RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: An international taskforce of clinician-scientists was formed by specialty groups of World Physiotherapy - International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) & International Organisation of Physiotherapists in Paediatrics (IOPTP) - to develop evidence-based practice position statements directing physiotherapists clinical reasoning for the safe and effective use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for paediatric populations (<18 years) with varied musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal conditions. METHOD: A three-stage guideline process using validated methodology was completed: 1. Literature review stage (one scoping review, two reviews exploring psychometric properties); 2. Delphi stage (one 3-Round expert Delphi survey); and 3. Refinement stage (evidence-to-decision summative analysis, position statement development, evidence gap map analyses, and multilayer review processes). RESULTS: Evidence-based practice position statements were developed to guide the appropriate use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for paediatric populations. All were predicated on clinicians using biopsychosocial clinical reasoning to determine when the intervention is appropriate.1. It is not recommended to perform:• Spinal manipulation and mobilisation on infants.• Cervical and lumbar spine manipulation on children.•Spinal manipulation and mobilisation on infants, children, and adolescents for non-musculoskeletal paediatric conditions including asthma, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, breastfeeding difficulties, cerebral palsy, infantile colic, nocturnal enuresis, and otitis media.2. It may be appropriate to treat musculoskeletal conditions including spinal mobility impairments associated with neck-back pain and neck pain with headache utilising:• Spinal mobilisation and manipulation on adolescents;• Spinal mobilisation on children; or• Thoracic manipulation on children for neck-back pain only.3. No high certainty evidence to recommend these interventions was available.Reports of mild to severe harms exist; however, risk rates could not be determined. CONCLUSION: Specific directives to guide physiotherapists' clinical reasoning on the appropriate use of spinal manipulation or mobilisation were identified. Future research should focus on trials for priority conditions (neck-back pain) in children and adolescents, psychometric properties of key outcome measures, knowledge translation, and harms.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors and barriers, which affect the utilisation of spinal manipulation and mobilisation among infants, children, and adolescents. METHODS: Twenty-six international expert physiotherapists in manual therapy and paediatrics were invited to participate in a Delphi investigation using QualtricsⓇ. In Round-1 physiotherapists selected from a list of factors and barriers affecting their decision to use spinal manipulation and mobilisation in the paediatric population and had opportunity to add to the list. Round-2 asked respondents to select as many factors and barriers that they agreed with, resulting in a frequency count. The subset of responses to questions around barriers and facilitators are the focus of this study. RESULTS: Twelve physiotherapists completed both rounds of the survey. Medical diagnosis, mechanism of injury, patient presentation, tolerance to handling, and therapist's knowledge of techniques were the dominant deciding factors to use spinal manipulation and mobilisation among infants, children, and adolescents across spinal levels. More than 90% of the respondents selected manipulation as inappropriate among infants as their top barrier. Additional dominant barriers to using spinal manipulation among infants and children identified by ≥ 75% of the respondents included fear of injuring the patient, fear of litigation, lack of communication, lack of evidence, lack of guardian consent, and precision of the examination to inform clinical reasoning. CONCLUSION: This international survey provides much needed insight regarding the factors and barriers physiotherapists should consider when contemplating the utilisation of spinal mobilisation and manipulation in the paediatric population.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to establish international consensus regarding the use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation among infants, children, and adolescents among expert international physiotherapists. METHODS: Twenty-six international expert physiotherapists in manual therapy and paediatrics voluntarily participated in a 3-Round Delphi survey to reach a consensus via direct electronic mail solicitation using Qualtrics®. Consensus was defined a-priori as ≥75% agreement on all items with the same ranking of agreement or disagreement. Round 1 identified impairments and conditions where spinal mobilisation and manipulation might be utilised. In Rounds 2 and 3, panelists agreed or disagreed using a 4-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Eleven physiotherapists from seven countries representing five continents completed all three Delphi rounds. Consensus regarding spinal mobilisation or manipulation included:Manipulation is not recommended: (1) for infants across all conditions, impairments, and spinal levels; and (2) for children and adolescents across most conditions and spinal levels.Manipulation may be recommended for adolescents to treat spinal region-specific joint hypomobility (thoracic, lumbar), and pain (thoracic).Mobilisation may be recommended for children and adolescents with hypomobility, joint pain, muscle/myofascial pain, or stiffness at all spinal levels. CONCLUSION: Consensus revealed spinal manipulation should not be performed on infants regardless of condition, impairment, or spinal level. Additionally, the panel agreed that manipulation may be recommended only for adolescents to treat joint pain and joint hypomobility (limited to thoracic and/or lumbar levels). Spinal mobilisation may be recommended for joint hypomobility, joint pain, muscle/myofascial pain, and muscle/myofascial stiffness at all spinal levels among children and adolescents.