Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Manipulación y movilización para el dolor de cuello comparadas con un control inactivo u otro tratamiento activo

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004249.pub4Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 23 September 2015see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Back and Neck Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Anita Gross

    Correspondence to: School of Rehabilitation Science & Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Pierre Langevin

    Cliniques Physio Interactive, Département de réadaptation, Faculté de Médecine, Université Laval, St‐Augustin‐de‐Desmaures, Canada

  • Stephen J Burnie

    Department of Clinical Education, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, North York, Canada

  • Marie‐Sophie Bédard‐Brochu

    Université Laval / Physio Interactive, St‐Augustin‐de‐Desmaures, Canada

  • Brian Empey

    Be in Motion Physiotherapy, Oakville, Canada

  • Estelle Dugas

    Université Laval, Québec City, Canada

  • Michael Faber‐Dobrescu

    Université Laval / GTI Médical, Québec City, Canada

  • Cristy Andres

    Western University, London, Canada

  • Nadine Graham

    School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

  • Charles H Goldsmith

    Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada

  • Gert Brønfort

    Integrative Health & Wellbeing Research Program, Center for Spirituality & Healing, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

  • Jan L Hoving

    Coronel Institute of Occupational Health and Research Center for Insurance Medicine, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

  • Francis LeBlanc

    Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Toronto, Canada

Contributions of authors

This is one review of a series conducted by the Cervical Overview Group (COG): Gross AR, Goldsmith CH, Graham N, Santaguida PL, Burnie SJ, Miller J, Peloso P, Kay T, Kroeling P, Trinh K, Langevin P, Santaguida PL, Patel K, Haines T, Haraldsson B, Radylovick Z, Forget M, Szeto G, LeBlanc F, Ezzo J, Morien A, Rice M, Perry L, Fraser M, Cameron I, Wang Z, Lilge L, White R, Bronfort G, Hoving J, Jelley J, Empey B, Lalonde P.

Primary review authors ‐ Gross AR, Langevin P, Burnie SJ, Bédard‐Brochu MS, Empey B, Dugas E, Faber‐Dobrescu M, Andres C, Goldsmith CH, Graham N, Bronfort G, Hoving J, LeBlanc F.
Student members of this review: Bédard‐Brochu MS, Empey B, Dugas E, Faber‐Dobrescu M, Andres C, Boudreau M.
Statistician ‐ Goldsmith C.
Methodological quality assessment ‐ Burnie SJ, Forget M, Goldsmith CH, LeBlanc F, Empey B, Szeto G, Jelley G, Lalonde P.
Study identification and selection ‐ Graham N, Brunarski D, Haines T, Gross AR.
Research librarian ‐ Rice M.
Data abstraction, synthesis, manuscript preparation, public responsibility, grants, administration ‐ Gross AR, Langevin P, Bédard‐Brochu MS, Empey B, Dugas E, Faber‐Dobrescu M, Andres C, Boudreau M.
Final synthesis ‐ Gross AR, Langevine P, Burnie SJ, Bronfort G, Hoving J, Bédard‐Brochu MS, Empey B, Dugas E, Faber‐Dobrescu M, Andres C, Boudreau M.
Grant writing ‐ Santaguida PL, Gross AR, Graham N.
Conference presentation ‐ Empey B, Gross AR, Burnie SJ, Graham N.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • McMaster University, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics; School of Rehabilitation Sciences; Occupational Health Program, Canada.

  • Centric Health, Lifemark Physiotherapy, Canada.

  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Academic Medical Centre, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Netherlands.

  • Sunnybrook & Women's College Health Sciences Centre, Physiotherapy Department, Canada.

  • LAMP Occupational Health Program, Canada.

  • Northwestern Health Sciences University, Minnesota, USA.

  • Royal Canadian Chiropractic College, Canada.

External sources

  • Problem‐based Research Award; Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Foundation, Canada.

  • Consortial Center for Chiropractic Research ‐ National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.

  • Hamilton Hospital Association, Canada.

  • University of Saskatchewan, Clinical Teaching and Research Award, Canada.

  • Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation, Chedoke‐McMaster Foundation, Canada.

Declarations of interest

Two of our review authors are authors of included studies. Although Jan Hoving and Gert Bronfort were review authors, they were not involved in decisions about study inclusion, risk of bias assessment or extraction of data from their studies.

