Systematic reviews including this primary study

loading
2 articles (2 References) loading Revert Studify

Systematic review

Unclassified

Are psychological interventions effective for the management of neck pain and whiplash-associated disorders? A systematic review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration

blocked
Journal The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society
Year 2016
Links Pubmed DOI
Loading references information
Background Context In 2008, the lack of published evidence prevented the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force [NPTF]) from commenting on the effectiveness of psychological interventions for the management of neck pain. Purpose This study aimed to update findings of the NPTF and evaluate the effectiveness of psychological interventions for the management of neck pain and associated disorders (NAD) or whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). Study Design/setting This study used systematic review and best-evidence synthesis. Sample Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies comparing psychological interventions to other non-invasive interventions or no intervention were the samples used in this study. Outcome measures The outcome measures are (1) self-rated recovery; (2) functional recovery; (3) clinical outcomes; (4) administrative outcomes; and (5) adverse effects. Methods We searched six databases from 1990 to 2015. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies meeting our selection criteria were eligible for critical appraisal. Random pairs of independent reviewers used the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria to critically appraise eligible studies. Studies with a low risk of bias were synthesized following best evidence synthesis principles. This study was funded by the Ontario Ministry of Finance. Results We screened 1,919 articles, 19 were eligible for critical appraisal and 10 were judged to have low risk of bias. We found no clear evidence supporting relaxation training or cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for persistent grades I–III NAD for reducing pain intensity or disability. Similarly, we did not find evidence to support the effectiveness of biofeedback or relaxation training for persistent grade II WAD, and there is conflicting evidence for the use of CBT in this population. However, adding a progressive goal attainment program to functional restoration physiotherapy may benefit patients with persistent grades I–III WAD. Furthermore, Jyoti meditation may help reduce neck pain intensity and bothersomeness in patients with persistent NAD. Conclusions We did not find evidence for or against the use of psychological interventions in patients with recent onset NAD or WAD. We found evidence that a progressive goal attainment program may be helpful for the management of persistent WAD and that Jyoti meditation may benefit patients with persistent NAD. The limited evidence of effectiveness for psychological interventions may be due to several factors, such as interventions that are ineffective, poorly conceptualized, or poorly implemented. Further methodologically rigorous research is needed. © 2015 Elsevier Inc.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Cognitive-behavioural treatment for subacute and chronic neck pain.

Journal Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year 2015
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central
Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Although research on non-surgical treatments for neck pain (NP) is progressing, there remains uncertainty about the efficacy of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for this population. Addressing cognitive and behavioural factors might reduce the clinical burden and the costs of NP in society. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of CBT among individuals with subacute and chronic NP. Specifically, the following comparisons were investigated: (1) cognitive-behavioural therapy versus placebo, no treatment, or waiting list controls; (2) cognitive-behavioural therapy versus other types of interventions; (3) cognitive-behavioural therapy in addition to another intervention (e.g. physiotherapy) versus the other intervention alone. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to November 2014. Reference lists and citations of identified trials and relevant systematic reviews were screened. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the use of CBT in adults with subacute and chronic NP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in each study and extracted the data. If sufficient homogeneity existed among studies in the pre-defined comparisons, a meta-analysis was performed. We determined the quality of the evidence for each comparison with the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 randomised trials (836 participants) in this review. Four trials (40%) had low risk of bias, the remaining 60% of trials had a high risk of bias.The quality of the evidence for the effects of CBT on patients with chronic NP was from very low to moderate. There was low quality evidence that CBT was better than no treatment for improving pain (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to -0.16), disability (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.01), and quality of life (SMD -0.93, 95% CI -1.54 to -0.31) at short-term follow-up, while there was from very low to low quality evidence of no effect on various psychological indicators at short-term follow-up. Both at short- and intermediate-term follow-up, CBT did not affect pain (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.21, low quality, at short-term follow-up; MD -0.89, 95% CI -2.73 to 0.94, low quality, at intermediate-term follow-up) or disability (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.20, moderate quality, at short-term follow-up; SMD -0.24, 95% CI-0.54 to 0.07, moderate quality, at intermediate-term follow-up) compared to other types of interventions. There was moderate quality evidence that CBT was better than other interventions for improving kinesiophobia at intermediate-term follow-up (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.08, I(2) = 0%). Finally, there was very low quality evidence that CBT in addition to another intervention did not differ from the other intervention alone in terms of effect on pain (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.02) and disability (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.36) at short-term follow-up.For patients with subacute NP, there was low quality evidence that CBT was better than other interventions at reducing pain at short-term follow-up (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.00), while no difference was found in terms of effect on disability (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.12) and kinesiophobia.None of the included studies reported on adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: With regard to chronic neck pain, CBT was found to be statistically significantly more effective for short-term pain reduction only when compared to no treatment, but these effects could not be considered clinically meaningful. When comparing both CBT to other types of interventions and CBT in addition to another intervention to the other intervention alone, no differences were found. For patients with subacute NP, CBT was significantly better than other types of interventions at reducing pain at short-term follow-up, while no difference was found for disability and kinesiophobia. Further research is recommended to investigate the long-term benefits and risks of CBT including for the different subgroups of subjects with NP.