Search

To update the findings of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) on prognostic factors for whiplash-associated disorder (WAD) outcomes. We conducted a systematic review and best-evidence synthesis. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO from 2000–2017. Random pairs of reviewers critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. We retrieved 10,081 articles. Of those, 100 met inclusion criteria. After critical appraisal, 74 were judged to have low risk of bias. This adds to the 47 admissible studies found by the Neck Pain Task Force. Twenty-two related to course of recovery; 59 to prognostic factors in recovery; and 16 reported other WADs outcomes. Some studies related to more than one category. Findings suggest that half of those with WADs will experience substantial improvement within three months and cessation of symptoms within six months. Among factors associated with recovery are post-crash psychological factors, including expectations for recovery and coping. Our review adds to the Neck Pain Task Force by clarifying the role of prognostic factors. Evidence supports the important role of post-crash psychological factors in WADs recovery. CRD42013004610

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of a government-regulated rehabilitation guideline compared with education and activation by general practitioners, and to a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation programme on self-reported global recovery from acute whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) grade I–II.DesignPragmatic randomised clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment.SettingMultidisciplinary rehabilitation clinics and general practitioners in Ontario, Canada.Participants340 participants with acute WAD grade I and II. Potential participants were sampled from a large automobile insurer when reporting a traffic injury.InterventionsParticipants were randomised to receive one of three protocols: government-regulated rehabilitation guideline, education and activation by general practitioners or a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOur primary outcome was time to self-reported global recovery. Secondary outcomes included time on insurance benefits, neck pain intensity, whiplash-related disability, health-related quality of life and depressive symptomatology at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months postinjury.ResultsThe median time to self-reported global recovery was 59 days (95% CI 55 to 68) for the government-regulated guideline group, 105 days (95% CI 61 to 126) for the preferred-provider group and 108 days (95% CI 93 to 206) for the general practitioner group; the difference was not statistically significant (Χ2=3.96; 2 df: p=0.138). We found no clinically important differences between groups in secondary outcomes. Post hoc analysis suggests that the general practitioner (hazard rate ratio (HRR)=0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77) and preferred-provider groups (HRR=0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96) had slower recovery than the government-regulated guideline group during the first 80 days postinjury. No major adverse events were reported.ConclusionsTime-to-recovery did not significantly differ across intervention groups. We found no differences between groups with regard to neck-specific outcomes, depression and health-related quality of life.Trial registration numberNCT00546806.

Objectives:In 2007, the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee (OHTAC) developed a decision framework to guide decision making around nondrug health technologies. In 2012, OHTAC commissioned a revision of this framework to enhance its usability and deepen its conceptual and theoretical foundations.Methods:The committee overseeing this work used several methods: (a) a priori consensus on guiding principles, (b) a scoping review of decision attributes and processes used globally in health technology assessment (HTA), (c) presentations by methods experts and members of review committees, and (d) committee deliberations over a period of 3 years.Results:The committee adopted a multi-criteria decision-making approach, but rejected the formal use of multi-criteria decision analysis. Three broad categories of attributes were identified: (I) context criteria attributes included factors such as stakeholders, adoption pressures from neighboring jurisdictions, and potential conflicts of interest; (II) primary appraisal criteria attributes included (i) benefits and harms, (ii) economics, and (iii) patient-centered care; (III) feasibility criteria attributes included budget impact and organizational feasibility.Conclusion:The revised Ontario Decision Framework is similar in some respects to frameworks used in HTA worldwide. Its distinctive characteristics are that: it is based on an explicit set of social values; HTA paradigms (evidence based medicine, economics, and bioethics/social science) are used to aggregate decision attributes; and that it is rooted in a theoretical framework of optimal decision making, rather than one related to broad social goals, such as health or welfare maximization.

