SynthesisPloS one2024
The effects of neck exercise in comparison to passive or no intervention on quantitative sensory testing measurements in adults with chronic neck pain: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious systematic reviews have identified the benefits of exercise for chronic neck pain on subjective reports of pain, but not with objective measures such as quantitative sensory testing (QST). A systematic review was conducted to identify the effects of neck specific exercise on QST measures in adults with chronic neck pain to synthesise existing literature and provide clinical recommendations.
methodsThe study protocol was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (PROSPERO CRD42021297383). For both randomised and non-randomised trials, the following databases and trial registries were searched: AMED, CINAHL, Embase, Google Scholar, Medline, PEDro, PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index from Web of Science Core Collection, clinicaltrials.gov, GreyOpen, and ISRCTN registry. These searches were conducted from inception to February 2022 and were updated until September 2023. Reference lists of eligible studies were screened. Study selection was performed independently by two reviewers, with data extraction and quality appraisal completed by one reviewer and independently ratified by a second reviewer. Due to high heterogeneity, narrative synthesis was performed with results grouped by exercise type.
findingsThree trials were included. Risk of bias was rated as moderate and the certainty of evidence as low or moderate for all studies. All exercise groups demonstrated statistically significant improvement at an intermediate-term follow-up, with progressive resistance training combined with graded physical training demonstrating the highest certainty of evidence. Fixed resistance training demonstrated statistically significant improvement in QST measures at a short-term assessment.
interpretationFixed resistance training is effective for short-term changes in pain sensitivity based on low-quality evidence, whilst moderate-quality evidence supports progressive resistance training combined with graded physical training for intermediate-term changes in pain sensitivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.