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.

How Canadian Oncologists Use Oncotype DX for Treatment of Breast Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: The literature suggests that medical oncologists differ on how they use the Oncotype DX (ODX) genomic assay for making decisions about systemic therapy in breast cancer patients. Given the emergence of data supporting the use of genomic profiling for the prognosis and predicting benefit of chemotherapy, we surveyed medical oncologists in Canada to assess their usage and perception of the ODX assay. METHODS: A 34-item survey was distributed to Canadian medical oncologists via the Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists. Data was collected on physician demographics, ODX usage patterns, and physicians' perception of the impact clinical and pathologic characteristics make on ODX utilization. RESULTS: Response rate was 20.6% with 47 responses received from 228 survey sent. Forty-five responses were eligible for analysis. Sixty-two percent (28/45) of respondents treated predominantly breast cancer, and 60% (27/45) have been in practice for at least 10 years. The most cited reason for using ODX was to avoid giving patients unnecessary chemotherapy (64%; 29/45). Sixty-seven percent (30/45) deferred making treatment decisions until ODX testing was completed. Factors most strongly impacting ODX utilization included: patient request, medical comorbidities and tumor grade. In clinical scenarios, ODX was more frequently selected for patients aged 40-65 (vs. <40 or >65), grade 2 tumors (vs. grade 1 or 3), and Ki-67 index of 10-20% (vs. <10% or >20%). CONCLUSIONS: This survey demonstrated that Canadian medical oncologists are preferentially using ODX to avoid giving patients unnecessary chemotherapy. The utilization of ODX is mainly in patients with intermediate clinical and pathologic features.

WITHDRAWN: Acupuncture for neck disorders.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is one of the three most frequently reported complaints of the musculoskeletal system. Treatments for neck pain are varied, as are perceptions of benefit. Acupuncture has been used as an alternative to more conventional treatment for musculoskeletal pain. This review summarises the most current scientific evidence on the effectiveness of acupuncture for acute, subacute and chronic neck pain. This update replaces our 2006 Cochrane review update on this topic. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of acupuncture for adults with neck pain, with focus on pain relief, disability or functional measures, patient satisfaction and global perceived effect. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Manual, Alternative and Natural Therapy Index System (MANTIS), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL) from their beginning to August 2015. We searched reference lists, two trial registers and the acupuncture database Traditional Chinese Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System (TCMLARS) in China to 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published trials that used random assignment to intervention groups, in full text or abstract form. We excluded quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors made independent decisions for each step of the review: article inclusion, data abstraction and assessment of quality of trial methods. We assessed study quality by using the Cochrane Back Review Group 'Risk of bias' tool. We used consensus to resolve disagreements, and when clinical heterogeneity was absent, we combined studies by using random-effects meta-analysis models. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 27 included studies, three represented individuals with whiplash-associated disorders (WADs) ranging from acute to chronic (205 participants), five explored chronic myofascial neck pain (186 participants), five chronic pain due to arthritic changes (542 participants), six chronic non-specific neck pain (4011 participants), two neck pain with radicular signs (43 participants) and six subacute or chronic mechanical neck pain (5111 participants).For mechanical neck pain, we found that acupuncture is beneficial at immediate-term follow-up compared with sham acupuncture for pain intensity; at short-term follow-up compared with sham or inactive treatment for pain intensity; at short-term follow-up compared with sham treatment for disability; and at short-term follow-up compared with wait-list control for pain intensity and neck disability improvement. Statistical pooling was appropriate for acupuncture compared with sham for short-term outcomes due to statistical homogeneity (P value = 0.83; I2 = 20%). Results of the meta-analysis favoured acupuncture (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.20 to -0.07; P value = 0.0006). This effect does not seem sustainable over the long term. Whether subsequent repeated sessions would be successful was not examined by investigators in our primary studies.Acupuncture appears to be a safe treatment modality, as adverse effects are minor. Reported adverse effects include increased pain, bruising, fainting, worsening of symptoms, local swelling and dizziness. These studies reported no life-threatening adverse effects and found that acupuncture treatments were cost-effective.Since the time of our previous review, the quality of RCTs has improved, and we have assessed many of them as having low risk of bias. However, few large trials have provided high-quality evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence suggests that acupuncture relieves pain better than sham acupuncture, as measured at completion of treatment and at short-term follow-up, and that those who received acupuncture report less pain and disability at short-term follow-up than those on a wait-list. Moderate-quality evidence also indicates that acupuncture is more effective than inactive treatment for relieving pain at short-term follow-up.

