Biomedical subjects

A R Gross

Publications and source records attributed to A R Gross.

13 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Acupuncture for neck disorders.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is one of the three most frequently reported complaints of the musculoskeletal system. Treatments for neck pain are varied, as are the perceptions of benefits. Acupuncture has been used as an alternative to more traditional treatments for musculoskeletal pain. This review summarizes the most current scientific evidence on the effectiveness of acupuncture for acute, subacute and chronic neck pain. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of acupuncture for individuals with neck pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (2006, issue 1) and MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, CINAHL from their beginning to February 2006. We searched reference lists and the acupuncture database TCMLARS in China. SELECTION CRITERIA: Any published trial using randomized (RCT) or quasi-randomized (quasi-RCT) assignment to the intervention groups, either in full text or abstract form, were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers made independent decisions for each step of the review: article inclusion, data abstraction and assessment of trial methodological quality. Study quality was assessed using the Jadad criteria. Consensus was used to resolve disagreements. When clinical heterogeneity was absent, we combined studies using random-effects meta-analysis models. MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any trials that examined the effects of acupuncture for acute or subacute pain, but we found 10 trials that examined acupuncture treatments for chronic neck pain. Overall, methodological quality had a mean of 2.3/5 on the Jadad Scale. For chronic mechanical neck disorders, there was moderate evidence that acupuncture was more effective for pain relief than some types of sham controls, measured immediately post-treatment. There was moderate evidence that acupuncture was more effective than inactive, sham treatments measured immediately post-treatment and at short-term follow-up (pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.61 to -0.12). There was limited evidence that acupuncture was more effective than massage at short-term follow-up. For chronic neck disorders with radicular symptoms, there was moderate evidence that acupuncture was more effective than a wait-list control at short-term follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate evidence that acupuncture relieves pain better than some sham treatments, measured at the end of the treatment. There is moderate evidence that those who received acupuncture reported less pain at short term follow-up than those on a waiting list. There is also moderate evidence that acupuncture is more effective than inactive treatments for relieving pain post-treatment and this is maintained at short-term follow-up.

Acupuncture Therapy↗

PubMed2006

Massage for mechanical neck disorders.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical neck disorders (MND) are common, disabling and costly. Massage is a commonly used modality for the treatment of neck pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of massage on pain, function, patient satisfaction and cost of care in adults with neck pain. To document adverse effects of treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, CINAHL, and ICL databases were electronically searched, without language restriction, from their inception to September 2004 SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies using random or quasi-random assignment were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently conducted citation identification, study selection, data abstraction and methodological quality assessment. Using a random-effects model, we calculated the relative risk and standardized mean difference. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen trials met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the methodological quality was low, with 12/19 assessed as low-quality studies. Trials could not be statistically pooled because of heterogeneity in treatment and control groups. Therefore, a levels-of-evidence approach was used to synthesize results. Assessment of the clinical applicability of the trials showed that the participant characteristics were well reported, but neither the descriptions of the massage intervention nor the credentials or experience of the massage professionals were well reported. Six trials examined massage as a stand-alone treatment. The results were inconsistent. Of the 14 trials that used massage as part of a multimodal intervention, none were designed such that the relative contribution of massage could be ascertained. Therefore, the role of massage in multimodal treatments remains unclear. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No recommendations for practice can be made at this time because the effectiveness of massage for neck pain remains uncertain. Pilot studies are needed to characterize massage treatment (frequency, duration, number of sessions, and massage technique) and establish the optimal treatment to be used in subsequent larger trials that examine the effect of massage as either a stand-alone treatment or part of a multimodal intervention. For multimodal interventions, factorial designs are needed to determine the relative contribution of massage. Future reports of trials should improve reporting of the concealment of allocation, blinding of outcome assessor, adverse events and massage characteristics. Standards of reporting for massage interventions, similar to CONSORT, are needed. Both short- and long-term follow-up are needed.

Humans↗

PubMed2004

Manipulation and mobilisation for mechanical neck disorders.

