Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment.
BACKGROUND Manipulation and mobilisation are commonly used to treat neck pain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2010. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of manipulation or mobilisation alone compared wiith those of an inactive control or another active treatment on pain, function, disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults experiencing neck pain with or without radicular symptoms and cervicogenic headache (CGH) at immediate to long term follow up. When appropriate, to assess the influence of treatment characteristics (i.e. technique, dosage) methodological quality, symptom duration and subtypes of neck disorder on treatment outcomes. SEARCH METHODS Review authors searched the following computerised databases to November 2014 to identify additional studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to find relevant studies. We updated this search in June 2015, but these results have not yet been incorporated. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken to assess whether manipulation or mobilisation improves clinical outcomes for adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and applied Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods (very low, low, moderate, high quality) We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) MAIN RESULTS We included 51 trials (2920 participants, 18 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus control; 34 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus another treatment, 1 trial had two comparisons) Cervical manipulation versus inactive control: For subacute and chronic neck pain, a single manipulation (three trials, no meta analysis, 154 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) relieved pain at immediate but not short term follow up. Cervical manipulation versus another active treatment: For acute and chronic neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 446 participants, ranged from moderate to high quality) produced similar changes in pain, function, quality of life (QoL) global perceived effect (GPE) and patient satisfaction when compared with multiple sessions of cervical mobilisation at immediate short and intermediate term follow up. For acute and subacute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation were more effective than certain medications in improving pain and function at immediate (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality) and long term follow up (one trial, 181 participants, moderate quality) These findings are consistent for function at intermediate term follow up (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality) For chronic CGH, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 125 participants, low quality) may be more effective than massage in improving pain and function at short/intermediate term follow up. Multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 65 participants, very low quality) may be favoured over transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain reduction at short term follow up. For acute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 20 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than thoracic manipulation in improving pain and function at short/intermediate term follow up. Thoracic manipulation versus inactive control: Three trials (150 participants) using a single session were assessed at immediate short and intermediate term follow up. At short term follow up, manipulation improved pain in participants with acute and subacute neck pain (five trials, 346 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.86 to 0.66) and improved function (four trials, 258 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD 1.40, 95% CI 2.24 to 0.55) in participants with acute and chronic neck pain. A funnel plot of these data suggests publication bias. These findings were consistent at intermediate follow up for pain/function/quality of life (one trial, 111 participants, low quality) Thoracic manipulation versus another active treatment: No studies provided sufficient data for statistical analyses. A single session of thoracic manipulation (one trial, 100 participants, moderate quality) was comparable with thoracic mobilisation for pain relief at immediate term follow up for chronic neck pain. Mobilisation versus inactive control: Mobilisation as a stand alone intervention (two trials, 57 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) may not reduce pain more than an inactive control. Mobilisation versus another active treatment: For acute and subacute neck pain, anterior posterior mobilisation (one trial, 95 participants, very low quality) may favour pain reduction over rotatory or transverse mobilisations at immediate term follow up. For chronic CGH with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, multiple sessions of TMJ manual therapy (one trial, 38 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than cervical mobilisation in improving pain/function at immediate and intermediate term follow up. For subacute and chronic neck pain, cervical mobilisation alone (four trials, 165 participants, ranged from low to very low quality) may not be different from ultrasound, TENS, acupuncture and massage in improving pain, function, QoL and participant satisfaction at immediate and intermediate term follow up. Additionally, combining laser with manipulation may be superior to using manipulation or laser alone (one trial, 56 participants, very low quality) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Although support can be found for use of thoracic manipulation versus control for neck pain, function and QoL, results for cervical manipulation and mobilisation versus control are few and diverse. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Research designed to protect against various biases is needed. Findings suggest that manipulation and mobilisation present similar results for every outcome at immediate/short/intermediate term follow up. Multiple cervical manipulation sessions may provide better pain relief and functional improvement than certain medications at immediate/intermediate/long term follow up. Since the risk of rare but serious adverse events for manipulation exists, further high quality research focusing on mobilisation and comparing mobilisation or manipulation versus other treatment options is needed to guide clinicians in their optimal treatment choices.
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews