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.

Introducing supported self-management for depression to primary care in Vietnam: A feasibility study in preparation for a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Although depression is a major contributor to the global burden of disease, services remain scarce in many low- and middle-income countries. In Vietnam, depression services are limited, and the government has recently prioritized primary care and community-based service integration. We conducted a pilot study in 2 districts of Hanoi to test the feasibility of (a) introducing a supported self-management (SSM) intervention for adult depression in primary care in Vietnam, and (b) conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the effectiveness of the intervention. METHOD: We conducted focus groups with providers (n = 16) and community members (n = 32) to assess the appropriateness of an Antidepressant Skills Workbook for use in Vietnam. We trained providers (n = 23) to screen patients using the Self-Reporting Questionnaire-20 (SRQ-20) depression scale and to deliver SSM for a 2-month period. A total of 71 patients were eligible to participate in the study, with depression (SRQ-20) and disability (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0) scores assessed at baseline and 1 and 2 months. RESULTS: Study results demonstrate the feasibility of conducting a full RCT in Vietnam and suggest that SSM is an appropriate care model for the Vietnamese context. There was a statistically significant decrease in depression symptoms on the SRQ-20 and in functional disability in all domains for the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.). CONCLUSION: Feasibility study results suggested that a full RCT was warranted. An unanticipated outcome of the study was the uptake of the model by the Ministry of Labor, Invalids, and Social Affairs in 2 additional provinces. (PsycINFO Database Record

The effectiveness of a Supported Self-management task-shifting intervention for adult depression in Vietnam communities: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorders are one of the leading causes of disease and disability worldwide. In Vietnam, although epidemiological evidence suggests that depression rates are on par with global averages, services for depression are very limited. In a feasibility study that was implemented from 2013 to 2015, we found that a Supported Self-management (SSM) intervention showed promising results for adults with depression in the community in Vietnam. This paper describes the Mental Health in Adults and Children: Frugal Innovations (MAC-FI) trial protocol that will assess the effectiveness of the SSM intervention, delivered by primary care and social workers, to community-based populations of adults with depression in eight Vietnamese provinces. METHODS/DESIGN: The MAC-FI program will be assessed using a stepped-wedge, randomized controlled trial. Study participants are adults aged 18 years and over in eight provinces of Vietnam. Study participants will be screened at primary care centres and in the community by health and social workers using the Self-reporting Questionnaire-20 (SRQ-20). Patients scoring >7, indicating depression caseness, will be invited to participate in the study in either the SSM intervention group or the enhanced treatment as usual control group. Recruited participants will be further assessed using the World Health Organization's Disability Assessment Scale (WHODAS 2.0) and the Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye-opener (CAGE) Questionnaire for alcohol misuse. Intervention-group participants will receive the SSM intervention, delivered with the support of a social worker or social collaborator, for a period of 2 months. Control- group participants will receive treatment as usual and a leaflet with information about depression. SRQ-20, WHODAS 2.0 and CAGE scores will be taken by blinded outcome assessors at baseline, after 1 month and after 2 months. The primary analysis method will be intention-to-treat. DISCUSSION: This study has the potential to add to the knowledge base about the effectiveness of a SSM intervention for adult depression that has been validated for the Vietnamese context. This trial will also contribute to the growing body of evidence about the effectiveness of low-cost, task-shifting interventions for use in low-resource settings, where specialist mental health services are often limited. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03001063 . Registered on 20 December 2016.

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.