Background Previous studies have demonstrated that organized, multidisciplinary care is the cornerstone of current strategies to reduce the death and disability caused by stroke. Identification of stroke units and an understanding of their composition and operation would provide insight for the further actions required to improve stroke care. The objective of this study was to identify and survey stroke units in Canada’s largest province, Ontario (population of 13 million) in order to describe availability, structure, staffing, processes of care, and type of population stroke units serve. Methods The Ontario Stroke Network (2011) list of stroke units and snowball sampling was used to identify all stroke units. During 2013 – 2014 an interviewer conducted telephone surveys with the stroke unit managers using closed and semi-open ended questions. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize survey responses. Results The survey identified 32 stroke units, and a respondent from every stroke unit (100% response rate) was interviewed. Twenty one were acute stroke units, 10 were integrated stroke units and one was classified as a rehabilitation stroke unit. Stroke units were available in all 14 Local Health Integration Networks except Central West. The estimated average number of stroke patients served per stroke unit was 604 with six-fold variation (242 to 1480) across the province. The typical population served in stroke units were patients with either ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Data consistently reported on the processes of stroke care, including the availability of multidisciplinary staff, specific diagnostic imaging, use of validated assessment tools, and the delivery of patient education. Details about the core components of stoke care were provided by 16 stroke units (50%). Conclusions This study demonstrates the heterogeneous structure of stroke units in Ontario and signaled potential disparity in access to stroke units. Many core components are in place, but half of the stroke units in Ontario do not meet all criteria. Areas for potential improvement include stroke care training for the multidisciplinary team, provision of individualized rehabilitation plans, and early discharge assessment. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2099-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background and Objective:Background and Objective: In developed countries, injection drug users have the highest prevalence and incidence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Clinicians and policy makers have several options for reducing morbidity and mortality related to HCV infection, including preventing new infections, screening high-risk populations, and optimizing uptake and delivery of antiviral therapy. Cost-effectiveness analyses provide an estimate of the value for money associated with adopting healthcare interventions. Our objective was to determine the cost effectiveness of hepatitis C interventions (prevention, screening, treatment) targeting substance users and other groups with a high proportion of substance users. Abstract: Methods:Methods: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HealthSTAR and EconLit, and the grey literature. Studies were critically appraised using the Drummond and Jefferson, Neumann et al. and Philips et al. checklists. We developed and applied a quality appraisal instrument specific to cost-effectiveness analyses of HCV interventions. In addition, we summarized cost-effectiveness estimates using a single currency and year ($US, year 2009 values). Abstract: Results:Results: Twenty-one economic evaluations were included, which addressed prevention (three), screening (ten) and treatment (eight). The quality of the analyses varied greatly. A significant proportion did not incorporate important aspects of HCV natural history, disease costs and antiviral therapy. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from dominant (less costly and more effective) to $US603 352 per QALY. However, many ICERs were less than $US100 000 per QALY. Screening and treatment interventions involving pegylated interferon and ribavirin were generally cost effective at the $US100 000 per QALY threshold, with the exception of some subgroups, such as immune compromised patients with genotype 1 infections. Abstract: Conclusions:Conclusions: No clear consensus emerged from the studies demonstrating that prevention, screening or treatment provides better value for money as each approach can be economically attractive in certain subgroups. More high-quality economic evaluations of preventing, identifying and treating HCV infection in substance users are needed.

Purpose To elicit neck pain (NP) patients’ preference scores for their current health, and investigate the association between their scores and NP disability. Methods Rating scale scores (RSs) and standard gamble scores (SGs) for current health were elicited from chronic NP patients (n = 104) and patients with NP following a motor vehicle accident (n = 116). Patients were stratified into Von Korff Pain Grades: Grade I (low-intensity pain, few activity limitations); Grade II (high-intensity pain, few activity limitations); Grade III (pain with high disability levels, moderate activity limitations); and Grade IV (pain with high disability levels, several activity limitations). Multivariable regression quantified the association between preference scores and NP disability. Results Mean SGs and RSs were as follows: Grade I patients: 0.81, 0.76; Grade II: 0.70, 0.60; Grade III: 0.64, 0.44; Grade IV: 0.57, 0.39. The association between preference scores and NP disability depended on type of NP and preference-elicitation method. Chronic NP patients’ scores were more strongly associated with depressive symptoms than with NP disability. In both samples, NP disability explained little more than random variance in SGs, and up to 51% of variance in RSs. Conclusion Health-related quality-of-life is considerably diminished in NP patients. Depressive symptoms and preference-elicitation methods influence preference scores that NP patients assign to their health.

