

A randomized trial comparing a group exercise programme for back pain patients with individual physiotherapy in a severely deprived area.

PURPOSE: To compare a group exercise programme known as the Back to Fitness programme with individual physiotherapy for patients with non-specific low back pain from a materially deprived area. METHOD: This was a randomized controlled trial including 237 physiotherapy patients with back pain lasting more than six weeks. Participants were allocated to either the Back to Fitness programme or to individual physiotherapy, and followed up at three months and 12 months after randomization. The main outcome measure was the Roland Disability Questionnaire. Secondary measures were: SF12, EQ5D, Pain Self-Efficacy Scale. Health care diaries recording patients' use of health care resources were also collected over a 12-month period. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in change scores between groups on the primary outcome measure at three months (CI - 2.24 to 0.49) and at 12 months (CI - 1.68 to 1.39). Only minor improvements in disability scores were observed in the Back to Fitness group at three months and 12 months respectively (mean change scores; - 0.89, - 0.77) and in the individual physiotherapy arm (mean change scores; - 0.02, - 0.63). Further analysis showed that patients from the most severely deprived areas were marginally worse at three month follow-up whereas those from more affluent areas tended to improve (CI 0.43 to 3.15).

Randomised trial of a brief physiotherapy intervention compared with usual physiotherapy for neck pain patients: outcomes and patients' preference.

OBJECTIVES: Firstly, to compare the effectiveness of a brief physiotherapy intervention with "usual" physiotherapy for patients with neck pain. Secondly, to evaluate the effect of patients' preferences on outcome. DESIGN: Non-inferiority randomised controlled trial eliciting preferences independently of randomisation. SETTING: Physiotherapy departments in a community setting in Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire. PARTICIPANTS: 268 patients (mean age 48 years) with subacute and chronic neck pain, who were referred by their general practitioner and randomly assigned to a brief physiotherapy intervention (one to three sessions) using cognitive behaviour principles to encourage self management and return to normal function or usual physiotherapy, at the discretion of the physiotherapist concerned. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Northwick Park neck pain questionnaire (NPQ), a specific measure of functional disability resulting from neck pain. Also, the short form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire, a generic, health related, quality of life measure; and the Tampa scale for kinesophobia, a measure of fear and avoidance of movement. RESULTS: At 12 months, patients allocated to usual physiotherapy had a small but significant improvement in NPQ scores compared with patients in the brief intervention group (mean difference 1.99, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 3.52; P = 0.01). Although the result shows a significant inferiority of the intervention, the confidence interval shows that the effect could be in the non-inferiority range for the brief intervention (below 1.2 points of NPQ score). Patients who preferred the brief intervention and received this treatment had similar outcomes to patients receiving usual physiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Usual physiotherapy may be only marginally better than a brief physiotherapy intervention for neck pain. Patients with a preference for the brief intervention may do at least as well with this approach. Additional training for the physiotherapists in cognitive behaviour techniques might improve this approach further.

High fear-avoiders of physical activity benefit from an exercise program for patients with back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: A subgroup analysis of patient outcomes from a randomized controlled trial comparing a Back to Fitness program with usual general practitioner care. OBJECTIVES: To test whether patients with high scores on measures of fear-avoidance and distress/depression benefit the most. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A fitness program, ongoing since the 1980s, was developed for use in the community and has been shown to be effective in reducing disability. Detailed analyses are needed to identify patient groups who benefit. Recent evidence points to the potentially important role of fear, distress, and depression. METHOD: Data from 98 patients allocated to normal general practitioner care and 89 patients allocated to a group exercise program were analyzed after categorizing baseline scores on fear-avoidance beliefs (high/low) and distress/depression (at risk/normal). The main outcome measure was the Roland Disability Questionnaire. Outcomes were compared between the intervention and control groups at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. RESULTS.: High fear-avoiders fared significantly better in the exercise program than in usual general practitioner care at 6 weeks and at 1 year. Low fear-avoiders did not. Patients who were distressed or depressed were significantly better off at 6 weeks, but the benefits were not maintained long-term. CONCLUSION: Patients with high levels of fear-avoidance beliefs could significantly benefit from the Back to Fitness program. The benefits of the exercise program for patients with high levels of distress/depression appear to be short-term only. Average attendance was only 4 to 5 classes, which may not be sufficient for more recalcitrant cases. Further research is indicated.

Public perceptions about low back pain and its management: a gap between expectations and reality?

OBJECTIVE: To compare public perceptions and patient perceptions about back pain and its management with current clinical guidelines. DESIGN: A survey using a quota sampling technique. SETTING: On-the-street in South Derbyshire in the UK. SUBJECTS: 507 members of the general population aged between 20 and 60 years, including a representative subsample of 40% who had experienced back pain in the previous year. SURVEY: To test knowledge and perceptions of back pain and its best management using statements based on The Back Book which was produced in conjunction with the Royal College of General Practitioners and based on best available evidence. In addition expectations of back pain management and outcome were investigated. RESULTS: Forty percent of this sample had experienced back pain during the previous year, more than half of whom had consulted their GP. More than half believed the spine is one of the strongest part of the body, but nearly two thirds incorrectly believed that back pain is often due to a slipped disc or trapped nerve. Two thirds expected a GP to be able to tell them exactly what was wrong with their back, although slightly fewer among those who had consulted. Most expected to have an X-ray, especially if they had consulted. Most recognised that the most important thing a GP can do is offer reassurance and advice. The responses were not related to age, gender or social class. Those who had consulted appeared to have slightly more misconceptions: this could be partly due to people with more severe problems or more misconceptions being more likely to consult, but also suggests either that GPs are still giving inaccurate information or at least failing to correct these misconceptions. CONCLUSIONS: The problem of managing back pain might be reduced by closing the gap between the public's expectations and what is recommended in the guidelines through the promotion of appropriate health education messages. Further professional education of GPs also appears to be needed to update them in the most effective approach to managing back pain.