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is common, disabling and costly. Exercise is one treatment approach. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of exercises to improve pain, disability, function, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults with neck pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, MANTIS, ClinicalTrials.gov and three other computerized databases up to between January and May 2014 plus additional sources (reference checking, citation searching, contact with authors). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing single therapeutic exercise with a control for adults suffering from neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radiculopathy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted trial selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment and clinical relevance. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. Meta-analyses were performed for relative risk and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) after judging clinical and statistical heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-seven trials (2485 analyzed /3005 randomized participants) met our inclusion criteria.For acute neck pain only, no evidence was found.For chronic neck pain, moderate quality evidence supports 1) cervico-scapulothoracic and upper extremity strength training to improve pain of a moderate to large amount immediately post treatment [pooled SMD (SMDp) -0.71 (95% CI: -1.33 to -0.10)] and at short-term follow-up; 2) scapulothoracic and upper extremity endurance training for slight beneficial effect on pain at immediate post treatment and short-term follow-up; 3) combined cervical, shoulder and scapulothoracic strengthening and stretching exercises varied from a small to large magnitude of beneficial effect on pain at immediate post treatment [SMDp -0.33 (95% CI: -0.55 to -0.10)] and up to long-term follow-up and a medium magnitude of effect improving function at both immediate post treatment and at short-term follow-up [SMDp -0.45 (95%CI: -0.72 to -0.18)]; 4) cervico-scapulothoracic strengthening/stabilization exercises to improve pain and function at intermediate term [SMDp -14.90 (95% CI:-22.40 to -7.39)]; 5) Mindfulness exercises (Qigong) minimally improved function but not global perceived effect at short term. Low evidence suggests 1) breathing exercises; 2) general fitness training; 3) stretching alone; and 4) feedback exercises combined with pattern synchronization may not change pain or function at immediate post treatment to short-term follow-up. Very low evidence suggests neuromuscular eye-neck co-ordination/proprioceptive exercises may improve pain and function at short-term follow-up.For chronic cervicogenic headache, moderate quality evidence supports static-dynamic cervico-scapulothoracic strengthening/endurance exercises including pressure biofeedback immediate post treatment and probably improves pain, function and global perceived effect at long-term follow-up. Low grade evidence supports sustained natural apophyseal glides (SNAG) exercises.For acute radiculopathy, low quality evidence suggests a small benefit for pain reduction at immediate post treatment with cervical stretch/strengthening/stabilization exercises. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No high quality evidence was found, indicating that there is still uncertainty about the effectiveness of exercise for neck pain. Using specific strengthening exercises as a part of routine practice for chronic neck pain, cervicogenic headache and radiculopathy may be beneficial. Research showed the use of strengthening and endurance exercises for the cervico-scapulothoracic and shoulder may be beneficial in reducing pain and improving function. However, when only stretching exercises were used no beneficial effects may be expected. Future research should explore optimal dosage.

Electrotherapy for neck pain.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is common, disabling and costly. The effectiveness of electrotherapy as a physiotherapeutic option remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005 and previously updated in 2009. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review assessed the short, intermediate and long-term effects of electrotherapy on pain, function, disability, patient satisfaction, global perceived effect, and quality of life in adults with neck pain with and without radiculopathy or cervicogenic headache. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, CINAHL, and ICL, without language restrictions, from their beginning to August 2012; handsearched relevant conference proceedings; and consulted content experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in any language, investigating the effects of electrotherapy used primarily as unimodal treatment for neck pain. Quasi-RCTs and controlled clinical trials were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We were unable to statistically pool any of the results, but we assessed the quality of the evidence using an adapted GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty small trials (1239 people with neck pain) containing 38 comparisons were included. Analysis was limited by trials of varied quality, heterogeneous treatment subtypes and conflicting results. The main findings for reduction of neck pain by treatment with electrotherapeutic modalities were as follows.Very low quality evidence determined that pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF) and repetitive magnetic stimulation (rMS) were more effective than placebo, while transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) showed inconsistent results.Very low quality evidence determined that PEMF, rMS and TENS were more effective than placebo.Low quality evidence (1 trial, 52 participants) determined that permanent magnets (necklace) were no more effective than placebo (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.27, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.82, random-effects model).Very low quality evidence showed that modulated galvanic current, iontophoresis and electric muscle stimulation (EMS) were not more effective than placebo.There were four trials that reported on other outcomes such as function and global perceived effects, but none of the effects were of clinical importance. When TENS, iontophoresis and PEMF were compared to another treatment, very low quality evidence prevented us from suggesting any recommendations. No adverse side effects were reported in any of the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We cannot make any definite statements on the efficacy and clinical usefulness of electrotherapy modalities for neck pain. Since the evidence is of low or very low quality, we are uncertain about the estimate of the effect. Further research is very likely to change both the estimate of effect and our confidence in the results. Current evidence for PEMF, rMS, and TENS shows that these modalities might be more effective than placebo. When compared to other interventions the quality of evidence was very low thus preventing further recommendations.Funding bias should be considered, especially in PEMF studies. Galvanic current, iontophoresis, EMS, and a static magnetic field did not reduce pain or disability. Future trials on these interventions should have larger patient samples, include more precise standardization, and detail treatment characteristics.

