Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose To develop an evidence-based guideline for the management of grades I–III neck pain and associated disorders (NAD). Methods This guideline is based on recent systematic reviews of high-quality studies. A multidisciplinary expert panel considered the evidence of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, societal and ethical values, and patient experiences (obtained from qualitative research) when formulating recommendations. Target audience includes clinicians; target population is adults with grades I–III NAD <6 months duration. Recommendation 1 Clinicians should rule out major structural or other pathologies as the cause of NAD. Once major pathology has been ruled out, clinicians should classify NAD as grade I, II, or III. Recommendation 2 Clinicians should assess prognostic factors for delayed recovery from NAD. Recommendation 3 Clinicians should educate and reassure patients about the benign and self-limited nature of the typical course of NAD grades I–III and the importance of maintaining activity and movement. Patients with worsening symptoms and those who develop new physical or psychological symptoms should be referred to a physician for further evaluation at any time during their care. Recommendation 4 For NAD grades I–II ≤3 months duration, clinicians may consider structured patient education in combination with: range of motion exercise, multimodal care (range of motion exercise with manipulation or mobilization), or muscle relaxants. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer structured patient education alone, strain-counterstrain therapy, relaxation massage, cervical collar, electroacupuncture, electrotherapy, or clinic-based heat. Recommendation 5 For NAD grades I–II >3 months duration, clinicians may consider structured patient education in combination with: range of motion and strengthening exercises, qigong, yoga, multimodal care (exercise with manipulation or mobilization), clinical massage, low-level laser therapy, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer strengthening exercises alone, strain-counterstrain therapy, relaxation massage, relaxation therapy for pain or disability, electrotherapy, shortwave diathermy, clinic-based heat, electroacupuncture, or botulinum toxin injections. Recommendation 6 For NAD grade III ≤3 months duration, clinicians may consider supervised strengthening exercises in addition to structured patient education. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer structured patient education alone, cervical collar, low-level laser therapy, or traction. Recommendation 7 For NAD grade III >3 months duration, clinicians should not offer a cervical collar. Patients who continue to experience neurological signs and disability more than 3 months after injury should be referred to a physician for investigation and management. Recommendation 8 Clinicians should reassess the patient at every visit to determine if additional care is necessary, the condition is worsening, or the patient has recovered. Patients reporting significant recovery should be discharged.

Objective Few clinical prediction models are available to clinicians to predict the recovery of patients with post-collision neck pain and associated disorders. We aimed to develop evidence-based clinical prediction models to predict (1) self-reported recovery and (2) insurance claim closure from neck pain and associated disorders (NAD) caused or aggravated by a traffic collision. Methods The selection of potential predictors was informed by a systematic review of the literature. We used Cox regression to build models in an incident cohort of Saskatchewan adults (n = 4923). The models were internally validated using bootstrapping and replicated in participants from a randomized controlled trial conducted in Ontario (n = 340). We used C-statistics to describe predictive ability. Results Participants from both cohorts (Saskatchewan and Ontario) were similar at baseline. Our prediction model for self-reported recovery included prior traffic-related neck injury claim, expectation of recovery, age, percentage of body in pain, disability, neck pain intensity and headache intensity (C = 0.643; 95% CI 0.634–0.653). The prediction model for claim closure included prior traffic-related neck injury claim, expectation of recovery, age, percentage of body in pain, disability, neck pain intensity, headache intensity and depressive symptoms (C = 0.637; 95% CI 0.629–0.648). Conclusions We developed prediction models for the recovery and claim closure of NAD caused or aggravated by a traffic collision. Future research needs to focus on improving the predictive ability of the models.

Background Whiplash injury affects 83% of persons in a traffic collision and leads to whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). A major challenge facing health care decision makers is identifying cost-effective interventions due to lack of economic evidence. Our objective is to compare the cost-effectiveness of: 1) physician-based education and activation, 2) a rehabilitation program developed by Aviva Canada (a group of property and casualty insurance providers), and 3) the legislated standard of care in the Canadian province of Ontario: the Pre-approved Framework Guideline for Whiplash developed by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. Methods/Design The economic evaluation will use participant-level data from the University Health Network Whiplash Intervention Trial and will be conducted from the societal perspective over the trial's one-year follow-up. Resource use (costs) will include all health care goods and services, and benefits provided during the trial's 1-year follow-up. The primary health effect will be the quality-adjusted life year. We will identify the most cost-effective intervention using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and incremental net-benefit. Confidence ellipses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves will represent uncertainty around these statistics, respectively. A budget impact analysis will assess the total annual impact of replacing the current legislated standard of care with each of the other interventions. An expected value of perfect information will determine the maximum research expenditure Canadian society should be willing to pay for, and inform priority setting in, research of WAD management. Discussion Results will provide health care decision makers with much needed economic evidence on common interventions for acute whiplash management. Trial Registration http://ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00546806 [Trial registry date: October 18, 2007; Date first patient was randomized: February 27, 2008]

