Journal Home
Search for

Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages 315-333 (August 2010)


View previous. 4 of 15 View next.

Manipulation or mobilisation for neck pain: A Cochrane Review

Anita GrossaCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Jordan Millera, Jonathan D’Sylvaa, Stephen J. Burnieb, Charles H. Goldsmithc, Nadine Grahama, Ted Hainesc, Gert Brønfortd, Jan L. Hovinge, COG1

Received 16 February 2010; received in revised form 13 April 2010; accepted 20 April 2010. published online 01 June 2010.

Abstract 

Manipulation and mobilisation are often used, either alone or combined with other treatment approaches, to treat neck pain. This review assesses if manipulation or mobilisation improves pain, function/disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), and global perceived effect (GPE) in adults experiencing neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radicular findings. A computerised search was performed in July 2009. Randomised trials investigating manipulation or mobilisation for neck pain were included. Two or more authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Pooled relative risk (pRR) and standardised mean differences (pSMD) were calculated. 33% of 27 trials had a low risk of bias. Moderate quality evidence showed cervical manipulation and mobilisation produced similar effects on pain, function and patient satisfaction at intermediate-term follow-up. Low quality evidence suggested cervical manipulation may provide greater short-term pain relief than a control (pSMD −0.90 (95%CI: −1.78 to −0.02)). Low quality evidence also supported thoracic manipulation for pain reduction (NNT 7; 46.6% treatment advantage) and increased function (NNT 5; 40.6% treatment advantage) in acute pain and immediate pain reduction in chronic neck pain (NNT 5; 29% treatment advantage). Optimal technique and dose need to be determined.

a School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, 1400 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 1C7, Canada

b Department of Clinical Education, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Toronto, Canada

c Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

d Wolfe-Harris Center for Clinical Studies, Northwestern Health Sciences University, Bloomington, MN, USA

e Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Academic Medical Center, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author.

 This paper is based on a Cochrane Review published in The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 1 (see www.thecochranelibrary.com for information). Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and The Cochrane Library should be consulted for the most recent version of the review.

1 COG – Cervical Overview Group: Bronfort G, Burnie SJ, Cameron ID, D’Sylva J, Dumoulin-White R, Eddy A, Ezzo J, Goldsmith CH, Graham N, Gross A, Haines T, Haraldsson B, Hildebrand C, Hoving J, Kay T, Kroeling P, Lilge L, Miller J, Morien A, Peloso P, Perry L, Radylovick Z, Santaguida P, Trinh K, Voth S, Wang E.

PII: S1356-689X(10)00073-1

doi:10.1016/j.math.2010.04.002


View previous. 4 of 15 View next.