MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders

2005· review· en· W4211130724 on OpenAlexaff
Theresa Kay, Anita Gross, Charles H. Goldsmith, Jan L. Hoving, Gert Brønfort

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityBaycrest HospitalSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Neck disorders are common, limit function, and are costly to individuals and society. Exercise therapy is a commonly used treatment for neck pain. The effectiveness of exercise therapy remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of exercise therapy to relieve pain, or improve function, disability, patient satisfaction, and global perceived effect in adults with mechanical neck disorders (MND). SEARCH STRATEGY: Computerised bibliographic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, CINAHL, and ICL were searched, without language restrictions, from their beginning up to March 2004, and reference lists of articles were scanned. SELECTION CRITERIA: Selected studies were randomised [RCTs] or quasi-randomised trials and investigated the use of exercise therapy as a treatment in adults with MND with or without headache or radicular signs and symptoms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently conducted citation identification, study selection, data abstraction, and methodological quality assessment. Using a random effects model, relative risk and standardized mean differences were calculated. The reasonableness of combining studies was assessed on clinical and statistical grounds. In the absence of heterogeneity, pooled effect measures were calculated. When trials were considered homogenous, results were summarised using a rating system of five levels of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-one trials were selected, 19% (van Tulder criteria) to 35% (Jadad scale) had high quality. There is limited evidence of benefit that acute range of motion (AROM) may reduce pain in acute MND (whiplash associated disorder (WAD)) in the short term. There is moderate evidence of benefit that neck strengthening exercises reduce pain, improve function and global perceived effect for chronic neck disorder with headache in the short and long term. There is unclear evidence regarding the impact of a stretching and strengthening program on pain, function and global perceived effect for MND. However, when this stretching and strengthening program focuses on the cervical or cervical and shoulder/thoracic region, there is moderate evidence of benefit on pain in chronic MND [pooled SMD -0.42 (95%CI: -0.83 to -0.01)] and neck disorder plus headache, in the short and long term. There is strong evidence of benefit favouring a multimodal care approach of exercise combined with mobilisation or manipulation for subacute and chronic MND with or without headache, in the short and long term. A program of eye fixation or proprioception exercises imbedded in a more complete program shows moderate evidence of benefit for pain [pooled SMD -0.72 (95% CI:-1.12 to -0.32)], function, and global perceived for chronic MND in the short term, and on pain and function for acute and subacute MND with headache or WAD in the long term. There is limited evidence of benefit on pain relief in the short term for a home mobilisation program with other physical modalities over a program of rest then gradual mobilisation for acute MND or WAD. There was evidence of no difference between the different exercise approaches. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence summarised in this systematic review indicates that specific exercises may be effective for the treatment of acute and chronic MND, with or without headache. To be of benefit, a stretching and strengthening exercise program should concentrate on the musculature of the cervical, shoulder-thoracic area, or both. A multimodal care approach of exercise, combined with mobilisation or manipulation for subacute and chronic MND with or without headache, reduced pain, improved function, and global perceived effect in the short and long term. The relative benefit of other treatments (such as physical modalities) compared with exercise or between different exercise programs needs to be explored. The quality of future trials should improve through more effective 'blinding' procedures and better control of compliance and co-intervention. Phase II trials would help identify the most effective treatment characteristics and dosages.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.002

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations188
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207