Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35869329›Full record

SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2022

Neck pain clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of the quality and quantity of complementary and alternative medicine recommendations.

Jeremy Y Ng, Mitali Uppal, Jeremy Steen

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Comparative effectiveness of six biophysical agents on neck pain rehabilitation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jeremy Y NgDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Learning and Discovery, McMaster University, Room 2112, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada. ngjy2@mcmaster.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-0031-5873
Mitali UppalDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Learning and Discovery, McMaster University, Room 2112, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.
Jeremy SteenDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Learning and Discovery, McMaster University, Room 2112, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6697-9069
Impact · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndividuals with neck pain frequently turn to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to seek relief. However, conventional healthcare providers often lack adequate CAM therapy knowledge to deliver informed recommendations to patients. The purpose of this study was to identify mention of CAM in neck pain clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and assess the quality of CAM recommendations using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were systematically searched from 2009 to 2020 in addition to the Guidelines International Network and National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites. Eligible CPGs providing CAM recommendations were assessed twice with the AGREE II instrument, once to assess the overall CPG and then once to assess the CAM sections specifically.

resultsFrom 643 unique search results, 15 CPGs on the treatment and/or management of neck pain were identified, and 8 made recommendations on CAM therapy. Regarding scaled domain percentages, the overall CPG scored higher than the CAM section for 5 of 6 domains (overall, CAM): (1) scope and purpose (93.4%, 93.1%), (2) stakeholder involvement (81.6%, 81.9%), (3) rigour of development (70.8%, 66.3%), (4) clarity of presentation (64.9%, 60.8%), (5) applicability (39.3%, 33.6%), and (6) editorial independence (47.9%, 45.3%).

conclusionsMost neck pain CPGs made CAM recommendations. The quality of CAM recommendations is lower than overall recommendations across all domains with the exception of stakeholder involvement. This disparity highlights the need for CAM recommendations quality improvement. Although many patients with neck pain seek CAM therapies, few CPGs are available for healthcare providers and patients.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesNeck PainHumansAGREE IIClinical practice guidelineComplementary and alternative medicineNeck painSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35869329
OpenAlexW4286668849

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.