Effectiveness and safety of manual therapy when compared with oral pain medications in patients with neck pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis seeks to investigate the effectiveness and safety of manual therapy (MT) interventions compared to oral pain medication in the management of neck pain. METHODS: We searched from inception to March 2023, in Cochrane Central Register of Controller Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCO) for randomized controlled trials that examined the effect of manual therapy interventions for neck pain when compared to medication in adults with self-reported neck pain, irrespective of radicular findings, specific cause, and associated cervicogenic headaches. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool to assess the potential risk of bias in the included studies, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to grade the quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Nine trials (779 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. We found low certainty of evidence that MT interventions may be more effective than oral pain medication in pain reduction in the short-term (Standardized Mean Difference: -0.39; 95% CI -0.66 to -0.11; 8 trials, 676 participants), and moderate certainty of evidence that MT interventions may be more effective than oral pain medication in pain reduction in the long-term (Standardized Mean Difference: - 0.36; 95% CI - 0.55 to - 0.17; 6 trials, 567 participants). We found low certainty evidence that the risk of adverse events may be lower for patients that received MT compared to the ones that received oral pain medication (Risk Ratio: 0.59; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.79; 5 trials, 426 participants). CONCLUSIONS: MT may be more effective for people with neck pain in both short and long-term with a better safety profile regarding adverse events when compared to patients receiving oral pain medications. However, we advise caution when interpreting our safety results due to the different level of reporting strategies in place for MT and medication-induced adverse events. Future MT trials should create and adhere to strict reporting strategies with regards to adverse events to help gain a better understanding on the nature of potential MT-induced adverse events and to ensure patient safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023421147.

Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment.

BACKGROUND: Manipulation and mobilisation are commonly used to treat neck pain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of manipulation or mobilisation alone compared wiith those of an inactive control or another active treatment on pain, function, disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults experiencing neck pain with or without radicular symptoms and cervicogenic headache (CGH) at immediate- to long-term follow-up. When appropriate, to assess the influence of treatment characteristics (i.e. technique, dosage), methodological quality, symptom duration and subtypes of neck disorder on treatment outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: Review authors searched the following computerised databases to November 2014 to identify additional studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to find relevant studies. We updated this search in June 2015, but these results have not yet been incorporated. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken to assess whether manipulation or mobilisation improves clinical outcomes for adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and applied Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods (very low, low, moderate, high quality). We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 trials (2920 participants, 18 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus control; 34 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus another treatment, 1 trial had two comparisons). Cervical manipulation versus inactive control: For subacute and chronic neck pain, a single manipulation (three trials, no meta-analysis, 154 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) relieved pain at immediate- but not short-term follow-up. Cervical manipulation versus another active treatment: For acute and chronic neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 446 participants, ranged from moderate to high quality) produced similar changes in pain, function, quality of life (QoL), global perceived effect (GPE) and patient satisfaction when compared with multiple sessions of cervical mobilisation at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. For acute and subacute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation were more effective than certain medications in improving pain and function at immediate- (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality) and long-term follow-up (one trial, 181 participants, moderate quality). These findings are consistent for function at intermediate-term follow-up (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality). For chronic CGH, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 125 participants, low quality) may be more effective than massage in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 65 participants, very low quality) may be favoured over transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain reduction at short-term follow-up. For acute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 20 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than thoracic manipulation in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Thoracic manipulation versus inactive control: Three trials (150 participants) using a single session were assessed at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. At short-term follow-up, manipulation improved pain in participants with acute and subacute neck pain (five trials, 346 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.86 to -0.66) and improved function (four trials, 258 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.40, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.55) in participants with acute and chronic neck pain. A funnel plot of these data suggests publication bias. These findings were consistent at intermediate follow-up for pain/function/quality of life (one trial, 111 participants, low quality). Thoracic manipulation versus another active treatment: No studies provided sufficient data for statistical analyses. A single session of thoracic manipulation (one trial, 100 participants, moderate quality) was comparable with thoracic mobilisation for pain relief at immediate-term follow-up for chronic neck pain. Mobilisation versus inactive control: Mobilisation as a stand-alone intervention (two trials, 57 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) may not reduce pain more than an inactive control. Mobilisation versus another active treatment: For acute and subacute neck pain, anterior-posterior mobilisation (one trial, 95 participants, very low quality) may favour pain reduction over rotatory or transverse mobilisations at immediate-term follow-up. For chronic CGH with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, multiple sessions of TMJ manual therapy (one trial, 38 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than cervical mobilisation in improving pain/function at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. For subacute and chronic neck pain, cervical mobilisation alone (four trials, 165 participants, ranged from low to very low quality) may not be different from ultrasound, TENS, acupuncture and massage in improving pain, function, QoL and participant satisfaction at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. Additionally, combining laser with manipulation may be superior to using manipulation or laser alone (one trial, 56 participants, very low quality). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although support can be found for use of thoracic manipulation versus control for neck pain, function and QoL, results for cervical manipulation and mobilisation versus control are few and diverse. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Research designed to protect against various biases is needed. Findings suggest that manipulation and mobilisation present similar results for every outcome at immediate/short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple cervical manipulation sessions may provide better pain relief and functional improvement than certain medications at immediate/intermediate/long-term follow-up. Since the risk of rare but serious adverse events for manipulation exists, further high-quality research focusing on mobilisation and comparing mobilisation or manipulation versus other treatment options is needed to guide clinicians in their optimal treatment choices.

