Exercises for mechanical neck disorders: A Cochrane review update.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain (NP) is disabling and costly. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of exercise on pain, disability, function, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL) and global perceived effect (GPE) in adults with NP. METHODS: We searched computerised databases up to May 2014 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing exercise to a control in adults with NP with/without cervicogenic headache (CGH) or radiculopathy. Two reviewers independently conducted selection, data abstraction and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed to establish pooled standardised mean differences (SMDp). The Grade of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to summarise the body of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: The following exercises (27 trials) were supported by 'Moderate GRADE' evidence: For chronic NP, 1) cervico-scapulothoracic and upper extremity (UE) strengthening for moderate to large pain reduction immediately post treatment (IP) and at short-term (ST) follow-up; 2) scapulothoracic and UE endurance training for a small pain reduction (IP/ST); 3) cervical, shoulder and scapulothoracic strengthening and stretching exercise for a small to large pain reduction in the long-term (LT) (SMDp -0.45 [95%CI: -0.72 to -0.18]) and function improvement; 4) cervico-scapulothoracic strengthening/stabilisation exercises for pain and function at intermediate-term (IT) (SMDp -14.90 [95%CI: -22.40 to -7.39]). 5) mindfulness exercises (Qigong) for minor improved function but not GPE (ST). For chronic CGH, cervico-scapulothoracic strengthening and endurance exercises including pressure biofeedback for small/moderate improvement of pain, function and GPE (IP/LT). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Specific strengthening exercises of the neck, scapulothoracic and shoulder for chronic NP and chronic CGH are beneficial. Future research should explore optimal dosage.

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders.

BACKGROUND: Neck disorders are common, limit function, and are costly to individuals and society. Exercise therapy is a commonly used treatment for neck pain. The effectiveness of exercise therapy remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of exercise therapy to relieve pain, or improve function, disability, patient satisfaction, and global perceived effect in adults with mechanical neck disorders (MND). SEARCH STRATEGY: Computerised bibliographic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, CINAHL, and ICL were searched, without language restrictions, from their beginning up to March 2004, and reference lists of articles were scanned. SELECTION CRITERIA: Selected studies were randomised [RCTs] or quasi-randomised trials and investigated the use of exercise therapy as a treatment in adults with MND with or without headache or radicular signs and symptoms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently conducted citation identification, study selection, data abstraction, and methodological quality assessment. Using a random effects model, relative risk and standardized mean differences were calculated. The reasonableness of combining studies was assessed on clinical and statistical grounds. In the absence of heterogeneity, pooled effect measures were calculated. When trials were considered homogenous, results were summarised using a rating system of five levels of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-one trials were selected, 19% (van Tulder criteria) to 35% (Jadad scale) had high quality. There is limited evidence of benefit that acute range of motion (AROM) may reduce pain in acute MND (whiplash associated disorder (WAD)) in the short term. There is moderate evidence of benefit that neck strengthening exercises reduce pain, improve function and global perceived effect for chronic neck disorder with headache in the short and long term. There is unclear evidence regarding the impact of a stretching and strengthening program on pain, function and global perceived effect for MND. However, when this stretching and strengthening program focuses on the cervical or cervical and shoulder/thoracic region, there is moderate evidence of benefit on pain in chronic MND [pooled SMD -0.42 (95%CI: -0.83 to -0.01)] and neck disorder plus headache, in the short and long term. There is strong evidence of benefit favouring a multimodal care approach of exercise combined with mobilisation or manipulation for subacute and chronic MND with or without headache, in the short and long term. A program of eye fixation or proprioception exercises imbedded in a more complete program shows moderate evidence of benefit for pain [pooled SMD -0.72 (95% CI:-1.12 to -0.32)], function, and global perceived for chronic MND in the short term, and on pain and function for acute and subacute MND with headache or WAD in the long term. There is limited evidence of benefit on pain relief in the short term for a home mobilisation program with other physical modalities over a program of rest then gradual mobilisation for acute MND or WAD. There was evidence of no difference between the different exercise approaches. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence summarised in this systematic review indicates that specific exercises may be effective for the treatment of acute and chronic MND, with or without headache. To be of benefit, a stretching and strengthening exercise program should concentrate on the musculature of the cervical, shoulder-thoracic area, or both. A multimodal care approach of exercise, combined with mobilisation or manipulation for subacute and chronic MND with or without headache, reduced pain, improved function, and global perceived effect in the short and long term. The relative benefit of other treatments (such as physical modalities) compared with exercise or between different exercise programs needs to be explored. The quality of future trials should improve through more effective 'blinding' procedures and better control of compliance and co-intervention. Phase II trials would help identify the most effective treatment characteristics and dosages.

Clinical practice guideline on the use of manipulation or mobilization in the treatment of adults with mechanical neck disorders.

PURPOSE: An evidence-based clinical practice guideline was developed to ascertain the risks and benefits for manipulation or mobilization in treating mechanical neck disorders with or without radicular findings or cerviogenic headache. Pain, function, patient satisfaction and adverse events were appraised. METHODS: The practice guideline development cycle/model and Cochrane reviewing process, critiquing past reviews, randomized trials and surveys were used. RESULTS: Manipulation and mobilization alone showed similar effects as placebo, wait period, or control group, and appeared similar in benefit for pain relief. While high-technology exercises were superior to manipulation alone for improving long-term pain scores, manipulation plus low-technology exercise had the same effect. Patient satisfaction scores favoured manipulation plus low-technology exercise over manipulation alone, and high-technology exercise alone. Multi-modal care including some combination of manipulation or mobilizations and exercise was superior to control, other physical medicine methods, and rest. Based on weak evidence, estimates for serious complication for manipulation ranged from one in 20,000 to five in 10,000,000. RECOMMENDATIONS: Stronger evidence suggests a multi-modal management strategy using mobilization or manipulation plus exercise is beneficial for relief of mechanical neck pain. Weaker evidence suggest less benefit to either manipulation/mobilization done alone than when used with exercise. The risk rate is uncertain.

Guidelines for pre-manipulative testing of the cervical spine - an appraisal.

Are the guidelines valid? It is not clear if recommendations were derived from evidence of high quality or from evidence that is much more liable to error. The majority of evidence is based on low level evidence; that is, physiology, bench research, or "first principles" (Sackett et al 2000). Studies of moderate level evidence, where inappropriate sampling and a narrow spectrum of study individuals was used, revealed vertebrobasilar insufficiency tests to be invalid. Information on the validity of the diagnostic studies, their accuracy, and detailed instruction for applying that evidence to our patients (Sackett et al 2000) was not reported in the guidelines.