Jessica J Wong1, Heather M Shearer2, Silvano Mior3, Craig Jacobs4, Pierre Côté5, Kristi Randhawa4, Hainan Yu4, Danielle Southerst6, Sharanya Varatharajan4, Deborah Sutton4, Gabrielle van der Velde7, Linda J Carroll8, Arthur Ameis9, Carlo Ammendolia10, Robert Brison11, Margareta Nordin12, Maja Stupar13, Anne Taylor-Vaisey13. 1. UOIT-CMCC Centre for the Study of Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation, University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT) and Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC); Department of Graduate Studies, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College. Electronic address: jessica.wong@uoit.ca. 2. UOIT-CMCC Centre for the Study of Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation, University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT) and Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC); Division of Graduate Education and Research Programs, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC). 3. Division of Graduate Education and Research Programs, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC). 4. UOIT-CMCC Centre for the Study of Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation, University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT) and Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC); Division of Clinical Education, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Canada. 5. UOIT-CMCC Centre for the Study of Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation, University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT) and Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC); Canada Research Chair in Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation, University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT); Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT). 6. UOIT-CMCC Centre for the Study of Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation, University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT) and Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC); Rebecca MacDonald Centre for Arthritis and Autoimmune Disease, Mount Sinai Hospital. 7. Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative; Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto; Institute for Work and Health. 8. Alberta Centre for Injury Control and Research and School of Public Health, University of Alberta. 9. Certification Program in Insurance Medicine and Medico-legal Expertise, Faculty of Medicine, University of Montreal. 10. Institute for Work and Health; Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto. 11. Clinical Research, Kingston General Hospital; Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Queen's University. 12. Departments of Orthopedic Surgery and Environmental Medicine, Occupational and Industrial Orthopedic Center, NYU School of Medicine, New York University. 13. UOIT-CMCC Centre for the Study of Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation, University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT) and Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC).
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: In 2008, the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) found limited evidence on the effectiveness of manual therapies, passive physical modalities, or acupuncture for the management of whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) or neck pain and associated disorders (NAD). PURPOSE: This review aimed to update the findings of the Neck Pain Task Force, which examined the effectiveness of manual therapies, passive physical modalities, and acupuncture for the management of WAD or NAD. STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: This is a systematic review and best evidence synthesis. SAMPLE: The sample includes randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies comparing manual therapies, passive physical modalities, or acupuncture with other interventions, placebo or sham, or no intervention. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures were self-rated or functional recovery, pain intensity, health-related quality of life, psychological outcomes, or adverse events. METHODS: We systematically searched five databases from 2000 to 2014. Random pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Studies with a low risk of bias were stratified by the intervention's stage of development (exploratory vs. evaluation) and synthesized following best evidence synthesis principles. Funding was provided by the Ministry of Finance. RESULTS: We screened 8,551 citations, and 38 studies were relevant and 22 had a low risk of bias. Evidence from seven exploratory studies suggests that (1) for recent but not persistent NAD grades I-II, thoracic manipulation offers short-term benefits; (2) for persistent NAD grades I-II, technical parameters of cervical mobilization (eg, direction or site of manual contact) do not impact outcomes, whereas one session of cervical manipulation is similar to Kinesio Taping; and (3) for NAD grades I-II, strain-counterstrain treatment is no better than placebo. Evidence from 15 evaluation studies suggests that (1) for recent NAD grades I-II, cervical and thoracic manipulation provides no additional benefit to high-dose supervised exercises, and Swedish or clinical massage adds benefit to self-care advice; (2) for persistent NAD grades I-II, home-based cupping massage has similar outcomes to home-based muscle relaxation, low-level laser therapy (LLLT) does