PurposeTo evaluate benefits and harms of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline.MethodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from various electronic databases from July 1, 2007 to March 9, 2022. Eligible RCTs targeted TENS compared to placebo/sham, usual care, no intervention, or interventions with isolated TENS effects (i.e., combined TENS with treatment B versus treatment B alone) in adults with CPLBP. We extracted outcomes requested by the WHO Guideline Development Group, appraised the risk of bias, conducted meta-analyses where appropriate, and graded the certainty of evidence using GRADE.ResultsSeventeen RCTs (adults, n = 1027; adults ≥ 60 years, n = 28) out of 2010 records and 89 full text RCTs screened were included. The evidence suggested that TENS resulted in a marginal reduction in pain compared to sham (9 RCTs) in the immediate term (2 weeks) (mean difference (MD) = -0.90, 95% confidence interval  -1.54 to -0.26), and a reduction in pain catastrophizing in the short term (3 months) with TENS versus no intervention or interventions with TENS specific effects (1 RCT) (MD = -11.20, 95% CI -17.88 to -3.52). For other outcomes, little or no difference was found between TENS and the comparison interventions. The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low.ConclusionsBased on very low certainty evidence, TENS resulted in brief and marginal reductions in pain (not deemed clinically important) and a short-term reduction in pain catastrophizing in adults with CPLBP, while little to no differences were found for other outcomes.

PurposeEvaluate benefits and harms of education/advice for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline.MethodsElectronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing education/advice compared with placebo/sham, usual care, or no intervention (including comparison interventions where the attributable effect of education/advice could be isolated). We conducted meta-analyses and graded the certainty of evidence.ResultsWe screened 2514 citations and 86 full text RCTs and included 15 RCTs. Most outcomes were assessed 3 to 6 months post-intervention. Compared with no intervention, education/advice improved pain (10 RCTs, MD = -1.1, 95% CI -1.63 to -0.56), function (10 RCTs, SMD = -0.51, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.12), physical health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (2 RCTs, MD = 24.27, 95% CI 12.93 to 35.61), fear avoidance (5 RCTs, SMD = -1.4, 95% CI -2.51 to -0.29), depression (1 RCT; MD = 2.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.15), and self-efficacy (1 RCT; MD = 4.4, 95% CI 2.77 to 6.03). Education/advice conferred less benefit than sham Kinesio taping for improving fear avoidance regarding physical activity (1 RCT, MD = 5.41, 95% CI 0.28 to 10.54). Compared with usual care, education/advice improved pain (1 RCT, MD = -2.10, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.07) and function (1 RCT, MD = -7.80, 95% CI -14.28 to -1.32). There was little or no difference between education/advice and comparisons for other outcomes. For all outcomes, the certainty of evidence was very low.ConclusionEducation/advice in adults with CPLBP was associated with improvements in pain, function, HRQoL, and psychological outcomes, but with very low certainty.

Purpose To update findings of the 2000–2010 Bone and Joint Decade Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders and evaluate the effectiveness of non-invasive and non-pharmacological interventions for the management of patients with headaches associated with neck pain (i.e., tension-type, cervicogenic, or whiplash-related headaches). Methods We searched five databases from 1990 to 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case–control studies comparing non-invasive interventions with other interventions, placebo/sham, or no interventions. Random pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria to determine scientific admissibility. Studies with a low risk of bias were synthesized following best evidence synthesis principles. Results We screened 17,236 citations, 15 studies were relevant, and 10 had a low risk of bias. The evidence suggests that episodic tension-type headaches should be managed with low load endurance craniocervical and cervicoscapular exercises. Patients with chronic tension-type headaches may also benefit from low load endurance craniocervical and cervicoscapular exercises; relaxation training with stress coping therapy; or multimodal care that includes spinal mobilization, craniocervical exercises, and postural correction. For cervicogenic headaches, low load endurance craniocervical and cervicoscapular exercises; or manual therapy (manipulation with or without mobilization) to the cervical and thoracic spine may also be helpful. Conclusions The management of headaches associated with neck pain should include exercise. Patients who suffer from chronic tension-type headaches may also benefit from relaxation training with stress coping therapy or multimodal care. Patients with cervicogenic headache may also benefit from a course of manual therapy.

Background Whiplash injuries are an important public health problem that is associated with significant disability and high health care utilization. Recent cohort studies suggest that physician care may be the most effective treatment for patients with whiplash-associated disorders. However, these findings have not been tested in a randomized controlled trial. The purpose of this study is to determine which of physician care or two rehabilitation programs of care is most effective in improving recovery of patients with recent whiplash associated disorders. Methods and Design We designed a pragmatic randomized clinical trial. A total of 444 participants (148 in each of three arms) who reside in Southern Ontario, Canada will be recruited from a large insurer. We will include individuals who are 18 years of age or older and who are diagnosed with Grade I or II Whiplash-associated Disorders. Participants will be randomized to physician-based education and activation or one of two rehabilitation programs of care currently in use in Ontario. Our primary outcome, self-rated global recovery and all secondary outcomes (neck pain intensity, whiplash disability, health-related quality of life, depressive symptomatology and satisfaction with care) will be measured at baseline by a trial coordinator and at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months follow-up by an interviewer who is blind to the participants' baseline characteristics and treatment allocation. We will also collect information on general health status, other injuries, comorbidities, expectation of recovery, work status, pain coping, legal representation, and co-interventions. The primary intention-to-treat analysis will compare time to recovery between the three interventions. This trial will have 90% power at an alpha of 0.05 to detect a 20% difference in the rate of perceived recovery at one year. Secondary analyses will compare the health outcomes, rate of recurrence and the rate of adverse events between intervention groups. Conclusion The results of this study will provide the public, clinicians and policy makers much needed evidence on the effectiveness of common approaches used to manage whiplash-associated disorders. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00546806

