Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18646151›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2008

Mechanical traction for neck pain with or without radiculopathy.

Nadine Graham, Anita Gross, Charles H Goldsmith, Jennifer Klaber Moffett, Ted Haines, Stephen J Burnie, Paul Michael J Peloso

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03888573 (Which is Better to Decompress the Nerve Roots in Cervical Radiculopathy), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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.

NCT03888573 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Which is Better to Decompress the Nerve Roots in Cervical Radiculopathy: Stretching or Traction From Foraminal Opening Position

TypeinterventionalSponsorCairo UniversityRan2019 to 2019Enrolled30ConditionsCervical RadiculopathyArmsStretching protocol
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Design and Validation of a Novel Robotic Neck Brace for Cervical Traction.IEEE/ASME transactions on mechatronics : a joint publication of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society and the ASME Dynamic Systems and Control Division · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Nadine GrahamSchool of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, 8-26 Legend Crt, Ancaster, Ontario, Canada, L9K 1J3. nadinelino@sympatico.ca
Anita Gross
Charles H Goldsmith
Jennifer Klaber Moffett
Ted Haines
Stephen J Burnie
Paul Michael J Peloso
McMaster University · CACanadian Memorial Chiropractic College · CAMerck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) · USSimon Fraser University · CAUniversity of Hull · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeck pain is a frequently reported complaint of the musculoskeletal system which can be disabling and costly to society. Mechanical traction is often used as an adjunct therapy in outpatient rehabilitation.

objectivesTo assess the effects of mechanical traction for neck disorders. SEARCH STRATEGY: A research librarian searched computerized bibliographic databases without language restrictions up to March 2008 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the medical, chiropractic, and allied health literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: The RCTs we selected examined adults with neck disorders who received mechanical traction alone or in combination with other treatments compared to a placebo or another treatment. Our outcomes of interest were pain, function, disability, global perceived effect, patient satisfaction, and quality of life measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors with different backgrounds in medicine, physiotherapy, massage therapy and chiropractics independently conducted study selection, risk of bias assessment and data abstraction using pre-piloted forms. We resolved disagreement through consensus. MAIN

resultsOf the seven selected RCTs (total participants = 958), only one (N = 100) had a low risk of bias. It found no statistically significant difference (SMD -0.16: 95%CI: -0.59 to 0.27) between continuous traction and placebo traction in reducing pain or improving function for chronic neck disorders with radicular symptoms. Our review found no evidence from RCTs with a low potential for bias that clearly supports or refutes the use of either continuous or intermittent traction for neck disorders. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe current literature does not support or refute the efficacy or effectiveness of continuous or intermittent traction for pain reduction, improved function or global perceived effect when compared to placebo traction, tablet or heat or other conservative treatments in patients with chronic neck disorders. Large, well conducted RCTs are needed to first determine the efficacy of traction, then the effectiveness, for individuals with neck disorders with radicular symptoms.

Indexed as

AdultHumansNeck PainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTraction

Identifiers

PMID18646151
PMCPMC13429286
OpenAlexW1934661749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.