BACKGROUND: Neck disorders are common, disabling, and costly. The effectiveness of manipulation and mobilisation remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether manipulation and mobilisation, either alone or in combination with other treatments, 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 respective starting dates to March 2002. SELECTION CRITERIA: The studies had to be randomised (RCT) or quasi-randomised and investigate the use of manipulation or mobilisation as a treatment for mechanical neck disorders. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers conducted citation identification, study selection, data abstraction, and methodological quality assessment. Using a random effects model, relative risk and standardised 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. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 33 selected trials, 42% were high quality trials. Single sessions of manipulation or multiple sessions (3 to 11 weeks) of manipulation or mobilisation, or manipulation and mobilisation showed a nonsignificant benefit in pain relief when assessed against placebo, control groups or other treatments for acute/subacute/chronic MNDs with or without headache. There was strong evidence of benefit favouring multimodal care over a waiting list control for pain reduction [pooled SMD -0.85 (95% CI: -1.20 to -0.50)], improvement in function [pooled SMD -0.57 (95% CI: -0.94 to -0.21)] and global perceived effect [SMD -2.73 (95% CI: -3.30 to -2.16)] for subacute/chronic MND with or without headache. The common elements in this care strategy were mobilisation and/or manipulation plus exercise. There was moderate evidence of no difference in effect when multimodal care was compared to various other treatments. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Multimodal care has short-term and long-term maintained benefits for subacute/chronic MND with or without headache. The common elements in this care strategy were mobilisation and/or manipulation plus exercise. The evidence did not favour manipulation and/or mobilisation done alone or in combination with various other physical medicine agents; when compared to one another, neither was superior. There was insufficient evidence available to draw conclusions for neck disorder with radicular findings. The added benefit of exercise needs to be further explored. Factorial design would help determine the active treatment agent(s) within a treatment mix. Phase II trials would help identify the most effective treatment characteristics and dosages. Greater attention to methodological quality is needed.

Humans↗

PubMed2002

A survey to examine attitudes and patterns of practice of physiotherapists who perform cervical spine manipulation.

As part of the process of developing a Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) on cervical spine manipulation (CSM), a working group sent out an 82-item postal survey to 150 randomly selected Ontario physiotherapists (PTs) who perform spinal manipulation, to collect information on the socio-demographics, practices, opinions of risk, and attitudes towards CPGs of these PTs (n = 118; response rate = 79%). Of the 118 respondents who performed spinal manipulation, 41 performed CSM. Respondents strongly agreed with three out of six indications listed in the survey for applying CSM: segmental fixation, stiff but stable joint, internal derangement (over 70%). Respondents also strongly agreed (over 88%) that all screening tests listed in the survey should be performed prior to applying CSM: tests for irritability, stability, vascular and neurological systems. Respondents rated patient education, other manual therapy, and exercise as the most common adjuncts to CSM (over 88%). Respondents reported seeing mild complications or side effects only rarely following the application of CSM. Fourteen percent of respondents reported having a written CSM policy or CPG on CSM in their work setting. Feedback from this survey will be used in developing a CSM CPG. A future survey will evaluate changes in clinical practice and in attitudes toward CPGs some time after the dissemination of the CSM CPG.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Manual therapy for mechanical neck disorders: a systematic review.

Neck disorders are common, disabling and costly. Randomized trials were reviewed using a Cochrane format, to determine if manual therapy improves pain, function and patient satisfaction in adults suffering from neck disorders with and without radicular findings or headache. Sequenced computerized searches ended in December 1997. Two independent reviewers extracted data while three assessed trial quality. Standard mean difference and relative risks were translated to number needed to treat (NNT) and the percent treatment advantage. The 20 selected trials' quality was 2.4 (SD: 1.04) on the 5-point scale described by Jadad. Trials were clinically heterogenous. Manipulation alone, mobilizations alone, manipulation/mobilization and treatments including massage consistently showed similar effects to placebo, wait period or control. Multimodal manual therapy care including exercise were superior to a control, to certain physical medicine methods and to rest for pain and patient satisfaction. The NNT for a clinically important reduction in pain varied from 2 to 11 and treatment advantage from 6% to 41% at the cost of benign transient side-effects. While results remain inconclusive, some clinical themes have emerged. For mechanical neck disorder with or without headache, it appears that to be most beneficial, manual therapies should be done with exercise for improving pain and patient satisfaction. Manipulation and mobilization alone appear to be less effective. Factorial design would help delineate the magnitude of effect for each component of care.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Clinical practice guideline on the use of manipulation or mobilization in the treatment of adults with mechanical neck disorders.

PURPOSE: An evidence-based clinical practice guideline was developed to ascertain the risks and benefits for manipulation or mobilization in treating mechanical neck disorders with or without radicular findings or cerviogenic headache. Pain, function, patient satisfaction and adverse events were appraised. METHODS: The practice guideline development cycle/model and Cochrane reviewing process, critiquing past reviews, randomized trials and surveys were used. RESULTS: Manipulation and mobilization alone showed similar effects as placebo, wait period, or control group, and appeared similar in benefit for pain relief. While high-technology exercises were superior to manipulation alone for improving long-term pain scores, manipulation plus low-technology exercise had the same effect. Patient satisfaction scores favoured manipulation plus low-technology exercise over manipulation alone, and high-technology exercise alone. Multi-modal care including some combination of manipulation or mobilizations and exercise was superior to control, other physical medicine methods, and rest. Based on weak evidence, estimates for serious complication for manipulation ranged from one in 20,000 to five in 10,000,000. RECOMMENDATIONS: Stronger evidence suggests a multi-modal management strategy using mobilization or manipulation plus exercise is beneficial for relief of mechanical neck pain. Weaker evidence suggest less benefit to either manipulation/mobilization done alone than when used with exercise. The risk rate is uncertain.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗

PubMed2001

A critical appraisal of review articles on the effectiveness of conservative treatment for neck pain.

