Stephen J. Burnie

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.

Adverse events associated with the use of cervical manipulation and mobilization for the treatment of neck pain in adults: A systematic review

Adverse events (AE) are a concern for practitioners utilizing cervical manipulation or mobilization. While efficacious, these techniques are associated with rare but serious adverse events. Five bibliographic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro, AMED, EMBASE) and the gray literature were searched from 1998 to 2009 for any AE associated with cervical manipulation or mobilization for neck pain. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective or cross-sectional observational studies were included. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection, method quality assessment and data abstraction. Pooled relative risks (RR) were calculated. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane system, a modified Critical Appraisal Skills Program form and the McHarm scale to assess the reporting of harms. Seventeen of 76 identified citations resulted in no major AE. Two pooled estimates for minor AE found transient neurological symptoms [RR 1.96 (95% CI: 1.09-3.54) p < 0.05]; and increased neck pain [RR 1.23 (95% CI: 0.85-1.77) p > .05]. Forty-four studies (58%) were excluded for not reporting AE. No definitive conclusions can be made due to a small number of studies, weak association, moderate study quality, and notable ascertainment bias. Improved reporting of AE in manual therapy trials as recommended by the CONSORT statement extension on harms reporting is warranted.

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.

A Cochrane review of patient education for neck pain

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Neck pain is common, disabling, and costly. The effectiveness of patient education strategies is unclear. PURPOSE To assess whether patient education strategies are of benefit for pain, function/disability, global perceived effect, quality of life, or patient satisfaction, in adults with neck pain with or without radiculopathy. STUDY DESIGN Cochrane systematic review. METHODS Computerized bibliographic databases were searched from their start to May 31, 2008. Eligible studies were randomized trials investigating the effectiveness of patient education strategies for neck pain. Paired independent reviewers carried out study selection, data abstraction, and methodological quality assessment. Relative risk and standardized mean differences were calculated. Because of differences in intervention type or disorder, no studies were considered appropriate to pool. RESULTS Of the 10 selected trials, two (20%) were rated as of high quality. Patient education was assessed as follows: 1) eight trials of advice focusing on activation compared with no treatment, or to various active treatments, including therapeutic exercise, manual therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy, showed either inferiority or no difference for pain, spanning a full range of follow-up periods, acuity and disorder types. When compared with rest, two trials that assessed acute whiplash-associated disorder showed moderate evidence of no difference for advice focusing on activation; 2) two trials studying advice focusing on pain and stress coping skills found moderate evidence of no benefit for chronic neck pain at intermediate- to long-term follow-up; and 3) one trial compared the effects of neck school to no treatment, yielding limited evidence of no benefit for pain, at intermediate-term follow-up in mixed acute/subacute/chronic neck pain. CONCLUSIONS This review has not shown effectiveness for educational interventions for neck pain of various acuity stages and disorder types and at various follow-up periods, including advice to activate, advice on stress coping skills, and neck school. In future research, further attention to methodological quality is necessary. Studies of multimodal interventions should consider study designs, such as factorial designs, that permit discrimination of specific educational components.

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.

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 &kgr; 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 &kgr; 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.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of interventions for fibromyalgia: a protocol

BackgroundFibromyalgia is associated with substantial socioeconomic loss and, despite considerable research including numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews, there exists uncertainty regarding what treatments are effective. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for fibromyalgia, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments.Methods/designWe will conduct a network meta-analysis of all RCTs evaluating therapies for fibromyalgia to determine which therapies show evidence of effectiveness, and the relative effectiveness of these treatments. We will acquire eligible studies through a systematic search of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, HealthSTAR, PsychINFO, PapersFirst, ProceedingsFirst, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies will randomly allocate patients presenting with fibromyalgia or a related condition to an intervention or a control. Teams of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts and complete full text reviews to determine eligibility, and subsequently perform data abstraction and assess risk of bias of eligible trials. We will conduct meta-analyses to establish the effect of all reported therapies on patient-important outcomes when possible. To assess relative effects of treatments, we will construct a random effects model within the Bayesian framework using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods.DiscussionOur review will be the first to evaluate all treatments for fibromyalgia, provide relative effectiveness of treatments, and prioritize patient-important outcomes with a focus on functional gains. Our review will facilitate evidence-based management of patients with fibromyalgia, identify key areas for future research, and provide a framework for conducting large systematic reviews involving indirect comparisons.

Botulinum toxin intramuscular injections for neck pain: a systematic review and metaanalysis.

Objective. To assess the effect of intramuscular botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) injections on pain, function/disability, global perceived effect, and quality of life (QOL) in adults with neck pain (NP). Methods. We searched Central, Medline, and Embase databases up to June 2010. A minimum of 2 authors independently selected articles, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias and clinical applicability. We estimated standard mean differences (SMD) with 95% CI, relative risks (RR), and performed metaanalyses (SMDp) using a random-effects model for nonheterogeneous data. The approach of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation working group summarizes the quality of evidence. Results. We selected 14 trials. High-quality evidence suggested BoNT-A was no better than saline at 4 weeks [4 trials/183 participants; SMDp −0.21 (95% CI −0.50 to 0.07)] and 6 months for chronic NP. Moderate-quality evidence showed a similar effect for subacute/chronic whiplash-associated disorder (WAD) on pain [4 trials/122 participants; SMDp −0.21 (95% CI −0.57 to 0.15)], disability, and QOL. Very low-quality evidence indicated BoNT-A combined with exercise and analgesics was not significant for chronic NP reduction at 4 weeks [3 trials/114 participants; SMDp −0.08 (95% CI −0.45 to 0.29)] but was at 6 months [2 trials/43 participants; SMDp −0.66 (95% CI −1.29 to −0.04)]. Conclusion. Current evidence does not confirm a clinically or statistically significant benefit of BoNT-A used alone on chronic NP in the short term or on subacute/chronic WAD pain, disability, and QOL. Larger trials, subgroups, and predictors of responses defined a priori (to facilitate selection of patients most likely to benefit) and factorial designs to explore BoNT as an adjunct treatment to physiotherapeutic exercise and analgesics are needed.

A commentary on the implications of medication prescription rights for the chiropractic profession.

There is a growing desire within the chiropractic profession to expand the scope of practice to include limited medication prescription rights for the treatment of spine-related and other musculoskeletal conditions. Such prescribing rights have been successfully incorporated into a number of chiropractic jurisdictions worldwide. If limited to a musculoskeletal scope, medication prescription rights have the potential to change the present role of chiropractors within the healthcare system by paving the way for practitioners to become comprehensive specialists in the conservative management of spine / musculoskeletal disorders. However, if the chiropractic profession wishes to lobby to expand the scope of practice to include limited prescriptive authority, several issues must first be addressed. These would include changes to chiropractic education and legislation, as well as consideration of how such privileges could impact the chiropractic profession on a more theoretical basis. In this commentary, we examine the arguments in favour of and against limited medication prescription rights for chiropractors and discuss the implications of such privileges for the profession.

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.