Search

There is a growing desire within the chiropractic profession to expand the scope of practice to include limited medication prescription rights for the treatment of spine-related and other musculoskeletal conditions. Such prescribing rights have been successfully incorporated into a number of chiropractic jurisdictions worldwide. If limited to a musculoskeletal scope, medication prescription rights have the potential to change the present role of chiropractors within the healthcare system by paving the way for practitioners to become comprehensive specialists in the conservative management of spine / musculoskeletal disorders. However, if the chiropractic profession wishes to lobby to expand the scope of practice to include limited prescriptive authority, several issues must first be addressed. These would include changes to chiropractic education and legislation, as well as consideration of how such privileges could impact the chiropractic profession on a more theoretical basis. In this commentary, we examine the arguments in favour of and against limited medication prescription rights for chiropractors and discuss the implications of such privileges for the profession.

Background: Neck pain (NP) is disabling and costly., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of exercise on pain, disability, function, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL) and global perceived effect (GPE) in adults with NP., Methods: We searched computerised databases up to May 2014 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing exercise to a control in adults with NP with/without cervicogenic headache (CGH) or radiculopathy. Two reviewers independently conducted selection, data abstraction and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed to establish pooled standardised mean differences (SMDp). The Grade of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to summarise the body of evidence., Main Results: The following exercises (27 trials) were supported by 'Moderate GRADE' evidence: For chronic NP, 1) cervico-scapulothoracic and upper extremity (UE) strengthening for moderate to large pain reduction immediately post treatment (IP) and at short-term (ST) follow-up; 2) scapulothoracic and UE endurance training for a small pain reduction (IP/ST); 3) cervical, shoulder and scapulothoracic strengthening and stretching exercise for a small to large pain reduction in the long-term (LT) (SMDp -0.45 [95%CI: -0.72 to -0.18]) and function improvement; 4) cervico-scapulothoracic strengthening/stabilisation exercises for pain and function at intermediate-term (IT) (SMDp -14.90 [95%CI: -22.40 to -7.39]). 5) mindfulness exercises (Qigong) for minor improved function but not GPE (ST). For chronic CGH, cervico-scapulothoracic strengthening and endurance exercises including pressure biofeedback for small/moderate improvement of pain, function and GPE (IP/LT)., Authors' Conclusions: Specific strengthening exercises of the neck, scapulothoracic and shoulder for chronic NP and chronic CGH are beneficial. Future research should explore optimal dosage., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Manipulation and mobilisation are commonly used to treat neck pain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2010., Objectives: To assess the effects of manipulation or mobilisation alone compared wiith those of an inactive control or another active treatment on pain, function, disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults experiencing neck pain with or without radicular symptoms and cervicogenic headache (CGH) at immediate- to long-term follow-up. When appropriate, to assess the influence of treatment characteristics (i.e. technique, dosage), methodological quality, symptom duration and subtypes of neck disorder on treatment outcomes., Search Methods: Review authors searched the following computerised databases to November 2014 to identify additional studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to find relevant studies. We updated this search in June 2015, but these results have not yet been incorporated., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken to assess whether manipulation or mobilisation improves clinical outcomes for adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and applied Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods (very low, low, moderate, high quality). We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs)., Main Results: We included 51 trials (2920 participants, 18 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus control; 34 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus another treatment, 1 trial had two comparisons). Cervical manipulation versus inactive control: For subacute and chronic neck pain, a single manipulation (three trials, no meta-analysis, 154 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) relieved pain at immediate- but not short-term follow-up. Cervical manipulation versus another active treatment: For acute and chronic neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 446 participants, ranged from moderate to high quality) produced similar changes in pain, function, quality of life (QoL), global perceived effect (GPE) and patient satisfaction when compared with multiple sessions of cervical mobilisation at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. For acute and subacute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation were more effective than certain medications in improving pain and function at immediate- (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality) and long-term follow-up (one trial, 181 participants, moderate quality). These findings are consistent for function at intermediate-term follow-up (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality). For chronic CGH, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 125 participants, low quality) may be more effective than massage in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 65 participants, very low quality) may be favoured over transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain reduction at short-term follow-up. For acute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 20 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than thoracic manipulation in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Thoracic manipulation versus inactive control: Three trials (150 participants) using a single session were assessed at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. At short-term follow-up, manipulation improved pain in participants with acute and subacute neck pain (five trials, 346 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.86 to -0.66) and improved function (four trials, 258 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.40, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.55) in participants with acute and chronic neck pain. A funnel plot of these data suggests publication bias. These findings were consistent at intermediate follow-up for pain/function/quality of life (one trial, 111 participants, low quality). Thoracic manipulation versus another active treatment: No studies provided sufficient data for statistical analyses. A single session of thoracic manipulation (one trial, 100 participants, moderate quality) was comparable with thoracic mobilisation for pain relief at immediate-term follow-up for chronic neck pain. Mobilisation versus inactive control: Mobilisation as a stand-alone intervention (two trials, 57 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) may not reduce pain more than an inactive control. Mobilisation versus another active treatment: For acute and subacute neck pain, anterior-posterior mobilisation (one trial, 95 participants, very low quality) may favour pain reduction over rotatory or transverse mobilisations at immediate-term follow-up. For chronic CGH with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, multiple sessions of TMJ manual therapy (one trial, 38 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than cervical mobilisation in improving pain/function at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. For subacute and chronic neck pain, cervical mobilisation alone (four trials, 165 participants, ranged from low to very low quality) may not be different from ultrasound, TENS, acupuncture and massage in improving pain, function, QoL and participant satisfaction at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. Additionally, combining laser with manipulation may be superior to using manipulation or laser alone (one trial, 56 participants, very low quality)., Authors' Conclusions: Although support can be found for use of thoracic manipulation versus control for neck pain, function and QoL, results for cervical manipulation and mobilisation versus control are few and diverse. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Research designed to protect against various biases is needed. Findings suggest that manipulation and mobilisation present similar results for every outcome at immediate/short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple cervical manipulation sessions may provide better pain relief and functional improvement than certain medications at immediate/intermediate/long-term follow-up. Since the risk of rare but serious adverse events for manipulation exists, further high-quality research focusing on mobilisation and comparing mobilisation or manipulation versus other treatment options is needed to guide clinicians in their optimal treatment choices.