STUDY DESIGN: A criteria-based appraisal of review articles on neck pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the methodologic quality, conclusions, and extent of concordance among reviews on the conservative treatment of neck disorders. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: During the past decades there has been an increasing interest in summarizing and analyzing the available evidence on the effectiveness of conservative management of neck pain. Considering the growing number and quality of reviews, consumers may question which reviews to read and believe. METHODS: Computerized bibliographic databases were searched without language restriction. The reviews assessed had been published before January 1998, included neck pain and evaluated conservative therapies, and reported at least one controlled clinical trial. Identification, selection, and quality assessment were performed independently by two investigators. RESULTS: Of the 108 identified articles, 25 review articles were selected, of which 12 were systematic reviews. The reviews differed in their reporting of study population, interventions, and outcomes. Statistical pooling was performed in two high-quality systematic reviews, whereas in other reviews, the investigators explicitly decided not to pool data. The results of the current study show that the concordance among reviews varied. Regarding manipulation and traction, there is inconclusive evidence among reviews. Concordance regarding the effectiveness of other conservative interventions was absent. Many of the reviews displayed major methodologic flaws. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers should consider reports of reviews both carefully and critically, given the wide variety of review methodology, descriptive information, and final conclusions. There is a paucity of evidence from primary studies on neck pain. Therefore, more research is needed to allow systematic reviews to formulate stronger conclusions.

Databases, Bibliographic↗

PubMed2000

Physical medicine modalities for mechanical neck disorders.

OBJECTIVES: Multiple physical medicine modalities are commonly included as part of therapeutic interventions for mechanical neck disorders (neck pain). The objective of this review was to assess the effects of physical medicine modalities for pain in adults with mechanical neck disorders. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline, Embase, Chirolars, Index to Chiropractic Literature, Cinahl, Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Index, National Technical Information Services and reference lists of the retrieved articles from 1985 to December 1993 and we contacted content experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials and controlled trials of physical medicine modalities in adults with mechanical neck disorder. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three reviewers independently assessed trial quality and two reviewers independently extracted data. Investigators were contacted to obtain information or data that could not be found in the published reports. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen trials were included. The overall quality of the included trials was generally good. Two trials using electromagnetic therapy produced a significant reduction in pain (p <0.01) with three to four weeks of daily (eight hours per day) therapy sessions; and three using laser therapy did not differ significantly from a placebo (p=0.20) for six to 10 sessions of treatment. Not enough scientific testing exists to clearly determine the effectiveness of other therapies. This includes treatments such as exercise, traction, acupuncture, heat / cold applications, electrotherapies, cervical orthoses and chronic pain / cognitive behavioural rehabilitation strategies. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is little information available from trials to support the use of physical medicine modalities for mechanical neck pain. There is some support for the use of electromagnetic therapy and against the use of laser therapy with respect to pain reduction.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Patient education for mechanical neck disorders.

BACKGROUND: To track down the best estimate of efficacy of the various conservative management strategies for mechanical neck disorders, a four-part systematic review was prepared. Part four investigates the efficacy of patient education strategies as the therapeutic intervention. OBJECTIVES: This review of patient education is one of four reviews of conservative management of mechanical neck disorders. The other reviews address manual, physical and drug therapies. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of patient education for pain in adults with mechanical neck disorders. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline, Embase, Chirolars, Index to Chiropractic Literature, Cinahl, Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Index, National Technical Information Services from 1985 to December 1993, reference lists of the retrieved articles and we contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials or controlled clinical trials of patient educational strategies for adults with mechanical neck disorders. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three reviewers independently assessed trial quality and two reviewers independently extracted data. Investigators were contacted to obtain data that could not be found in the published reports. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials were included. Their methodological quality varied from weak to strong. One trial did not find a significant reduction in pain using group instructional strategies (neck school) and exercise with or without psychological counselling compared to no treatment (standardised mean difference 0.07, 95% confidence interval -0.51 to 0.66, and -0.37, 95% confidence interval -0.95 to 0.22, respectively). Another trial did not find a significant reduction in pain using individualised patient education (advice), anti-inflammatories and analgesics compared with placebo (standardised mean difference 0.24, 95% confidence interval -0.58 to 1.07). The third trial found that advice which included demonstrated mobilization exercises, verbal and written instruction on posture correction, the use of a collar, heat sources, muscle relaxation and analgesics gave significant pain relief compared with general advice about mobilisation after a period of rest and use of analgesics at 4 weeks of treatment (standardised mean difference -0.62, 95% confidence interval -1.05 to -0.19) but at 6 weeks of treatment there was no longer any difference (s.m.d. -0.37, 95% confidence interval -0.8 to 0.05). The first two trials lacked statistical power and the third was methodologically weak. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Patient education utilising individualised or group instructional strategies has not been shown to be beneficial in reducing pain for mechanical neck disorders.