Massage for mechanical neck disorders.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of mechanical neck disorders (MND) is known to be both a hindrance to individuals and costly to society. As such, massage is widely used as a form of treatment for MND. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of massage on pain, function, patient satisfaction, global perceived effect, adverse effects and cost of care in adults with neck pain versus any comparison at immediate post-treatment to long-term follow-up. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, CINAHL, and ICL databases from date of inception to 4 Feburary 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies using random assignment were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted citation identification, study selection, data abstraction and methodological quality assessment. Using a random-effects model, we calculated the risk ratio and standardised mean difference. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen trials met the inclusion criteria. The overall methodology of all the trials assessed was either low or very low GRADE level. None of the trials were of strong to moderate GRADE level. The results showed very low level evidence that certain massage techniques (traditional Chinese massage, classical and modified strain/counter strain technique) may have been more effective than control or placebo treatment in improving function and tenderness. There was very low level evidence that massage may have been more beneficial than education in the short term for pain bothersomeness. Along with that, there was low level evidence that ischaemic compression and passive stretch may have been more effective in combination rather than individually for pain reduction. The clinical applicability assessment showed that only 4/15 trials adequately described the massage technique. The majority of the trials assessed outcomes at immediate post-treatment, which is not an adequate time to assess clinical change. Due to the limitations in the quality of existing studies, we were unable to make any firm statement to guide clinical practice. We noted that only four of the 15 studies reported side effects. All four studies reported post-treatment pain as a side effect and one study (Irnich 2001) showed that 22% of the participants experienced low blood pressure following treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No recommendations for practice can be made at this time because the effectiveness of massage for neck pain remains uncertain.As a stand-alone treatment, massage for MND was found to provide an immediate or short-term effectiveness or both in pain and tenderness. Additionally, future research is needed in order to assess the long-term effects of treatment and treatments provided on more than one occasion.

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders.

BACKGROUND: Neck disorders are common, disabling and costly. The effectiveness of exercise as a physiotherapy intervention remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To improve pain, disability, function, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults with neck pain. SEARCH METHODS: Computerized searches were conducted up to February 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included single therapeutic exercise randomized controlled trials for adults with neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radiculopathy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and clinical relevance. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Relative risk and standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated.  After judging clinical and statistical heterogeneity, we performed meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Six of the 21 selected trials had low risk of bias. Moderate quality evidence shows that combined cervical, scapulothoracic stretching and strengthening are beneficial for pain relief post treatment (pooled SMD -0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.60, -0.10) and at intermediate follow-up (pooled SMD -0.31, 95% CI: -0.57, -0.06), and improved function short term and intermediate term (pooled SMD -0.45, 95% CI: -0.72, -0.18) for chronic neck pain. Moderate quality evidence demonstrates patients are very satisfied with their care when treated with therapeutic exercise. Low quality evidence shows exercise is of benefit for pain in the short term and for function up to long-term follow-up for chronic neck pain. Low to moderate quality evidence shows that chronic neck pain does not respond to upper extremity stretching and strengthening or a general exercise program.Low to moderate quality evidence supports self-mobilization, craniocervical endurance and low load cervical-scapular endurance exercises in reducing pain, improving function and global perceived effect in the long term for subacute/chronic cervicogenic headache. Low quality evidence supports neck strengthening exercise in acute cervical radiculopathy for pain relief in the short term. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low to moderate quality evidence supports the use of specific cervical and scapular stretching and strengthening exercise for chronic neck pain immediately post treatment and intermediate term, and cervicogenic headaches in the long term. Low to moderate evidence suggests no benefit for some upper extremity stretching and strengthening exercises or a general exercise program.  Future trials should consider using an exercise classification system to establish similarity between protocols and adequate sample sizes. Factorial trials would help determine the active treatment agent within a treatment regimen where a standardized representation of dosage is essential. Standardized reporting of adverse events is needed for balancing the likelihood of treatment benefits over potential harms.

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.

Manual therapy and exercise for neck pain: a systematic review.

Manual therapy is often used with exercise to treat neck pain. This cervical overview group systematic review update assesses if manual therapy, including manipulation or mobilisation, combined with exercise improves pain, function/disability, quality of life, global perceived effect, and patient satisfaction for adults with neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radiculopathy. Computerized searches were performed to July 2009. Two or more authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Pooled relative risk (pRR) and standardized mean differences (pSMD) were calculated. Of 17 randomized controlled trials included, 29% had a low risk of bias. Low quality evidence suggests clinically important long-term improvements in pain (pSMD-0.87(95% CI: -1.69, -0.06)), function/disability, and global perceived effect when manual therapy and exercise are compared to no treatment. High quality evidence suggests greater short-term pain relief [pSMD-0.50(95% CI: -0.76, -0.24)] than exercise alone, but no long-term differences across multiple outcomes for (sub)acute/chronic neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache. Moderate quality evidence supports this treatment combination for pain reduction and improved quality of life over manual therapy alone for chronic neck pain; and suggests greater short-term pain reduction when compared to traditional care for acute whiplash. Evidence regarding radiculopathy was sparse. Specific research recommendations are made.