Comparison of 2 manual therapy and exercise protocols for cervical radiculopathy: a randomized clinical trial evaluating short-term effects.

STUDY DESIGN: Participant- and assessor-blinded randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: To compare a rehabilitation program thought to increase the size of the intervertebral foramen (IVF) of the affected nerve root to a rehabilitation program that doesn't include any specific techniques thought to increase the size of the IVF in patients presenting with cervical radiculopathy (CR). BACKGROUND: Clinical approaches for the treatment of CR commonly include exercises and manual therapy techniques thought to increase the size of the IVF, but evidence regarding the effectiveness of these specific manual therapy techniques is scarce. METHODS: Thirty-six participants with CR were randomly assigned either to a group that received a manual therapy and exercise program aimed at increasing the size of the IVF of the affected nerve root (experimental group, n=18) or to a group that received a manual therapy and exercise program without the specific goal of increasing the size of the IVF of the affected level and side (comparison group, n=18). Primary (Neck Disability Index) and secondary (shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire [QuickDASH] and numeric pain-rating scale) outcomes were evaluated at baseline, at the end of the 4-week program (week 4), and 4 weeks later (week 8). A mixed-model, 2-way analysis of variance was used to analyze treatment effects. RESULTS: No significant group-by-time interaction or group effect was observed for Neck Disability Index, QuickDASH, and numeric pain-rating scale scores (P≥.14) following the intervention. However, both groups showed statistically and clinically significant improvement from baseline to week 4 and to week 8 in Neck Disability Index, QuickDASH, and numeric pain-rating scale scores (P<.05). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that manual therapy and exercises are effective in reducing pain and functional limitations related to CR. The addition of techniques thought to increase the size of the IVF of the affected nerve root yielded no significant additional benefits. Given the absence of a "no treatment" group, a spontaneous resolution of symptoms cannot be excluded. However, the magnitude of improvement makes spontaneous resolution unlikely. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01500044). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 1b-.

Botulinum toxin for subacute/chronic neck pain.

BACKGROUND: Neck disorders are common, disabling and costly. Botulinum toxin (BoNT) intramuscular injections are often used with the intention of treating neck pain. OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate the literature on the treatment effectiveness of BoNT for neck pain, disability, global perceived effect and quality of life in adults with neck pain with or without associated cervicogenic headache, but excluding cervical radiculopathy and whiplash associated disorder. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, AMED, Index to Chiropractic Literature, CINAHL, LILACS, and EMBASE from their origin to 20 September 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in which BoNT injections were used to treat subacute or chronic neck pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A minimum of two review authors independently selected articles, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias, using the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria. In the absence of clinical heterogeneity, we calculated standardized mean differences (SMD) and relative risks, and performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model. The quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations were assigned an overall grade for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine trials (503 participants). Only BoNT type A (BoNT-A) was used in these studies.High quality evidence suggests there was little or no difference in pain between BoNT-A and saline injections at four weeks (five trials; 252 participants; SMD pooled -0.07 (95% confidence intervals (CI) -0.36 to 0.21)) and six months for chronic neck pain. Very low quality evidence indicated little or no difference in pain between BoNT-A combined with physiotherapeutic exercise and analgesics and saline injection with physiotherapeutic exercise and analgesics for patients with chronic neck pain at four weeks (two trials; 95 participants; SMD pooled 0.09 (95% CI -0.55 to 0.73)) and six months (one trial; 24 participants; SMD -0.56 (95% CI -1.39 to 0.27)). Very low quality evidence from one trial (32 participants) showed little or no difference between BoNT-A and placebo at four weeks (SMD 0.16 (95% CI -0.53 to 0.86)) and six months (SMD 0.00 (95% CI -0.69 to 0.69)) for chronic cervicogenic headache. Very low quality evidence from one trial (31 participants), showed a difference in global perceived effect favouring BoNT-A in chronic neck pain at four weeks (SMD -1.12 (95% CI: -1.89 to -0.36)). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence fails to confirm either a clinically important or a statistically significant benefit of BoNT-A injection for chronic neck pain associated with or without associated cervicogenic headache. Likewise, there was no benefit seen for disability and quality of life at four week and six months.