大多数评估颈部活动和手法治疗颈部疼痛的临床试验缺乏实用方法:对 174 项试验的系统回顾。

IF 1.6 Q2 REHABILITATION
Kyle A Cottone, Matthew R Schumacher, Jodi L Young, Daniel I Rhon
{"title":"大多数评估颈部活动和手法治疗颈部疼痛的临床试验缺乏实用方法:对 174 项试验的系统回顾。","authors":"Kyle A Cottone, Matthew R Schumacher, Jodi L Young, Daniel I Rhon","doi":"10.1080/10669817.2024.2327127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Disorders of the cervical spine are some of the costliest musculoskeletal conditions to manage globally. Joint mobilization and manipulation have been shown to be an effective treatment for neck pain. However, the generalizability and clinical translation depends on the nature of the trial designs that inform its use. The extent to which randomized control trials (RCTs) assessing manual therapy treatments for cervical spine disorders fall on the efficacy (explanatory) -effectiveness (pragmatic) spectrum often informs how the findings are translated into clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this systematic review was to determine where RCTs of manual therapy for neck disorders fall on the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search of three electronic databases including PubMed, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were completed for trials published from inception to May 2023. RCTs in which joint mobilization or manipulation were used to treat cervical spine disorders were assessed on the effectiveness-efficacy spectrum using the Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool and risk of bias using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 174 trials met eligibility. RITES domain two trial setting (71.3% vs 16.1%), domain three flexibility of intervention(s) (62.1% vs 23%), and domain four clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention(s) (51.7% vs 29.3%) all favored efficacy over effectiveness. Domain one participant characteristic(s) had a slightly greater emphasis on effectiveness compared to efficacy (36.8% vs 44.8%). Most studies (96%) had at least some risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Over half of the RCTs assessing the treatment effect of joint mobilization and manipulation for neck pain favor efficacy (explanatory) over effectiveness (pragmatic) designs. Future RCTs on this topic should consider a greater emphasis on pragmatic trial design components in order to better reflect real-world translation to clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":47319,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"478-494"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11421161/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The majority of clinical trials assessing mobilization and manipulation for neck pain lack a pragmatic approach: a systematic review of 174 trials.\",\"authors\":\"Kyle A Cottone, Matthew R Schumacher, Jodi L Young, Daniel I Rhon\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10669817.2024.2327127\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Disorders of the cervical spine are some of the costliest musculoskeletal conditions to manage globally. Joint mobilization and manipulation have been shown to be an effective treatment for neck pain. However, the generalizability and clinical translation depends on the nature of the trial designs that inform its use. The extent to which randomized control trials (RCTs) assessing manual therapy treatments for cervical spine disorders fall on the efficacy (explanatory) -effectiveness (pragmatic) spectrum often informs how the findings are translated into clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this systematic review was to determine where RCTs of manual therapy for neck disorders fall on the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search of three electronic databases including PubMed, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were completed for trials published from inception to May 2023. RCTs in which joint mobilization or manipulation were used to treat cervical spine disorders were assessed on the effectiveness-efficacy spectrum using the Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool and risk of bias using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 174 trials met eligibility. RITES domain two trial setting (71.3% vs 16.1%), domain three flexibility of intervention(s) (62.1% vs 23%), and domain four clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention(s) (51.7% vs 29.3%) all favored efficacy over effectiveness. Domain one participant characteristic(s) had a slightly greater emphasis on effectiveness compared to efficacy (36.8% vs 44.8%). Most studies (96%) had at least some risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Over half of the RCTs assessing the treatment effect of joint mobilization and manipulation for neck pain favor efficacy (explanatory) over effectiveness (pragmatic) designs. Future RCTs on this topic should consider a greater emphasis on pragmatic trial design components in order to better reflect real-world translation to clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47319,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"478-494\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11421161/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2024.2327127\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2024.2327127","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:颈椎疾病是全球治疗费用最高的肌肉骨骼疾病之一。关节活动和手法已被证明是治疗颈部疼痛的有效方法。然而,其推广性和临床应用取决于指导其使用的试验设计的性质。评估颈椎病手法治疗的随机对照试验(RCT)在疗效(解释性)-效果(实用性)范围内的程度往往会影响到如何将研究结果转化为临床实践:本系统综述旨在确定颈椎病手法治疗的 RCT 在疗效谱中的位置:方法: 我们在 PubMed、CINAHL 和 CENTRAL 等三个电子数据库中检索了从开始到 2023 年 5 月期间发表的试验。使用 "纳入试验的疗效-效果谱评级"(RITES)工具对使用关节活动或手法治疗颈椎病的研究试验进行疗效-效果谱评估,并使用 "修订版科克伦偏倚风险 "工具评估偏倚风险:共有 174 项试验符合资格要求。RITES领域二的试验设置(71.3% vs 16.1%)、领域三的干预措施灵活性(62.1% vs 23%)和领域四的试验与对比干预措施的临床相关性(51.7% vs 29.3%)均倾向于疗效而非有效性。与疗效相比,领域一的参与者特征(36.8% 对 44.8%)更强调有效性。大多数研究(96%)至少存在一定的偏倚风险:结论:在评估关节活动和手法治疗颈痛效果的研究性临床试验中,半数以上倾向于疗效(解释性)设计,而非有效性(实用性)设计。未来有关该主题的研究性临床试验应考虑更加重视实用性试验的设计内容,以更好地反映临床实践中的实际情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The majority of clinical trials assessing mobilization and manipulation for neck pain lack a pragmatic approach: a systematic review of 174 trials.

Background: Disorders of the cervical spine are some of the costliest musculoskeletal conditions to manage globally. Joint mobilization and manipulation have been shown to be an effective treatment for neck pain. However, the generalizability and clinical translation depends on the nature of the trial designs that inform its use. The extent to which randomized control trials (RCTs) assessing manual therapy treatments for cervical spine disorders fall on the efficacy (explanatory) -effectiveness (pragmatic) spectrum often informs how the findings are translated into clinical practice.

Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to determine where RCTs of manual therapy for neck disorders fall on the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum.

Methods: A search of three electronic databases including PubMed, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were completed for trials published from inception to May 2023. RCTs in which joint mobilization or manipulation were used to treat cervical spine disorders were assessed on the effectiveness-efficacy spectrum using the Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool and risk of bias using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

Results: A total of 174 trials met eligibility. RITES domain two trial setting (71.3% vs 16.1%), domain three flexibility of intervention(s) (62.1% vs 23%), and domain four clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention(s) (51.7% vs 29.3%) all favored efficacy over effectiveness. Domain one participant characteristic(s) had a slightly greater emphasis on effectiveness compared to efficacy (36.8% vs 44.8%). Most studies (96%) had at least some risk of bias.

Conclusion: Over half of the RCTs assessing the treatment effect of joint mobilization and manipulation for neck pain favor efficacy (explanatory) over effectiveness (pragmatic) designs. Future RCTs on this topic should consider a greater emphasis on pragmatic trial design components in order to better reflect real-world translation to clinical practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
20.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy is an international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the publication of original research, case reports, and reviews of the literature that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field of manual therapy, clinical research, therapeutic practice, and academic training. In addition, each issue features an editorial written by the editor or a guest editor, media reviews, thesis reviews, and abstracts of current literature. Areas of interest include: •Thrust and non-thrust manipulation •Neurodynamic assessment and treatment •Diagnostic accuracy and classification •Manual therapy-related interventions •Clinical decision-making processes •Understanding clinimetrics for the clinician
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信