A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Manual Therapy for Neck Pain Caused by Traffic Accidents

Abstract Objectives Acute as well as chronic pain syndromes are common after whiplash trauma and exercise therapy is proposed as one possible intervention strategy. The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate the effect of exercise therapy in patients with Whiplash-Associated Disorders for the improvement of neck pain and neck disability, compared with other therapeutic interventions, placebo interventions, no treatment, or waiting list. Content The review was registered in Prospero (CRD42017060356) and conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A literature search in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane from inception until January 13, 2020 was combined with a hand search to identify eligible randomized controlled studies. Abstract screening, full text assessment and risk of bias assessment (Cochrane RoB 2.0) were conducted by two independent reviewers. Summary The search identified 4,103 articles. After removal of duplicates, screening of 2,921 abstracts and full text assessment of 100 articles, 27 articles that reported data for 2,127 patients were included. The included articles evaluated the effect of exercise therapy on neck pain, neck disability or other outcome measures and indicated some positive effects from exercise, but many studies lacked control groups not receiving active treatment. Studies on exercise that could be included in the random-effect meta-analysis showed significant short-term effects on neck pain and medium-term effects on neck disability. Outlook Despite a large number of articles published in the area of exercise therapy and Whiplash-Associated Disorders, the current evidence base is weak. The results from the present review with meta-analysis suggests that exercise therapy may provide additional effect for improvement of neck pain and disability in patients with Whiplash-Associated Disorders.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of electrophysical modalities in the sensorimotor rehabilitation of radial, ulnar, and median neuropathies: A meta-analysis

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0248484 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 16 (3) ◽

pp. e0248484

Author(s):

Ena Bula-Oyola ◽

Juan-Manuel Belda-Lois ◽

Rosa Porcar-Seder ◽

Álvaro Page

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Functional Status ◽

Median Nerve ◽

Manual Therapy ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Low Level ◽

Low Level Laser ◽

Level Laser

Introduction People with ulnar, radial or median nerve injuries can present significant impairment of their sensory and motor functions. The prescribed treatment for these conditions often includes electrophysical therapies, whose effectiveness in improving symptoms and function is a source of debate. Therefore, this systematic review aims to provide an integrative overview of the efficacy of these modalities in sensorimotor rehabilitation compared to placebo, manual therapy, or between them. Methods We conducted a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. We perform a literature review in the following databases: Biomed Central, Ebscohost, Lilacs, Ovid, PEDro, Sage, Scopus, Science Direct, Semantic Scholar, Taylor & Francis, and Web of Science, for the period 1980–2020. We include studies that discussed the sensorimotor rehabilitation of people with non-degenerative ulnar, radial, or median nerve injury. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Risk of Bias Tool described in the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the risk of bias across studies with the GRADE approach described in the GRADE Handbook. Results Thirty-eight studies were included in the systematic review and 34 in the meta-analysis. The overall quality of evidence was rated as low or very low according to GRADE criteria. Low-level laser therapy and ultrasound showed favourable results in improving symptom severity and functional status compared to manual therapy. In addition, the low level laser showed improvements in pinch strength compared to placebo and pain (VAS) compared to manual therapy. Splints showed superior results to electrophysical modalities. The clinical significance of the results was assessed by effect size estimation and comparison with the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Conclusions We found favourable results in pain relief, improvement of symptoms, functional status, and neurophysiological parameters for some electrophysical modalities, mainly when applied with a splint. Our results coincide with those obtained in some meta-analyses. However, none of these can be considered clinically significant. Trial registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42020168792; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=168792.

Download Full-text

https://painphysicianjournal.com/current

January 2018 - Pain Physician ◽

10.36076/ppj.2020/23/335 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 4;23 (7;4) ◽

pp. 335-348

Author(s):

Nicholas Van Halm-Lutterodt

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Pain Relief ◽

Neck Pain ◽

Functional Status ◽

Spinal Stenosis ◽

Local Anesthetic ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Chronic Neck Pain ◽

Epidural Injections ◽

Significant Difference

Background: Chronic neck pain is reportedly considered the fourth leading cause of disability. Cervical interlaminar epidural injections are among the commonly administered nonsurgical interventions for managing chronic neck pain, secondary to disc herniation and radiculitis, spinal stenosis, or chronic neck pain of discogenic origin. Objectives: To systematically review the differences in the effectiveness of cervical epidural injections with local anesthetics with or without steroids for the management of chronic neck pain. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids was performed, including a search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for all years up to May 2019. Meta-analysis was done for pain relief based on the Numeric Rating Scale, functional status based on the Neck Disability Index, and opioid intake dosage. Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 370 patients were divided into 2 groups: the experimental group received cervical epidural injection with steroid and local anesthetic, and the control group received injection with local anesthetic only. Regrading pain relief, no significant difference was observed between both groups (weighted mean difference [WMD], –0.006; 95% confidence interval (CI), –0.275 to 0.263; P = 0.963; I2 = 0.0% at 12 months). There was also no significant difference in the improvement of the functional status (WMD, 0.159; 95% CI, –1.231 to 1.549; P = 0.823; I2 = 9.8% at 12 months). Similarly, there was no significant difference in opioid dosage (WMD, –0.093; 95% CI, –5.952 to 5.766; P = 0.975; I2 = 0.0% at 12 months). Limitations: Only a few studies on this premise were found in the literature. There was also a lack of heterogeneity of the included RCT studies. Conclusions: The addition of steroids to anesthetic injectates was not associated with better pain and functional score outcomes compared with anesthetic injectate alone in patients with chronic neck pain. Key words: Chronic neck pain, cervical radiculopathy, cervical disc disease, spinal stenosis, facet joint pathology, cervical epidural injections, steroid injections, local anesthetic injections, systematic review, meta-analysis, randomized control trial

Download Full-text