Jordan Miller

Manipulation or mobilisation for neck pain: A Cochrane Review

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

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

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

What is the Experience of Receiving Health Care for Neck Pain

This study used a descriptive phenomenological approach to describe the experience of finding and receiving health services for neck pain. Nineteen participants (18 females, 1 male) with neck pain (>3 months) were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire guide. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded. Two overarching themes described the experience: complexity in finding effective health care; and the need for informative, personalized, respectful communication. Complexity in finding effective health care was attributed to the variable approach and effectiveness of different health professionals, the need to experiment with care to find what works, the need to differentiate temporary versus permanent treatment effects, concerns about treatment side effects and the sense that financial factors influence personal treatment choices and provider behaviours. The need for informative, personalized, respectful communications was broken down into the following subthemes: the importance of being listened to, seen and believed; the need for useful information; and a desire to have outcomes formally tracked as a means of individualizing treatment. Overall, patients struggled to navigate the variable health services and providers that were available and that provided variable outcomes. They often did so through a trial and error approach. As such, patients remain open to unproven, even controversial treatment options. Research evidence was not a key ingredient in patient decision-making about accessing health services. The environmental, personal, health behavior factors interacted to contribute to health service utilization and would increase the burden of these for both the individual and society at large. The effectiveness of neck pain interventions is dependent on complex interactions between the context, individual, and health care provider, therefore, physiological responses cannot be considered as being distinct from these determinants.

Knowledge Translation Tools are Emerging to Move Neck Pain Research into Practice

Development or synthesis of the best clinical research is in itself insufficient to change practice. Knowledge translation (KT) is an emerging field focused on moving knowledge into practice, which is a non-linear, dynamic process that involves knowledge synthesis, transfer, adoption, implementation, and sustained use. Successful implementation requires using KT strategies based on theory, evidence, and best practice, including tools and processes that engage knowledge developers and knowledge users. Tools can provide instrumental help in implementing evidence. A variety of theoretical frameworks underlie KT and provide guidance on how tools should be developed or implemented. A taxonomy that outlines different purposes for engaging in KT and target audiences can also be useful in developing or implementing tools. Theoretical frameworks that underlie KT typically take different perspectives on KT with differential focus on the characteristics of the knowledge, knowledge users, context/environment, or the cognitive and social processes that are involved in change. Knowledge users include consumers, clinicians, and policymakers. A variety of KT tools have supporting evidence, including: clinical practice guidelines, patient decision aids, and evidence summaries or toolkits. Exemplars are provided of two KT tools to implement best practice in management of neck pain—a clinician implementation guide (toolkit) and a patient decision aid. KT frameworks, taxonomies, clinical expertise, and evidence must be integrated to develop clinical tools that implement best evidence in the management of neck pain.

What does the evidence tell us about design of future treatment trials for whiplash-associated disorders?

Study Design. Reflective critique and recommendation development. Objective. To reflect on limitations in past trials and propose recommendations on innovative trial designs and methodologies for whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). Summary of Background Data. The cost of doing clinical research and risk of retaining an evidence void is an overarching threat to lessening the transition of WAD to chronicity. Methods. Review trial limitations on neck pain and propose recommendations to amend these. Results. Three innovative trial designs, 20 methodological recommendations, and two knowledge translation (KT) research strategies are proposed. Many of the gaps in our current understanding of neck disorders can be linked to an inadequate research design and implementation. Increased utilization of three design options for evaluating therapies could lead to a more accurate and efficient understanding of the merits of various therapies singly and multimodal. Increased utilization of mixed methods or biological subcomponents may advance our understanding of neck disorders and the resulting disability. There is a need for harmonization and standardization across participant disorder classification; identification and tracking of prognostic factors and adverse events; adequate intervention description and dosing; and outcome selection comparable across studies and across International Classification Framework domains. Reasons for discordant conclusions including subjective elements need to be explored in future trials using qualitative methods. KT research that defines the barriers to implementation of existing knowledge and strategies to reduce the evidence to practice gap is urgently needed. Conclusion. Our recommendations suggest an overarching need for adherence to CONSORT guidelines, a consensus taxonomy illuminating neck pain characterization, prognostic indicators, and diagnostic criteria as well as a core set of trial outcomes. Innovative trial design could lead to a more accurate and efficient understanding of the merits of various therapies. As the evidence emerges, studies of KT can inform us how it will impact clinical actions.

