RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of different physical exercise interventions for chronic non-specific neck pain. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases: AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, MEDLINE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, PsycINFO, Scopus and SPORTDiscus. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) describing the effects of any physical exercise intervention in adults with chronic non-specific neck pain. RESULTS: The search returned 6549 records, 40 studies were included. Two networks of pairwise comparisons were constructed, one for pain intensity (n=38 RCTs, n=3151 participants) and one for disability (n=29 RCTs, n=2336 participants), and direct and indirect evidence was obtained. Compared with no treatment, three exercise interventions were found to be effective for pain and disability: motor control (Hedges' g, pain -1.32, 95% CI: -1.99 to -0.65; disability -0.87, 95% CI: -1.45 o -0.29), yoga/Pilates/Tai Chi/Qigong (pain -1.25, 95% CI: -1.85 to -0.65; disability -1.16, 95% CI: -1.75 to -0.57) and strengthening (pain -1.21, 95% CI: -1.63 to -0.78; disability -0.75, 95% CI: -1.28 to -0.22). Other interventions, including range of motion (pain -0.98 CI: -2.51 to 0.56), balance (pain -0.38, 95% CI: -2.10 to 1.33) and multimodal (three or more exercises types combined) (pain -0.08, 95% CI: -1.70 to 1.53) exercises showed uncertain or negligible effects. The quality of evidence was very low according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. CONCLUSION: There is not one superior type of physical exercise for people with chronic non-specific neck pain. Rather, there is very low quality evidence that motor control, yoga/Pilates/Tai Chi/Qigong and strengthening exercises are equally effective. These findings may assist clinicians to select exercises for people with chronic non-specific neck pain. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019126523.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Neck pain is a global burdensome problem, with a large proportion of neck pain cases becoming chronic. Although physical exercise is a commonly prescribed treatment, the evidence on the effectiveness of isolated exercise interventions remains limited. Traditional pairwise randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses are limited in only comparing two interventions. This protocol describes the design of a network meta-analysis, which enables a comparative investigation of all physical exercise interventions for which RCTs are available. We aim to systematically compare the effectiveness of different types of physical exercise in people with chronic non-specific neck pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Nine electronic databases (AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, MEDLINE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, PsycINFO, Scopus and SPORTDiscus) were searched for RCTs from inception to 12 March 2019. Titles and abstract firstly, and full-text papers secondly, will be screened by two reviewers. Data will be extracted by two reviewers. The primary outcome measure is effectiveness of the intervention. Methodological quality of included studies will be assessed by two reviewers using the PEDro scale. The overall quality of evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, which has been adapted for network meta-analyses. The available evidence will be summarised using a network diagram. A contribution matrix will be presented to allow assessment of direct and indirect evidence. Forest plots will be constructed to visualise effects of all included exercise interventions. Pairwise effect sizes will be calculated by including all evidence available in the network. Effect measures for treatments that have not been compared in a pairwise RCT can be compared indirectly by contrasting effect sizes of comparisons with a common comparator. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This work synthesises evidence from previously published studies and does not require ethics review or approval. A manuscript describing the findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019126523.
