Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15846703›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2005

Electrotherapy for neck disorders.

P Kroeling, A Gross, P E Houghton, Cervical Overview Group

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. What Does the Cochrane Collaboration Say about Neck Disorders?Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada · 2008
    Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

P KroelingDept. of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Marchionini-Str. 17, D-81377 München, Germany.
A Gross
P E Houghton
Cervical Overview Group
McMaster University · CALudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeck disorders are common, disabling and costly. The effectiveness of electrotherapy as a physiotherapy option has remained unclear.

objectivesTo assess whether electrotherapy, either alone or in combination with other treatments, relieves pain, or improves function/disability, patient satisfaction, and global perceived effect in adults with mechanical neck disorders (MND). SEARCH STRATEGY: Computer-assisted searches of bibliographic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, CINAHL, and ICL, without language restrictions, from their beginning to March 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or controlled clinical trials with quasi-randomisation (alternate allocation, case record numbers, dates of birth, etc.), in any language, investigating the effects of electrotherapy as a treatment for MND. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two authors independently conducted citation identification, study selection, data abstraction, and methodological quality assessment. Using a random-effects model, relative risk, and standardized mean differences were calculated. The reasonableness of combining studies was assessed on clinical and statistical grounds. Due to heterogeneity, pooled effect measures were not calculated. MAIN

resultsFourteen comparisons (525 people with MND), in 11 publications, were included in this review. The analysis was limited by underpowered low quality trials, paucity of literature, and heterogeneity of treatment subtypes. The results for the electrotherapy subtypes are: Limited evidence of benefit: low or high frequency pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) compared to placebo, provides immediate post treatment pain relief only for chronic MND, acute whiplash (WAD) Unclear or conflicting evidence: direct and modulated Galvanic current compared to other treatments for pain in acute, subacute, chronic occipital headache iontophoresis compared to other treatments for pain, RTW, and self-assessment of overall outcome in acute, subacute WAD TENS compared to placebo for pain in acute WAD, chronic MND PEMF compared to placebo for medium or long term effect on pain, patient assessment of improvement, ADL in acute WAD, chronic MND Limited evidence of no benefit: diadynamic current compared to placebo for reduction of trigger point tenderness in chronic MND with radicular findings, cervicogenic headache permanent magnets compared to a placebo for pain in chronic MND electric muscle stimulation compared to a sham control for pain in chronic MND. AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe can not make any definitive statements on electrotherapy for MND. The current evidence on Galvanic current (direct or pulsed), iontophoresis, TENS, EMS, PEMF and permanent magnets is either lacking, limited, or conflicting. Possible new trials on these interventions should have larger patient samples and include more precise standardization and description of all treatment characteristics.

Indexed as

Electric Stimulation TherapyHumansMusculoskeletal DiseasesNeckNeck PainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicWhiplash Injuries

Identifiers

PMID15846703
OpenAlexW1548854934

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.