Best evidence synthesis. To identify, critically appraise, and synthesize literature from 1980 through 2006 on noninvasive interventions for neck pain and its associated disorders. No comprehensive systematic literature reviews have been published on interventions for neck pain and its associated disorders in the past decade. We systematically searched Medline and screened for relevance literature published from 1980 through 2006 on the use, effectiveness, and safety of noninvasive interventions for neck pain and associated disorders. Consensus decisions were made about the scientific merit of each article; those judged to have adequate internal validity were included in our best evidence synthesis. Of the 359 invasive and noninvasive intervention articles deemed relevant, 170 (47%) were accepted as scientifically admissible, and 139 of these related to noninvasive interventions (including health care utilization, costs, and safety). For whiplash-associated disorders, there is evidence that educational videos, mobilization, and exercises appear more beneficial than usual care or physical modalities. For other neck pain, the evidence suggests that manual and supervised exercise interventions, low-level laser therapy, and perhaps acupuncture are more effective than no treatment, sham, or alternative interventions; however, none of the active treatments was clearly superior to any other in either the short-or long-term. For both whiplash-associated disorders and other neck pain without radicular symptoms, interventions that focused on regaining function as soon as possible are relatively more effective than interventions that do not have such a focus. Our best evidence synthesis suggests that therapies involving manual therapy and exercise are more effective than alternative strategies for patients with neck pain; this was also true of therapies which include educational interventions addressing self-efficacy. Future efforts should focus on the study of noninvasive interventions for patients with radicular symptoms and on the design and evaluation of neck pain prevention strategies.

STUDY DESIGN: Best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidance to primary care clinicians about how to best assess and treat patients with neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is a need to translate the results of clinical and epidemiologic studies into meaningful and practical information for clinicians. METHODS: Based on best evidence syntheses of published studies on the risk, prognosis, assessment, and management of people with neck pain and its associated disorders, plus additional research projects and focused literature reviews reported in this supplement, the 12-member multidisciplinary Scientific Secretariat of the Neck Pain Task Force followed a 4-step approach to develop practical guidance for clinicians. RESULTS: The Neck Pain Task Force recommends that people seeking care for neck pain should be triaged into 4 groups: Grade I neck pain with no signs of major pathology and no or little interference with daily activities; Grade II neck pain with no signs of major pathology, but interference with daily activities; Grade III neck pain with neurologic signs of nerve compression; Grade IV neck pain with signs of major pathology. In the emergency room after blunt trauma to the neck, triage should be based on the NEXUS criteria or the Canadian C-spine rule. Those with a high risk of fracture should be further investigated with plain radiographs and/or CT-scan. In ambulatory primary care, triage should be based on history and physical examination alone, including screening for red flags and neurologic examination for signs of radiculopathy. Exercises and mobilization have been shown to provide some degree of short-term relief of Grade I or Grade II neck pain after a motor vehicle collision. Exercises, mobilization, manipulation, analgesics, acupuncture, and low-level laser have been shown to provide some degree of short-term relief of Grade I or Grade II neck pain without trauma. Those with confirmed Grade III and severe persistent radicular symptoms might benefit from corticosteroid injections or surgery. Those with confirmed Grade IV neck pain require management specific to the diagnosed pathology. CONCLUSION: The best available evidence suggests initial assessment for neck pain should focus on triage into 4 grades, and those with common neck pain (Grade I and Grade II) might be offered the listed noninvasive treatments if short-term relief is desired. Language: en

Best evidence synthesis. To undertake a best evidence synthesis on course and prognosis of neck pain and its associated disorders in the general population. Knowing the course of neck pain guides expectations for recovery. Identifying prognostic factors assists in planning public policies, formulating interventions, and promoting lifestyle changes to decrease the burden of neck pain. The Bone and Joint Decade 2000 –2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) conducted a critical review of literature published between 1980 and 2006 to assemble the best evidence on neck pain. Findings fromstudiesmeeting criteria for scientific validity were abstracted into evidence tables and included in a best evidence synthesis. We found 226 articles on the course and prognostic factors in neck pain and its associated disorders. After critical review, 70 (31) of these were accepted on scientific merit. Six studies related to course and 7 to prognostic factors in the general population. Between half and three quarters of persons in these populations with current neck pain will report neck pain again 1 to 5 years later. Younger age predicted better outcome. General exercise was unassociated with outcome, although regular bicycling predicted poor outcome in 1 study. Psychosocial factors, including psychologic health, coping patterns, and need to socialize, were the strongest prognostic factors. Several potential prognostic factors have not been well studied, including degenerative changes, genetic factors, and compensation policies. The Neck Pain Task Force undertook a best evidence synthesis to establish a baseline of the current best evidence on the course and prognosis for this symptom. General exercise was not prognostic of better outcome; however, several psychosocial factors were prognostic of outcome.