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To i) identify and map the available evidence regarding effectiveness and harms of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for infants, children and adolescents with a broad range of conditions; ii) identify and synthesise policies, regulations, position statements and practice guidelines informing their clinical use. DESIGN: Systematic scoping review, utilising four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINHAL and Cochrane) and grey literature from root to 4th February 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Infants, children and adolescents (birth to < 18 years) with any childhood disorder/condition. INTERVENTION: Spinal manipulation and mobilisation OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes relating to common childhood conditions were explored. METHOD: Two reviewers (A.P., L.L.) independently screened and selected studies, extracted key findings and assessed methodological quality of included papers using Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Synthesis, Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Text and Opinion Papers, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and International Centre for Allied Health Evidence Guideline Quality Checklist. A descriptive synthesis of reported findings was undertaken using a levels of evidence approach. RESULTS: Eighty-seven articles were included. Methodological quality of articles varied. Spinal manipulation and mobilisation are being utilised clinically by a variety of health professionals to manage paediatric populations with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), asthma, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), back/neck pain, breastfeeding difficulties, cerebral palsy (CP), dysfunctional voiding, excessive crying, headaches, infantile colic, kinetic imbalances due to suboccipital strain (KISS), nocturnal enuresis, otitis media, torticollis and plagiocephaly. The descriptive synthesis revealed: no evidence to explicitly support the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilisation for any condition in paediatric populations. Mild transient symptoms were commonly described in randomised controlled trials and on occasion, moderate-to-severe adverse events were reported in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials and other lower quality studies. There was strong to very strong evidence for 'no significant effect' of spinal manipulation for managing asthma (pulmonary function), headache and nocturnal enuresis, and inconclusive or insufficient evidence for all other conditions explored. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding spinal mobilisation to treat paediatric populations with any condition. CONCLUSION: Whilst some individual high-quality studies demonstrate positive results for some conditions, our descriptive synthesis of the collective findings does not provide support for spinal manipulation or mobilisation in paediatric populations for any condition. Increased reporting of adverse events is required to determine true risks. Randomised controlled trials examining effectiveness of spinal manipulation and mobilisation in paediatric populations are warranted.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) has an ongoing effort to create evidence-based practice guidelines for orthopaedic physical therapy management of patients with musculoskeletal impairments described in the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). The purpose of these revised clinical practice guidelines is to review recent peer-reviewed literature and make recommendations related to neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017;47(7):A1-A83. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.0302.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the extent to which psychophysical quantitative sensory test (QST) and patient factors (gender, age and comorbidity) predict pain, function and health status in people with shoulder disorders. To determine if there are gender differences for QST measures in current perception threshold (CPT), vibration threshold (VT) and pressure pain (PP) threshold and tolerance. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study design. SETTING: MacHAND Clinical Research Lab at McMaster University. SUBJECTS: 34 surgical and 10 nonsurgical participants with shoulder pain were recruited. METHOD: Participants completed the following patient reported outcomes: pain (Numeric Pain Rating, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index) and health status (Short Form-12). Participants completed QST at 4 standardized locations and then an upper extremity performance-based endurance test (FIT-HaNSA). Pearson r's were computed to determine the relationships between QST variables and patient factors with either pain, function or health status. Eight regression models were built to analysis QST's and patient factors separately as predictors of either pain, function or health status. An independent sample t-test was done to evaluate the gender effect on QST. RESULTS: Greater PP threshold and PP tolerance was significantly correlated with higher shoulder functional performance on the FIT-HANSA (r =0.31-0.44) and lower self-reported shoulder disability (r = -0.32 to -0.36). Higher comorbidity was consistently correlated (r =0.31-0.46) with more pain, and less function and health status. Older age was correlated to more pain intensity and less function (r =0.31-0.57). In multivariate models, patient factors contributed significantly to pain, function or health status models (r2 =0.19-0.36); whereas QST did not. QST was significantly different between males and females [in PP threshold (3.9 vs. 6.2, p < .001) and PP tolerance (7.6 vs. 2.6, p < .001) and CPT (1.6 vs. 2.3, p =.02)]. CONCLUSION: Psychophysical dimensions and patient factors (gender, age and comorbidity) affect self-reported and performance-based outcome measures in people with shoulder disorders.