Adult↗

PubMed1996

Conservative management of mechanical neck pain: systematic overview and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To review the efficacy of conservative management of mechanical neck disorders. METHODS: Published and unpublished reports were identified through computerised and manual searches of bibliographical databases, reference lists from primary articles, and letters to authors, agencies, foundations, and content experts. Selection criteria were applied to blinded articles, and selected articles were scored for methodological quality. Effect sizes were calculated from raw pain scores and combined by using meta-analytic techniques when appropriate. RESULTS: Twenty four randomised clinical trials met the selection criteria and were categorised by type of intervention: nine used manual treatments; 12 physical medicine methods; four drug treatment; and three education of patients (four trials investigated more than one form of intervention). The intervention strategies were summarised separately. Pooling of studies was considered only within each category. Five of the nine trials that used manual treatment in combination with other treatments were combined. One to four weeks after treatment the pooled effect size was -0.6 (95% confidence interval -0.9 to -0.4), equivalent to an improvement of 16 (6.9 to 23.1) points on a 100 point scale. Sensitivity analyses on study quality, chronicity, and data imputation did not alter this estimate. For other interventions, studies could not be combined to arrive at pooled estimates of effect. CONCLUSIONS: There is little information available from clinical trials to support many of the treatments for mechanical neck pain. In general, conservative interventions have not been studied in enough detail to assess efficacy or effectiveness adequately.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents↗

PubMed1996

Conservative management of mechanical neck disorders. A systematic overview and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This overview reports the efficacy of conservative treatments (drug therapy, manual therapy, patient education, physical medicine modalities) in reducing pain in adults with mechanical neck disorders. METHODS: Computerized bibliographic database searches from 1985 to December 1993, information requests from authors, and bibliography screenings were used to identify published and unpublished research. Applying strict criteria, two investigators independently reviewed the blinded articles. Each selected trial was evaluated independently for methodologic quality. RESULTS: Twenty-four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight before-after studies met our selection criteria. Twenty RCTs rated moderately strong or better in terms of methodologic quality. Five trials using manual therapy in combination with other treatments were clinically similar, were statistically not heterogeneous (p = 0.98), and were combined to yield an effect size of -0.6 (95% CI: -0.9, -0.4), equivalent to a 16 point improvement on a 100 point pain scale. Four RCTs using physical medicine modalities were combined using the inverse chi-square method: two using electromagnetic therapy produced a significant reduction in pain (p < 0.01); and two using laser therapy did not differ significantly from a placebo (p = 0.63). Little or no scientific evidence exists for other therapies, including such commonly used treatments as medication, rest and exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of methodologic quality, the best available evidence supports the use of manual therapies in combination with other treatments for short-term relief of neck pain. There is some support for the use of electromagnetic therapy and against the use of laser therapy. In general, other interventions have not been studied in enough detail adequately to assess efficacy or effectiveness. This overview provides the foundation for an evidence-based approach to practice. More robust design and methodology should be used in future research, in particular, the use of valid and reliable outcomes measures.

Acupuncture Therapy↗

PubMed1996

Manual therapy in the treatment of neck pain.

In general, manual therapies have been demonstrated to be effective for mechanical neck pain in the short term when used in combination with other treatments. No one treatment protocol has been shown to be optimal as specific types of manual therapies have not been investigated in detail. Safety is a prime consideration when applying these treatments. The risk of increased symptoms resulting from manual therapy is low (in the range of 1%-2%), with the most common symptom aggravation being vertigo or dizziness. The risk of serious complication or death from neck manipulation is extremely low (in the range of 0.0001%). Optimal levels of education, training, and competency are integral to the safe performance of manual therapy.

Humans↗

PubMedDate not supplied

The effect of coping strategies on the relief of pain following surgical intervention for lower back pain.

Subjects' use of coping strategies was assessed by use of the Coping Strategy Questionnaire in a sample of 50 back pain patients prior to undergoing a laminectomy procedure. Three factors--Self-Reliance, Loss of Control, and Active Coping and Suppression--accounted for a large proportion of variance in questionnaire responses. Two of these factors--Self-Reliance and Loss of Control--were found to be predictive of postsurgical adjustment above and beyond what may be predicted on the basis of either patients' presurgical medical status (type of disc and disability status) or their tendency to somaticize. This study also replicates previous findings in the literature regarding the effect of type of disc and one's tendency to somaticize on surgical outcome.

Adaptation, Psychological↗