Study DesignBest evidence synthesis.ObjectiveTo critically appraise and synthesize the literature on assessment of neck pain.Summary of Background DataThe published literature on assessment of neck pain is large and of variable quality. There have been no prior systematic reviews of this literature.MethodsThe Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders conducted a critical review of the literature (published 1980- 2006) on assessment tools and screening protocols for traumatic and nontraumatic neck pain.ResultsWe found 359 articles on assessment of neck pain. After critical review, 95 (35%) were judged scientifically admissible. Screening protocols have high predictive values to detect cervical spine fracture in alert, low-risk patients seeking emergency care after blunt neck trauma. Computerized tomography (CT) scans had better validity (in adults and elderly) than radiographs in assessing high-risk and/or multi-injured blunt trauma neck patients. In the absence of serious pathology, clinical physical examinations are more predictive at excluding than confirming structural lesions causing neurologic compression. One exception is the manual provocation test for cervical radiculopathy, which has high positive predictive value. There was no evidence that specific MRI findings are associated with neck pain, cervicogenic headache, or whiplash exposure. No evidence supports using cervical provocative discography, anesthetic facet, or medial branch blocks in evaluating neck pain. Reliable and valid self-report questionnaires are useful in assessing pain, function, disability, and psychosocial status in individuals with neck pain.ConclusionThe scientific evidence supports screening protocols in emergency care for low-risk patients; and CT-scans for high-risk patients with blunt trauma to the neck. In nonemergency neck pain without radiculopathy, the validity of most commonly used objective tests is lacking. There is support for subjective self-report assessment in monitoring patients’ course, response to treatment, and in clinical research.

Study design Best evidence synthesis. Objective To report on gaps in the literature and make methodologic recommendations based on our review of the literature on frequency and risk factors, assessment, intervention, and course and prognostic factors for neck pain and its associated disorders. Summary of background data The scientific literature on neck pain is large and of variable quality. We reviewed 1203 studies and judged 46% to be of sufficient scientific validity to be included in the best evidence synthesis. Scientific quality varied across study topics, and fundamental questions remain about important issues. Methods The Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) conducted a critical review of the literature published between 1980 and 2006 to assemble the best evidence on neck pain and its associated disorders. Studies meeting criteria for scientific validity were included in a best evidence synthesis. Results We outline a large number of gaps in the current literature. For example, we found important gaps in our knowledge about neck pain in children (risk factors, screening criteria to rule out serious injury, management, course and prognosis); and in the prevention of neck pain-related activity limitations. Few studies addressed the impact of culture or social policies (such as governmental health policies or insurance compensation policies) on neck pain. A number of important questions remain about the effectiveness of commonly used interventions for neck pain. Conclusion The Neck Pain Task Force undertook a best evidence synthesis to establish a baseline of the current best evidence on the course and prognosis for whiplash-associated disorders. We identify a number of gaps in the current knowledge, and provide recommendations for the conduct of future studies.

Background Multi-disciplinary heart failure (HF) clinics have been shown to improve outcomes for HF patients in randomized clinical trials. However, it is unclear how widely available specialized HF clinics are in Ontario. Also, the service models of current clinics have not been described. It is therefore uncertain whether the efficacy of HF clinics in trials is generalizable to the HF clinics currently operating in the province. Methods As part of a comprehensive evaluation of HF clinics in Ontario, we performed an environmental scan to identify all HF clinics operating in 2010. A semi-structured interview was conducted to understand the scope of practice. The intensity and complexity of care offered were quantified through the use of a validated instrument, and clinics were categorized as high, medium or low intensity clinics. Results We identified 34 clinics with 143 HF physicians. We found substantial regional disparity in access to care across the province. The majority of HF physicians were cardiologists (81%), with 81% of the clinics physically based in hospitals, of which 26% were academic centers. There was a substantial range in the complexity of services offered, most notably in the intensity of education and medication management services offered. All the clinics focused on ambulatory care, with only one having an in-patient focus. None of the HF clinics had a home-based component to care. Conclusions Multiple HF clinics are currently operating in Ontario with a wide spectrum of care models. Further work is necessary to understand which components lead to improved patient outcomes.