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Examination of practice patterns compared to existing evidence identifies knowledge to practice gaps. OBJECTIVES: To describe the utilization of pharmacological, patient education, primary psychological interventions and relaxation therapies in patients with neck pain by clinicians. METHODS: An international cross-sectional survey was conducted to determine the use of these interventions amongst 326 clinicians treating patients with neck pain. RESULTS: Nineteen countries participated. Results were analyzed by usage amongst physical therapists (39%) and chiropractors (35%), as they were the predominant respondents. Patient education (95%) and relaxation therapies (59%) were the most utilized interventions. Tests of subgroup differences determined that physical therapists used patient education significantly more than chiropractors. Use of medications and primary psychological interventions were reported by most to be outside of scope of practice. The high rate of patient education is consistent with supporting evidence. However, usage of relaxation therapies is contrary to evidence suggesting no benefit for improved pain or function for chronic neck pain. CONCLUSION: This survey indicates that patient education and relaxation therapies are common treatments provided by chiropractors and physical therapists for patients with neck pain. Future research should address gaps associated with variable practice patterns and knowledge translation to reduce usage of interventions shown to be ineffective.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The study was conducted to estimate the extent to which pressure pain sensitivity (PPS) and patient factors predict pain-related disability in patients with neck pain (NP), and to determine if PPS differs by gender. Forty-four participants with a moderate level of chronic NP were recruited for this cross sectional study. All participants were asked to complete self-reported assessments of pain, disability and comorbidity and then underwent PPS testing at 4-selected body locations. Pearson`s r w was computed to explore relationships between the PPS measures and the self-reported assessments. Regression models were built to identify predictors of pain and disability. An independent sample t-test was done to identify gender-related differences in PPS, pain-disability and comorbidity. In this study, greater PPS (threshold and tolerance) was significantly correlated to lower pain-disability (r = -.30 to -.53, p≤0.05). Age was not correlated with pain or disability but comorbidity was (r= 0.42-.43, p≤0.01). PPS at the 4-selected body locations was able to explain neck disability (R(2)=25-28%). Comorbidity was the strongest predictor of neck disability (R(2) =30%) and pain (R(2)=25%). Significant mean differences for gender were found in PPS, disability and comorbidity, but not in pain intensity or rating. This study suggests that PPS may play a role in outcome measures of pain and disability but between-subject comparisons should consider gender and comorbidity issues.

RESUMEN

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional discriminative analysis. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether current perception threshold (CPT) can differentiate between categories of patients with mechanical neck disorders (MNDs). BACKGROUND: Neck pain is the third most common musculoskeletal disorder and affects a third of all adults each year. It can present as neck pain without musculoskeletal signs, neck pain with musculoskeletal signs but no neurological signs, or neck pain with neurological signs. CPT testing can assess altered sensory perception that may reflect neurological changes. METHODS: Patients with MNDs (n = 106) were classified into 3 groups, based on a standardized musculoskeletal examination process performed by an experienced physiotherapist who was blinded to CPT scores. The 3 groups were defined as neck pain without musculoskeletal signs (MND I) (n = 60), neck pain with musculoskeletal signs (MND II) (n = 29), and neck pain with neurological signs (MND III) (n = 17). A rapid protocol of CPT testing was performed at 3 frequencies (5, 250, and 2000 Hz), using 3 dermatomal locations on the hand. A 1-way analysis of variance with post hoc comparison and effect sizes was calculated to compare the mean CPT scores between the groups. A binary logistic-regression model was used to predict probability of higher CPT in MND III and to create a receiver-operating-characteristic curve. RESULTS: Mean CPT differed significantly across the 3 MND groups (MND I, 9.7; MND II, 10.6; and MND III, 11.8; P<.001; η(2) = 0.6). Post hoc comparisons indicated differences between MND I and MND II (P = .05) and between MND II and MND III (P = .01) that had large effect sizes (MND I versus II, d = 1 and MND II versus III, d = 2.2). CPT testing was able to distinguish between MND II and III when a threshold value of greater than 11 was used to indicate MND III. The predicted probability of abnormal CPT in MND III had an estimated 73% sensitivity and 81% specificity; the odds ratio was 11.5 (P = .001) for the differentiation capacity of CPT between MND II and III, with a cutoff of 11. The area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve was 0.84 (95% confidence interval: 0.72, 0.96; P<.001). CONCLUSION: CPT testing has moderate discriminatory accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity for classification of MND categories into neck pain with or without neurological signs. