Knowledge to action: a challenge for neck pain treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
For clinicians, systematic reviews can enhance incorporation into practice of the large volumes of information emerging from research on effectiveness and risks. But we believe that these reviews are most useful with simplified tools to facilitate translation of this knowledge into practice. We provide a "Neck Care Tool Kit" that gives a diagrammatic approach to prioritizing intervention. The evidence from a series of 11 systematic reviews by the Cervical Overview Group is depicted in decision flow-charts and tables to enhance clinical interpretation of the overview findings. On simple visual inspection of symbols in a table, the reader can establish where there is evidence of benefit or no benefit, the strength of the recommendation, and if these data represent short- or long-term findings. Where possible, we guide clinicians to dosage of specific treatment methods. There is no consensus as to which outcome measures to prioritize among the large number in use. This clinical commentary guides clinicians to view the evidence in enough detail to integrate it into their clinical practice environment. We conclude by delineating research gaps and proposing future research directions.


METHODS
Therapy, level 5.
Gross
Anita R
AR
School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, 1400 Main Street W., Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. grossa@mcmaster.ca
Haines
Ted
T
Goldsmith
Charlie H
CH
Santaguida
Lina
L
McLaughlin
Laurie M
LM
Peloso
Paul
P
Burnie
Stephen
S
Hoving
Jan
J
D000465:Algorithms; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D005081:Exercise Therapy; D006801:Humans; D019547:Neck Pain / Q000534:rehabilitation / Q000628:therapy*; D010147:Pain Measurement; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D012196:Review Literature as Topic; D012307:Risk Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome