Responsiveness of the cervical joint position error test to detect changes in neck proprioception following four weeks of home-based proprioceptive training.

INTRODUCTION: People with chronic neck pain (CNP) commonly exhibit a range of physical impairments including cervical proprioceptive deficits. Assessing proprioception using a head mounted laser to assess joint position error (JPE) is a reliable and valid measure. However, the responsiveness of this measure has not been assessed. OBJECTIVE: To assess the responsiveness of the measure of cervical JPE after a 4-week home-based neck proprioceptive training intervention in people with CNP. DESIGN: An observational study to assess the responsiveness of the measure of cervical JPE. METHODS: The JPE test was assessed in people with CNP before and after 4 weeks of neck proprioception training. JPE was assessed as participants performed neck joint position sense tests for flexion, extension, right rotation, and left rotation in sitting and standing which were performed in a random order. Both the absolute and constant JPE were assessed. The intervention consisted of neck repositioning exercises as well as movement sense exercises. Cohen's d effect size was used to assess the internal responsiveness of the JPE test. The Pearson's correlation was used to assess the change of scores of the laser pointer and measures from inertial measurement units (IMUs) (external responsiveness). RESULTS: After 4 weeks of proprioception training, JPE assessed in sitting reduced from 2.69◦-3.57◦ to 1.88◦-1.98◦ for flexion, extension, and right rotation with large effect sizes (Cohen's d range: 1.25-2.00). For left rotation, JPE reduced from 3.23◦ to 1.9◦, and the effect size was close to being large (Cohen's d: 0.79). When assessed in standing, JPE reduced from 3.49◦-4.52◦ to 1.5◦-2.33◦ with large effect sizes (Cohen's d range: 0.89-1.25) for flexion, extension, right rotation, and left rotation. Large effect sizes were not observed for the constant JPE when assessed in either sitting or standing. The assessment of the external responsiveness revealed weak correlations between the change of scores obtained from the laser pointer and the IMUs for all movements, apart from the constant JPE in sitting for left rotation, which showed a strong correlation (r = 0.7). CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed that the measure of the JPE has sufficient internal responsiveness, however, the external responsiveness was inadequate. Further research is advised.

The effects of neck exercise in comparison to passive or no intervention on quantitative sensory testing measurements in adults with chronic neck pain: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Previous systematic reviews have identified the benefits of exercise for chronic neck pain on subjective reports of pain, but not with objective measures such as quantitative sensory testing (QST). A systematic review was conducted to identify the effects of neck specific exercise on QST measures in adults with chronic neck pain to synthesise existing literature and provide clinical recommendations. METHODS: The study protocol was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (PROSPERO CRD42021297383). For both randomised and non-randomised trials, the following databases and trial registries were searched: AMED, CINAHL, Embase, Google Scholar, Medline, PEDro, PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index from Web of Science Core Collection, clinicaltrials.gov, GreyOpen, and ISRCTN registry. These searches were conducted from inception to February 2022 and were updated until September 2023. Reference lists of eligible studies were screened. Study selection was performed independently by two reviewers, with data extraction and quality appraisal completed by one reviewer and independently ratified by a second reviewer. Due to high heterogeneity, narrative synthesis was performed with results grouped by exercise type. FINDINGS: Three trials were included. Risk of bias was rated as moderate and the certainty of evidence as low or moderate for all studies. All exercise groups demonstrated statistically significant improvement at an intermediate-term follow-up, with progressive resistance training combined with graded physical training demonstrating the highest certainty of evidence. Fixed resistance training demonstrated statistically significant improvement in QST measures at a short-term assessment. INTERPRETATION: Fixed resistance training is effective for short-term changes in pain sensitivity based on low-quality evidence, whilst moderate-quality evidence supports progressive resistance training combined with graded physical training for intermediate-term changes in pain sensitivity.