Manual therapy with or without physical medicine modalities for neck pain: a systematic review.

Manual therapy interventions are often used with or without physical medicine modalities to treat neck pain. This review assessed the effect of 1) manipulation and mobilisation, 2) manipulation, mobilisation and soft tissue work, and 3) manual therapy with physical medicine modalities on pain, function, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), and global perceived effect (GPE) in adults with neck pain. A computerised search for randomised trials was performed up to July 2009. Two or more authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Pooled relative risk (RR) and standardised mean differences (SMD) were calculated when possible. We included 19 trials, 37% of which had a low risk of bias. Moderate quality evidence (1 trial, 221 participants) suggested mobilisation, manipulation and soft tissue techniques decrease pain and improved satisfaction when compared to short wave diathermy, and that this treatment combination paired with advice and exercise produces greater improvements in GPE and satisfaction than advice and exercise alone for acute neck pain. Low quality evidence suggests a clinically important benefit favouring mobilisation and manipulation in pain relief [1 meta-analysis, 112 participants: SMD -0.34(95% CI: -0.71, 0.03), improved function and GPE (1 trial, 94 participants) for participants with chronic cervicogenic headache when compared to a control at intermediate and long term follow-up; but no difference when used with various physical medicine modalities.

Manipulation or mobilisation for neck pain: a Cochrane Review.

Manipulation and mobilisation are often used, either alone or combined with other treatment approaches, to treat neck pain. This review assesses if manipulation or mobilisation improves pain, function/disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), and global perceived effect (GPE) in adults experiencing neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radicular findings. A computerised search was performed in July 2009. Randomised trials investigating manipulation or mobilisation for neck pain were included. Two or more authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Pooled relative risk (pRR) and standardised mean differences (pSMD) were calculated. 33% of 27 trials had a low risk of bias. Moderate quality evidence showed cervical manipulation and mobilisation produced similar effects on pain, function and patient satisfaction at intermediate-term follow-up. Low quality evidence suggested cervical manipulation may provide greater short-term pain relief than a control (pSMD -0.90 (95%CI: -1.78 to -0.02)). Low quality evidence also supported thoracic manipulation for pain reduction (NNT 7; 46.6% treatment advantage) and increased function (NNT 5; 40.6% treatment advantage) in acute pain and immediate pain reduction in chronic neck pain (NNT 5; 29% treatment advantage). Optimal technique and dose need to be determined.

Manipulation or mobilisation for neck pain.

BACKGROUND: Manipulation and mobilisation are often used, either alone or combined with other treatment approaches, to treat neck pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess if manipulation or mobilisation improves pain, function/disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and global perceived effect in adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radicular findings. SEARCH STRATEGY: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 3) and MEDLINE, EMBASE, Manual Alternative and Natural Therapy, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were updated to July 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials on manipulation or mobilisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Pooled relative risk and standardised mean differences (SMD) were calculated. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 trials (1522 participants).Cervical Manipulation for subacute/chronic neck pain : Moderate quality evidence suggested manipulation and mobilisation produced similar effects on pain, function and patient satisfaction at intermediate-term follow-up. Low quality evidence showed manipulation alone compared to a control may provide short- term relief following one to four sessions (SMD pooled -0.90 (95%CI: -1.78 to -0.02)) and that nine or 12 sessions were superior to three for pain and disability in cervicogenic headache. Optimal technique and dose need to be determined.Thoracic Manipulation for acute/chronic neck pain : Low quality evidence supported thoracic manipulation as an additional therapy for pain reduction (NNT 7; 46.6% treatment advantage) and increased function (NNT 5; 40.6% treatment advantage) in acute pain and favoured a single session of thoracic manipulation for immediate pain reduction compared to placebo for chronic neck pain (NNT 5, 29% treatment advantage).Mobilisation for subacute/chronic neck pain: In addition to the evidence noted above, low quality evidence for subacute and chronic neck pain indicated that 1) a combination of Maitland mobilisation techniques was similar to acupuncture for immediate pain relief and increased function; 2) there was no difference between mobilisation and acupuncture as additional treatments for immediate pain relief and improved function; and 3) neural dynamic mobilisations may produce clinically important reduction of pain immediately post-treatment. Certain mobilisation techniques were superior. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cervical manipulation and mobilisation produced similar changes. Either may provide immediate- or short-term change; no long-term data are available. Thoracic manipulation may improve pain and function. Optimal techniques and dose are unresolved. Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.