Background: Neck pain is common, disabling and costly. Exercise is one treatment approach., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of exercises to improve pain, disability, function, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults with neck pain., Search Methods: We searched MEDLINE, MANTIS, ClinicalTrials.gov and three other computerized databases up to between January and May 2014 plus additional sources (reference checking, citation searching, contact with authors)., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing single therapeutic exercise with a control for adults suffering from neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radiculopathy., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently conducted trial selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment and clinical relevance. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. Meta-analyses were performed for relative risk and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) after judging clinical and statistical heterogeneity., Main Results: Twenty-seven trials (2485 analyzed /3005 randomized participants) met our inclusion criteria.For acute neck pain only, no evidence was found.For chronic neck pain, moderate quality evidence supports 1) cervico-scapulothoracic and upper extremity strength training to improve pain of a moderate to large amount immediately post treatment [pooled SMD (SMDp) -0.71 (95% CI: -1.33 to -0.10)] and at short-term follow-up; 2) scapulothoracic and upper extremity endurance training for slight beneficial effect on pain at immediate post treatment and short-term follow-up; 3) combined cervical, shoulder and scapulothoracic strengthening and stretching exercises varied from a small to large magnitude of beneficial effect on pain at immediate post treatment [SMDp -0.33 (95% CI: -0.55 to -0.10)] and up to long-term follow-up and a medium magnitude of effect improving function at both immediate post treatment and at short-term follow-up [SMDp -0.45 (95%CI: -0.72 to -0.18)]; 4) cervico-scapulothoracic strengthening/stabilization exercises to improve pain and function at intermediate term [SMDp -14.90 (95% CI:-22.40 to -7.39)]; 5) Mindfulness exercises (Qigong) minimally improved function but not global perceived effect at short term. Low evidence suggests 1) breathing exercises; 2) general fitness training; 3) stretching alone; and 4) feedback exercises combined with pattern synchronization may not change pain or function at immediate post treatment to short-term follow-up. Very low evidence suggests neuromuscular eye-neck co-ordination/proprioceptive exercises may improve pain and function at short-term follow-up.For chronic cervicogenic headache, moderate quality evidence supports static-dynamic cervico-scapulothoracic strengthening/endurance exercises including pressure biofeedback immediate post treatment and probably improves pain, function and global perceived effect at long-term follow-up. Low grade evidence supports sustained natural apophyseal glides (SNAG) exercises.For acute radiculopathy, low quality evidence suggests a small benefit for pain reduction at immediate post treatment with cervical stretch/strengthening/stabilization exercises., Authors' Conclusions: No high quality evidence was found, indicating that there is still uncertainty about the effectiveness of exercise for neck pain. Using specific strengthening exercises as a part of routine practice for chronic neck pain, cervicogenic headache and radiculopathy may be beneficial. Research showed the use of strengthening and endurance exercises for the cervico-scapulothoracic and shoulder may be beneficial in reducing pain and improving function. However, when only stretching exercises were used no beneficial effects may be expected. Future research should explore optimal dosage.