Contextual Factors-Enriched Standard Care on mechanical neck pain (ContextualizAR trial): Protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the influence of contextual factors (CFs) on interventions for mechanical neck pain (MNP) is essential for evidence-based practice in physical therapy. However, the specific effects and synergies of combining different CFs remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: The primary purpose of this study will be to determine if a CFs-Enriched Standard Care (SC) approach is an effective treatment for MNP in terms of reducing pain and improving function. METHODS: This will be an assessor-blinded, 2-group (1:1) randomised clinical trial (RCT) aiming to enrol 94 participants with neck pain persisting for more than 4 weeks. Both groups will undergo 4 weeks of SC twice weekly, following established clinical practice guidelines. In the intervention group, CFs will be enhanced, encompassing the physical, psychological, and social elements inherent in the clinical encounter, based on existing evidence. The primary outcomes will encompass changes in pain and disability after 4 weeks of treatment, with a follow-up reassessment at week 12 post-treatment. Secondary outcomes will include changes in Active Range of Motion, Global Rating of Change, and Satisfaction with treatment. The change between groups after treatment and at the 12-week follow-up will be reported for all outcomes, considering the difference from scores recorded at baseline. RESULTS: We hypothesise that a 4-week CFs-Enriched SC approach will be superior to SC alone in terms of patient-reported disability and pain, with measurements conducted using the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale, respectively. CONCLUSION: This RCT rigorously assesses the effect of purposeful manipulation of CFs during MNP treatment. By elucidating the role of these factors, our findings have the potential to significantly refine clinical practice in managing MNP, thereby enhancing patient care, and advancing the fields of physical therapy and rehabilitation.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of high-intensity laser therapy in the management of neck pain.

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) on pain, disability, and range of movement in patients with neck pain. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of HILT for neck pain disorders were searched across databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, the PEDro database, and Google Scholar (updated January 7, 2024). The main outcome was pain intensity, with neck disability and cervical range of motion as secondary outcomes. Researchers reviewed article titles and abstracts from different databases using the Rayyan web app. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and evidence-based recommendations were developed using the GRADE approach. A meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the pooled effect in terms of mean differences (MD) for the outcomes of interest, along with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Twenty studies met the selection criteria and were potentially eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. At the end of the treatment, there was a statistically significant (p < 0.01) pooled MD of -14.1 mm for pain intensity (17 RCTs) with the VAS (95% CI:-18.4,-9.7), 3.9° (95% CI:1.9,6.7) for cervical extension (9 RCTs), and -8.3% (95% CI:-14.1,-4.1) for disability diminish (12 RCTs) with the neck disability index in favor of HILT. Only the results for pain intensity are in line with the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) reported in the literature. Overall, the evidence was deemed significant but with low certainty, attributed to observed heterogeneity and some risk of bias among the RCTs. HILT demonstrates effectiveness in reducing neck pain and disability while enhancing cervical extension when added to other physical therapy interventions, especially therapeutic exercise, based on a moderate level of evidence. This review highlights that the most favorable results are obtained when HILT is employed to address myofascial pain, cervical radiculopathy and chronic neck pain.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023387394 (Registration date, 14/01/2023).

The effect of a neck-specific exercise program on cervical kinesthesia for patients with chronic whiplash-associated disorders: a case-control study.