Acupuncture for neck disorders.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is one of the three most frequently reported complaints of the musculoskeletal system. Treatments for neck pain are varied, as are perceptions of benefit. Acupuncture has been used as an alternative to more conventional treatment for musculoskeletal pain. This review summarises the most current scientific evidence on the effectiveness of acupuncture for acute, subacute and chronic neck pain. This update replaces our 2006 Cochrane review update on this topic. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of acupuncture for adults with neck pain, with focus on pain relief, disability or functional measures, patient satisfaction and global perceived effect. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Manual, Alternative and Natural Therapy Index System (MANTIS), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL) from their beginning to August 2015. We searched reference lists, two trial registers and the acupuncture database Traditional Chinese Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System (TCMLARS) in China to 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published trials that used random assignment to intervention groups, in full text or abstract form. We excluded quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors made independent decisions for each step of the review: article inclusion, data abstraction and assessment of quality of trial methods. We assessed study quality by using the Cochrane Back Review Group 'Risk of bias' tool. We used consensus to resolve disagreements, and when clinical heterogeneity was absent, we combined studies by using random-effects meta-analysis models. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 27 included studies, three represented individuals with whiplash-associated disorders (WADs) ranging from acute to chronic (205 participants), five explored chronic myofascial neck pain (186 participants), five chronic pain due to arthritic changes (542 participants), six chronic non-specific neck pain (4011 participants), two neck pain with radicular signs (43 participants) and six subacute or chronic mechanical neck pain (5111 participants).For mechanical neck pain, we found that acupuncture is beneficial at immediate-term follow-up compared with sham acupuncture for pain intensity; at short-term follow-up compared with sham or inactive treatment for pain intensity; at short-term follow-up compared with sham treatment for disability; and at short-term follow-up compared with wait-list control for pain intensity and neck disability improvement. Statistical pooling was appropriate for acupuncture compared with sham for short-term outcomes due to statistical homogeneity (P value = 0.83; I(2) = 20%). Results of the meta-analysis favoured acupuncture (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.20 to -0.07; P value = 0.0006). This effect does not seem sustainable over the long term. Whether subsequent repeated sessions would be successful was not examined by investigators in our primary studies.Acupuncture appears to be a safe treatment modality, as adverse effects are minor. Reported adverse effects include increased pain, bruising, fainting, worsening of symptoms, local swelling and dizziness. These studies reported no life-threatening adverse effects and found that acupuncture treatments were cost-effective.Since the time of our previous review, the quality of RCTs has improved, and we have assessed many of them as having low risk of bias. However, few large trials have provided high-quality evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence suggests that acupuncture relieves pain better than sham acupuncture, as measured at completion of treatment and at short-term follow-up, and that those who received acupuncture report less pain and disability at short-term follow-up than those on a wait-list. Moderate-quality evidence also indicates that acupuncture is more effective than inactive treatment for relieving pain at short-term follow-up.

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.

An International Survey of Health Care Providers Involved in the Management of Cancer Patients Exposed to Cardiotoxic Therapy.

Cardiotoxicity is the second leading cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer survivors. The objective of this international cardiac oncology survey was to gain a better understanding of current knowledge and practice patterns among HCPs involved in the management of cancer patients exposed to potentially cardiotoxic drugs. Between 2012 and 2013, we conducted an email-based survey of HCPs involved in the management of cardiac disease in cancer patients. 393 survey responses were received, of which 77 were from Canadian respondents. The majority of respondents were cardiologists (47%), followed closely by medical oncologists. The majority of respondents agreed that cardiac issues are important to cancer patients (97%). However, only 36% of total respondents agreed with an accepted definition of cardiotoxicity. While 78% of respondents felt that cardiac medications are protective during active cancer treatment, only 51% would consider prescribing these medications up-front in cancer patients. Although results confirm a high level of concern for cardiac safety, there continues to be a lack of consensus on the definition of cardiotoxicity and a discrepancy in clinical practice between cardiologists and oncologists. These differences in opinion require resolution through more effective research collaboration and formulation of evidence-based guidelines.

Clinical Experience of Patients Referred to a Multidisciplinary Cardiac Oncology Clinic: An Observational Study.