Electrotherapy for neck pain.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is common, disabling and costly. The effectiveness of electrotherapy as a physiotherapeutic option remains unclear. This update replaces our 2005 Cochrane review on this topic. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether electrotherapy improves pain, disability, patient satisfaction, and global perceived effect in adults with neck pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: Computer-assisted searches of: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, CINAHL, and ICL, without language restrictions, from their beginning to December 2008; handsearched relevant conference proceedings; consulted content experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in any language, investigating the effects of electrotherapy, used primarily as unimodal treatment for neck pain. Quasi-RCTs and controlled clinical trials were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two authors independently conducted citation identification, study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. We were unable to statistically pool any of the results, but assessed the quality of the evidence using an adapted GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen small trials (1043 people with neck pain) with 23 comparisons were included. Analysis was limited by trials of varied quality, heterogeneous treatment subtypes and conflicting results. The main findings for reduction of neck pain by treatment with electrotherapeutic modalities are:Very low quality evidence that pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF), repetitive magnetic stimulation (rMS) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) are more effective than placebo.Low quality evidence that permanent magnets (necklace) are not more effective than placebo.Very low quality evidence that modulated galvanic current, iontophoresis and electric muscle stimulation (EMS) are not more effective than placebo.There were only four trials that reported on other outcomes such as function and global perceived effects, but none were of clinical importance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We cannot make any definite statements on the efficacy and clinical usefulness of electrotherapy modalities for neck pain. Since the quality of evidence is low or very low, we are uncertain about the estimate of the effect. Further research is very likely to change both the estimate of effect and our confidence in the results. Current evidence for PEMF, rMS, and TENS shows that these modalities might be more effective than placebo but not other interventions. Funding bias should be considered, especially in PEMF studies. Galvanic current, iontophoresis, electric muscle stimulation(EMS), and static magnetic field did not reduce pain or disability. Future trials on these interventions should have larger patient samples and include more precise standardization and description of all treatment characteristics.

A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of chiropractic and medical prophylactic treatment of adults with tension-type headache: results from a stopped trial.

OBJECTIVES: Tension-type headache (TTH) is the most common headache experienced by adults in Western society. Only 2 clinical trials of spinal manipulation for adult tension-type headache have been reported, neither of which was fully controlled. In 1 trial, spinal manipulation was compared to amitriptyline. There is an urgent need for well-controlled studies of chiropractic spinal manipulation for TTH. This trial was stopped prematurely due to poor recruitment. The purposes of this report are (1) to describe the trial protocol, as it contained several novel features, (2) to report the limited data set obtained from our sample of completed subjects, and (3) to discuss the problems that were encountered in conducting this study. METHODS: A randomized clinical trial was conducted with a factorial design in which adult TTH sufferers with more than 10 headaches per month were randomly assigned to four groups: real cervical manipulation + real amitriptyline, real cervical manipulation + placebo amitriptyline, sham cervical manipulation + real amitriptyline, and sham cervical manipulation + placebo amitriptyline. A baseline period of four weeks was followed by a treatment period of 14 weeks. The primary outcome was headache frequency obtained from a headache diary in the last 28 days of the treatment period. RESULTS: Nineteen subjects completed the trial. In the unadjusted analysis, a statistically significant main effect of chiropractic treatment was obtained (-2.2 [-10.2 to 5.8], P = .03) which was just below the 3-day reduction set for clinical importance. As well, a clinically important [corrected] effect of the combined therapies was obtained (-9 [-20.8 [corrected] to 2.9], P = .13), but this did not achieve statistical significance. In the adjusted analysis, neither the main effects of chiropractic nor amitriptyline were statistically significant or clinically important; however, the effect of the combined treatments was -8.4 (-15.8 to -1.1) which was statistically significant (P = .03) and reached our criterion for clinical importance. CONCLUSION: Although the sample size was smaller than initially required, a statistically significant and clinically important effect was obtained for the combined treatment group. There are considerable difficulties with recruitment of subjects in such a trial. This trial should be replicated with a larger sample.

