MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407035870 · doi:10.1186/s13643-024-02737-4

Comparative effectiveness of manual therapy, pharmacological treatment, exercise therapy, and education for neck pain (COMPETE study): protocol of a systematic review with network meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4407035870 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Izabela Sobral de Oliveira‐Souza, Jordana Barbosa-Silva, Douglas P. Gross, Bruno R. da Costa, Nikolaus Ballenberger, Tiago Pereira, Liz Dennett, Susan Armijo‐Olivo

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Alberta
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisProtocol (science)Neck painPhysical therapyManual therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT OF THE STUDY: Neck pain is a prevalent and globally burdensome problem. Clinical practice guidelines have recommended conservative treatments such as education, exercise therapy (ET), manual therapy (MT), and pharmacological therapy (i.e., medication) to manage all types of neck pain based on the chronicity of the disease (acute, subacute, and chronic pain). However, there is scarce evidence to determine which interventions constitute the most effective strategy for this condition. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the best conservative treatment options (i.e., ET, MT, education, and/or medication) to relieve pain and disability-related outcomes in patients with neck pain? THE OVERALL PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: (1) To identify which type of conservative treatment (education, ET, MT, and/or medication) and their combinations have the greatest probability of being most effective for neck pain using a network meta-analysis (NMA) approach. (2) To rank these conservative treatments in terms of safety (when possible) and effectiveness for managing neck pain. METHODOLOGY: Systematic review (SR) with NMA of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies should include adults (aged > 18) with neck pain who received any of the interventions of interest (education, ET, MT, and medication). The main outcome will be pain intensity. Searches will be conducted in Ovid Medline All®, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Scopus, and Cochrane Library Trials database. No language or publication date restrictions will be applied. The revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias (RoB) tool for RCTs (RoB-2) will be used to evaluate RoB, and the certainty of evidence will be evaluated by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE). NMAs will be conducted to rank interventions according to their effectiveness and safety (when possible), allowing a comprehensive analysis of all available evidence, with different nodes specified for all conservative interventions of interest, placebo, sham therapy, and non-intervention control. This NMA will help clinicians and the scientific community choose the most effective strategy or combinations of strategies for treating neck pain. The information gathered in this project will inform decision-making and guide personalized care of individual patients in the future.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0400.006
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207