Defining text neck: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Text neck is regarded as a global epidemic. Yet, there is a lack of consensus concerning the definitions of text neck which challenges researchers and clinicians alike. PURPOSE: To investigate how text neck is defined in peer-reviewed articles. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to identify all articles using the terms "text neck" or "tech neck." Embase, Medline, CINAHL, PubMed and Web of Science were searched from inception to 30 April 2022. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMAScR) guidelines. No limitation was applied for language or study design. Data extraction included study characteristics and the primary outcome relating to text neck definitions. RESULTS: Forty-one articles were included. Text neck definitions varied across studies. The most frequent components of definitions were grouped into five basis for definition: Posture (n = 38; 92.7%), with qualifying adjectives meaning incorrect posture (n = 23; 56.1%) and posture without a qualifying adjective (n = 15; 36.6%); Overuse (n = 26; 63.4%); Mechanical stress or tensions (n = 17; 41.4%); Musculoskeletal symptoms (n = 15; 36.6%) and; Tissue damage (n = 7; 17.1%). CONCLUSION: This study showed that posture is the defining characteristic of text neck in the academic literature. For research purposes, it seems that text neck is a habit of texting on the smartphone in a flexed neck position. Since there is no scientific evidence linking text neck with neck pain regardless of the definition used, adjectives like inappropriate or incorrect should be avoided when intended to qualify posture.

Credibility, accuracy and readability of patient-oriented information about low back pain on Brazilian websites: a mixed-method review / Credibilidade, acurácia e legibilidade das informações orientadas ao paciente sobre dor lombar em sites brasileiros: uma revisão de método misto

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Low-quality online health-related content may lead to inefective or harmful decision-making from patients related to their healthcare. The aim of this study was to evaluate the credibility, accuracy and readability of web-based content on Brazilian websites. METHODS: This is a mixed-method review with exploratory sequential design. Google was selected as the search engine for retrieving web-information about low back pain (LBP) in Brazilian websites. We assessed the URL on three domains: credibility, accuracy, and readability. Qualitative analysis of each URL was performed in three steps: (1) organization into thematic units; (2) data exploration; and (3) interpretation of the data and summarization. RESULTS: Credibility was assessed in 135 URLs, 72 (53%) URLs had no authorship, 119 (88%) did not mention the sources of their information, none presented a declaration of conflict of interest or the declared source of funding, 76 (56%) URLs present the date of creation. Accuracy was assessed in 121 URLs and none fully adhered to the guidelines. Readability was assessed in 128 and texts were classified as "very easy" or "easy" to read. Five main themes emerged in the qualitative analysis: (1) Explanations and causes for low back pain, (2) diagnosis, (3) recommendation about treatment, (4) recommendation for coping and self-management, and (5) lifestyle factors. CONCLUSION: Content analysis of web-based searches on the Brazilian Portuguese language demonstrated low credibility standards, mostly inaccurate information, and moderate-high readability levels about low back pain.

RESUMO JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: O conteúdo on-line relacionado à saúde quando apresenta baixa qualidade pode levar a tomadas de decisão ineficazes ou prejudiciais por parte dos pacientes. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a credibilidade, acurácia e legibilidade do conteúdo em portais brasileiros. MÉTODOS: Esta é uma revisão de método misto com design sequencial exploratório. O Google foi selecionado como o mecanismo de busca para recuperar informações da web sobre dor lombar em sites brasileiros. Avaliamos os URL em três domínios: credibilidade, acurácia e legibilidade. A análise qualitativa de cada URL foi realizada em três etapas: (1) organização em unidades temáticas; (2) exploração de dados; e (3) interpretação dos dados e resumo. RESULTADOS: A credibilidade foi avaliada em 135 URLs, 72 (53%) URLs não tinham autoria, 119 (88%) não mencionavam as fontes de suas informações, nenhuma apresentava declaração de confito de interesse ou fonte de fnanciamento declarada, 76 (56%) URLs apresentam a data de criação. A acurácia foi avaliada em 121 URLs e nenhuma aderiu totalmente às diretrizes. A legibilidade foi avaliada em 128 e os textos foram classificados como "muito fáceis" ou "fáceis" de ler. Cinco temas principais emergiram na análise qualitativa: (1) Explicações e causas da dor lombar, (2) diagnóstico, (3) recomendação sobre tratamento, (4) recomendação para enfrentamento e autogerenciamento e (5) fatores de estilo de vida. CONCLUSÃO: A análise de conteúdo de pesquisas baseadas na web, no idioma português do Brasil, demonstrou baixos padrões de credibilidade, acurácia e níveis moderados a altos de legibilidade sobre a dor lombar.

Patients should not rely on low back pain information from Brazilian official websites: A mixed-methods review.

BACKGROUND: Websites from official organizations (e.g., Ministry of Health and Professional Councils) are assumed to be trustworthy sources of information. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the credibility, accuracy, and readability of low back pain (LBP) web-based content in Brazilian official websites. METHODS: Mixed-methods review. Google search was used for retrieving web-information about Brazilian trustworthy organizations. We assessed the URLs on three domains: credibility, accuracy, and readability of LBP contents. Qualitative analysis was performed using an open source platform in three stages: (1) organization into thematic units; (2) data exploration; and (3) interpretation of the data and summarization. RESULTS: We included 84 URLs. Accuracy was assessed for 58 URLs and none fully adhered to the guidelines. Credibility analysis was performed for 67 URLs. Disclosure of authorship was not mentioned in 58 (87%) of the URLs, 63 (94%) did not mention the sources of their information, none presented a declaration of conflict of interest, and 16 (24%) did not provide the date of creation. Readability was assessed for 72 URLs and was classified as "easy" to read in 65%. Six main themes emerged in the qualitative analysis: (1) Explanations and causes for LBP, (2) diagnosis, (3) recommendations about medication, (4) recommendations for coping and self-management, (5) performing exercises, and (6) recommendations for children and adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: The reading level is appropriate for patient-oriented information. However, Brazilian official websites demonstrated low credibility standards and while some of the content is partially supported by the current literature, there is also much inaccurate information about LBP.

Association Between Text Neck and Neck Pain in Adults.

STUDY DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the association between text neck and neck pain (NP) in adults. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: It has been hypothesized that the inappropriate neck posture adopted when texting and reading on a smartphone, called text neck, is related to the increased prevalence of NP. METHODS: The sample was composed of 582 volunteers aged between 18 and 65 years. Sociodemographics, anthropometrics, lifestyle, psychosocial, NP, and smartphone use-related questions were assessed by a self-reported questionnaire. Text neck was assessed by measuring the cervical flexion angle of the participants standing and sitting while typing a text on their smartphones, using the Cervical Range of Motion (CROM) device. RESULTS: Multiple logistic regression analysis and linear regression analysis showed the cervical flexion angle of the standing participant using a smartphone did not associate with the prevalence of NP (odds ratio [OR] = 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98-1.02; P = 0.66), NP frequency (OR = 1.01; 95% CI: 1.00-1.03; P = 0.056), or maximum NP intensity (beta coefficient = -5.195 × 10-5; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.02; P = 0.99). Also, the cervical flexion angle of the sitting participant using the smartphone did not associate with NP (OR = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.98-1.01; P = 0.93), NP frequency (OR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.99-1.02; P = 0.13), or maximum NP intensity (beta coefficient = 0.002; 95% CI: -0.002 to 0.02; P = 0.71). CONCLUSION: Text neck was not associated with prevalence of NP, NP frequency, or maximum NP intensity in adults.Level of Evidence: 4.