The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders

Abstract

Study Design: Best evidence synthesis. Reprinted from methodological im 2010 Task Force o 2008;S214-S220. Williams & Wilkin From the a De Alberta Centre for Health, University b Department of of Medicine, Univ c Centre of Re comes (CREIDO Solutions, Toronto ments of Public H and Evaluation, Health Care and O Institute, Toronto, Canada. d Institute for W Health Sciences, U e Department o School of Medici Surgery Service, S f Departments and Program of Medicine and Gra University, New Y paedic Center (O New York, NY. g Institute of E Sweden. S244 Objective: To report on gaps in the literature and make methodologic recommendations based on our review of the literature on frequency and risk factors, assessment, intervention, and course and prognostic factors for neck pain and its associated disorders. Summary of Background Data: The scientific literature on neck pain is large and of variable quality. We reviewed 1203 studies and judged 46% to be of sufficient scientific validity to be included in the best evidence synthesis. Scientific quality varied across study topics, and fundamental questions remain about important issues. Methods: The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) conducted a critical review of the literature published between 1980 and 2006 to assemble the best evidence on neck pain and its associated disorders. Studies meeting criteria for scientific validity were included in a best evidence synthesis. Carroll LJ et al. Research priorities and plications. The Bone and Joint Decade 2000n Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine Reprinted with permission from Lippincott s. partment of Public Health Sciences, and the Injury Control and Research, School of Public of Alberta, Canada. Public Health Sciences, John A. Burns School ersity of Hawaii at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI. search Expertise in Improved Disability Out), University Health Network Rehabilitation Western Hospital, Toronto, Canada; Departealth Sciences and Health Policy, Management University of Toronto, Canada; Division of utcomes Research, Toronto Western Research Canada; Institute for Work & Health, Toronto, ork and Health, Toronto; Department of Public niversity of Toronto, Canada. f Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University ne, CA; Orthopaedic Spine Center and Spinal tanford University Hospital and Clinics, CA. of Orthopedics and Environmental Medicine Ergonomics and Biomechanics, School of duate School of Arts and Science, New York ork, NY; Occupational and Industrial OrthoIOC), New York University Medical Center, nvironmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, h Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto; Institute for Work & Health, Toronto; Centre of Research Excellence in Improved Disability Outcomes (CREIDO), University Health Network Rehabilitation Solutions, Toronto Western Hospital; Division of Health Care Outcomes and Research, Toronto Western Research Institute, Canada. i Centre of Research Expertise in Improved Disability Outcomes (CREIDO), University Health Network Rehabilitation Solutions, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Canada; Division of Health Care and Outcomes Research, Toronto Western Research Institute, Toronto, Canada; Departments of Public Health Sciences and Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Canada. j Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia; Occupational Health and Safety Agency for Healthcare in BC, Canada. k Endocrinology, Analgesia and Inflammation, Merck & Co. Rahway, NJ. l Department of Neurology, University of California, Irvine, CA; Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA. The manuscript submitted does not contain information about medical device(s)/drug(s). Corporate/Industry, Foundation, and Professional Organizational funds were received in support of this work. No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Linda J. Carroll, 4075 RTF, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E1 (e-mail: lcarroll@ualberta.ca). 0161-4754/$36.00 Copyright © 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2008.11.024 S245 Carroll et al Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics Research Implications Volume 32, Number 2S Results: We outline a large number of gaps in the current literature. For example, we found important gaps in our knowledge about neck pain in children (risk factors, screening criteria to rule out serious injury, management, course and prognosis); and in the prevention of neck pain-related activity limitations. Few studies addressed the impact of culture or social policies (such as governmental health policies or insurance compensation policies) on neck pain. A number of important questions remain about the effectiveness of commonly used interventions for neck pain. Conclusion: The Neck Pain Task Force undertook a best evidence synthesis to establish a baseline of the current best evidence on the course and prognosis for whiplash-associated disorders. We identify a number of gaps in the current knowledge, and provide recommendations for the conduct of future studies. (JManipulative Physiol Ther 2009;32:S244-S251)