Objective: To assess English-speaking reviewers' accuracy in determining the eligibility of foreign-language articles for a systematic review., Study Design and Settings: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials of therapy for fibromyalgia. Guided by 10 questions, English-speaking reviewers screened non-English-language articles for eligibility. Teams of two native-language speakers provided reference standard judgments of eligibility., Results: Of 15,466 potentially eligible articles, we retrieved 763 in full text, of which 133 were published in 19 non-English languages; 53 trials published in 11 languages other than English proved eligible. Of the 53 eligible articles, English-language reviewers guided by the 10 questions mistakenly judged 6 as ineligible; of the 80 ineligible articles, 8 were incorrectly judged eligible by English-language reviewers (sensitivity=0.89; specificity=0.90). Use of a simple three-step rule (excluding languages with less than three articles, reviewing titles and abstracts for clear indications of eligibility, and noting the lack of a clearly reported statistical analysis unless the word "random" appears) led to accurate classification of 51 of 53 articles (sensitivity=0.96; specificity=0.70)., Conclusion: Our findings show promise for limiting the need for non-English-language review teams in systematic reviews with large numbers of potentially eligible non-English-language articles., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Neck pain is common, disabling and costly. The effectiveness of electrotherapy as a physiotherapeutic option remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005 and previously updated in 2009., Objectives: This systematic review assessed the short, intermediate and long-term effects of electrotherapy on pain, function, disability, patient satisfaction, global perceived effect, and quality of life in adults with neck pain with and without radiculopathy or cervicogenic headache., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, CINAHL, and ICL, without language restrictions, from their beginning to August 2012; handsearched relevant conference proceedings; and consulted content experts., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in any language, investigating the effects of electrotherapy used primarily as unimodal treatment for neck pain. Quasi-RCTs and controlled clinical trials were excluded., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We were unable to statistically pool any of the results, but we assessed the quality of the evidence using an adapted GRADE approach., Main Results: Twenty small trials (1239 people with neck pain) containing 38 comparisons were included. Analysis was limited by trials of varied quality, heterogeneous treatment subtypes and conflicting results. The main findings for reduction of neck pain by treatment with electrotherapeutic modalities were as follows.Very low quality evidence determined that pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF) and repetitive magnetic stimulation (rMS) were more effective than placebo, while transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) showed inconsistent results.Very low quality evidence determined that PEMF, rMS and TENS were more effective than placebo.Low quality evidence (1 trial, 52 participants) determined that permanent magnets (necklace) were no more effective than placebo (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.27, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.82, random-effects model).Very low quality evidence showed that modulated galvanic current, iontophoresis and electric muscle stimulation (EMS) were not more effective than placebo.There were four trials that reported on other outcomes such as function and global perceived effects, but none of the effects were of clinical importance. When TENS, iontophoresis and PEMF were compared to another treatment, very low quality evidence prevented us from suggesting any recommendations. No adverse side effects were reported in any of the included studies., Authors' Conclusions: We cannot make any definite statements on the efficacy and clinical usefulness of electrotherapy modalities for neck pain. Since the evidence is of low or very low quality, we are uncertain about the estimate of the effect. Further research is very likely to change both the estimate of effect and our confidence in the results. Current evidence for PEMF, rMS, and TENS shows that these modalities might be more effective than placebo. When compared to other interventions the quality of evidence was very low thus preventing further recommendations.Funding bias should be considered, especially in PEMF studies. Galvanic current, iontophoresis, EMS, and a static magnetic field did not reduce pain or disability. Future trials on these interventions should have larger patient samples, include more precise standardization, and detail treatment characteristics.