Cardiotoxicity is the second leading cause of long-term morbidity and mortality among cancer survivors. The purpose of this retrospective observational study is to report on the clinical and cardiac outcomes in patients with early stage and advanced cancer who were referred to our multidisciplinary cardiac oncology clinic (COC). A total of 428 patients were referred to the COC between October 2008 and January 2013. The median age of patients at time of cancer diagnosis was 60. Almost half of patients who received cancer therapy received first-line chemotherapy alone (169, 41.7%), of which 84 (49.7%) were exposed to anthracyclines. The most common reasons for referral to the cardiac oncology clinic were decreased LVEF (34.6%), prechemotherapy assessment (11.9%), and arrhythmia (8.4%). A total of 175 (40.9%) patients referred to the COC were treated with cardiac medications. The majority (331, 77.3%) of patients were alive as of January 2013, and 93 (21.7%) patients were deceased. Through regular review of cardiac oncology clinic referral patterns, management plans, and patient outcomes, we aim to continuously improve delivery of cardiac care to our patient population and optimize cardiac health.

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.

Factors influencing Oncotype DX use in the management of early breast cancer: a single centre experience.

BACKGROUND: Oncotype DX recurrence score is a multi-gene assay which quantifies the risk of distant recurrence in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) early breast cancer (EBC) treated with tamoxifen, and predicts the magnitude of clinical benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy. This retrospective study examined factors that were associated with use of Oncotype DX assay at a tertiary care cancer centre in Ottawa, Canada. METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients (pts) diagnosed with HR+, HER2/neu negative EBC (stage I-II), who underwent Oncotype DX testing (Test Group) between 1st April 2010, and 30th June 2011 were included in the study. A second cohort of 100 randomly selected patients with HR+, HER2/neu negative EBC diagnosed from the same time period who did not receive Oncotype DX testing were used as the control group (Control Group). Demographic and clinicopathologic data were obtained from review of charts. Logistic regression was performed to identify variables associated with Oncotype DX usage. FINDINGS: Median age was 58 years (r: 26-77) in Test Group and 63 years (r: 30-81) in Control Group. Sixty-two patients in the Test Group had T1 tumours, compared with 71 in the Control Group. The median 10-year recurrence risks from Adjuvant! Online were 19% and 12% in the Test Group and Control Group, respectively. Factors significantly associated with the utilisation of Oncotype DX assay on multivariate analysis include age 50-64 (p=0.049), tumour size 10.1-20mm (p=0.008) and grade 2 histological grade (p=0.004). INTERPRETATION: Usage of Oncotype DX assay is associated with several clinicopathological factors. These factors reflect the clinical uncertainty of benefit from chemotherapy in these subpopulations of patients and suggest how Oncotype DX assay could complement clinicopathological factors in helping clinicians on treatment selection.

Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) for Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression.

PURPOSE: This systematic review update evaluated low level laser therapy (LLLT) for adults with neck pain. METHODS: Computerized searches (root up to Feb 2012) included pain, function/disability, quality of life (QoL) and global perceived effect (GPE). GRADE, effect-sizes, heterogeneity and meta-regression were assessed. RESULTS: Of 17 trials, 10 demonstrated high risk of bias. For chronic neck pain, there was moderate quality evidence (2 trials, 109 participants) supporting LLLT over placebo to improve pain/disability/QoL/GPE up to intermediate-term (IT). For acute radiculopathy, cervical osteoarthritis or acute neck pain, low quality evidence suggested LLLT improves ST pain/function/QoL over a placebo. For chronic myofascial neck pain (5 trials, 188 participants), evidence was conflicting; a meta-regression of heterogeneous trials suggests super-pulsed LLLT increases the chance of a successful pain outcome. CONCLUSIONS: We found diverse evidence using LLLT for neck pain. LLLT may be beneficial for chronic neck pain/function/QoL. Larger long-term dosage trials are needed.

An ICON Overview on Physical Modalities for Neck Pain and Associated Disorders.

INTRODUCTION: Neck pain is common, can be disabling and is costly to society. Physical modalities are often included in neck rehabilitation programs. Interventions may include thermal, electrotherapy, ultrasound, mechanical traction, laser and acupuncture. Definitive knowledge regarding optimal modalities and dosage for neck pain management is limited. PURPOSE: To systematically review existing literature to establish the evidence-base for recommendations on physical modalities for acute to chronic neck pain. METHODS: A comprehensive computerized and manual search strategy from January 2000 to July 2012, systematic review methodological quality assessment using AMSTAR, qualitative assessment using a GRADE approach and recommendation presentation was included. Systematic or meta-analyses of studies evaluating physical modalities were eligible. Independent assessment by at least two review team members was conducted. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and checked by a second. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Of 103 reviews eligible, 20 were included and 83 were excluded. Short term pain relief - Moderate evidence of benefit: acupuncture, intermittent traction and laser were shown to be better than placebo for chronic neck pain. Moderate evidence of no benefit: pulsed ultrasound, infrared light or continuous traction was no better than placebo for acute whiplash associated disorder, chronic myofascial neck pain or subacute to chronic neck pain. There was no added benefit when hot packs were combined with mobilization, manipulation or electrical muscle stimulation for chronic neck pain, function or patient satisfaction at six month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The current state of the evidence favours acupuncture, laser and intermittent traction for chronic neck pain. Some electrotherapies show little benefit for chronic neck pain. Consistent dosage, improved design and long term follow-up continue to be the recommendations for future research.

