A Cochrane Review of Electrotherapy for Mechanical Neck Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. Systematic review. Objective. To assess whether electrotherapy relieves pain or improves function/disability in adults with mechanical neck disorders (MND). Summary of Background Data. The effectiveness of electrotherapy as a physiotherapy option has remained unclear. Methods. Databases were searched from root to March 2003. Independent reviewers conducted selection, data abstraction, and quality assessment. Relative risk and standard mean differences were calculated. Results. Fourteen comparisons were included. For the pain outcome, we found limited evidence of benefit, ie, pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy resulted in only immediate post-treatment pain relief for chronic MND and acute whiplash (WAD). Other findings included unclear or conflicting evidence (Galvanic current for acute or chronic occipital headache; iontophoresis for acute, subacute WAD; TENS for acute WAD, chronic MND; PEMF for medium- or long-term effects in acute WAD, chronic MND); and limited evidence of no benefit (diadynamic current for reduction of trigger point tenderness in chronic MND, cervicogenic headache; permanent magnets for chronic MND; electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) for chronic MND). Conclusions. In pain as well as other outcomes, the evidence for treatment of acute or chronic MND by different forms of electrotherapy is either lacking, limited, or conflicting. This Cochrane systematic review of 14 comparisons did not allow definitive statements to be made on electrotherapy for mechanical neck disorders. The evidence for electrotherapy (Galvanic current, iontophoresis, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, electrical muscle stimulation, pulsed electromagnetic fields, permanent magnetic fields) is either lacking, limited, or conflicting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".