Background: Fibromyalgia is associated with substantial socioeconomic loss and, despite considerable research including numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews, there exists uncertainty regarding what treatments are effective. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for fibromyalgia, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments., Methods/design: We will conduct a network meta-analysis of all RCTs evaluating therapies for fibromyalgia to determine which therapies show evidence of effectiveness, and the relative effectiveness of these treatments. We will acquire eligible studies through a systematic search of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, HealthSTAR, PsychINFO, PapersFirst, ProceedingsFirst, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies will randomly allocate patients presenting with fibromyalgia or a related condition to an intervention or a control. Teams of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts and complete full text reviews to determine eligibility, and subsequently perform data abstraction and assess risk of bias of eligible trials. We will conduct meta-analyses to establish the effect of all reported therapies on patient-important outcomes when possible. To assess relative effects of treatments, we will construct a random effects model within the Bayesian framework using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods., Discussion: Our review will be the first to evaluate all treatments for fibromyalgia, provide relative effectiveness of treatments, and prioritize patient-important outcomes with a focus on functional gains. Our review will facilitate evidence-based management of patients with fibromyalgia, identify key areas for future research, and provide a framework for conducting large systematic reviews involving indirect comparisons.

Background: Neck disorders are common, disabling, and costly. The effectiveness of patient education strategies is unclear., Objectives: To assess the short- to long-term effects of therapeutic patient education (TPE) strategies on pain, function, disability, quality of life, global perceived effect, patient satisfaction, knowledge transfer, or behaviour change in adults with neck pain associated with whiplash or non-specific and specific mechanical neck pain with or without radiculopathy or cervicogenic headache., Search Methods: We searched computerised bibliographic databases (inception to 11 July 2010)., Selection Criteria: Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCT) investigating the effectiveness of TPE for acute to chronic neck pain., Data Collection and Analysis: Paired independent review authors conducted selection, data abstraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessment. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and standardised mean differences (SMD). Heterogeneity was assessed; no studies were pooled., Main Results: Of the 15 selected trials, three were rated low risk of bias. Three TPE themes emerged.Advice focusing on activation: There is moderate quality evidence (one trial, 348 participants) that an educational video of advice focusing on activation was more beneficial for acute whiplash-related pain when compared with no treatment at intermediate-term [RR 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.06)] but not long-term follow-up [0.89 (95% CI, 0.65 to 1.21)]. There is low quality evidence (one trial, 102 participants) that a whiplash pamphlet on advice focusing on activation is less beneficial for pain reduction, or no different in improving function and global perceived improvement from generic information given out in emergency care (control) for acute whiplash at short- or intermediate-term follow-up. Low to very low quality evidence (nine trials using diverse educational approaches) showed either no evidence of benefit or difference for varied outcomes. Advice focusing on pain & stress coping skills and workplace ergonomics: Very low quality evidence (three trials, 243 participants) favoured other treatment or showed no difference spanning numerous follow-up periods and disorder subtypes.  Low quality evidence (one trial, 192 participants) favoured specific exercise training for chronic neck pain at short-term follow-up.Self-care strategies: Very low quality evidence (one trial, 58 participants) indicated that self-care strategies did not relieve pain for acute to chronic neck pain at short-term follow-up., Authors' Conclusions: With the exception of one trial, this review has not shown effectiveness for educational interventions, including advice to activate, advice on stress-coping skills, workplace ergonomics and self-care strategies. Future research should be founded on sound adult learning theory and learning skill acquisition.