Purpose To evaluate the effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the management of neck pain and associated disorders (NAD), whiplash-associated disorders, and non-specific low back pain (LBP) with or without radiculopathy. Methods We systematically searched six databases from 2000 to 2014. Random pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible systematic reviews using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. We included systematic reviews with a low risk of bias in our best evidence synthesis. Results We screened 706 citations and 14 systematic reviews were eligible for critical appraisal. Eight systematic reviews had a low risk of bias. For recent-onset NAD, evidence suggests that intramuscular NSAIDs lead to similar outcomes as combined manipulation and soft tissue therapy. For NAD (duration not specified), oral NSAIDs may be more effective than placebo. For recent-onset LBP, evidence suggests that: (1) oral NSAIDs lead to similar outcomes to placebo or a muscle relaxant; and (2) oral NSAIDs with bed rest lead to similar outcomes as placebo with bed rest. For persistent LBP, evidence suggests that: (1) oral NSAIDs are more effective than placebo; and (2) oral NSAIDs may be more effective than acetaminophen. For recent-onset LBP with radiculopathy, there is inconsistent evidence on the effectiveness of oral NSAIDs versus placebo. Finally, different oral NSAIDs lead to similar outcomes for neck and LBP with or without radiculopathy. Conclusions For NAD, oral NSAIDs may be more effective than placebo. Oral NSAIDs are more effective than placebo for persistent LBP, but not for recent-onset LBP. Different oral NSAIDs lead to similar outcomes for neck pain and LBP.

Background A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial. Objectives We convened a Global Summit of international scientists to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Global summit The Global Summit took place on September 14–15, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. It was attended by 50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations. At the summit, participants critically appraised the literature and synthesized the evidence. Systematic review of the literature We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 15, 2019 using subject headings specific to each database and free text words relevant to manipulation/manual therapy, effectiveness, prevention, treatment, and non-musculoskeletal disorders. Eligible for review were randomized controlled trials published in English. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria for randomized controlled trials. We synthesized the evidence from articles with high or acceptable methodological quality according to the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) Guideline. The final risk of bias and evidence tables were reviewed by researchers who attended the Global Summit and 75% (38/50) had to approve the content to reach consensus. Results We retrieved 4997 citations, removed 1123 duplicates and screened 3874 citations. Of those, the eligibility of 32 articles was evaluated at the Global Summit and 16 articles were included in our systematic review. Our synthesis included six randomized controlled trials with acceptable or high methodological quality (reported in seven articles). These trials investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the management of infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. None of the trials evaluated the effectiveness of SMT in preventing the occurrence of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Consensus was reached on the content of all risk of bias and evidence tables. All randomized controlled trials with high or acceptable quality found that SMT was not superior to sham interventions for the treatment of these non-musculoskeletal disorders. Six of 50 participants (12%) in the Global Summit did not approve the final report. Conclusion Our systematic review included six randomized clinical trials (534 participants) of acceptable or high quality investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function. Governments, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should consider this evidence when developing policies about the use and reimbursement of SMT for non-musculoskeletal disorders.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of a government-regulated rehabilitation guideline compared with education and activation by general practitioners, and to a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation programme on self-reported global recovery from acute whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) grade I–II.DesignPragmatic randomised clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment.SettingMultidisciplinary rehabilitation clinics and general practitioners in Ontario, Canada.Participants340 participants with acute WAD grade I and II. Potential participants were sampled from a large automobile insurer when reporting a traffic injury.InterventionsParticipants were randomised to receive one of three protocols: government-regulated rehabilitation guideline, education and activation by general practitioners or a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOur primary outcome was time to self-reported global recovery. Secondary outcomes included time on insurance benefits, neck pain intensity, whiplash-related disability, health-related quality of life and depressive symptomatology at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months postinjury.ResultsThe median time to self-reported global recovery was 59 days (95% CI 55 to 68) for the government-regulated guideline group, 105 days (95% CI 61 to 126) for the preferred-provider group and 108 days (95% CI 93 to 206) for the general practitioner group; the difference was not statistically significant (Χ2=3.96; 2 df: p=0.138). We found no clinically important differences between groups in secondary outcomes. Post hoc analysis suggests that the general practitioner (hazard rate ratio (HRR)=0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77) and preferred-provider groups (HRR=0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96) had slower recovery than the government-regulated guideline group during the first 80 days postinjury. No major adverse events were reported.ConclusionsTime-to-recovery did not significantly differ across intervention groups. We found no differences between groups with regard to neck-specific outcomes, depression and health-related quality of life.Trial registration number NCT00546806.