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by the LIfeMark Centric Industry partnership grant. We are indebted to the many authors of primary studies for their support in retrieving original research. We thank our volunteers, translators, students, the Cochrane Back Review Group editors and Lisa Carlesso and Colleen McPhee for granting early access to their research. We would like to thank the members of the Cervical Overview Group for assistance and guidance provided during all phases of this update.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2015 Sep 23

Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment

Review

Anita Gross, Pierre Langevin, Stephen J Burnie, Marie‐Sophie Bédard‐Brochu, Brian Empey, Estelle Dugas, Michael Faber‐Dobrescu, Cristy Andres, Nadine Graham, Charles H Goldsmith, Gert Brønfort, Jan L Hoving, Francis LeBlanc

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004249.pub4

2010 Jan 20

Manipulation or Mobilisation for Neck Pain

Review

Anita Gross, Jordan Miller, Jonathan D'Sylva, Stephen J Burnie, Charles H Goldsmith, Nadine Graham, Ted Haines, Gert Brønfort, Jan L Hoving

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004249.pub3

2004 Jan 26

Manipulation and mobilisation for mechanical neck disorders

Review

Anita Gross, Jan L Hoving, Ted Haines, Charles H Goldsmith, Theresa M Kay, Peter Aker, Gert Brønfort, Cervical Overview Group

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004249.pub2

2002 Jan 03

Manipulation and Mobilisation for Mechanical Neck Disorders

Protocol

Anita R Gross, Gert Bronfort, Jan L Hoving, Charlie H Goldsmith, Ted A Haines, Peter Aker, G roup Cervical Overview

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004249

Differences between protocol and review

Our protocol was published in 2002. We have noted some differences from our original protocol.

  • The term for type of participant as 'neck disorder with headache' was changed to 'cervicogenic headache'. Diagnostic criteria remain the same. Mechanical neck disorder was changed to neck pain, but the criteria remained the same.

  • Interventions were subgrouped by region of the body manipulated. Emerging evidence has revealed differences per region. This information was obtained by sensitivity analysis.

  • We added a grey literature search: clinicaltrials.gov.

  • A research librarian was hired and developed sensitive and specific search strategies.

  • Primary outcome categories remain the same, but specific outcomes have evolved over the years.

  • The body of evidence was assessed by the Strength of Evidence assessment, which has been changed to the GRADE system.

  • Original methods used the Jadad Scale. The risk of bias system is now used, as recommended by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

  • The post hoc power analysis for meaningful SMD was discontinued.

Keywords

MeSH

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

PRISMA diagram for manipulation and mobilisation.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

PRISMA diagram for manipulation and mobilisation.

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.

Funnel plot of comparison: manipulation vs control, outcome: FUNNEL PLOT for PAIN: thoracic manipulation vs same treatment in both arms.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

Funnel plot of comparison: manipulation vs control, outcome: FUNNEL PLOT for PAIN: thoracic manipulation vs same treatment in both arms.

Forest plot of comparison: manipulation vs another treatment, outcome: PAIN: cervical manipulation vs medicine.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: manipulation vs another treatment, outcome: PAIN: cervical manipulation vs medicine.

Forest plot of comparison: manipulation vs another treatment, outcome: PAIN: cervical manipulation vs mobilisation at intermediate‐term follow‐up.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 5

Forest plot of comparison: manipulation vs another treatment, outcome: PAIN: cervical manipulation vs mobilisation at intermediate‐term follow‐up.

Comparison 1 Manipulation versus placebo, Outcome 1 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs placebo.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Manipulation versus placebo, Outcome 1 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs placebo.

Comparison 1 Manipulation versus placebo, Outcome 2 PAIN: thoracic manipulation vs placebo.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Manipulation versus placebo, Outcome 2 PAIN: thoracic manipulation vs placebo.

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 1 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs control.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 1 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs control.

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 2 PAIN: cervical manipulation plus treatment vs same treatment in both arms.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 2 PAIN: cervical manipulation plus treatment vs same treatment in both arms.

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 3 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs same treatment in both arms.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 3 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs same treatment in both arms.

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 4 PAIN: thoracic manipulation vs control.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 4 PAIN: thoracic manipulation vs control.

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 5 PAIN: thoracic manipulation vs same treatment in both arms.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 5 PAIN: thoracic manipulation vs same treatment in both arms.

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 6 PAIN: cervical and thoracic manipulation vs control.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 6 PAIN: cervical and thoracic manipulation vs control.

