Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17443525›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007

Conservative treatments for whiplash.

A P Verhagen, G G G M Scholten-Peeters, S van Wijngaarden, R A de Bie, S M A Bierma-Zeinstra

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
16.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 190 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Patient education for neck pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

A P VerhagenErasmus MC University Medical Centre, Dept of General Practice, PO Box 1738, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 3000 DR. a.verhagen@erasmusmc.nl
G G G M Scholten-Peeters
S van Wijngaarden
R A de Bie
S M A Bierma-Zeinstra
Erasmus MC · NLMaastricht University · NLRobert Bosch (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany treatments are available for whiplash patients but there is little scientific evidence for their accepted use. Patients with whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) can be classified by the severity of signs and symptoms from Grade 0 (no complaints or physical signs) to Grade 4 (fracture or dislocation).

objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of conservative treatment for patients with whiplash injuries rated as Grades 1 or 2 (neck and musculoskeletal complaints). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2006, Issue 3), MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PEDro to November 2006 and screened references of identified randomised trials and relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials published in English, French, German or Dutch, that included patients with a whiplash-injury, conservative interventions, outcomes of pain, global perceived effect or participation in daily activities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the methodological quality using the Delphi criteria and extracted the data onto standardised data-extraction forms. We did not pool the results because of the heterogeneity of the population, intervention and outcomes and lack of data. A pre-planned stratified analysis was performed for three different comparisons. MAIN

resultsTwenty-three studies (2344 participants) were included in this update, including nine new studies. A broad variety of conservative interventions were evaluated. Two studies included patients with chronic symptoms (longer than three months), two included subacute (four to six weeks) symptoms, two had undefined duration of symptoms, and 17 studied patients with acute (less than three weeks) symptoms. Only eight studies (33.3%) satisfied one of our criteria of high quality, indicating overall, a poor methodological quality. Interventions were divided into passive (such as rest, immobilisation, ultrasound, etc) and active interventions (such as exercises, act as usual approach, etc.) and were compared with no treatment, a placebo or each other. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity and lack of data precluded pooling. Individual studies demonstrated effectiveness of one treatment over another, but the comparisons were varied and results inconsistent. Therefore, the evidence neither supports nor refutes the effectiveness of either passive or active treatments to relieve the symptoms of WAD, Grades 1 or 2. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe current literature is of poor methodological quality and is insufficiently homogeneous to allow the pooling of results. Therefore, clearly effective treatments are not supported at this time for the treatment of acute, subacute or chronic symptoms of whiplash-associated disorders.

Indexed as

Chronic DiseaseComplementary TherapiesHumansImmobilizationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicWhiplash Injuries

Identifiers

PMID17443525
PMCPMC8713438
OpenAlexW1954728424

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.