Background: Neck disorders are common, disabling and costly. Botulinum toxin (BoNT) intramuscular injections are often used with the intention of treating neck pain., Objectives: To systematically evaluate the literature on the treatment effectiveness of BoNT for neck pain, disability, global perceived effect and quality of life in adults with neck pain with or without associated cervicogenic headache, but excluding cervical radiculopathy and whiplash associated disorder., Search Strategy: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, AMED, Index to Chiropractic Literature, CINAHL, LILACS, and EMBASE from their origin to 20 September 2010., Selection Criteria: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in which BoNT injections were used to treat subacute or chronic neck pain., Data Collection and Analysis: A minimum of two review authors independently selected articles, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias, using the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria. In the absence of clinical heterogeneity, we calculated standardized mean differences (SMD) and relative risks, and performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model. The quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations were assigned an overall grade for each outcome., Main Results: We included nine trials (503 participants). Only BoNT type A (BoNT-A) was used in these studies.High quality evidence suggests there was little or no difference in pain between BoNT-A and saline injections at four weeks (five trials; 252 participants; SMD pooled -0.07 (95% confidence intervals (CI) -0.36 to 0.21)) and six months for chronic neck pain. Very low quality evidence indicated little or no difference in pain between BoNT-A combined with physiotherapeutic exercise and analgesics and saline injection with physiotherapeutic exercise and analgesics for patients with chronic neck pain at four weeks (two trials; 95 participants; SMD pooled 0.09 (95% CI -0.55 to 0.73)) and six months (one trial; 24 participants; SMD -0.56 (95% CI -1.39 to 0.27)). Very low quality evidence from one trial (32 participants) showed little or no difference between BoNT-A and placebo at four weeks (SMD 0.16 (95% CI -0.53 to 0.86)) and six months (SMD 0.00 (95% CI -0.69 to 0.69)) for chronic cervicogenic headache. Very low quality evidence from one trial (31 participants), showed a difference in global perceived effect favouring BoNT-A in chronic neck pain at four weeks (SMD -1.12 (95% CI: -1.89 to -0.36))., Authors' Conclusions: Current evidence fails to confirm either a clinically important or a statistically significant benefit of BoNT-A injection for chronic neck pain associated with or without associated cervicogenic headache. Likewise, there was no benefit seen for disability and quality of life at four week and six months.

Objective: To assess the effect of intramuscular botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) injections on pain, function/disability, global perceived effect, and quality of life (QOL) in adults with neck pain (NP)., Methods: We searched Central, Medline, and Embase databases up to June 2010. A minimum of 2 authors independently selected articles, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias and clinical applicability. We estimated standard mean differences (SMD) with 95% CI, relative risks (RR), and performed metaanalyses (SMD(p)) using a random-effects model for nonheterogeneous data. The approach of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation working group summarizes the quality of evidence., Results: We selected 14 trials. High-quality evidence suggested BoNT-A was no better than saline at 4 weeks [4 trials/183 participants; SMD(p) -0.21 (95% CI -0.50 to 0.07)] and 6 months for chronic NP. Moderate-quality evidence showed a similar effect for subacute/chronic whiplash-associated disorder (WAD) on pain [4 trials/122 participants; SMD(p) -0.21 (95% CI -0.57 to 0.15)], disability, and QOL. Very low-quality evidence indicated BoNT-A combined with exercise and analgesics was not significant for chronic NP reduction at 4 weeks [3 trials/114 participants; SMD(p) -0.08 (95% CI -0.45 to 0.29)] but was at 6 months [2 trials/43 participants; SMD(p) -0.66 (95% CI -1.29 to -0.04)]., Conclusion: Current evidence does not confirm a clinically or statistically significant benefit of BoNT-A used alone on chronic NP in the short term or on subacute/chronic WAD pain, disability, and QOL. Larger trials, subgroups, and predictors of responses defined a priori (to facilitate selection of patients most likely to benefit) and factorial designs to explore BoNT as an adjunct treatment to physiotherapeutic exercise and analgesics are needed.