Background Whiplash injury affects 83% of persons in a traffic collision and leads to whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). A major challenge facing health care decision makers is identifying cost-effective interventions due to lack of economic evidence. Our objective is to compare the cost-effectiveness of: 1) physician-based education and activation, 2) a rehabilitation program developed by Aviva Canada (a group of property and casualty insurance providers), and 3) the legislated standard of care in the Canadian province of Ontario: the Pre-approved Framework Guideline for Whiplash developed by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. Methods/Design The economic evaluation will use participant-level data from the University Health Network Whiplash Intervention Trial and will be conducted from the societal perspective over the trial's one-year follow-up. Resource use (costs) will include all health care goods and services, and benefits provided during the trial's 1-year follow-up. The primary health effect will be the quality-adjusted life year. We will identify the most cost-effective intervention using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and incremental net-benefit. Confidence ellipses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves will represent uncertainty around these statistics, respectively. A budget impact analysis will assess the total annual impact of replacing the current legislated standard of care with each of the other interventions. An expected value of perfect information will determine the maximum research expenditure Canadian society should be willing to pay for, and inform priority setting in, research of WAD management. Discussion Results will provide health care decision makers with much needed economic evidence on common interventions for acute whiplash management. Trial Registration http://ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00546806 [Trial registry date: October 18, 2007; Date first patient was randomized: February 27, 2008]

Background Specialized multidisciplinary clinics have been shown to reduce mortality in heart failure (HF). Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this model of care delivery. Methods We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis, with a 12-year time horizon, from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care, comparing a standard care cohort, consisting of all patients admitted to hospital with HF in 2005, to a hypothetical cohort treated in HF clinics. Survival curves describing the natural history of HF were constructed using mortality estimates from the Enhanced Feedback for Effective Cardiac Treatment (EFFECT) study. Survival benefits and resource uptake associated with HF clinics were estimated from a meta-analysis of published trials. HF clinics costs were obtained by costing a representative clinic in Ontario. Health-related costs were determined through linkage to administrative databases. Outcome measures included life expectancy (years), costs (in 2008 Canadian dollars) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results HF clinics were associated with a 29% reduction in all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56–0.91) but a 12% increase in hospitalizations (RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.92–1.135). The cost of care in HF clinics was $52 per 30 patient-days. Projected life-expectancy of HF clinic patients was 3.91 years, compared to 3.21 years for standard care. The 12-year cumulative cost per patient in the HF clinic group was $66,532 versus $53,638 in the standard care group. The ICER was $18,259/life-year gained. Conclusions HF clinics appear to be a cost effective way of delivering ambulatory care to HF patients.

STUDY DESIGN Best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE To identify, critically appraise, and synthesize literature from 1980 through 2006 on surgical interventions for neck pain alone or with radicular pain in the absence of serious pathologic disease. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA There have been no comprehensive systematic literature or evidence-based reviews published on this topic. METHODS We systematically searched Medline for literature published from 1980 to 2006 on percutaneous and open surgical interventions for neck pain. Publications on the topic were also solicited from experts in the field. Consensus decisions were made about the scientific merit of each article; those judged to have adequate internal validity were included in our Best Evidence Synthesis. RESULTS Of the 31,878 articles screened, 1203 studies were relevant to the Neck Pain Task Force mandate and of these, 31 regarding treatment by surgery or injections were accepted as scientifically admissible. Radiofrequency neurotomy, cervical facet injections, cervical fusion and cervical arthroplasty for neck pain without radiculopathy are not supported by current evidence. We found there is support for short-term symptomatic improvement of radicular symptoms with epidural corticosteroids. It is not clear from the evidence that long-term outcomes are improved with the surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy compared to nonoperative measures. However, relatively rapid and substantial symptomatic relief after surgical treatment seems to be reliably achieved. It is not evident that one open surgical technique is clearly superior to others for radiculopathy. Cervical foramenal or epidural injections are associated with relatively frequent minor adverse events (5%-20%); however, serious adverse events are very uncommon (