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2014;44(7):532-540. Epub 10 May 2014. doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.4691.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Study Design Cross-sectional discriminative analysis. Objective To determine whether current perception threshold (CPT) can differentiate between categories of patients with mechanical neck disorders (MNDs). Background Neck pain is the third most common musculoskeletal disorder, affecting a third of all adults each year. It can present as neck pain without musculoskeletal signs; neck pain with musculoskeletal signs but no neurological signs; neck pain with neurological signs. CPT testing can assess altered sensory perception that may reflect neurological changes. Methods Patients with MNDs (n=106) were classified into 3 groups based on a standardized musculoskeletal examination process performed by an experienced physiotherapist blinded to CPT scores. The 3 groups were defined as: MND-I, neck pain without musculoskeletal signs (n=60); MND-II, neck pain with musculoskeletal signs (n=29); MND-III, neck pain with neurological signs (n=17). A rapid protocol of CPT testing was performed at 3 frequencies (5, 250, 2000 Hz), using 3 dermatomal locations on the hand. A 1-way ANOVA with post hoc comparison and effect sizes were calculated to compare the mean CPT score between the groups. A binary logistic regression model was used to predict probability of higher CPT in MND-III and used to create a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results Mean CPT differed significantly across the 3 MND groups (MND-I, 9.7; MND-II, 10.6; and MND-III, 11.8; P < .001, η2 = .6). Post hoc comparisons indicated differences between MND-I and MND-II (P = .05) and between MND-II and MND-III (P = .01), that were large effect sizes (MND I versus II, d = 1 and MND II versus III, d = 2.2). CPT testing was able to distinguish between MND II and III when a threshold value of greater than 11 was used to indicate MND-III. The predicted probability of abnormal CPT in MND-III had an estimated 73% sensitivity and 81% specificity; the odds ratio was 11.5 (P =.001) for the differentiation capacity of CPT between MND-II and III with a cut-off of 11. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was .84 (95% CI =.72 to .96, P < .001). Conclusions CPT testing has moderate discriminatory accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity for classification of MND categories into neck pain with or without neurological signs. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, Epub 10 May 2014. doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.5691.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines on the management of neck pain make recommendations to help practitioners optimize patient care. By examining the practice patterns of practitioners, adherence to CPGs or lack thereof, is demonstrated. Understanding utilization of various treatments by practitioners and comparing these patterns to that of recommended guidelines is important to identify gaps for knowledge translation and improve treatment regimens. AIM: To describe the utilization of interventions in patients with neck pain by clinicians. METHODS: A cross-sectional international survey was conducted from February 2012 to March 2013 to determine physical medicine, complementary and alternative medicine utilization amongst 360 clinicians treating patients with neck pain. RESULTS: The survey was international (19 countries) with Canada having the largest response (38%). Results were analyzed by usage amongst physical therapists (38%) and chiropractors (31%) as they were the predominant respondents. Within these professions, respondents were male (41-66%) working in private practice (69-95%). Exercise and manual therapies were consistently (98-99%) used by both professions but tests of subgroup differences determined that physical therapists used exercise, orthoses and 'other' interventions more, while chiropractors used phototherapeutics more. However, phototherapeutics (65%), Orthoses/supportive devices (57%), mechanical traction (55%) and sonic therapies (54%) were not used by the majority of respondents. Thermal applications (73%) and acupuncture (46%) were the modalities used most commonly. Analysis of differences across the subtypes of neck pain indicated that respondents utilize treatments more often for chronic neck pain and whiplash conditions, followed by radiculopathy, acute neck pain and whiplash conditions, and facet joint dysfunction by diagnostic block. The higher rates of usage of some interventions were consistent with supporting evidence (e.g. manual therapy). However, there was moderate usage of a number of interventions that have limited support or conflicting evidence (e.g. ergonomics). CONCLUSIONS: This survey indicates that exercise and manual therapy are core treatments provided by chiropractors and physical therapists. Future research should address gaps in evidence associated with variable practice patterns and knowledge translation to reduce usage of some interventions that have been shown to be ineffective.

RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To conduct an overview (review-of-reviews) on pharmacological interventions for neck pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: Computerized databases and grey literature were searched from 2006 to 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCT) in adults with acute to chronic neck pain reporting effects of pharmacological interventions including injections on pain, function/disability, global perceived effect, quality of life and patient satisfaction. DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS: Two independent authors selected articles, assessed risk of bias and extracted data The GRADE tool was used to evaluate the body of evidence and an external panel provided critical review. MAIN RESULTS: We found 26 reviews reporting on 47 RCTs. Most pharmacological interventions had low to very low quality methodologic evidence with three exceptions. For chronic neck pain, there was evidence of: a small immediate benefit for eperison hydrochloride (moderate GRADE, 1 trial, 157 participants);no short-term pain relieving benefit for botulinum toxin-A compared to saline (strong GRADE; 5 trial meta-analysis, 258 participants) nor for subacute/chronic whiplash (moderate GRADE; 4 trial meta-analysis, 183 participants) including reduced pain, disability or global perceived effect; andno long-term benefit for medial branch block of facet joints with steroids (moderate GRADE; 1 trial, 120 participants) over placebo to reduce pain or disability; REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: While in general there is a lack of evidence for most pharmacological interventions, current evidence is against botulinum toxin-A for chronic neck pain or subacute/chronic whiplash; against medial branch block with steroids for chronic facet joint pain; but in favour of the muscle relaxant eperison hydrochloride for chronic neck pain.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To conduct an overview on psychological interventions, orthoses, patient education, ergonomics, and 1°/2° neck pain prevention for adults with acute-chronic neck pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: Computerized databases and grey literature were searched (2006-2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pain, function/disability, global perceived effect, quality-of-life and patient satisfaction were retrieved. DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS: Two independent authors selected articles, assessed risk of bias using AMSTAR tool and extracted data. The GRADE tool was used to evaluate the body of evidence and an external panel to provide critical review. MAIN RESULTS: We retrieved 30 reviews (5-9 AMSTAR score) reporting on 75 RCTs with the following moderate GRADE evidence. For acute whiplash associated disorder (WAD), an education video in emergency rooms (1RCT, 405participants] favoured pain reduction at long-term follow-up thus helping 1 in 23 people [Standard Mean Difference: -0.44(95%CI: -0.66 to -0.23)). Use of a soft collar (2RCTs, 1278participants) was not beneficial in the long-term. For chronic neck pain, a mind-body intervention (2RCTs, 1 meta-analysis, 191participants) improved short-term pain/function in 1 of 4 or 6 participants. In workers, 2-minutes of daily scapula-thoracic endurance training (1RCT, 127participants) over 10 weeks was beneficial in 1 of 4 participants. A number of psychosocial interventions, workplace interventions, collar use and self-management educational strategies were not beneficial. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate evidence exists for quantifying beneficial and non-beneficial effects of a limited number of interventions for acute WAD and chronic neck pain. Larger trials with more rigorous controls need to target promising interventions.

RESUMEN

STUDY DESIGN: Expert debate and synthesis of research to inform future management approaches for acute whiplash disorders. OBJECTIVE: To identify a research agenda toward improving outcomes for acute whiplash-injured individuals to lessen the incidence of transition to chronicity. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: International figures are concordant, estimating that 50% of individuals recover from pain and disability within 3 to 6 months of a whiplash injury. The remainder report continuing symptoms up to 1 to 2 years or longer postinjury. As no management approach to date has improved recovery rates, new clinical/research directions are required for early management of whiplash-injured patients. METHODS: A group of multidisciplinary researchers critically debated evidence and current research concerning whiplash from biological, psychological, and social perspectives toward informing future research directions for management of acute whiplash. RESULTS: It was recognized that effective treatments for acute whiplash are constrained by a limited understanding of causes of whiplash-associated disorders. Acute whiplash presentations are heterogeneous leading to the proposal that a research priority was development of a triage system based on modifiable prognostic indicators and clinical features to better inform individualized early management decisions. Other priorities identified included researching effective early pain management for individuals presenting with moderate to high levels of pain; development of best education/information for acute whiplash; testing the efficacy of stratified and individualized rehabilitation, researching modes of delivery considering psychosocial modulators of pain and disability; and the timing, nature, and mode of delivery of cognitive-behavioral therapies. Directions were highlighted for future biomechanical research into injury prevention. CONCLUSION: The burden of whiplash injuries, the high rate of transition to chronicity, and evidence of limited effects of current management on transition rates demand new directions in evaluation and management. Several directions have been proposed for future research, which reflect the potential multifaceted dimensions of an acute whiplash disorder.

Asunto(s)