Manuel Albornoz-Cabello1, Cristo J Barrios-Quinta2, Luis Espejo-Antúnez3, Isabel Escobio-Prieto1, María J Casuso-Holgado4, Alberto M Heredia-Rizo1. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Nursing, Physiotherapy and Podiatry, University of Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain. 2. Physiotherapy Unit, Andalusian Health Service, Sevilla, Spain. 3. Department of Medical-Surgical Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, Extremadura University, Badajoz, Spain. 4. Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Nursing, Physiotherapy and Podiatry, University of Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain - mcasuso@us.es.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Therapeutic exercise is highly recommended for the management of non-specific neck pain and has shown promising results combined with interferential current therapy. Yet, the clinical relevance of the pooled effect of these approaches remains uncertain. AIM: To investigate the immediate clinical effect size of combining therapeutic exercise and interferential therapy, compared with the isolated use of therapeutic exercise, in adults with chronic non-specific neck pain. DESIGN: Randomized, single-blinded, controlled, superiority trial. SETTING: Outpatients, primary care center. POPULATION: Forty-nine adults with chronic non-specific neck pain. METHODS:Participants with neck pain (grades I or II) lasting for more than 12 weeks were allocated to a therapeutic exercise plus interferential currents group (n = 25) or to a therapeutic exercise only group (n = 24). All individuals underwent treatment 5 times a week for 2 weeks. The primary outcome was current neck pain intensity (11-point numeric pain rating scale). Secondary outcomes included neck disability (Neck Disability Index) and active cervical range-of-movement (CROM device). Measurements were taken at baseline and immediately after treatment. An intention-to-treat analysis was carried out. To quantify the effect size of the interventions, the relative risk, the absolute and relative risk reduction, and the number needed to treat were calculated. RESULTS: A significant time*group effect was found for pain intensity, disability, and neck flexion and right rotation (all, p < 0.05). In the analysis for treatment benefit, the number needed to treat was 2 (95% CI: 2 to 4, p < 0.001) for neck pain and disability, and 3 (95% CI: 2 to 11, p = 0.029) for neck flexion. CONCLUSIONS: Adding interferential therapy to therapeutic exercise is clinically more effective than therapeutic exercise alone to immediately improve neck pain and disability, but not active cervical range-of-movement, in adults with persistent neck pain. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Our results suggest that this multimodal intervention can be a useful strategy for rehabilitation of patients with non-specific neck pain. This is the first study on this topic reporting findings in terms of clinical relevance, which is key to transfer research evidence into practice.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Therapeutic exercise is highly recommended for the management of non-specific neck pain and has shown promising results combined with interferential current therapy. Yet, the clinical relevance of the pooled effect of these approaches remains uncertain. AIM: To investigate the immediate clinical effect size of combining therapeutic exercise and interferential therapy, compared with the isolated use of therapeutic exercise, in adults with chronic non-specific neck pain. DESIGN: Randomized, single-blinded, controlled, superiority trial. SETTING: Outpatients, primary care center. POPULATION: Forty-nine adults with chronic non-specific neck pain. METHODS:Participants with neck pain (grades I or II) lasting for more than 12 weeks were allocated to a therapeutic exercise plus interferential currents group (n = 25) or to a therapeutic exercise only group (n = 24). All individuals underwent treatment 5 times a week for 2 weeks. The primary outcome was current neck pain intensity (11-point numeric pain rating scale). Secondary outcomes included neck disability (Neck Disability Index) and active cervical range-of-movement (CROM device). Measurements were taken at baseline and immediately after treatment. An intention-to-treat analysis was carried out. To quantify the effect size of the interventions, the relative risk, the absolute and relative risk reduction, and the number needed to treat were calculated. RESULTS: A significant time*group effect was found for pain intensity, disability, and neck flexion and right rotation (all, p < 0.05). In the analysis for treatment benefit, the number needed to treat was 2 (95% CI: 2 to 4, p < 0.001) for neck pain and disability, and 3 (95% CI: 2 to 11, p = 0.029) for neck flexion. CONCLUSIONS: Adding interferential therapy to therapeutic exercise is clinically more effective than therapeutic exercise alone to immediately improve neck pain and disability, but not active cervical range-of-movement, in adults with persistent neck pain. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Our results suggest that this multimodal intervention can be a useful strategy for rehabilitation of patients with non-specific neck pain. This is the first study on this topic reporting findings in terms of clinical relevance, which is key to transfer research evidence into practice.