Literature DB >> 10796403

Patient education for mechanical neck disorders.

A R Gross1, P D Aker, C H Goldsmith, P Peloso.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To track down the best estimate of efficacy of the various conservative management strategies for mechanical neck disorders, a four-part systematic review was prepared. Part four investigates the efficacy of patient education strategies as the therapeutic intervention.
OBJECTIVES: This review of patient education is one of four reviews of conservative management of mechanical neck disorders. The other reviews address manual, physical and drug therapies. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of patient education for pain in adults with mechanical neck disorders. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline, Embase, Chirolars, Index to Chiropractic Literature, Cinahl, Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Index, National Technical Information Services from 1985 to December 1993, reference lists of the retrieved articles and we contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials or controlled clinical trials of patient educational strategies for adults with mechanical neck disorders. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three reviewers independently assessed trial quality and two reviewers independently extracted data. Investigators were contacted to obtain data that could not be found in the published reports. MAIN
RESULTS: Three trials were included. Their methodological quality varied from weak to strong. One trial did not find a significant reduction in pain using group instructional strategies (neck school) and exercise with or without psychological counselling compared to no treatment (standardised mean difference 0.07, 95% confidence interval -0.51 to 0.66, and -0.37, 95% confidence interval -0.95 to 0.22, respectively). Another trial did not find a significant reduction in pain using individualised patient education (advice), anti-inflammatories and analgesics compared with placebo (standardised mean difference 0.24, 95% confidence interval -0.58 to 1.07). The third trial found that advice which included demonstrated mobilization exercises, verbal and written instruction on posture correction, the use of a collar, heat sources, muscle relaxation and analgesics gave significant pain relief compared with general advice about mobilisation after a period of rest and use of analgesics at 4 weeks of treatment (standardised mean difference -0.62, 95% confidence interval -1.05 to -0.19) but at 6 weeks of treatment there was no longer any difference (s.m.d. -0.37, 95% confidence interval -0.8 to 0.05). The first two trials lacked statistical power and the third was methodologically weak. REVIEWER'S
CONCLUSIONS: Patient education utilising individualised or group instructional strategies has not been shown to be beneficial in reducing pain for mechanical neck disorders.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10796403     DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000962

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  3 in total

1.  Development of the Italian version of the modified Japanese orthopaedic association score (mJOA-IT): cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, validity and responsiveness.

Authors:  Umile Giuseppe Longo; Alessandra Berton; Luca Denaro; Giuseppe Salvatore; Vincenzo Denaro
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  An educational and physical program to reduce headache, neck/shoulder pain in a working community: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Franco Mongini; Andrea Evangelista; Chantal Milani; Luca Ferrero; Giovannino Ciccone; Alessandro Ugolini; Alessandro Piedimonte; Monica Sigaudo; Elisa Carlino; Emanuela Banzatti; Claudia Galassi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-01-09       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Dosing study of massage for chronic neck pain: protocol for the dose response evaluation and analysis of massage [DREAM] trial.

Authors:  Karen J Sherman; Andrea J Cook; Janet R Kahn; Rene J Hawkes; Robert D Wellman; Daniel C Cherkin
Journal:  BMC Complement Altern Med       Date:  2012-09-18       Impact factor: 3.659

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.