{"title":"手动关节活动技术治疗非特异性颈部疼痛的有效性:随机对照试验的荟萃分析和荟萃回归系统评价。","authors":"Alessia Benetton, Simone Battista, Gianluca Bertoni, Giacomo Rossettini, Luca Falsiroli Maistrello","doi":"10.2519/jospt.2025.12836","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>OBJECTIVE:</b> The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of cervical joint mobilization techniques (JMTs) on pain and disability in adults with nonspecific neck pain. <b>DESIGN:</b> This study is an intervention systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). <b>LITERATURE SEARCH:</b> We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and Web of Science databases, including references from other reviews or clinical practice guidelines up to October 16, 2024. <b>STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA:</b> Eligible RCTs evaluated JMTs compared to routine physiotherapy, minimally active interventions, or no treatment. The primary outcome was pain; secondary outcomes were disability, Global Perceived Effect (GPE), quality of life, psychosocial status, and adverse events. <b>DATA SYNTHESIS:</b> Meta-analyses and meta-regression were conducted for pain, disability, and GPE. The risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane RoB 2.0 Tool; the certainty of the evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. We used The Template for the Intervention Description and Replication checklist to evaluate the quality of reporting of interventions delivered. <b>RESULTS:</b> Results from 16 RCTs were pooled (<i>n</i> = 1,157 participants), reporting nonclinically positive results on pain reduction (mean difference [MD] = -0.86 (95% confidence interval [-1.35, -0.36])), disability (MD=-2.11 [-3.31, -0.91]), and GPE (standardized mean difference = 0.11 ([-0.15, 0.37]) and high heterogeneity. The meta-regressions did not identify any covariates associated with the treatment effects. Minor side effects (increased neck pain and headache) were reported. <b>CONCLUSION:</b> There was very low certainty evidence supporting the efficacy of JTMs for reducing pain and improving disability in people with NSNP. <i>J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2025;55(3):1-20. Epub 12 February 2025. doi:10.2519/jospt.2025.12836</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":50099,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","volume":"55 3","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of Manual Joint Mobilization Techniques in the Treatment of Nonspecific Neck Pain: Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression of Randomized Controlled Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Alessia Benetton, Simone Battista, Gianluca Bertoni, Giacomo Rossettini, Luca Falsiroli Maistrello\",\"doi\":\"10.2519/jospt.2025.12836\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>OBJECTIVE:</b> The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of cervical joint mobilization techniques (JMTs) on pain and disability in adults with nonspecific neck pain. <b>DESIGN:</b> This study is an intervention systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). <b>LITERATURE SEARCH:</b> We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and Web of Science databases, including references from other reviews or clinical practice guidelines up to October 16, 2024. <b>STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA:</b> Eligible RCTs evaluated JMTs compared to routine physiotherapy, minimally active interventions, or no treatment. The primary outcome was pain; secondary outcomes were disability, Global Perceived Effect (GPE), quality of life, psychosocial status, and adverse events. <b>DATA SYNTHESIS:</b> Meta-analyses and meta-regression were conducted for pain, disability, and GPE. The risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane RoB 2.0 Tool; the certainty of the evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. We used The Template for the Intervention Description and Replication checklist to evaluate the quality of reporting of interventions delivered. <b>RESULTS:</b> Results from 16 RCTs were pooled (<i>n</i> = 1,157 participants), reporting nonclinically positive results on pain reduction (mean difference [MD] = -0.86 (95% confidence interval [-1.35, -0.36])), disability (MD=-2.11 [-3.31, -0.91]), and GPE (standardized mean difference = 0.11 ([-0.15, 0.37]) and high heterogeneity. The meta-regressions did not identify any covariates associated with the treatment effects. Minor side effects (increased neck pain and headache) were reported. <b>CONCLUSION:</b> There was very low certainty evidence supporting the efficacy of JTMs for reducing pain and improving disability in people with NSNP. <i>J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2025;55(3):1-20. Epub 12 February 2025. doi:10.2519/jospt.2025.12836</i>.