not offer benefits, Western acupuncture provides similar outcomes to non-penetrating placebo electroacupuncture, and needle acupuncture provides similar outcomes to sham-penetrating acupuncture; (3) for WAD grades I-II, needle electroacupuncture offers similar outcomes as simulated electroacupuncture; and (4) for recent NAD grades III, a semi-rigid cervical collar with rest and graded strengthening exercises lead to similar outcomes, and LLLT does not offer benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Our review adds new evidence to the Neck Pain Task Force and suggests that mobilization, manipulation, and clinical massage are effective interventions for the management of neck pain. It also suggests that electroacupuncture, strain-counterstrain, relaxation massage, and some passive physical modalities (heat, cold, diathermy, hydrotherapy, and ultrasound) are not effective and should not be used to manage neck pain. Copyright Â
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: In 2008, the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) found limited evidence on the effectiveness of manual therapies, passive physical modalities, or acupuncture for the management of whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) or neck pain and associated disorders (NAD). PURPOSE: This review aimed to update the findings of the Neck Pain Task Force, which examined the effectiveness of manual therapies, passive physical modalities, and acupuncture for the management of WAD or NAD. STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: This is a systematic review and best evidence synthesis. SAMPLE: The sample includes randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies comparing manual therapies, passive physical modalities, or acupuncture with other interventions, placebo or sham, or no intervention. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures were self-rated or functional recovery, pain intensity, health-related quality of life, psychological outcomes, or adverse events. METHODS: We systematically searched five databases from 2000 to 2014. Random pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Studies with a low risk of bias were stratified by the intervention's stage of development (exploratory vs. evaluation) and synthesized following best evidence synthesis principles. Funding was provided by the Ministry of Finance. RESULTS: We screened 8,551 citations, and 38 studies were relevant and 22 had a low risk of bias. Evidence from seven exploratory studies suggests that (1) for recent but not persistent NAD grades I-II, thoracic manipulation offers short-term benefits; (2) for persistent NAD grades I-II, technical parameters of cervical mobilization (eg, direction or site of manual contact) do not impact outcomes, whereas one session of cervical manipulation is similar to Kinesio Taping; and (3) for NAD grades I-II, strain-counterstrain treatment is no better than placebo. Evidence from 15 evaluation studies suggests that (1) for recent NAD grades I-II, cervical and thoracic manipulation provides no additional benefit to high-dose supervised exercises, and Swedish or clinical massage adds benefit to self-care advice; (2) for persistent NAD grades I-II, home-based cupping massage has similar outcomes to home-based muscle relaxation, low-level laser therapy (LLLT) does not offer benefits, Western acupuncture provides similar outcomes to non-penetrating placebo electroacupuncture, and needle acupuncture provides similar outcomes to sham-penetrating acupuncture; (3) for WAD grades I-II, needle electroacupuncture offers similar outcomes as simulated electroacupuncture; and (4) for recent NAD grades III, a semi-rigid cervical collar with rest and graded strengthening exercises lead to similar outcomes, and LLLT does not offer benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Our review adds new evidence to the Neck Pain Task Force and suggests that mobilization, manipulation, and clinical massage are effective interventions for the management of neck pain. It also suggests that electroacupuncture, strain-counterstrain, relaxation massage, and some passive physical modalities (heat, cold, diathermy, hydrotherapy, and ultrasound) are not effective and should not be used to manage neck pain. Copyright Â
Authors: Emmanuel Yung; Cheongeun Oh; Michael Wong; Jason K Grimes; Erica Mae Barton; Muhammad I Ali; Allison Breakey Journal: J Man Manip Ther Date: 2019-08-04
Authors: Pierre Côté; Jessica J Wong; Deborah Sutton; Heather M Shearer; Silvano Mior; Kristi Randhawa; Arthur Ameis; Linda J Carroll; Margareta Nordin; Hainan Yu; Gail M Lindsay; Danielle Southerst; Sharanya Varatharajan; Craig Jacobs; Maja Stupar; Anne Taylor-Vaisey; Gabrielle van der Velde; Douglas P Gross; Robert J Brison; Mike Paulden; Carlo Ammendolia; J David Cassidy; Patrick Loisel; Shawn Marshall; Richard N Bohay; John Stapleton; Michel Lacerte; Murray Krahn; Roger Salhany Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Jacek Cholewicki; John M Popovich; N Peter Reeves; Lisa A DeStefano; Jacob J Rowan; Timothy J Francisco; Lawrence L Prokop; Mathew A Zatkin; Angela S Lee; Alla Sikorskii; Pramod K Pathak; Jongeun Choi; Clark J Radcliffe; Ahmed Ramadan Journal: PM R Date: 2021-10-31 Impact factor: 2.218
Authors: Ruud Groeneweg; Luite van Assen; Hans Kropman; Huco Leopold; Jan Mulder; Bouwien C M Smits-Engelsman; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Rob A B Oostendorp; Maurits W van Tulder Journal: Chiropr Man Therap Date: 2017-04-28