MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912437980 · doi:10.1002/ejp.1374

Non‐pharmacological management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain: A clinical practice guideline from the Ontario protocol for traffic injury management (OPTIMa) collaboration

2019· review· en· W2912437980 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Pierre Côté, Hainan Yu, Heather M. Shearer, Kristi Randhawa, Jessica J. Wong, Silvano Mior, Arthur Ameis, Linda Carroll, Margareta Nordin, Sharanya Varatharajan, Deborah Sutton, Danielle Southerst, Craig Jacobs, Maja Stupar, Anne Taylor‐Vaisey, Douglas P. Gross, Robert J. Brison, Mike Paulden, Carlo Ammendolia, J. David Cassidy, Patrick Loisel, Shawn Marshall, Richard N. Bohay, John Stapleton, Michel Lacerte

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Pain · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalOpen Text (Canada)University of OttawaWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Work & HealthKingston General HospitalMount Sinai HospitalQueen's UniversityAlberta Health ServicesPublic Health OntarioCentre for Disability Prevention and RehabilitationUniversity of AlbertaOntario Tech UniversityCanadian Memorial Chiropractic College
FundersOntario Chiropractic AssociationAlberta InnovatesMinistry of FinanceMitacsCanada Research ChairsOntario Trillium FoundationSkoll FoundationFinancial Services CommissionArthritis SocietyCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Ontario Institute of TechnologyNCMIC Foundation
KeywordsGuidelinePain managementHeadachesProtocol (science)MedicineNeck painPhysical therapyAlternative medicineSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To develop an evidence-based guideline for the non-pharmacological management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain (i.e., tension-type or cervicogenic). METHODS: This guideline is based on systematic reviews of high-quality studies. A multidisciplinary expert panel considered the evidence of clinical benefits, cost-effectiveness, societal and ethical values, and patient experiences when formulating recommendations. Target audience includes clinicians; target population is adults with persistent headaches associated with neck pain. RESULTS: When managing patients with headaches associated with neck pain, clinicians should (a) rule out major structural or other pathologies, or migraine as the cause of headaches; (b) classify headaches associated with neck pain as tension-type headache or cervicogenic headache once other sources of headache pathology has been ruled out; (c) provide care in partnership with the patient and involve the patient in care planning and decision making; (d) provide care in addition to structured patient education; (e) consider low-load endurance craniocervical and cervicoscapular exercises for tension-type headaches (episodic or chronic) or cervicogenic headaches >3 months duration; (f) consider general exercise, multimodal care (spinal mobilization, craniocervical exercise and postural correction) or clinical massage for chronic tension-type headaches; (g) do not offer manipulation of the cervical spine as the sole form of treatment for episodic or chronic tension-type headaches; (h) consider manual therapy (manipulation with or without mobilization) to the cervical and thoracic spine for cervicogenic headaches >3 months duration. However, there is no added benefit in combining spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization and exercises; and (i) reassess the patient at every visit to assess outcomes and determine whether a referral is indicated. CONCLUSIONS: Our evidence-based guideline provides recommendations for the conservative management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain. The impact of the guideline in clinical practice requires validation. SIGNIFICANCE: Neck pain and headaches are very common comorbidities in the population. Tension-type and cervicogenic headaches can be treated effectively with specific exercises. Manual therapy can be considered as an adjunct therapy to exercise to treat patients with cervicogenic headaches. The management of tension-type and cervicogenic headaches should be patient-centred.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations121
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of PainSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207