The effectiveness of hands-off approaches alone or in combination with hands-on approaches in the treatment of chronic cervical pain within a biopsychosocial framework: A systematic review

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY Journal of Psychosomatic Research Pub Date : 2025-03-13 DOI:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2025.112086
Kübra Canlı , Charbel Najem , Jessica Van Oosterwijck , Mira Meeus , Kayleigh De Meulemeester
{"title":"The effectiveness of hands-off approaches alone or in combination with hands-on approaches in the treatment of chronic cervical pain within a biopsychosocial framework: A systematic review","authors":"Kübra Canlı ,&nbsp;Charbel Najem ,&nbsp;Jessica Van Oosterwijck ,&nbsp;Mira Meeus ,&nbsp;Kayleigh De Meulemeester","doi":"10.1016/j.jpsychores.2025.112086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>This study aimed to systematically review the current literature comparing hands-off approaches with hands-on approaches from a biopsychosocial perspective of pain processing in people suffering from chronic primary neck pain (CPNP).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>An electronic search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Initial searches were carried out in November 2022, with electronic database searches repeated on November 25, 2024. Eligibility criteria which were randomized controlled trials comparing hands-off approaches alone or in combination with hands-on approaches and hands-on approaches alone in people with CPNP were checked by two independent authors. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB). The strength of conclusion was determined using the evidence-based guideline development approach.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Fifteen studies with a total of 1029 participants were included in this review. The RoB was rated as low RoB for two studies, some concerns for two studies and high RoB for 11 studies.</div><div>Pain processing was assessed by pain intensity(100 % of the studies), pain sensitivity(53 % of the studies), pain-related participation in social roles(46 % of the studies), pain-related emotions(26 % of the studies), and pain-related beliefs(6 % of the studies). Limited quality of evidence was found for the hands-off approaches alone being more effective on pain intensity than hands-on approaches alone in the long term. Limited- to moderate-quality of evidence was found for hands-off approaches combined with hands-on approaches, being more effective than hands-on approaches alone in improving pain intensity, pain sensitivity, pain-related participation in social roles, pain-related emotions, and pain-related beliefs in the short-, mid- or long-term.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The current findings suggest that hands-off approaches alone are superior to hands-on approaches in the long term, at least for pain intensity. Hands-off approaches in combination with hands-on approaches were also more effective than hands-on approaches for pain processing. However, substantial heterogeneity warrants a cautious interpretation of these results. More high-quality, randomized, controlled trials with homogenous data collection and larger sample sizes are needed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50074,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psychosomatic Research","volume":"192 ","pages":"Article 112086"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psychosomatic Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022399925000509","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to systematically review the current literature comparing hands-off approaches with hands-on approaches from a biopsychosocial perspective of pain processing in people suffering from chronic primary neck pain (CPNP).

Methods

An electronic search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Initial searches were carried out in November 2022, with electronic database searches repeated on November 25, 2024. Eligibility criteria which were randomized controlled trials comparing hands-off approaches alone or in combination with hands-on approaches and hands-on approaches alone in people with CPNP were checked by two independent authors. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB). The strength of conclusion was determined using the evidence-based guideline development approach.

Results

Fifteen studies with a total of 1029 participants were included in this review. The RoB was rated as low RoB for two studies, some concerns for two studies and high RoB for 11 studies.
Pain processing was assessed by pain intensity(100 % of the studies), pain sensitivity(53 % of the studies), pain-related participation in social roles(46 % of the studies), pain-related emotions(26 % of the studies), and pain-related beliefs(6 % of the studies). Limited quality of evidence was found for the hands-off approaches alone being more effective on pain intensity than hands-on approaches alone in the long term. Limited- to moderate-quality of evidence was found for hands-off approaches combined with hands-on approaches, being more effective than hands-on approaches alone in improving pain intensity, pain sensitivity, pain-related participation in social roles, pain-related emotions, and pain-related beliefs in the short-, mid- or long-term.

Conclusions

The current findings suggest that hands-off approaches alone are superior to hands-on approaches in the long term, at least for pain intensity. Hands-off approaches in combination with hands-on approaches were also more effective than hands-on approaches for pain processing. However, substantial heterogeneity warrants a cautious interpretation of these results. More high-quality, randomized, controlled trials with homogenous data collection and larger sample sizes are needed.
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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
相关文献
Soil to earthworm bioaccumulation of polyhalogenated carbazoles and related compounds: Lab and field tests
IF 8.9 2区 环境科学与生态学Environmental PollutionPub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120475
Qi Su , Chaojie Li , Minfeng Dong , Xincheng Liu , Dan Zhong , Shanshan Zhou
来源期刊
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Journal of Psychosomatic Research 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
6.40%
发文量
314
审稿时长
6.2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Psychosomatic Research is a multidisciplinary research journal covering all aspects of the relationships between psychology and medicine. The scope is broad and ranges from basic human biological and psychological research to evaluations of treatment and services. Papers will normally be concerned with illness or patients rather than studies of healthy populations. Studies concerning special populations, such as the elderly and children and adolescents, are welcome. In addition to peer-reviewed original papers, the journal publishes editorials, reviews, and other papers related to the journal''s aims.
期刊最新文献
Circulating branched-chain amino acids and risk of psychiatric disorders: A two-sample Mendelian randomization study Somatic and mental distress as predictors of number of symptoms associated with environmental factors in an adult general population: Cross-sectional and longitudinal findings The effectiveness of hands-off approaches alone or in combination with hands-on approaches in the treatment of chronic cervical pain within a biopsychosocial framework: A systematic review Editorial Board The impact of emotional freedom techniques on anxiety, depression, and anticipatory grief in people with cancer: A meta-analysis and systematic review
×
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:481959085
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