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.

IF 3.9 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2025-01-31 DOI:10.1186/s13643-024-02737-4
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
{"title":"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.","authors":"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","doi":"10.1186/s13643-024-02737-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"30"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11786388/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02737-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
手工疗法、药物治疗、运动疗法和教育治疗颈部疼痛的比较效果(COMPETE研究):一项网络荟萃分析的系统评价方案。
研究背景和背景:颈部疼痛是一个普遍且全球性的问题。临床实践指南推荐保守治疗,如教育、运动治疗(ET)、手工治疗(MT)和药物治疗(即药物治疗),以根据疾病的慢性(急性、亚急性和慢性疼痛)来管理所有类型的颈部疼痛。然而,很少有证据可以确定哪些干预措施是治疗这种疾病最有效的策略。研究问题:缓解颈痛患者疼痛和残疾相关后果的最佳保守治疗方案(即ET、MT、教育和/或药物治疗)是什么?本研究的总体目的:(1)使用网络meta分析(NMA)方法确定哪种类型的保守治疗(教育、ET、MT和/或药物治疗)及其组合最有可能对颈部疼痛最有效。(2)根据治疗颈部疼痛的安全性(在可能的情况下)和有效性对这些保守疗法进行排名。方法:随机对照试验(rct)的系统评价(SR)与NMA。研究应包括接受任何感兴趣的干预措施(教育,ET, MT和药物)的颈部疼痛的成年人(年龄在bb0 - 18岁)。主要结果将是疼痛强度。检索将在Ovid Medline All®、Embase、CINAHL(护理和联合健康文献累积索引)、Scopus和Cochrane图书馆试验数据库中进行。不受语言或出版日期的限制。修订后的Cochrane随机对照试验风险偏倚(RoB)工具(RoB-2)将用于评估RoB,证据的确定性将通过推荐、评估、发展和评估分级(GRADE)来评估。nma将根据干预措施的有效性和安全性(在可能的情况下)进行排序,允许对所有可用证据进行全面分析,并为所有感兴趣的保守干预措施、安慰剂、假治疗和非干预对照指定不同的节点。该NMA将帮助临床医生和科学界选择治疗颈部疼痛的最有效策略或策略组合。本项目收集的信息将为未来个体患者的决策提供信息,并指导个性化护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
期刊最新文献
Blood activating and stasis removing Chinese patent medicine in perioperative period of PCI for myocardial infarction: a protocol for a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Effectiveness of digital health interventions for increasing preventive care for smoking, nutrition, alcohol consumption, physical activity and weight (SNAP-W) in outpatient settings: a systematic review protocol. Psychosocial determinants of child cognitive development in sub-Saharan early childhood development centres: a systematic review protocol. Effectiveness and mechanisms of interventions to reduce low-value thyroid function tests: a systematic review. Effects of glucose-containing dialysates for patients with maintenance hemodialysis: a systematic review, pairwise and network meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1