INTRODUCTION: Cervical kinesthesia is an important part of movement control and of great importance for daily function. Previous research on kinesthesia in whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) has focused on grades I-II. More research is needed on WAD grade III. The aim of this study was to investigate cervical kinesthesia in individuals with WAD grades II-III before and after a neck-specific exercise intervention and compare them to healthy controls. METHODS: A prospective, case-control study with a treatment arm (n = 30) and a healthy control arm (n = 30) was conducted in Sweden. The WAD group received a neck-specific exercise program for 12 weeks. The primary outcome to evaluate kinesthesia was neck movement control (the Fly test). Secondary outcomes were neck disability, dizziness and neck pain intensity before and after the Fly test. Outcomes were measured at baseline and post-treatment. The control arm underwent measurements at baseline except for the dizziness questionnaire. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate difference between groups (WAD and control) and over time, with difficulty level in the Fly test and gender as factors. RESULTS: Between-group analysis showed statistically significant differences in three out of five kinesthetic metrics (p = 0.002 to 0.008), but not for the WAD-group follow-up versus healthy control baseline measurements. Results showed significant improvements for the WAD-group over time for three out of five kinaesthesia metrics (p < 0.001 to 0.008) and for neck disability (p < 0.001) and pain (p = 0.005), but not for dizziness (p = 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: The exercise program shows promising results in improving kinesthesia and reducing neck pain and disability in the chronic WAD phase. Future research might benefit from focusing on adding kinesthetic exercises to the exercise protocol and evaluating its beneficial effects on dizziness or further improvement in kinesthesia. IMPACT STATEMENT: Kinesthesia can be improved in chronic WAD patients without the use of specific kinesthetic exercises. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03664934), first registration approved 11/09/2018.

Neurologic Approach to Radiculopathy, Back Pain, and Neck Pain.

Back pain and neck pain are common in clinical practice, but significant challenges and pitfalls exist in their diagnosis, treatment, and management. From the neurologic standpoint, cervical radiculopathy and lumbosacral radiculopathy are characterized by neck pain or back pain accompanied by sensory and motor symptoms in an arm or leg. The basic neurologic examination is vital, but testing like electromyography and MRI is often needed especially in cases that fail conservative management. Oral medications, injection-based therapies, physical therapy, and surgical evaluation all have a place in the comprehensive neurologic management of back and neck pain and associated radiculopathy.

Evaluation of the effect of different kinds of treatment modalities for temporomandibular joint pain and its relevance to chronic cervical pain: A randomized controlled trial.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different treatment modalities for temporomandibular joint (TMJ) pain and their relevance to chronic cervical pain after 12 months. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: This was a randomized controlled trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight participants with chronic cervical and TMJ pain were selected using research diagnostic criteria and randomized into four groups (n = 12), which included control, soft splints, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), and low-level laser (LLL). The cervical and TMJ pain was recorded using visual analog scale (VAS) scores at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. Occlusal equilibration was done for all groups except for the control. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: The mean pain scores were statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and posthoc test. RESULTS: The mean VAS scores in TMJ pain patients between the four groups at baseline and at final follow-up were 7.27 ± 1.29 in Group 1, 7.53 ± 0.70 in Group 2, 7.76 ± 0.80 in Group 3, and 7.61 ± 0.61 in Group 4. The mean difference between Groups 1 and 3, Groups 1 and 4, and Groups 2 and 3 was statistically significant (P < 0.00). Pearson correlation test yielded a mild and negative correlation between TMJ and cervical pain. CONCLUSION: TENS and LLL were found to be equally effective in reducing pain in the jaw joint region, followed by soft splints, and there was no correlation between TMJ and cervical pain.

Cervical manipulation versus thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations for the management of neck pain. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cervical and thoracic thrust or non-thrust manipulations have shown to be effective in patients with neck pain, but there is a lack of studies comparing both interventions in patients with neck pain. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations compared to thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations for improving pain, disability, and range of motion in patients with neck pain. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHOD: Searches were performed in PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane Library, CINHAL, and Web of Science databases from inception to May 22, 2023. Randomized clinical trials comparing cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations to thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations were included. Methodological quality was assessed with PEDro scale, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE guidelines. RESULTS: Six studies were included. Meta-analyses revealed no differences between cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations and thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations in pain intensity, disability, or cervical range of motion in any plane. The certainty of evidence was downgraded to very low for pain intensity, to moderate or very low for disability and to low or very low for cervical range of motion. CONCLUSION: There is moderate to very low certainty evidence that there is no difference in effectiveness between cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations and thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations for improving pain, disability, and range of motion in patients with neck pain. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023429933.

