Systematic reviews related to this topic

loading
5 References (5 articles) loading Revert Studify

Systematic review

Unclassified

Surgery versus conservative care for neck pain: A systematic review

Journal European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society
Year 2013
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 9 Primary studies 9 Primary studies (9 references)

Loading references information
Objective: General practitioners refer patients with continued neck pain that do not respond well to conservative care frequently to secondary care for further assessment. Are surgical interventions to the cervical spine effective when compared to conservative care for patients with neck pain? Design: Systematic review. Method: The search strategy outlined by the Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) was followed. The primary search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PEDro up to June 2011. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of adults with neck pain, which evaluated at least one clinically relevant primary outcome measure (e.g. pain, functional status, recovery), were included. In addition, treatments had to include surgery and conservative care. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the CBRG and extracted the data. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE method. Results: Patients included had neck pain with or without radiculopathy or myelopathy. In total, three RCTs and six CCTs were identified comparing different surgical interventions with conservative care, of which one had a low risk of bias. Overall there is very low quality of evidence available on the effectiveness of surgery compared to conservative care in neck pain patients showing overall no differences. Conclusion: Most studies on surgical techniques comparing these to conservative care showed a high risk of bias. The benefit of surgery over conservative care is not clearly demonstrated. © 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Surgery for cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy.

blocked
Journal Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online)
Year 2010
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 2 Broad syntheses 6 Broad syntheses (2 references)

This article includes 9 Primary studies 6 Primary studies (9 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Cervical spondylosis causes pain and disability by compressing the spinal cord or roots. Surgery to relieve the compression may reduce the pain and disability, but is associated with a small but definite risk. . OBJECTIVES: To determine whether: 1) surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy is associated with improved outcome, compared with conservative management and 2) timing of surgery (immediate or delayed pending persistence/progression of relevant symptoms and signs) has an impact on outcome. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to 1998 for the original review. A revised search was run in CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (January 1998 to June 2008) to update the review.Authors of the identified randomised controlled trials were contacted for additional published or unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials allocating patients with cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy to 1) "medical management" or "decompressive surgery (with or without fusion) plus medical management" 2) "early decompressive surgery" or "delayed decompressive surgery". DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials (N = 149) were included. In both trials, allocation concealment was inadequate and arrangements for blinding of outcome assessment were unclear.One trial (81 patients with cervical radiculopathy) found that surgical decompression was superior to physiotherapy or cervical collar immobilization in the short-term for pain, weakness or sensory loss; at one year, there were no significant differences between groups.One trial (68 patients with mild functional deficit associated with cervical myelopathy) found no significant differences between surgery and conservative treatment in three years following treatment. A substantial proportion of cases were lost to follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Both small trials had significant risks of bias and do not provide reliable evidence on the effects of surgery for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy or myelopathy. It is unclear whether the short-term risks of surgery are offset by long-term benefits. Further research is very likely to have an impact on the estimate of effect and our confidence in it.There is low quality evidence that surgery may provide pain relief faster than physiotherapy or hard collar immobilization in patients with cervical radiculopathy; but there is little or no difference in the long-term.There is very low quality evidence that patients with mild myelopathy feel subjectively better shortly after surgery, but there is little or no difference in the long-term.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Manual therapy and exercise for neck pain: a systematic review.

Journal Manual therapy
Year 2010
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 1 Structured summary of systematic reviews 20 Structured summaries of systematic reviews (1 reference) 1 Broad synthesis 20 Broad syntheses (1 reference)

This article includes 27 Primary studies 20 Primary studies (27 references)

Loading references information
Manual therapy is often used with exercise to treat neck pain. This cervical overview group systematic review update assesses if manual therapy, including manipulation or mobilisation, combined with exercise improves pain, function/disability, quality of life, global perceived effect, and patient satisfaction for adults with neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radiculopathy. Computerized searches were performed to July 2009. Two or more authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Pooled relative risk (pRR) and standardized mean differences (pSMD) were calculated. Of 17 randomized controlled trials included, 29% had a low risk of bias. Low quality evidence suggests clinically important long-term improvements in pain (pSMD-0.87(95% CI: -1.69, -0.06)), function/disability, and global perceived effect when manual therapy and exercise are compared to no treatment. High quality evidence suggests greater short-term pain relief [pSMD-0.50(95% CI: -0.76, -0.24)] than exercise alone, but no long-term differences across multiple outcomes for (sub)acute/chronic neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache. Moderate quality evidence supports this treatment combination for pain reduction and improved quality of life over manual therapy alone for chronic neck pain; and suggests greater short-term pain reduction when compared to traditional care for acute whiplash. Evidence regarding radiculopathy was sparse. Specific research recommendations are made.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Clinical prediction rules for physical therapy interventions: a systematic review.

Journal Physical therapy
Year 2009
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 10 Primary studies 10 Primary studies (10 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) involving physical therapy interventions have been published recently. The quality of the studies used to develop the CPRs was not previously considered, a fact that has potential implications for clinical applications and future research. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the quality of published CPRs developed for physical therapy interventions. METHODS: Relevant databases were searched up to June 2008. Studies were included in this review if the explicit purpose was to develop a CPR for conditions commonly treated by physical therapists. Validated CPRs were excluded from this review. Study quality was independently determined by 3 reviewers using standard 18-item criteria for assessing the methodological quality of prognostic studies. Percentage of agreement was calculated for each criterion, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was determined for overall quality scores. RESULTS: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Percentage of agreement for individual criteria ranged from 90% to 100%, and the ICC for the overall quality score was .73 (95% confidence interval=.27-.92). Criteria commonly not met were adequate description of inclusion or exclusion criteria, inclusion of an inception cohort, adequate follow-up, masked assessments, sufficient sample sizes, and assessments of potential psychosocial factors. Quality scores for individual studies ranged from 48.2% to 74.0%. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Validation studies are rarely reported in the literature; therefore, CPRs derived from high-quality studies may have the best potential for use in clinical settings. Investigators planning future studies of physical therapy CPRs should consider including inception cohorts, using longer follow-up times, performing masked assessments, recruiting larger sample sizes, and incorporating psychological and psychosocial assessments.

Systematic review

Unclassified

A systematic literature review to identify the best method for a single level anterior cervical interbody fusion.

Journal European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society
Year 2000
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 1 Structured summary of systematic reviews 8 Structured summaries of systematic reviews (1 reference)

This article includes 8 Primary studies 8 Primary studies (8 references)

Loading references information
The goal of this systematic literature review was to determine, for patients with degenerative disc disease, which method of single-level anterior cervical interbody fusion using the anterior approach gives the best clinical and radiological outcome. The number of new techniques for obtaining a solid fusion has increased rapidly, but the rationale for choosing between different techniques is unclear. Randomised comparative studies on anterior cervical interbody fusions were identified in a sensitive Medline, Cochrane and Current Contents database search. Two independent reviewers evaluated the articles that met the selection criteria, using a checklist. The search yielded eight randomised, controlled trials for the systematic literature review. Three of these studies were judged to be of sufficient quality with regard to methodology and the information provided. In the three articles, five different treatment methods were investigated, four of which were interbody fusions. Fusion rates varied between 28% for an allograft method and 63% for a discectomy-alone method. In one study, kyphosis varied from 40% to 62% between treatments. Good clinical outcome (disability, pain and symptoms) ratings varied from 66% to 82%. A meta-analysis to determine the best method for an anterior interbody fusion could not be performed due to the heterogeneity of the methods reported and because no standard outcome parameter was used. From this systematic literature review, a gold standard for the treatment of degenerative disc disease could not be identified.