Manual therapy interventions are often used with or without physical medicine modalities to treat neck pain. This review assessed the effect of 1) manipulation and mobilisation, 2) manipulation, mobilisation and soft tissue work, and 3) manual therapy with physical medicine modalities on pain, function, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), and global perceived effect (GPE) in adults with neck pain. A computerised search for randomised trials was performed up to July 2009. Two or more authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Pooled relative risk (RR) and standardised mean differences (SMD) were calculated when possible. We included 19 trials, 37% of which had a low risk of bias. Moderate quality evidence (1 trial, 221 participants) suggested mobilisation, manipulation and soft tissue techniques decrease pain and improved satisfaction when compared to short wave diathermy, and that this treatment combination paired with advice and exercise produces greater improvements in GPE and satisfaction than advice and exercise alone for acute neck pain. Low quality evidence suggests a clinically important benefit favouring mobilisation and manipulation in pain relief [1 meta-analysis, 112 participants: SMD -0.34(95% CI: -0.71, 0.03), improved function and GPE (1 trial, 94 participants) for participants with chronic cervicogenic headache when compared to a control at intermediate and long term follow-up; but no difference when used with various physical medicine modalities., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Although not typical, there appears to be a growing trend of chiropractors working within collaborative care settings. We use a case report to highlight features of patient care and education related to chiropractic practice within a collaborative care model. This paper hopes to offer some insight into how a chiropractor might fit into a collaborative setting and what training might help them to function effectively. The case report used is an example where a chiropractor provided a secondary diagnosis and complementary care not previously considered by the allied team resulting in symptom control and return to work by the patient. By the nature of a chiropractor's ability to provide a primary or secondary musculoskeletal diagnosis, they have the capacity to offer an additive approach to patient care within collaborative care models. However, chiropractors wishing to work in these environments, such as a family health team, would benefit from further education.

Manual therapy is often used with exercise to treat neck pain. This cervical overview group systematic review update assesses if manual therapy, including manipulation or mobilisation, combined with exercise improves pain, function/disability, quality of life, global perceived effect, and patient satisfaction for adults with neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radiculopathy. Computerized searches were performed to July 2009. Two or more authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Pooled relative risk (pRR) and standardized mean differences (pSMD) were calculated. Of 17 randomized controlled trials included, 29% had a low risk of bias. Low quality evidence suggests clinically important long-term improvements in pain (pSMD-0.87(95% CI: -1.69, -0.06)), function/disability, and global perceived effect when manual therapy and exercise are compared to no treatment. High quality evidence suggests greater short-term pain relief [pSMD-0.50(95% CI: -0.76, -0.24)] than exercise alone, but no long-term differences across multiple outcomes for (sub)acute/chronic neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache. Moderate quality evidence supports this treatment combination for pain reduction and improved quality of life over manual therapy alone for chronic neck pain; and suggests greater short-term pain reduction when compared to traditional care for acute whiplash. Evidence regarding radiculopathy was sparse. Specific research recommendations are made.