Does having an external focus in immersive virtual reality increase range of motion in people with neck pain?

BACKGROUND: When instructing exercises to improve Range of Motion (ROM), clinicians often create an internal focus of attention, while motor performance may improve more when using an external focus. OBJECTIVES: Using Virtual Reality (VR), we investigated the effect of tasks with an internal and external focus on maximal ROM in people with neck pain and explored whether this effect was associated with fear of movement. METHOD: In this cross-over experimental design study, the cervical ROM of 54 participants was measured while performing a target-seeking exercise in a VR-environment (external focus task) and during three maximal rotation and flexion-extension movements with the VR-headset on, without signal (internal focus task). The main statistical analysis included two dependent T-tests. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to investigate whether the differences in ROM in both conditions were correlated to fear of movement. RESULTS: Maximal neck rotation was larger in the external focus condition than in the internal focus condition (mean difference: 26.4°, 95% CI [20.6, 32.3]; p < 0.001, d = 1.24). However, there was a difference favouring the internal focus condition for flexion-extension (mean difference: 8.2°, 95% CI [-14.9, -1.5]; p = 0.018, d = 0.33). The variability in ROM was not explained by variability in fear of movement (for all correlations p ≥ 0.197). CONCLUSION: An external focus resulted in a larger range of rotation, but our flexion-extension findings suggest that the task has to be specific to elicit such an effect. Further research, using a task that sufficiently elicits movement in all directions, is needed to determine the value of an external focus during exercise.

Assessment of the methodological, recommendation and reporting quality of global guidelines for neck pain and synthesis of evidence and recommendations: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Neck pain is a global health problem that can cause severe disability and a huge medical burden. Clinical practice guideline (CPG) is an important basis for clinical diagnosis and treatment. A high-quality CPG plays a significant role in clinical practice. However, the quality of the CPGs for neck pain lacks comprehensive assessment. This protocol aims to evaluate the methodological, recommendation, reporting quality of global CPGs for neck pain and identify key recommendations and gaps that limit evidence-based practice. METHOD: CPGs from January 2013 to November 2023 will be identified through a systematic search on 13 scientific databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, etc) and 7 online guideline repositories. Six reviewers will independently evaluate the quality of CPGs for neck pain by using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare tools. Intraclass correlation coefficient will be used to test the consistency of the assessment. We will identify the distribution of evidence and recommendations in each evidence-based CPGs for neck pain and regrade the level of evidence and strength of recommendations by adopting the commonly used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations system. The key recommendations based on high-quality evidence will be summarised. In addition, we will categorise CPGs by different characteristics and conduct a subgroup analysis of the results of assessment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No subjects will be involved in this systematic review, so there is no need for ethical approval. The finding of this review will be summarised as a paper for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023417717.

Comparative effectiveness of cervical vs thoracic spinal-thrust manipulation for care of cervicogenic headache: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is ample evidence supporting the use of different manipulative therapy techniques for Cervicogenic Headache (CgH). However, no technique can be singled as the best available treatment for patients with CgH. Therefore, the objective of the study is to find and compare the clinical effects of cervical spine over thoracic spine manipulation and conventional physiotherapy in patients with CgH. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: It is a prospective, randomized controlled study conducted between July 2020 and January 2023 at the University hospital. N = 96 eligible patients with CgH were selected based on selection criteria and they were divided into cervical spine manipulation (CSM; n = 32), thoracic spine manipulation (TSM; n = 32) and conventional physiotherapy (CPT; n = 32) groups, and received the respective treatment for four weeks. Primary (CgH frequency) and secondary CgH pain intensity, CgH disability, neck pain frequency, neck pain intensity, neck pain threshold, cervical flexion rotation test (CFRT), neck disability index (NDI) and quality of life (QoL) scores were measured. The effects of treatment at various intervals were analyzed using a 3 × 4 linear mixed model analysis (LMM), with treatment group (cervical spine manipulation, thoracic spine manipulation, and conventional physiotherapy) and time intervals (baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 6 months), and the statistical significance level was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: The reports of the CSM, TSM and CPT groups were compared between the groups. Four weeks following treatment CSM group showed more significant changes in primary (CgH frequency) and secondary (CgH pain intensity, CgH disability, neck pain frequency, pain intensity, pain threshold, CFRT, NDI and QoL) than the TSM and CPT groups (p = 0.001). The same gradual improvement was seen in the CSM group when compared to TSM and CPT groups (p = 0.001) in the above variables at 8 weeks and 6 months follow-up. CONCLUSION: The reports of the current randomized clinical study found that CSM resulted in significantly better improvements in pain parameters (intensity, frequency and threshold) functional disability and quality of life in patients with CgH than thoracic spine manipulation and conventional physiotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration: CTRI/2020/06/026092 trial was registered prospectively on 24/06/2020.

