IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0234511.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effectiveness and optimal dosage of exercise training for chronic non-specific neck pain: A systematic review with a narrative synthesis

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan Price
  • Alison Rushton
  • Isaak Tyros
  • Vasileios Tyros
  • Nicola R Heneghan

Abstract

Background: Clinical guidelines make vague recommendations as to exercise training (ET) type and dosage to manage chronic non-specific neck pain (CNSNP). Objective: To synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of different ET programmes to reduce CNSNP and associated disability, and whether dosage affects outcomes. Methods: A systematic review and data synthesis was conducted according to a published registered protocol (PROSPERO CRD42018096187). A sensitive topic-based search was conducted of CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, grey literature sources and key journals from inception to 6th January 2020 for randomised controlled trials, investigating ET for CNSNP or disability. Two reviewers independently completed eligibility screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment (Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool) and rated the overall strength of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Data was tabulated for narrative synthesis and grouped by intervention, outcome and time point to compare across studies. Results: Twenty-six trials from 3990 citations (n = 2288 participants) investigated fifteen ET programmes. High RoB and low sample sizes reduced evidence quality. Clinical heterogeneity prevented meta-analyses. A range of ET programmes reduce pain/disability in the short term (low to moderate evidence). Pillar exercises reduce pain/disability in the intermediate term (low level evidence). Moderate to very large pain reduction is found with ET packages that include motor control + segmental exercises (low to moderate evidence). No high-quality trials investigated long term outcomes. Increased frequency of motor control exercises and progressively increased load of pillar exercise may improve effectiveness. Conclusions: Motor control + segmental exercises are the most effective ET to reduce short term pain/disability, but long-term outcomes have not been investigated. Optimal motor control + segmental exercise variables and dosage is unknown and requires clarification. An adequately powered, low RoB trial is needed to evaluate the effectiveness and optimal dosage of motor control + segmental on long term outcomes. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42018096187

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan Price & Alison Rushton & Isaak Tyros & Vasileios Tyros & Nicola R Heneghan, 2020. "Effectiveness and optimal dosage of exercise training for chronic non-specific neck pain: A systematic review with a narrative synthesis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-32, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0234511
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234511
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234511
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234511&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0234511?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0234511. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.