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 7 FUNCTION: thoracic manipulation vs same treatment in both arms.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 7 FUNCTION: thoracic manipulation vs same treatment in both arms.

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 8 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs same treatment in both arms.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 8 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs same treatment in both arms.

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 9 FUNCTION: cervical and thoracic manipulation vs control.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.9

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 9 FUNCTION: cervical and thoracic manipulation vs control.

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 10 QUALITY OF LIFE: thoracic manipulation vs control.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.10

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 10 QUALITY OF LIFE: thoracic manipulation vs control.

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 11 FUNNEL PLOT for pain: thoracic manipulation vs same treatment in both arms.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.11

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 11 FUNNEL PLOT for pain: thoracic manipulation vs same treatment in both arms.

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 12 FUNNEL PLOT for function: thoracic manipulation vs same treatment in both arms.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.12

Comparison 2 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 12 FUNNEL PLOT for function: thoracic manipulation vs same treatment in both arms.

Comparison 3 Mobilisation versus control, Outcome 1 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs control.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Mobilisation versus control, Outcome 1 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs control.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 1 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs mobilisation at immediate post treatment.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 1 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs mobilisation at immediate post treatment.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 2 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs mobilisation at intermediate‐term follow‐up.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 2 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs mobilisation at intermediate‐term follow‐up.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 3 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs massage.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 3 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs massage.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 4 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs medicine.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 4 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs medicine.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 5 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs exercise.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 5 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs exercise.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 6 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs electrotherapy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.6

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 6 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs electrotherapy.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 7 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs acupuncture.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.7

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 7 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs acupuncture.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 8 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs orthotic devices (K‐tape).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.8

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 8 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs orthotic devices (K‐tape).

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 9 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs varied multi‐modal approaches.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.9

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 9 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs varied multi‐modal approaches.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 10 PAIN: cervical manipulation ‐ 1 technique vs another technique.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.10

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 10 PAIN: cervical manipulation ‐ 1 technique vs another technique.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 11 PAIN: cervical manipulation ‐ varied dosage comparison.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.11

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 11 PAIN: cervical manipulation ‐ varied dosage comparison.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 12 PAIN: thoracic manipulation vs exercise.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.12

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 12 PAIN: thoracic manipulation vs exercise.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 13 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs mobilisation.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.13

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 13 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs mobilisation.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 14 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs massage.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.14

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 14 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs massage.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 15 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs medicine.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.15

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 15 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs medicine.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 16 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs exercise.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.16

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 16 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs exercise.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 17 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs orthotic devices (K‐taping).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.17

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 17 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs orthotic devices (K‐taping).

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 18 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs acupuncture.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.18

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 18 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs acupuncture.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 19 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs varied multi‐modal approaches.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.19

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 19 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs varied multi‐modal approaches.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 20 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation ‐ 1 technique vs another technique.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.20

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 20 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation ‐ 1 technique vs another technique.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 21 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation ‐ varied dosage comparison.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.21

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 21 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation ‐ varied dosage comparison.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 22 PATIENT SATISFACTION: cervical manipulation vs mobilisation.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.22

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 22 PATIENT SATISFACTION: cervical manipulation vs mobilisation.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 23 PATIENT SATISFACTION: cervical manipulation vs varied multi‐modal approaches.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.23

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 23 PATIENT SATISFACTION: cervical manipulation vs varied multi‐modal approaches.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 24 GLOBAL PERCEIVED EFFECT: cervical manipulation vs mobilisation.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.24

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 24 GLOBAL PERCEIVED EFFECT: cervical manipulation vs mobilisation.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 25 QUALITY OF LIFE: cervical manipulation vs mobilisation.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.25

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 25 QUALITY OF LIFE: cervical manipulation vs mobilisation.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 26 QUALITY OF LIFE: cervical manipulation vs medicine.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.26

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 26 QUALITY OF LIFE: cervical manipulation vs medicine.

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 27 QUALITY OF LIFE: cervical manipulation vs exercise.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.27

Comparison 4 Manipulation vs another treatment, Outcome 27 QUALITY OF LIFE: cervical manipulation vs exercise.

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 1 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs medical injection ‐ trigger point.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 1 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs medical injection ‐ trigger point.

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 2 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs exercise.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 2 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs exercise.

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 3 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs electrotherapy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 3 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs electrotherapy.

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 4 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs sonic devices ‐ ultrasound, shock wave therapy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 4 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs sonic devices ‐ ultrasound, shock wave therapy.

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 5 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs mechanical traction.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.5

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 5 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs mechanical traction.

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 6 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs acupuncture.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.6

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 6 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs acupuncture.

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 7 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs varied multi‐modal approaches.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.7

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 7 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs varied multi‐modal approaches.

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 8 PAIN: cervical mobilisation ‐ 1 technique vs another technique.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.8

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 8 PAIN: cervical mobilisation ‐ 1 technique vs another technique.

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 9 PAIN: cervical mobilisation ‐ 1 technique vs another technique.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.9

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 9 PAIN: cervical mobilisation ‐ 1 technique vs another technique.

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 10 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs massage.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.10

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 10 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs massage.

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 11 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation vs medical injection ‐ trigger point.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.11

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 11 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation vs medical injection ‐ trigger point.

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 12 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation vs exercise.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.12

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 12 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation vs exercise.

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 13 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation vs electrotherapy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.13

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 13 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation vs electrotherapy.

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 14 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation vs sonic devices ‐ shock wave therapy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.14

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 14 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation vs sonic devices ‐ shock wave therapy.

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 15 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation vs acupuncture.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.15

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 15 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation vs acupuncture.

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 16 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation vs varied multi‐modal approaches.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.16

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 16 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation vs varied multi‐modal approaches.

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 17 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation vs massage.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.17

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 17 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation vs massage.

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 18 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation ‐ 1 technique vs another technique.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.18

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 18 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation ‐ 1 technique vs another technique.

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 19 QUALITY OF LIFE: mobilisation vs electrotherapy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.19

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 19 QUALITY OF LIFE: mobilisation vs electrotherapy.

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 20 PATIENT SATISFACTION: cervical mobilisation vs varied multi‐modal approaches.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.20

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 20 PATIENT SATISFACTION: cervical mobilisation vs varied multi‐modal approaches.

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 21 PATIENT SATISFACTION: cervical mobilisation vs electrotherapy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.21

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 21 PATIENT SATISFACTION: cervical mobilisation vs electrotherapy.

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 22 GLOBAL PERCEIVED EFFECT: cervical mobilisation ‐ 1 technique vs another technique.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.22

Comparison 5 Mobilisation versus another treatment, Outcome 22 GLOBAL PERCEIVED EFFECT: cervical mobilisation ‐ 1 technique vs another technique.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Manipulation (cervical) compared with oral medicine for acute/subacute neck pain

Manipulation (cervical) compared with oral medicine for acute/subacute neck pain

Patient or population: patients with acute and subacute neck pain

Settings: outpatient clinics, ambulatory care services

Intervention: manipulation of cervical region ‐ multiple sessions

Comparison: oral medicine ‐ varied combinations of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), analgesics, opioid analgesics and muscle relaxants

Outcomes

Relative effect
(95% CI)

Number of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

PAIN

Acute and subacute neck pain

Intermediate‐term follow‐up

SMD ‐0.21

(‐0.5 to 0.08)

182
(1 trial; Bronfort 2012)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderatea

No significant differences between groups

Acute and subacute neck pain

Long‐term follow‐up

SMD ‐0.32

(‐0.61 to ‐0.02)

181
(1 trial; Bronfort 2012)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderatea

Pain reduction favouring manipulation over medication

FUNCTION

Acute and subacute neck pain

Intermediate‐term follow‐up

SMD ‐0.30

(‐0.59 to ‐0.00)

182
(1 trial; Bronfort 2012)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderatea

Functional improvement favouring manipulation over medication

Acute and subacute neck pain

Long‐term follow‐up

SMD ‐0.11

(‐0.40 to 0.18)

    

181
(1 trial; Bronfort 2012)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderatea

No significant difference between groups

PARTICIPANT SATISFACTION

Acute and subacute neck pain

Long‐term follow‐up

Not estimable

182
(1 trial; Bronfort 2012)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderatea

Manipulation favoured over medication

QUALITY OF LIFE

Acute and subacute neck pain

Intermediate‐term follow‐up

SMD 0.22

(‐0.07 to 0.51)

181
(1 trial; Bronfort 2012)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderatea

No significant differences between groups

Acute and subacute neck pain

Long‐term follow‐up

SMD: 0.19 (‐0.10 to 0.49)

181
(1 trial; Bronfort 2012)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderatea

No significant differences between groups

Moderate‐quality evidence suggests that multiple sessions of cervical manipulation are more effective than medication (analgesics and non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)) for improving pain at immediate‐term and long‐term follow‐up (1 trial; 181 participants); function at intermediate term and satisfaction over the long term. Quality of life was similar between groups (1 trial, 182 participants) at intermediate‐ and long‐term follow‐up.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: 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.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

aIndirectness: ‐1; a second independent trial is needed to clarify emerging data.