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.

Effect of therapeutic exercise and sleeping neck support on patients with chronic neck pain: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of therapeutic exercises and sleeping neck support contoured pillows on patients with chronic neck pain. METHODS: Using a factorial design in a prospective clinical trial, participants were equally allocated at random to 4 treatment groups in the study: (1) placebo control, of hot or cold packs and massage; (2) sleeping neck support pillow and placebo; (3) active neck exercises and placebo; and (4) combined exercise and sleeping neck support pillow and placebo. Participants were treated by physical therapists over a 6 week period and assessed by masked independent assessors at 0, 3, 6, 12, 24 weeks, and 12 months, with the 12 week assessment being the primary decision time. The primary outcome measure was the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ). RESULTS: For the 128/151 (85%) participants tested at 12 weeks, the NPQ descriptive statistics of count, mean (standard deviation) were: Initial: 128, 31.0 (11.3) at Week 12; All: 128, 18.5 (11.6); CONTROL: 34, 18.6 (10.0); Pillow: 32, 21.5 (13.1); Active neck exercises: 29, 20.1 (11.6); and Combined: 33, 14.1 (10.6). Factorial analysis of variance showed that the main effects of Exercise (p = 0.146) and Pillow (p = 0.443) were not statistically significant; but the interaction of Exercise plus Pillow (p = 0.029) was statistically significant and clinically meaningful. CONCLUSION: Treatment by physiotherapists trained to teach both exercises and the use of a neck support pillow achieved the most favorable benefit for participants with chronic neck pain; either strategy alone was not more effective than a control regimen. Time was an important cofactor.

Chiropractic manipulation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) remains the most common deforming orthopedic condition in children. Increasingly, both adults and children are seeking complementary and alternative therapy, including chiropractic treatment, for a wide variety of health concerns. The scientific evidence supporting the use chiropractic intervention is inadequate. The purpose of this study was to conduct a pilot study and explore issues of safety, patient recruitment and compliance, treatment standardization, sham treatment refinement, inter-professional cooperation, quality assurance, and outcome measure selection. METHODS: Six patients participated in this 6-month study, 5 of whom were female. One female was braced. The mean age of these patients was 14 years, and the mean Cobb angle was 22.2 degrees. The study design was a randomized controlled clinical trial with two independent and blinded observers. Three patients were treated by standard medical care (observation or brace treatment), two were treated with standard medical care plus chiropractic manipulation, and one was treated with standard medical care plus sham manipulation. The primary outcome measure was Cobb, and the psychosocial measure was Scoliosis Quality of Life Index. RESULTS: Orthopedic surgeons and chiropractors were easily recruited and worked cooperatively throughout the trial. Patient recruitment and compliance was good. Chiropractic treatments were safely employed, and research protocols were successful. CONCLUSION: Overall, our pilot study showed the viability for a larger randomized trial. This pilot confirms the strength of existing protocols with amendments for use in a full randomized controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been assigned an international standard randomized controlled trial number by Current Controlled Trials, Ltd. http://www.controlled-trials.com/isrctn/. The number is ISRCTN41221647.

A Cochrane review of electrotherapy for mechanical neck disorders.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether electrotherapy relieves pain or improves function/disability in adults with mechanical neck disorders (MND). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The effectiveness of electrotherapy as a physiotherapy option has remained unclear. METHODS: Databases were searched from root to March 2003. Independent reviewers conducted selection, data abstraction, and quality assessment. Relative risk and standard mean differences were calculated. RESULTS: Fourteen comparisons were included. For the pain outcome, we found limited evidence of benefit, ie, pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy resulted in only immediate post-treatment pain relief for chronic MND and acute whiplash (WAD). Other findings included unclear or conflicting evidence (Galvanic current for acute or chronic occipital headache; iontophoresis for acute, subacute WAD; TENS for acute WAD, chronic MND; PEMF for medium- or long-term effects in acute WAD, chronic MND); and limited evidence of no benefit (diadynamic current for reduction of trigger point tenderness in chronic MND, cervicogenic headache; permanent magnets for chronic MND; electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) for chronic MND). CONCLUSIONS: In pain as well as other outcomes, the evidence for treatment of acute or chronic MND by different forms of electrotherapy is either lacking, limited, or conflicting.