Study design Best-evidence synthesis. Objective To perform a best evidence synthesis on the course and prognostic factors for neck pain and its associated disorders in workers. Summary of background data Knowledge of the course of neck pain in workers guides expectations for recovery. Identifying prognostic factors assists in planning effective workplace policies, formulating interventions and promoting lifestyle changes to decrease the frequency and burden of neck pain in the workplace. Methods The Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) conducted a critical review of the literature published between 1980 and 2006 to assemble the best evidence on neck pain and its associated disorders. Studies meeting criteria for scientific validity were included in a best evidence synthesis. Results We found 226 articles related to course and prognostic factors in neck pain and its associated disorders. After a critical review, 70 (31%) were accepted on scientific merit; 14 of these studies related to course and prognostic factors in working populations. Between 60% and 80% of workers with neck pain reported neck pain 1 year later. Few workplace or physical job demands were identified as being linked to recovery from neck pain. However, workers with little influence on their own work situation had a slightly poorer prognosis, and white-collar workers had a better prognosis than blue-collar workers. General exercise was associated with better prognosis; prior neck pain and prior sick leave were associated with poorer prognosis. Conclusion The Neck Pain Task Force presents a report of current best evidence on course and prognosis for neck pain. Few modifiable prognostic factors were identified; however, having some influence over one's own job and being physically active seem to hold promise as prognostic factors.

Best evidence synthesis. To perform a best evidence synthesis on the course and prognostic factors for neck pain and its associated disorders in Grades I–III whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). Knowledge of the course of recovery of WAD guides expectations for recovery. Identifying prognostic factors assists in planning management and intervention strategies and effective compensation policies to decrease the burden of WAD. The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) conducted a critical review of the literature published between 1980 and 2006 to assemble the best evidence on neck pain and its associated disorders. Studies meeting criteria for scientific validity were included in a best evidence synthesis. We found 226 articles related to course and prognostic factors in neck pain and its associated disorders. After a critical review, 70 (31%) were accepted on scientific merit; 47 of these studies related to course and prognostic factors in WAD. The evidence suggests that approximately 50% of those with WAD will report neck pain symptoms 1 year after their injuries. Greater initial pain, more symptoms, and greater initial disability predicted slower recovery. Few factors related to the collision itself (for example, direction of the collision, headrest type) were prognostic; however, postinjury psychological factors such as passive coping style, depressed mood, and fear of movement were prognostic for slower or less complete recovery. There is also preliminary evidence that the prevailing compensation system is prognostic for recovery in WAD. The Neck Pain Task Force undertook a best evidence synthesis to establish a baseline of the current best evidence on the course and prognosis for WAD. Recovery of WAD seems to be multifactorial.

STUDY DESIGN: Best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: To undertake a best evidence synthesis of the published evidence on the burden and determinants of neck pain and its associated disorders in the general population. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The evidence on burden and determinants of neck has not previously been summarized. METHODS: The Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders performed a systematic search and critical review of literature published between 1980 and 2006 to assemble the best evidence on neck pain. Studies meeting criteria for scientific validity were included in a best evidence synthesis. RESULTS: We identified 469 studies on burden and determinants of neck pain, and judged 249 to be scientifically admissible; 101 articles related to the burden and determinants of neck pain in the general population. Incidence ranged from 0.055 per 1000 person years (disc herniation with radiculopathy) to 213 per 1000 persons (self-reported neck pain). Incidence of neck injuries during competitive sports ranged from 0.02 to 21 per 1000 exposures. The 12-month prevalence of pain typically ranged between 30% and 50%; the 12-month prevalence of activity-limiting pain was 1.7% to 11.5%. Neck pain was more prevalent among women and prevalence peaked in middle age. Risk factors for neck pain included genetics, poor psychological health, and exposure to tobacco. Disc degeneration was not identified as a risk factor. The use of sporting gear (helmets, face shields) to prevent other types of injury was not associated with increased neck injuries in bicycling, hockey, or skiing. CONCLUSION: Neck pain is common. Nonmodifiable risk factors for neck pain included age, gender, and genetics. Modifiable factors included smoking, exposure to tobacco, and psychological health. Disc degeneration was not identified as a risk factor. Future research should concentrate on longitudinal designs exploring preventive strategies and modifiable risk factors for neck pain. Language: en

