Manipulation or mobilisation for neck pain.
BACKGROUND
Manipulation and mobilisation are often used, either alone or combined with other treatment approaches, to treat neck pain.


OBJECTIVE
To assess if manipulation or mobilisation improves pain, function/disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and global perceived effect in adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radicular findings.


METHODS
CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 3) and MEDLINE, EMBASE, Manual Alternative and Natural Therapy, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were updated to July 2009.


METHODS
Randomised controlled trials on manipulation or mobilisation.


METHODS
Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Pooled relative risk and standardised mean differences (SMD) were calculated.


RESULTS
We included 27 trials (1522 participants).Cervical Manipulation for subacute/chronic neck pain : Moderate quality evidence suggested manipulation and mobilisation produced similar effects on pain, function and patient satisfaction at intermediate-term follow-up. Low quality evidence showed manipulation alone compared to a control may provide short- term relief following one to four sessions (SMD pooled -0.90 (95%CI: -1.78 to -0.02)) and that nine or 12 sessions were superior to three for pain and disability in cervicogenic headache. Optimal technique and dose need to be determined.Thoracic Manipulation for acute/chronic neck pain : Low quality evidence supported thoracic manipulation as an additional therapy for pain reduction (NNT 7; 46.6% treatment advantage) and increased function (NNT 5; 40.6% treatment advantage) in acute pain and favoured a single session of thoracic manipulation for immediate pain reduction compared to placebo for chronic neck pain (NNT 5, 29% treatment advantage).Mobilisation for subacute/chronic neck pain: In addition to the evidence noted above, low quality evidence for subacute and chronic neck pain indicated that 1) a combination of Maitland mobilisation techniques was similar to acupuncture for immediate pain relief and increased function; 2) there was no difference between mobilisation and acupuncture as additional treatments for immediate pain relief and improved function; and 3) neural dynamic mobilisations may produce clinically important reduction of pain immediately post-treatment. Certain mobilisation techniques were superior.


CONCLUSIONS
Cervical manipulation and mobilisation produced similar changes. Either may provide immediate- or short-term change; no long-term data are available. Thoracic manipulation may improve pain and function. Optimal techniques and dose are unresolved. Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Gross
Anita
A
School of Rehabilitation Science & Dept Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1400 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 1C7.
Miller
Jordan
J
D'Sylva
Jonathan
J
Burnie
Stephen J
SJ
Goldsmith
Charles H
CH
Graham
Nadine
N
Haines
Ted
T
Brønfort
Gert
G
Hoving
Jan L
JL
D000208:Acute Disease; D002908:Chronic Disease; D006801:Humans; D008349:Manipulation, Orthopedic / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D009333:Neck; D019547:Neck Pain / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D020127:Recovery of Function; D013909:Thorax