Physician-delivered injection therapies for mechanical neck disorders: a systematic review update (non-oral, non-intravenous pharmacological interventions for neck pain).

BACKGROUND: Controversy persists regarding medicinal injections for mechanical neck disorders (MNDs). OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of physician-delivered injections on pain, function/disability, quality of life, global perceived effect and patient satisfaction for adults with MNDs. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our previous searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE from December 2006 through to March 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials of adults with neck disorders treated by physician-delivered injection therapies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected articles, abstracted data and assessed methodological quality. When clinical heterogeneity was absent, we combined studies using random-effects models. RESULTS: We included 12 trials (667 participants). No high or moderate quality studies were found with evidence of benefit over control. Moderate quality evidence suggests little or no difference in pain or function/disability between nerve block injection of steroid and bupivacaine vs bupivacaine alone at short, intermediate and long-term for chronic neck pain. We found limited very low quality evidence of an effect on pain with intramuscular lidocaine vs control for chronic myofascial neck pain. Two low quality studies showed an effect on pain with anaesthetic nerve block vs saline immediately post treatment and in the short-term. All other studies were of low or very low quality with no evidence of benefit over controls. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence does not confirm the effectiveness of IM-lidocaine injection for chronic mechanical neck pain nor anaesthetic nerve block for cervicogenic headache. There is moderate evidence of no benefit for steroid blocks vs controls for mechanical neck pain.

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.

The impact of endocrine therapy on sexual dysfunction in postmenopausal women with early stage breast cancer: encouraging results from a prospective study.

The goal of this project was to investigate the contentious issue of a possible effect of endocrine therapy (ET) on sexual dysfunction (SD) in postmenopausal early stage breast cancer survivors. To date, few studies have assessed sexual functioning prior to initiating ET and none have taken sexual distress into account when reporting the prevalence of ET-induced SD. We report the findings of a study on the change in SD (defined as experiencing sexual problems causing distress) during the first 6 months of ET usage. Between January 2009 and May 2011, 118 patients entered the study and 66 completed questionnaires prior to initiation of ET and after 6 months of use. Sexual functioning (SF) was evaluated with the female sexual function index while sexual distress was assessed with the female sexual distress scale (FSDS-R). Gynecological symptoms were measured with the FACT-B ES subscale. Over time, the level of gynecological symptoms increased (p < 0.001), whereas no decline in SF was observed. The percentage of women who reported experiencing at least one sexual problem (85 %) and the percentage who were sexually distressed (30 %) remained the same across time. Importantly, the change in the prevalence of SD between baseline (24 %) and 6 months (29 %) was not statistically significant. Women experiencing SD at baseline were more likely to experience SD after 6 months of ET usage (OR = 7.4, 95 % CI = 1.5-36.9) than women who had no SD prior to initiating ET. The observation that SF remained stable across time is encouraging news. However, longer follow-up and the inclusion of women who were premenopausal at diagnosis are needed to determine the potential influence of extended duration of ET (e.g., at least 5 years) on SD. Further studies, including assessing the impact of early identification of patients at risk of developing SD and timely intervention, are warranted.

The experience of a multidisciplinary clinic in the management of early-stage breast cancer patients receiving trastuzumab therapy: an observational study.

Background. We established a dedicated cardiac oncology clinic in 2008 for the rapid diagnosis and treatment of cardiotoxicity related to cancer therapy. In this retrospective observational study, we report on clinical outcomes in women with early-stage breast cancer (EBC) referred to this clinic. Methods. Patients with EBC treated with chemotherapy/trastuzumab and referred between October 2008 and December 2010. Data included patient demographics, staging, cancer treatment/completion, dose delays, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and cardiac treatment. Results. Forty eight patients: median age 55.5 years, stage I/II disease (77%) and HER-2 positive (98%). The majority of women (n = 32) were referred for decreases in LVEF (from baseline). Overall, 37 (77%) patients experienced at least one drop in LVEF while on treatment, of which 22 patients (59%) experienced a ≥10 percentage point drop. The majority of patients (30/37; 81%) experienced declines in LVEF while on trastuzumab. Interventions included trastuzumab delays (n = 16/48; 33%) and cardiac medication (12/48: 25%). A total of 81% of patients completed ≥90% of trastuzumab therapy and 15% of patients discontinued therapy due to cardiotoxicity. Conclusion. The majority of patients referred to our clinic completed therapy. Further studies are needed to determine the impact of this multidisciplinary approach on treatment completion and cardiac outcomes.

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.

Patient education for neck pain.

BACKGROUND: Neck disorders are common, disabling, and costly. The effectiveness of patient education strategies is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the short- to long-term effects of therapeutic patient education (TPE) strategies on pain, function, disability, quality of life, global perceived effect, patient satisfaction, knowledge transfer, or behaviour change in adults with neck pain associated with whiplash or non-specific and specific mechanical neck pain with or without radiculopathy or cervicogenic headache. SEARCH METHODS: We searched computerised bibliographic databases (inception to 11 July 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCT) investigating the effectiveness of TPE for acute to chronic neck pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Paired independent review authors conducted selection, data abstraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessment. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and standardised mean differences (SMD). Heterogeneity was assessed; no studies were pooled. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 15 selected trials, three were rated low risk of bias. Three TPE themes emerged.Advice focusing on activation: There is moderate quality evidence (one trial, 348 participants) that an educational video of advice focusing on activation was more beneficial for acute whiplash-related pain when compared with no treatment at intermediate-term [RR 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.06)] but not long-term follow-up [0.89 (95% CI, 0.65 to 1.21)]. There is low quality evidence (one trial, 102 participants) that a whiplash pamphlet on advice focusing on activation is less beneficial for pain reduction, or no different in improving function and global perceived improvement from generic information given out in emergency care (control) for acute whiplash at short- or intermediate-term follow-up. Low to very low quality evidence (nine trials using diverse educational approaches) showed either no evidence of benefit or difference for varied outcomes. Advice focusing on pain & stress coping skills and workplace ergonomics: Very low quality evidence (three trials, 243 participants) favoured other treatment or showed no difference spanning numerous follow-up periods and disorder subtypes.  Low quality evidence (one trial, 192 participants) favoured specific exercise training for chronic neck pain at short-term follow-up.Self-care strategies: Very low quality evidence (one trial, 58 participants) indicated that self-care strategies did not relieve pain for acute to chronic neck pain at short-term follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of one trial, this review has not shown effectiveness for educational interventions, including advice to activate, advice on stress-coping skills, workplace ergonomics and self-care strategies. Future research should be founded on sound adult learning theory and learning skill acquisition.

Reliability of 3 assessment tools used to evaluate randomized controlled trials for treatment of neck pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Pragmatic, cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: To assess the interrater reliability of 3 tools used by the Cervical Overview Group (COG) for the assessment of the internal validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs): Jadad, van Tulder, and risk of bias (RoB). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: For clinicians to implement evidence-based practice, they need to critically appraise health care literature. Checklists, scales, and domain-based criteria exist to evaluate the internal validity of RCTs for rehabilitation studies, but there is a lack of research reporting the reliability of existing assessment tools. METHODS: Four members of the COG with multiprofessional and methodological background independently evaluated the internal validity of 54 RCTs using prepiloted Jadad and van Tulder reporting forms, and 18 RCTs using RoB, from June 2003 to May 2009. The κ statistic was calculated for each combination of raters and assessment tools. Standard agreement categorizations were used. RESULTS: For Jadad, 4 of 7 items demonstrated mean κ statistic ranges from moderate to substantial agreement (mean values, 0.42-0.78), as did 8 of 11 items on the van Tulder tool (mean values, 0.44-0.77). The RoB demonstrated moderate to substantial (mean values, 0.56-0.76) agreement on 3 of 12 items. Consistent substantial agreement was found across all assessment tools for the domain "allocation concealment": Jadad 0.69 (mean range, 0.60-0.77); van Tulder 0.77 (mean range, 0.73-0.81); RoB 0.76 (mean range, 0.65-0.88); and moderate to substantial across 2 tools for the domain "sequence generation": van Tulder 0.53 (mean range, 0.37-0.66) and RoB 0.66 (mean range, 0.45-0.88). Other domains demonstrated slight or fair agreement. CONCLUSION: Consistent interrater agreement was found across the 3 assessment tools for allocation concealment and for 2 tools for sequence generation. However, users should acknowledge that moderate variation exists within other items requiring more judgment. When evaluating rehabilitation RCTs, clinicians should consider limitations of rating certain items within the selected assessment tool.