Daoyin therapy in chronic neck pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Daoyin therapy (DT), an ancient therapeutic approach with a history spanning thousands of years, has traditionally been employed to address musculoskeletal pain and psychosomatic disorders. However, the application of DT for chronic neck pain (CNP) has received limited attention in the existing literature, and systematic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in this context remain scarce. This manuscript outlines an RCT protocol designed to investigate whether DT is more effective at alleviating CNP in adult individuals compared to other interventions. METHODS: A 12-week RCT was conducted, with participants undergoing randomization into one of three groups: DT, Meditation + Fitness Exercise (M+FE), or a control group. Participants in the DT and M + FE groups attended their respective training classes three times per week for 12 weeks. Participants in the control group were required to attend health education workshops every 2 weeks. Following the 12-week intervention period, all participants underwent follow-up assessments at the 16th week. Outcome measures encompassed the Simplified Chinese Neck Pain and Disability Scale (SC-NPAD) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain assessment, Static Neck Posture Assessment (SNPA) to evaluate neck and shoulder posture and function, Short Form-36 (SF-36) to assess quality of life, and blood tests measuring 5-Hydroxytryptamine (5-HT), Norepinephrine/Noradrenaline (NE/NA), γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA), Adreno-Cortico-Tropic-Hormone (ACTH), ß-Endorphin (ß-EP), and Calcitonin-Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) levels via high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and radioimmunoassay (RIA). Brain activity changes were monitored through MRI scans. Repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) will be used to evaluate the outcomes at baseline, at the 12th week, and at the 16th week. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models will be applied to analyze changes in outcomes over time and differences between groups. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to evaluate the efficacy of DT in comparison to other interventions and explore the neuroendocrine mechanisms underlying its effects in adults with CNP. If the intervention and procedures demonstrate feasibility and acceptability, there are plans to conduct a more extensive controlled trial. This could potentially pave the way for the broader application of DT, not only in the context of CNP but also for other chronic diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration ID: [ChiCTR2400079571]).

Exploring fascial properties in patients with depression and chronic neck pain: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorder and chronic pain are prevalent conditions that often co-occur. The myofascial fascial continuum has been hypothesized to contribute to both conditions. However, limited research exists on the specific association between fascial properties and chronic pain and depression. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the properties of the deep fascia of the M. trapezius and their relationship with depression, chronic neck pain, and cervical spine mobility. METHOD: This study compared fascial properties between two groups: individuals with depression and chronic neck pain, and healthy individuals. Fascial thickness, elasticity, and stiffness were measured as primary outcomes using standardized techniques such as ultrasound imaging and compliance meter. Statistical analyses were conducted to identify potential differences and correlations in fascial properties between the two groups. RESULT: Significant differences emerge in stiffness, tone, and fascia thickness in the deep fascia, alongside identified correlations between depression, chronic pain, and these variables. CONCLUSION: The study highlights the impact of depression and chronic pain on fascial properties, emphasizing the need for further research in this domain to unravel the intricate connections and potential implications for treatment strategies.

