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.

The effect of ultrasound or phonophoresis as an adjuvant treatment for non-specific neck pain: systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of ultrasound/phonophoresis as an adjuvant to exercise or manual therapy for the improvement of patient-centred outcomes in adults with non-specific neck pain (NSNP). METHODS: Seven electronic databases were systematically searched up to September 2020. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to judge the Quality of Evidence (QoE). RESULTS: Six studies involving 249 participants were included. The QoE was very low GRADE. Phonophoresis with capsaicin plus exercise improved pain at immediate post-treatment (MD: -3.30 [-4.05, -2.55]) but not with diclofenac sodium plus exercise as compared to exercise. Continuous ultrasound (CUS) plus exercise improved pain and pressure pain threshold (PPT) at immediate post-treatment (pain: MD: -3.42 [-4.08, -2.7]); (PPT: MD: 0.91 [0.68, 1.14]) and at intermediate-term as compared to exercise. CUS or high power pain threshold (HPPT) ultrasound plus manual therapy and exercise showed no benefit for pain reduction (MD: -0.75 [-2.08, 0.58]) did not improve function/disability (MD: -1.05 [-4.27, 2.17]) at immediate or short-term as compared to manual therapy and exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Due to high risk of bias, inconsistency, and indirectness the QoE is very low in support of benefit of ultrasound/phonophoresis as an adjuvant treatment for NSNP.Implication for rehabilitationDue to high risk of bias, inconsistency, and indirectness the quality of evidence (QoE) is very low in support of benefit of adding ultrasound or phonophoresis to exercise or manual therapy for pain reduction or improvement in function/disability for those with sub-acute and chronic myofascial associated neck pain. However, our confidence in the findings is very low and conclusions are likely to change as more evidences emerges.Clinicians using ultrasound therapy as an adjuvant intervention for management of chronic myofascial associated neck pain should carefully consider the available evidence on ultrasound, including the benefits and costs involved.

Essential components of integrated care for youth with mental health and addiction needs: protocol for a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Efforts to move towards integrated care have been met with increased interest and enthusiasm in recent years given the potential to improve care and population health while containing costs. However, there is a need to better understand community-based integrated care approaches for youth with mental health and/or addiction concerns to guide future implementation efforts and develop a set of standards for key components. The objectives of this scoping review are to: (1) identify the populations, settings, service providers, interventions, infrastructure and care coordination methods that have been included in integrated care for youth with mental health and/or addiction needs and (2) identify constructs that have been measured and evaluated (eg, outcomes, engagement) in the context of youth integrated care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Seven electronic databases and several grey literature sources will be searched for material from 2001 to 2016. Inclusion criteria will be broad with respect to type of work, as we will include all types of research studies as well as non-research studies that provide information relevant to characteristics and constructs measured in the context of integrated care for youth mental health. Titles and abstracts will be independently screened for eligibility by two raters using inclusion criteria. Full-text articles will then be accessed and independently screened for inclusion. A formal data extraction method will be employed, enabling synthesis of results in quantitative and qualitative formats. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Results will be widely disseminated to various stakeholders to inform implementation and research efforts. Findings will also launch a Delphi method study leading to the development of an assessment tool for youth mental health services integration. This review does not require ethics approval.