MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417155373 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd011225.pub2

Manual therapy with exercise for neck pain

2025· article· en· W4417155373 sur OpenAlexaff
Nejin Chacko, Anita Gross, Jordan Miller, Pasqualina Santaguida, Stephen J Burnie, Geoffrey Gelley, Jean-Philippe Paquin, Mujeeb-Rehman Duranai, Pierre Langevin, Neha Chopra-Tandon, Nga Ting Natalie Chak, Jan L. Hoving, Pavlos Bobos

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Établissements canadiensCanadian Physiotherapy AssociationUniversité LavalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationWestern UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster UniversityQueen's UniversityUniversité du Québec à ChicoutimiCanadian Chiropractic AssociationCanadian Memorial Chiropractic College
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésManual therapyNeck painProtocol (science)Exercise therapyConfidence intervalMEDLINE

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Manual therapy and exercise are supported by evidence of effectiveness as single modal interventions for neck pain; however, their combined effect remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of manual therapy with exercise versus placebo or no treatment for acute to chronic neck pain with or without radicular symptoms or cervicogenic headache in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Index to Chiropractic Literature, trial registries) together with reference checking and handsearching up to 5 March 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included parallel, cross-over, or cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with neck pain, which compared manual therapy and exercise with placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies in people with myelopathy or headaches not of cervical origin. OUTCOMES: Our outcomes were pain intensity, function or disability, health-related quality of life, participant-reported treatment success, and serious or non-serious adverse events, measured at short-term and long-term follow-up. RISK OF BIAS: We used RoB 1 plus an additional six items to assess bias in the included studies. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We synthesised results for each outcome using meta-analysis or, when not possible, SWiM methods. We used random-effects models to calculate mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous outcomes, and risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI for adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included nine RCTs (seven parallel, two cross-over) with a total of 694 participants. Studies were conducted in outpatient settings across North America, Europe, Central Asia, East Asia, and the Pacific. Manual therapy with exercise was compared with placebo (two studies) or no treatment (seven studies). Participants were 76% female, with a mean age of 46 years and mean pain severity of 4.75 on a 0 to 10 scale. Six studies (67%) reported receiving institutional or government funding. The disorder classification included chronic (n = 8) and subacute (n = 1) neck pain. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: The main biases affecting our findings were selection (44%), performance (100%), detection (100%), and reporting bias (78%). Performance bias is an inherent limitation in manual therapy and exercise RCTs, while detection bias was unavoidable due to reliance on self-reported outcomes. All data reflect short-term follow-up (closest to four weeks). Manual therapy with exercise versus placebo (short-term) Manual therapy with exercise may result in: 1) little or no difference in pain, which was a mean of 3.35 with placebo and showed little to no improvement of 0.91 points (95% CI 1.85 better to 0.04 worse) on a 0 to 10 scale, where a lower score indicates less pain (I² = 0%; 2 studies, 114 participants; low-certainty evidence due to imprecision, performance and detection bias); 2) moderate increase in function, which was a mean of 21.50 with placebo and improved by 10.20 points (95% CI 16.84 better to 3.56 better) on a 0 to 100 scale where 0 indicates best function (I² = 0%; 2 studies, 115 participants); this represents transformed data (SMD 0.77 better, 95% CI 1.15 better to 0.39 better; low-certainty evidence due to imprecision, performance and detection bias); 3) little or no improvement in health-related quality of life, which was a mean of 52.10 with placebo and slightly improved by 2.00 points (95% CI 5.78 better to 1.78 worse) on the Short Form-12 0 to 100 scale, where 0 indicates better quality of life (1 study, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence due to imprecision, performance and detection bias). Data on participant-reported treatment success and adverse effects were not available. Manual therapy with exercise versus no treatment (short-term) Manual therapy with exercise may result in: 1) large reduction in pain, which was a mean of 4.01 with no treatment and had a large reduction of 2.44 points (95% CI 3.23 better to 1.65 better) on a 0 to 10 scale where a lower score indicates less pain (I² = 66%; 7 studies, 360 participants; low-certainty evidence due to imprecision, performance and detection bias); 2) moderate improvement in function, which was a mean of 22.38 with no treatment and improved by 13.84 points (95% CI 25.24 better to 2.44 better) on a 0 to 100 scale where 0 indicates best function (I² = 92%; 5 studies, 303 participants; low-certainty evidence due to imprecision, performance and detection bias); 3) moderate improvement in health-related quality of life, which was a mean of 53.60 with no treatment and improved by 24.80 points (95% CI 31.38 better to 18.22 better) on the Short Form-36 0 to 100 scale, where 0 indicates better quality of life (1 study, 65 participants; low-certainty evidence due to imprecision, performance and detection bias); 4) very uncertain evidence for participant-reported treatment success (SMD 2.57 better, 95% CI 5.08 better to 0.05 better; I² = 97%; 2 studies, 163 participants; very low-certainty evidence due to inconsistency, imprecision, performance and detection bias); the large confidence interval spans no meaningful difference to a large effect; 5) little to no difference in non-serious adverse events; the evidence showed a 2% absolute risk increase in non-serious adverse events such as transient soreness, headache, or dizziness (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.08 to 29.21; I² = 45%; 2 studies, 163 participants; low-certainty evidence due to imprecision, performance and detection bias). Data were not available on serious adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The combination of manual therapy with exercise may result in a moderate increase in function but no reduction in pain when compared with placebo for primarily chronic neck pain. A large reduction in pain and moderate increase in function may result when comparing manual therapy with exercise with no treatment. Only non-serious adverse events were reported. Other outcomes had varied certainty. Data on participant-reported treatment success and adverse effects were unavailable for the placebo control group. Improved reporting on interventional procedures, dose, and adherence monitoring in larger trials is required. Future trials on acute and subacute neck pain are needed due to limited evidence. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via: DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011225.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Étiquettes directes de modèles (non validées)

Étiquettes de catégorie et de devis d'étude par modèle, issues des rondes d'étiquetage. C'est une sortie machine, non validée, et le désaccord entre modèles est livré comme donnée. Aucun devis ici n'est encore validé contre MEDLINE.

BrasCatégoriesDevis d'étudeConfiance
gemmaaucune catégorie
Domaine: non disponible · Genre: Synthèse
Porte sur le système de recherche canadien: non · Porte sur un sujet canadien: non
Revue systématiquelow
gptaucune catégorie
Domaine: non disponible · Genre: Synthèse
Porte sur le système de recherche canadien: non · Porte sur un sujet canadien: non
Revue systématiquehigh
modèles en accordL'accord compare des ensembles de catégories et des devis identiques entre les bras.

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,012
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,031
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,104

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0120,034
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,004
Bibliométrie0,0050,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,003
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0310,004

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,037
Tête enseignante GPT0,358
Écart entre enseignants0,320 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Étiqueté directement par 2 modèles lisant le dossier complet.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsMême sujetMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationTravaux en français237 207