Using feedback on patient health outcomes to improve orthopaedic physical therapist practice: a quality improvement study.

OBJECTIVE: Measuring health outcomes plays an important role in patient-centred healthcare. When aggregated across patients, outcomes can provide data for quality improvement (QI). However, most physical therapists are not familiar with QI methods based on patient outcomes. This mixed-methods study aimed to develop and evaluate a QI programme in outpatient physical therapy care based on routinely collected health outcomes of patients with low-back pain and neck pain. METHODS: The QI programme was conducted by three teams of 5-6 physical therapists from outpatient settings. Plan-do-study-act cycles were used based on team-selected goals. Monthly feedback reports of process and outcomes of care, including pre-post treatment changes in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Neck Disability Index (NDI), guided the QI efforts. Primary outcomes were pre-QI and post-QI changes in knowledge and attitudes towards outcome measures through a survey, and administered and self-reported compliance with using the ODI and NDI. Semistructured interviews and a focus group were conducted to evaluate the perceived value of the programme. RESULTS: Post-QI, the survey showed improvements in two items related to the role of patients and implementation of outcome measures. Registered pre-QI and post-QI completion rates were high at intake (ODI:91% pre, 88% post; NDI:75% pre, 84% post), while completion rates at discharge improved post-QI (ODI:14% pre, 66% post; NDI: 32% pre, 50% post). Perceived benefits of the QI programme included clinician and institutional accountability to processes and strategies aimed at continuous improvement in patient care. An important facilitator for programme participation was autonomy in project selection and development, while a main barrier was the time required to set up the QI project. CONCLUSION: A QI programme based on the feedback of routinely collected health outcomes of patients with low back pain and neck pain was feasible and well accepted by three pilot teams of physical therapists.

Effects of exercise combined with cervicothoracic spine self-mobilization on chronic non-specific neck pain.

To investigate the short-term effects and differences between exercise alone and exercise combined with self-mobilization training on chronic non-specific neck pain (CNSNP). Thirty subjects who met the criteria were recruited and randomly assigned to the exercise training group, the exercise combined with cervical self-mobilization training group (ECCM), and the exercise combined with cervicothoracic self-mobilization training group (ECCTM). The exercise training group received 6 weeks of deep neck flexor under biofeedback and scapular stability training, and the other two groups received 6 weeks of cervical self-mobilization and cervicothoracic self-mobilization, respectively, in addition to exercise training. Neck pain, cervical range of motion (ROM), neck disability, strength and endurance of deep neck flexor and quality of life were assessed before and after 6 weeks of training. The study results showed that all the three training programs for 6 weeks increased the strength and endurance of deep neck flexor, increased cervical ROM, reduced pain, and improved neck function (P < 0.05). The exercise combined with self-mobilization two groups compared with only the exercise training group had better improvement in ROM of extension, lateral flexion, rotation and quality of life (P < 0.05). Compared with exercise alone and exercise combined with cervical self-mobilization training, the exercise combined with cervicothoracic self-mobilization training was the best in improving ROM of right lateral flexion (exercise training group vs ECCTM: P < 0.01, d = 1.61, ECCM vs ECCTM: P < 0.05, d = 1.14) and pain (exercise training group vs ECCTM: P < 0.05, d = 1.34, ECCM vs ECCTM: P < 0.05, d = 1.23). Deep flexor muscle and shoulder stability training can improve the endurance and strength of the deep flexor muscles of the neck and coordinate the movement patterns of the shoulder and neck. Self-mobilization techniques can promote improvements in cervical lateral flexion and rotation range of motion, alleviate neck disability and further improve quality of life. A combination of exercise and cervicothoracic self-mobilization training appears beneficial for the management of neck pain.