Manual therapy with exercise for neck pain

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: This systematic review will assess the efficacy of manual therapy and exercise in the treatment of neck pain. We will assess the influence of manual therapy and exercise 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.

Determining the impact of a new physiotherapist-led primary care model for back pain: protocol for a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial

BackgroundBack pain is a leading contributor to disability, healthcare costs, and lost work. Family physicians are the most common first point of contact in the healthcare system for people with back pain, but physiotherapists (PTs) may be able to support the primary care team through evidence-based primary care. A cluster randomized trial is needed to determine the clinical, health system, and societal impact of a primary care model that integrates physiotherapists at the first visit for people with back pain. Prior to conducting a future fully powered cluster randomized trial, we need to demonstrate feasibility of the methods. Therefore, the purpose of this pilot study will be to:1)Determine feasibility of patient recruitment, assessment procedures, and retention.2)Determine the feasibility of training and implementation of a new PT-led primary care model for low back pain (LBP)3)Explore the perspectives of patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) related to their experiences and attitudes towards the new service delivery model, barriers/facilitators to implementation, perceived satisfaction, perceived value, and impact on clinic processes and patient outcomes.MethodsThis pilot cluster randomized controlled trial will enroll four sites and randomize them to implement a new PT-led primary care model for back pain or a usual physician-led primary care model. All adults booking a primary care visit for back pain will be invited to participate. Feasibility outcomes will include: recruitment and retention rates, completeness of assessment data, PT training participation and confidence after training, and PT treatment fidelity. Secondary outcomes will include the clinical, health system, cost, and process outcomes planned for the future fully powered cluster trial. Results will be analyzed and reported descriptively and qualitatively. To explore perspectives of both HCPs and patients, we will conduct semi-structured qualitative interviews with patients and focus groups with HCPs from participants in the PT-led primary care sites.DiscussionIf this pilot demonstrates feasibility, a fully powered trial will provide evidence that has the potential to transform primary care for back pain. The full trial will inform future service design, whether these models should be more widely implemented, and training agendas.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03320148. Submitted for registration on 17 September 2017.

Research Priorities in the Field of Posttraumatic Pain and Disability: Results of a Transdisciplinary Consensus-Generating Workshop

Background. Chronic or persistent pain and disability following noncatastrophic “musculoskeletal” (MSK) trauma is a pervasive public health problem. Recent intervention trials have provided little evidence of benefit from several specific treatments for preventing chronic problems. Such findings may appear to argue against formal targeted intervention for MSK traumas. However, these negative findings may reflect a lack of understanding of the causal mechanisms underlying the transition from acute to chronic pain, rendering informed and objective treatment decisions difficult. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis (IMHA) has recently identified better understanding of causal mechanisms as one of three priority foci of their most recent strategic plan. Objectives. A 2-day invitation-only active participation workshop was held in March 2015 that included 30 academics, clinicians, and consumers with the purpose of identifying consensus research priorities in the field of trauma-related MSK pain and disability, prediction, and prevention. Methods. Conversations were recorded, explored thematically, and member-checked for accuracy. Results. From the discussions, 13 themes were generated that ranged from a focus on identifying causal mechanisms and models to challenges with funding and patient engagement. Discussion. Novel priorities included the inclusion of consumer groups in research from the early conceptualization and design stages and interdisciplinary longitudinal studies that include evaluation of integrated phenotypes and mechanisms.