Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Treatment based classification systems for patients with non-specific neck pain. A systematic review.
Maissan, Francois; Pool, Jan; de Raaij, Edwin; Wittink, Harriet; Ostelo, Raymond.
Afiliação
  • Maissan F; Research Group Lifestyle and Health, HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Health Sciences, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, the Netherlands. El
  • Pool J; Research Group Lifestyle and Health, HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
  • de Raaij E; Research Group Lifestyle and Health, HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Health Sciences, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, the Netherlands.
  • Wittink H; Research Group Lifestyle and Health, HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
  • Ostelo R; Department of Health Sciences, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, the Netherlands.
Musculoskelet Sci Pract ; 47: 102133, 2020 06.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32148328
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

We aimed to identify published classification systems with a targeted treatment approach (treatment-based classification systems (TBCSs)) for patients with non-specific neck pain, and assess their quality and effectiveness.

DESIGN:

Systematic review. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PEDro and the grey literature were systematically searched from inception to December 2019. STUDY APPRAISAL AND

SYNTHESIS:

The main selection criterium was a TBCS for patients with non-specific neck pain with physiotherapeutic interventions. For data extraction of descriptive data and quality assessment we used the framework developed by Buchbinder et al. We considered as score of ≤3 as low quality, a score between 3 and 5 as moderate quality and a score ≥5 as good quality. To assess the risk of bias of studies concerning the effectiveness of TBCSs (only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included) we used the PEDro scale. We considered a score of ≥ six points on this scale as low risk of bias.

RESULTS:

Out of 7664 initial references we included 13 studies. The overall quality of the TBCSs ranged from low to moderate. We found two RCTs, both with low risk of bias, evaluating the effectiveness of two TBCSs compared to alternative treatments. The results showed that both TBCSs were not superior to alternative treatments.

CONCLUSION:

Existing TBCSs are, at best, of moderate quality. In addition, TBCSs were not shown to be more effective than alternatives. Therefore using these TBCSs in daily practice is not recommended.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto / Cervicalgia / Manejo da Dor Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Musculoskelet Sci Pract Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto / Cervicalgia / Manejo da Dor Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Musculoskelet Sci Pract Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article