Is new tech a pain in the neck? The impact of introducing new technologies in home-care on neck pain: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Home healthcare services are increasingly utilizing novel technologies to enhance quality and efficiency of caregiving, to reduce workloads and compensate for expected labor shortages in the future due to ageing populations. However, rapid, ongoing implementation of new technologies may demand considerable adaptation for employees. The objective of this study was to prospectively examine associations of newly introduced work technologies with neck pain complaints. METHODS: With a nationally representative prospective sample of home-care workers in Norway (N = 887), we estimated effects of 1) introducing new technologies and 2) the appraised quality of training during implementation on neck pain eight months after. RESULTS: A majority of employees reported new technologies having been introduced the previous 12 months (73.8%). This was not by itself associated with neck pain. However, perceived high quality of training was associated with less subsequent neck pain, also after adjustment for job demands and job control. The strongest effect was seen for "very good" versus "very poor" quality training (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17,0.71, in the fully adjusted model). Cross-lagged path analyses ruled out potential reverse causation stemming from the influence of pain on needs for or appraisals of training. CONCLUSION: The present findings suggest the introduction of new work technologies has a significant impact on home-care workers' health, depending on the quality of training during implementation. This highlights the need to include training programs in risk assessments when implementing new technologies.

Effects of sustained natural apophyseal glides versus rocabado 6 × 6 program in subjects with cervicogenic headache.

BACKGROUND: Cervicogenic headache is designated as the most common type of secondary headache that results from conditions affecting the neck's bony components, muscles, and intervertebral discs rather than the head itself. OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to determine the effects of Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glides (SNAGs) versus the Rocabado 6 × 6 program in subjects with cervicogenic headaches. METHODS: This study was a randomized clinical trial. The sample size was 38, and participants aged 20-60 years (mean age 40.22 ± 9.66) suffering from cervicogenic headaches were randomly allocated using the lottery method into two groups with 19 participants in each group. Assessment of subjects was done before starting treatment and by the end of the 8th week for all the variables. Outcome measures were the Neck Disability Index (NDI), 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), Flexion-Rotation test (FRT) to assess the rotation range of motion at the level of C1-C2 (goniometer) and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for the intensity of pain. Data analysis was done by SPSS (IBM) 25. To check the normality of the data the Shapiro-Wilk test was used. RESULTS: In the Shapiro-Wilk test p-value of all the testing variables i.e. NDI, HIT-6 score, FRT and NPRS was > 0.05, data was normally distributed and parametric tests were used. Group A showed a considerable improvement (p < 0.05) in all variables compared to Group B, while within-group analysis of both groups shows that all outcome measures show significant results (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: It was concluded that both SNAGs and Rocabado's 6 × 6 exercises were effective for the treatment of cervicogenic headache but the effects of headache SNAG were superior and produced more improvement in intensity of headache, disability, frequency of headache, duration of headache as compared to Rocabado 6 × 6 exercises. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05865808 on date 19/05/2023.

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.

Is adding dry needling to a standard care protocol beneficial in patients with chronic neck pain? A randomized placebo-controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the short-term effects of adding a dry needling therapy to a standard care protocol based on education, exercise and electrotherapy, compared to a sham procedure and to a standard care protocol in isolation in patients with chronic neck pain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized placebo-controlled trial was performed. The participants in the dry needling group received a standard care protocol based on patient education, therapeutic exercise and electrotherapy, as well as two sessions of dry needling in the upper trapezius, levator scapulae, and/or sternocleidomastoid muscles. The participants in the sham dry needling group received the same standard care protocol and two sessions of sham dry needling. The participants in the control group received the same standard care protocol. The outcomes measured were pain intensity, pressure pain threshold, neck disability, range of movement, activation of deep cervical flexor muscles, kinesiophobia, pain catastrophizing, anxiety, and depression. RESULTS: No significant group by time interactions were found for any of the outcome variables except for lower cervical spine range of movement (F = 3.79; p = 0.030). CONCLUSION: The addition of two sessions of dry needling in the superficial neck muscles to a standard protocol did not yield superior results compared to either the standard care alone or the standard care plus sham dry needling in patients with chronic neck pain in any outcome except for cervical range of movement.