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50099,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy\",\"volume\":\"55 3\",\"pages\":\"1-20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2025.12836\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2025.12836","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本研究的目的是探讨颈椎关节活动技术(JMTs)对成人非特异性颈部疼痛和残疾的影响。设计:本研究采用随机对照试验(RCTs)的荟萃分析和荟萃回归进行干预系统评价。文献检索:我们检索了MEDLINE、Cochrane CENTRAL、EMBASE、护理和联合健康文献累积索引、物理治疗证据数据库和Web of Science数据库,包括截至2024年10月16日的其他综述或临床实践指南的参考文献。研究选择标准:符合条件的随机对照试验将JMTs与常规物理治疗、最低限度积极干预或无治疗进行比较。主要结果是疼痛;次要结局是残疾、总体感知效应(GPE)、生活质量、社会心理状态和不良事件。数据综合:对疼痛、残疾和GPE进行了meta分析和meta回归。采用Cochrane RoB 2.0工具评估偏倚风险;证据的确定性采用推荐分级、评估、发展和评价方法进行评估。我们使用干预措施描述和复制检查表模板来评估所提供干预措施的报告质量。结果:汇集了16项随机对照试验的结果(n = 1,157名参与者),报告了疼痛减轻(平均差值[MD] = -0.86(95%置信区间[-1.35,-0.36])、残疾(MD=-2.11[-3.31, -0.91])和GPE(标准化平均差值= 0.11([-0.15,0.37])和高度异质性的非临床阳性结果。meta回归没有发现任何与治疗效果相关的协变量。轻微的副作用(增加颈部疼痛和头痛)被报道。结论:有非常低的确定性证据支持JTMs减轻NSNP患者疼痛和改善残疾的有效性。[J] .体育学报,2015;55(3):1-20。2025年2月12日。doi: 10.2519 / jospt.2025.12836。
Effectiveness of Manual Joint Mobilization Techniques in the Treatment of Nonspecific Neck Pain: Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression of Randomized Controlled Trials.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of cervical joint mobilization techniques (JMTs) on pain and disability in adults with nonspecific neck pain. DESIGN: This study is an intervention systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and Web of Science databases, including references from other reviews or clinical practice guidelines up to October 16, 2024. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible RCTs evaluated JMTs compared to routine physiotherapy, minimally active interventions, or no treatment. The primary outcome was pain; secondary outcomes were disability, Global Perceived Effect (GPE), quality of life, psychosocial status, and adverse events. DATA SYNTHESIS: Meta-analyses and meta-regression were conducted for pain, disability, and GPE. The risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane RoB 2.0 Tool; the certainty of the evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. We used The Template for the Intervention Description and Replication checklist to evaluate the quality of reporting of interventions delivered. RESULTS: Results from 16 RCTs were pooled (n = 1,157 participants), reporting nonclinically positive results on pain reduction (mean difference [MD] = -0.86 (95% confidence interval [-1.35, -0.36])), disability (MD=-2.11 [-3.31, -0.91]), and GPE (standardized mean difference = 0.11 ([-0.15, 0.37]) and high heterogeneity. The meta-regressions did not identify any covariates associated with the treatment effects. Minor side effects (increased neck pain and headache) were reported. CONCLUSION: There was very low certainty evidence supporting the efficacy of JTMs for reducing pain and improving disability in people with NSNP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2025;55(3):1-20. Epub 12 February 2025. doi:10.2519/jospt.2025.12836.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy® (JOSPT®) publishes scientifically rigorous, clinically relevant content for physical therapists and others in the health care community to advance musculoskeletal and sports-related practice globally. To this end, JOSPT features the latest evidence-based research and clinical cases in musculoskeletal health, injury, and rehabilitation, including physical therapy, orthopaedics, sports medicine, and biomechanics.
With an impact factor of 3.090, JOSPT is among the highest ranked physical therapy journals in Clarivate Analytics''s Journal Citation Reports, Science Edition (2017). JOSPT stands eighth of 65 journals in the category of rehabilitation, twelfth of 77 journals in orthopedics, and fourteenth of 81 journals in sport sciences. JOSPT''s 5-year impact factor is 4.061.