Manipulation and mobilisation are often used, either alone or combined with other treatment approaches, to treat neck pain. This review assesses if manipulation or mobilisation improves pain, function/disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), and global perceived effect (GPE) in adults experiencing neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radicular findings. A computerised search was performed in July 2009. Randomised trials investigating manipulation or mobilisation for neck pain were included. Two or more authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Pooled relative risk (pRR) and standardised mean differences (pSMD) were calculated. 33% of 27 trials had a low risk of bias. Moderate quality evidence showed cervical manipulation and mobilisation produced similar effects on pain, function and patient satisfaction at intermediate-term follow-up. Low quality evidence suggested cervical manipulation may provide greater short-term pain relief than a control (pSMD -0.90 (95%CI: -1.78 to -0.02)). Low quality evidence also supported thoracic manipulation for pain reduction (NNT 7; 46.6% treatment advantage) and increased function (NNT 5; 40.6% treatment advantage) in acute pain and immediate pain reduction in chronic neck pain (NNT 5; 29% treatment advantage). Optimal technique and dose need to be determined., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Manipulation and mobilisation are often used, either alone or combined with other treatment approaches, to treat neck pain., Objectives: To assess if manipulation or mobilisation improves pain, function/disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and global perceived effect in adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radicular findings., Search Strategy: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 3) and MEDLINE, EMBASE, Manual Alternative and Natural Therapy, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were updated to July 2009., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials on manipulation or mobilisation., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Pooled relative risk and standardised mean differences (SMD) were calculated., Main Results: We included 27 trials (1522 participants).Cervical Manipulation for subacute/chronic neck pain : Moderate quality evidence suggested manipulation and mobilisation produced similar effects on pain, function and patient satisfaction at intermediate-term follow-up. Low quality evidence showed manipulation alone compared to a control may provide short- term relief following one to four sessions (SMD pooled -0.90 (95%CI: -1.78 to -0.02)) and that nine or 12 sessions were superior to three for pain and disability in cervicogenic headache. Optimal technique and dose need to be determined.Thoracic Manipulation for acute/chronic neck pain : Low quality evidence supported thoracic manipulation as an additional therapy for pain reduction (NNT 7; 46.6% treatment advantage) and increased function (NNT 5; 40.6% treatment advantage) in acute pain and favoured a single session of thoracic manipulation for immediate pain reduction compared to placebo for chronic neck pain (NNT 5, 29% treatment advantage).Mobilisation for subacute/chronic neck pain: In addition to the evidence noted above, low quality evidence for subacute and chronic neck pain indicated that 1) a combination of Maitland mobilisation techniques was similar to acupuncture for immediate pain relief and increased function; 2) there was no difference between mobilisation and acupuncture as additional treatments for immediate pain relief and improved function; and 3) neural dynamic mobilisations may produce clinically important reduction of pain immediately post-treatment. Certain mobilisation techniques were superior., Authors' Conclusions: Cervical manipulation and mobilisation produced similar changes. Either may provide immediate- or short-term change; no long-term data are available. Thoracic manipulation may improve pain and function. Optimal techniques and dose are unresolved. Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.

Background: Neck pain is common, disabling and costly. The effectiveness of electrotherapy as a physiotherapeutic option remains unclear. This update replaces our 2005 Cochrane review on this topic., Objectives: To assess whether electrotherapy improves pain, disability, patient satisfaction, and global perceived effect in adults with neck pain., Search Strategy: Computer-assisted searches of: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, CINAHL, and ICL, without language restrictions, from their beginning to December 2008; handsearched relevant conference proceedings; consulted content experts., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials in any language, investigating the effects of electrotherapy, used primarily as unimodal treatment for neck pain. Quasi-RCTs and controlled clinical trials were excluded., Data Collection and Analysis: At least two authors independently conducted citation identification, study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. We were unable to statistically pool any of the results, but assessed the quality of the evidence using an adapted GRADE approach., Main Results: Eighteen small trials (1043 people with neck pain) with 23 comparisons were included. Analysis was limited by trials of varied quality, heterogeneous treatment subtypes and conflicting results. The main findings for reduction of neck pain by treatment with electrotherapeutic modalities are:Very low quality evidence that pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF), repetitive magnetic stimulation (rMS) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) are more effective than placebo.Low quality evidence that permanent magnets (necklace) are not more effective than placebo.Very low quality evidence that modulated galvanic current, iontophoresis and electric muscle stimulation (EMS) are not more effective than placebo.There were only four trials that reported on other outcomes such as function and global perceived effects, but none were of clinical importance., Authors' Conclusions: We cannot make any definite statements on the efficacy and clinical usefulness of electrotherapy modalities for neck pain. Since the quality of evidence is low or very low, we are uncertain about the estimate of the effect. Further research is very likely to change both the estimate of effect and our confidence in the results. Current evidence for PEMF, rMS, and TENS shows that these modalities might be more effective than placebo but not other interventions. Funding bias should be considered, especially in PEMF studies. Galvanic current, iontophoresis, electric muscle stimulation(EMS), and static magnetic field did not reduce pain or disability. Future trials on these interventions should have larger patient samples and include more precise standardization and description of all treatment characteristics.