Best evidence synthesis. To undertake a best evidence synthesis on the burden and determinants of whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) after traffic collisions. Summary of Background Data. Previous best evidence synthesis on WAD has noted a lack of evidence regarding incidence of and risk factors for WAD. Therefore there was a warrant of a reanalyze of this body of research. A systematic search of Medline was conducted. The reviewers looked for studies on neck pain and its associated disorders published 1980 –2006. Each relevant study was independently and critically reviewed by rotating pairs of reviewers. Data from studies judged to have acceptable internal validity (scientifically admissible) were abstracted into evidence tables, and provide the body of the best evidence synthesis. The authors found 32 scientifically admissible studies related to the burden and determinants of WAD. In the Western world, visits to emergency rooms due to WAD have increased over the past 30 years. The annual cumulative incidence of WAD differed substantially between countries. They found that occupant seat position and collision impact direction were associated with WAD in one study. Eliminating insurance payments for pain and suffering were associated with a lower incidence of WAD injury claims in one study. Younger ages and being a female were both associated with filing claims or seeking care for WAD, although the evidence is not consistent. Preliminary evidence suggested that headrests/car seats, aimed to limiting head extension during rear-end collisions had a preventive effect on reporting WAD, especially in females. WAD after traffic collisions affects many people. Despite many years of research, the evidence regarding risk factors for WAD is sparse but seems to include personal, societal, and environmental factors. More research including, well-defined studies with accurate denominators for calculating risk, and better consideration of confounding factors, are needed.

Iterative discussion and consensus by a multidisciplinary task force scientific secretariat reviewing scientific evidence on neck pain and its associated disorders. To provide an integrated model for linking the epidemiology of neck pain with its management and consequences, and to help organize and interpret existing knowledge, and to highlight gaps in the current literature. The wide variability of scientific and clinical approaches to neck pain described in the literature requires a unified conceptual model for appropriate interpretation of the research evidence. The 12-member Scientific Secretariat of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders critically reviewed and eventually accepted as scientifically admissible a total of 552 scientific papers. The group met face-to-face on 18 occasions and had frequent additional telephone conference meetings over a 6-year period to discuss and interpret this literature and to agree on a conceptual model, which would accommodate findings. Models and definitions published in the scientific literature were discussed and repeatedly modified until the model and case definitions presented here were finally approved by the group. Our new conceptual model is centered on the person with neck pain or who is at risk for neck pain. Neck pain is viewed as an episodic occurrence over a lifetime with variable recovery between episodes. The model outlines the options available to individuals who are dealing with neck pain, along with factors that determine options, choices, and consequences. The short- and long-term impacts of neck pain are also considered. Finally, the model includes a 5-axis classification of neck pain studies based on how subjects were recruited into each study. The Scientific Secretariat found the conceptual model helpful in interpreting the available scientific evidence. We believe it can assist people with neck pain, researchers, clinicians, and policy makers in framing their questions and decisions.

Study design Systematic review and best evidence synthesis. Objectives To describe the prevalence and incidence of neck pain and disability in workers; to identify risk factors for neck pain in workers; to propose an etiological diagram; and to make recommendations for future research. Summary of background data Previous reviews of the etiology of neck pain in workers relied on cross-sectional evidence. Recently published cohorts and randomized trials warrant a re-analysis of this body of research. Methods We systematically searched Medline for literature published from 1980-2006. Retrieved articles were reviewed for relevance. Relevant articles were critically appraised. Articles judged to have adequate internal validity were included in our best evidence synthesis. Results One hundred and nine papers on the burden and determinants of neck pain in workers were scientifically admissible. The annual prevalence of neck pain varied from 27.1% in Norway to 47.8% in Quebec, Canada. Each year, between 11% and 14.1% of workers were limited in their activities because of neck pain. Risk factors associated with neck pain in workers include age, previous musculoskeletal pain, high quantitative job demands, low social support at work, job insecurity, low physical capacity, poor computer workstation design and work posture, sedentary work position, repetitive work and precision work. We found preliminary evidence that gender, occupation, headaches, emotional problems, smoking, poor job satisfaction, awkward work postures, poor physical work environment, and workers' ethnicity may be associated with neck pain. There is evidence that interventions aimed at modifying workstations and worker posture are not effective in reducing the incidence of neck pain in workers. Conclusion Neck disorders are a significant source of pain and activity limitations in workers. Most neck pain results from complex relationships between individual and workplace risk factors. No prevention strategies have been shown to reduce the incidence of neck pain in workers.

