Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39891285›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2025

Comparative effectiveness of manual therapy, pharmacological treatment, exercise therapy, and education for neck pain (COMPETE study): protocol of a systematic review with network meta-analysis.

Ana Izabela Sobral de Oliveira-Souza, Jordana Barbosa-Silva, Douglas P Gross, Bruno R da Costa, Nikolaus Ballenberger, Tiago V Pereira, Liz Dennett, Susan Armijo-Olivo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Ana Izabela Sobral de Oliveira-SouzaUniversity of Applied Sciences - Hochschule Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany.
Jordana Barbosa-SilvaUniversity of Applied Sciences - Hochschule Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany.
Douglas P GrossFaculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Bruno R da CostaClinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield, Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nikolaus BallenbergerUniversity of Applied Sciences - Hochschule Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany.
Tiago V PereiraClinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield, Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Liz DennettFaculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Susan Armijo-OlivoUniversity of Applied Sciences - Hochschule Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany. s.armijo-olivo@hs-osnabrueck.de.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01KG2310
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT OF THE STUDY: Neck pain is a prevalent and globally burdensome problem. Clinical practice guidelines have recommended conservative treatments such as education, exercise therapy (ET), manual therapy (MT), and pharmacological therapy (i.e., medication) to manage all types of neck pain based on the chronicity of the disease (acute, subacute, and chronic pain). However, there is scarce evidence to determine which interventions constitute the most effective strategy for this condition. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the best conservative treatment options (i.e., ET, MT, education, and/or medication) to relieve pain and disability-related outcomes in patients with neck pain? THE OVERALL PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: (1) To identify which type of conservative treatment (education, ET, MT, and/or medication) and their combinations have the greatest probability of being most effective for neck pain using a network meta-analysis (NMA) approach. (2) To rank these conservative treatments in terms of safety (when possible) and effectiveness for managing neck pain. METHODOLOGY: Systematic review (SR) with NMA of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies should include adults (aged > 18) with neck pain who received any of the interventions of interest (education, ET, MT, and medication). The main outcome will be pain intensity. Searches will be conducted in Ovid Medline All®, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Scopus, and Cochrane Library Trials database. No language or publication date restrictions will be applied. The revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias (RoB) tool for RCTs (RoB-2) will be used to evaluate RoB, and the certainty of evidence will be evaluated by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE). NMAs will be conducted to rank interventions according to their effectiveness and safety (when possible), allowing a comprehensive analysis of all available evidence, with different nodes specified for all conservative interventions of interest, placebo, sham therapy, and non-intervention control. This NMA will help clinicians and the scientific community choose the most effective strategy or combinations of strategies for treating neck pain. The information gathered in this project will inform decision-making and guide personalized care of individual patients in the future.

Indexed as

Exercise TherapyMusculoskeletal ManipulationsNeck PainPatient Education as TopicHumansNetwork Meta-Analysis as TopicResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicExercise TherapyManual TherapyNeck painNetwork Meta-AnalysisPatient EducationPharmacotherapy

Identifiers

PMID39891285
PMCPMC11786388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.