Background: Neck disorders are common, disabling, and costly. The effectiveness of patient education strategies is unclear., Objectives: To assess whether patient education strategies, either alone or in combination with other treatments, are of benefit for pain, function, global perceived effect, quality of life, or patient satisfaction, in adults with neck pain with and without radiculopathy., Search Strategy: Computerized bibliographic databases were searched from their start up to May 31, 2008., Selection Criteria: Eligible studies were quasi or randomized trials (RCT) investigating the effectiveness of patient education strategies for neck disorder., Data Collection and Analysis: Paired independent review authors carried out study selection, data abstraction, and methodological quality assessment. Relative risk and standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated. The appropriateness of combining studies was assessed on clinical and statistical grounds. Because of differences in intervention type or disorder, no studies were considered appropriate to pool., Main Results: Of the 10 selected trials, two (20%) were rated high quality. Advice was assessed as follows:Eight trials of advice focusing on activation compared to no treatment or to various active treatments, including therapeutic exercise, manual therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy, showed either inferiority or no difference for pain, spanning a full range of follow-up periods and disorder types. When compared to rest, two trials that assessed acute whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) showed moderate evidence of no difference for various forms of advice focusing on activation. Two trials studying advice focusing on pain & stress coping skills found moderate evidence of no benefit for pain in chronic mechanical neck disorder (MND) at intermediate/long-term follow-up. One trial compared the effects of ' traditional neck school ' to no treatment, yielding limited evidence of no benefit for pain at intermediate-term follow-up in mixed acute/subacute/chronic neck pain., Authors' Conclusions: This review has not shown effectiveness for educational interventions in various disorder types and follow-up periods, including advice to activate, advice on stress coping skills, and 'neck school'. In future research, further attention to methodological quality is necessary. Studies of multimodal interventions should consider study designs, such as factorial designs, that permit discrimination of the specific educational components.

Background: Neck pain is a frequently reported complaint of the musculoskeletal system which can be disabling and costly to society. Mechanical traction is often used as an adjunct therapy in outpatient rehabilitation., Objectives: To assess the effects of mechanical traction for neck disorders., Search Strategy: A research librarian searched computerized bibliographic databases without language restrictions up to March 2008 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the medical, chiropractic, and allied health literature., Selection Criteria: The RCTs we selected examined adults with neck disorders who received mechanical traction alone or in combination with other treatments compared to a placebo or another treatment. Our outcomes of interest were pain, function, disability, global perceived effect, patient satisfaction, and quality of life measures., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors with different backgrounds in medicine, physiotherapy, massage therapy and chiropractics independently conducted study selection, risk of bias assessment and data abstraction using pre-piloted forms. We resolved disagreement through consensus., Main Results: Of the seven selected RCTs (total participants = 958), only one (N = 100) had a low risk of bias. It found no statistically significant difference (SMD -0.16: 95%CI: -0.59 to 0.27) between continuous traction and placebo traction in reducing pain or improving function for chronic neck disorders with radicular symptoms. Our review found no evidence from RCTs with a low potential for bias that clearly supports or refutes the use of either continuous or intermittent traction for neck disorders., Authors' Conclusions: The current literature does not support or refute the efficacy or effectiveness of continuous or intermittent traction for pain reduction, improved function or global perceived effect when compared to placebo traction, tablet or heat or other conservative treatments in patients with chronic neck disorders. Large, well conducted RCTs are needed to first determine the efficacy of traction, then the effectiveness, for individuals with neck disorders with radicular symptoms.

Ovarian cancer is a clinically important cancer in Turkey. The contribution of BRCA1 and BRCA2 to ovarian cancer in Turkish patients has not previously been described. In this study we investigated the presence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in 102 consecutively ascertained, hospital-based, ovarian cancer cases. Four out of 15 (26.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 7.8%-55.1%) familial cases were found to carry mutations in BRCA1. Thirteen of the 87 (14.9%, 95% CI, 7.5%-22.4%) non-familial cases had BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, six in BRCA1, and seven in BRCA2. We have further studied the non-familial ovarian cancer cases to determine which subgroups have a likelihood of carrying clinically important mutations. Our study shows that those Turkish ovarian cancer patients with serous histopathology harbor a high proportion of mutations (12/58, 20.7%, 95% CI, 10.3%-31.1%) compared to all non-familial cases (14.9%) regardless of pathology. Within the serous sub-group, those that were also diagnosed below age 50 have an even greater percentage of mutations (8/28, 28.6%, 95% CI, 11.8%-45.3%). Our findings demonstrate that a substantial proportion of Turkish ovarian cancer patients, both with and without a family history, carry BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, demonstrating the importance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in the development of ovarian cancer in this population., (Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)