Study design Best evidence synthesis. Objective To provide a detailed description of the methods undertaken in a systematic search and perform a best evidence synthesis on the frequency, determinants, assessment, interventions, course and prognosis of neck pain, and its associated disorders. Summary of background data Neck pain is an important cause of health burden; however, the published information is vast, and stakeholders would benefit from a summary of the best evidence. Methods The Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders conducted a systematic search and critical review of the literature published between 1980 and 2006 to assemble the best evidence on neck pain. Citations were screened for relevance to the Neck Pain Task Force mandate, using a priori criteria, and relevant studies were critically reviewed for their internal scientific validity. Findings from studies meeting criteria for scientific validity were synthesized into a best evidence synthesis. Results We found 31,878 citations, of which 1203 were relevant to the mandate of the Neck Pain Task Force. After critical review, 552 studies (46%) were judged scientifically admissible and were compiled into the best evidence synthesis. Conclusion The Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders undertook a best evidence synthesis to establish a baseline of the current best evidence on the epidemiology, assessment and classification of neck pain, as well as interventions and prognosis for this symptom. This article reports the methods used and the outcomes from the review. We found that 46% of the research literature was of acceptable scientific quality to inform clinical practice, policy-making, and future research.

STUDY DESIGN: Decision analysis. OBJECTIVE: To identify the best treatment for nonspecific neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In Canada and the United States, the most commonly prescribed neck pain treatments are nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), exercise, and manual therapy. Deciding which treatment is best is difficult because of the trade-offs between beneficial and harmful effects, and because of the uncertainty of these effects. METHODS: (Quality-adjusted) life expectancy associated with standard NSAIDs, Cox-2 NSAIDs, exercise, mobilization, and manipulation were compared in a decision-analytic model. Estimates of the course of neck pain, background risk of adverse events in the general population, treatment effectiveness and risk, and patient-preferences were input into the model. Assuming equal effectiveness, we conducted a baseline analysis using risk of harm only. We assessed the stability of the baseline results by conducting a second analysis that incorporated effectiveness data from a high-quality randomized trial. RESULTS: There were no important differences across treatments. The difference between the highest and lowest ranked treatments predicted by the baseline model was 4.5 days of life expectancy and 3.4 quality-adjusted life-days. The difference between the highest and lowest ranked treatments predicted by the second model was 7.3 quality-adjusted life-days. CONCLUSION: When the objective is to maximize life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy, none of the treatments in our analysis were clearly superior

Context Coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality has declined substantially in Canada since 1994. Objective To determine what proportion of this decline was associated with temporal trends in CHD risk factors and advancements in medical treatments. Design, Setting, and Patients Prospective analytic study of the Ontario, Canada, population aged 25 to 84 years between 1994 and 2005, using an updated version of the validated IMPACT model, which integrates data on population size, CHD mortality, risk factors, and treatment uptake changes. Relative risks and regression coefficients from the published literature quantified the relationship between CHD mortality and (1) evidence-based therapies in 8 distinct CHD subpopulations (acute myocardial infarction [AMI], acute coronary syndromes, secondary prevention post-AMI, chronic coronary artery disease, heart failure in the hospital vs in the community, and primary prevention for hyperlipidemia or hypertension) and (2) population trends in 6 risk factors (smoking, diabetes mellitus, systolic blood pressure, plasma cholesterol level, exercise, and obesity). Main Outcome Measures The number of deaths prevented or delayed in 2005; secondary outcome measures were improvements in medical treatments and trends in risk factors. Results Between 1994 and 2005, the age-adjusted CHD mortality rate in Ontario decreased by 35% from 191 to 125 deaths per 100 000 inhabitants, translating to an estimated 7585 fewer CHD deaths in 2005. Improvements in medical and surgical treatments were associated with 43% (range, 11% to 124%) of the total mortality decrease, most notably in AMI (8%; range, −5% to 40%), chronic stable coronary artery disease (17%; range, 7% to 35%), and heart failure occurring while in the community (10%; range, 6% to 31%). Trends in risk factors accounted for 3660 fewer CHD deaths prevented or delayed (48% of total; range, 28% to 64%), specifically, reductions in total cholesterol (23%; range, 10% to 33%) and systolic blood pressure (20%; range, 13% to 26%). Increasing diabetes prevalence and body mass index had an inverse relationship associated with higher CHD mortality of 6% (range, 4% to 8%) and 2% (range, 1% to 4%), respectively. Conclusion Between 1994 and 2005, there was a decrease in CHD mortality rates in Ontario that was associated primarily with trends in risk factors and improvements in medical treatments, each explaining about half of the decrease.