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Manipulation (cervical) compared with oral medicine for acute/subacute neck pain
Summary of findings 2. Manipulation (thoracic) compared with inactive control for neck pain

Manipulation (thoracic) compared with inactive control for neck pain

Patient or population: patients with acute, subacute and chronic neck pain

Settings: outpatient clinics, ambulatory care services

Intervention: manipulation of thoracic region ‐ multiple sessions

Comparison: inactive control

Outcomes

Relative effect
(95% CI)

Number of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

PAIN

Acute and subacute neck pain

Short‐term follow‐up

SMD pooled

‐1.46 (‐2.20 to ‐0.71)

242
(4 trials;

Fernandez 2004 JWRD; Fernandez 2009; Gonzalez‐Iglesias 2009 JO;

Masaracchio 2013)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderatea

Favoured treatment;

NNTB: 4 to 7;

magnitude of effect: medium

Chronic neck pain

Intermediate‐term follow‐up

SMD

‐0.64 (‐1.04 to ‐0.25)

111
(1 trial; Cheung Lau 2011)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

Lowb,c

Favoured treatment;

NNTB 4;

magnitude of effect: small

FUNCTION

Acute and subacute neck pain

Short‐term follow‐up

SMD pooled

‐1.73 (‐2.68 to ‐0.78)

258
(3 trials; Gonzalez‐Iglesias 2009 JO; Gonzalez‐Iglesias 2009 MT; Masaracchio 2013)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderatea

Favoured treatment;

NNTB 4 to 5;

magnitude of effect: medium

Chronic neck pain

Short‐term follow‐up

SMD

‐0.50 (‐0.89 to ‐0.10)

111
(1 trial; Cheung Lau 2011)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

Lowb,c

Favoured treatment;

NNTB 5;

magnitude of effect:

small

Chronic neck pain

Intermediate‐term follow‐up

SMD

‐0.38 (‐0.77 to 0.01)

111

(1 trial; Cheung Lau 2011)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

Lowb,c

Favoured treatment;

NNTB 5;

magnitude of effect: small

QUALITY OF LIFE (QoL)

Chronic neck pain

Short‐term follow‐up

SMD

‐0.82 (‐1.23 to ‐0.42)

111
(1 trial; Cheung Lau 2011)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

Lowb,c

Favoured treatment

Chronic neck pain

Intermediate‐term follow‐up

SMD

‐0.61 (‐1.01 to ‐0.22)

111
(1 trial; Cheung Lau 2011)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

Lowc

Favoured treatment

Seven trials (428 participants) using multiple sessions of thoracic manipulation for acute to chronic neck pain were assessed at 3 time intervals. At short‐term follow‐up, moderate‐quality evidence favoured thoracic manipulation for pain reduction among participants with acute/subacute neck pain, and with acute to chronic neck pain, it improved function. These findings were consistent but small at intermediate follow‐up for pain, function and quality of life (low‐quality evidence).

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: 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.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

bIndirectness: ‐1, immediate post‐treatment data have limited clinical relevance; single trials with only immediate‐ and short‐term follow‐up are downgraded (ceiling effect) because future research is likely to have an important impact on the direction of the reported effect, and a second independent trial is needed to clarify emerging short‐term data.

cImprecision: ‐1, small sample size.

aInconsistency: P value = 0.002; I² = 84%; sensitivity analysis: Statistical differences led us to explore heterogeneity by the following PICO factors: P: about the same; I: about the same; C: about the same; O: for pain, VAS, NPRS; for disability, NPQ, NDI; RoB: most often low RoB but when the trial of high RoB is removed, pooled SMD increases to ‐2.18 (‐2.71 to ‐1.65) for pain, but these data were derived from trials conducted in the same lab.

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings 2. Manipulation (thoracic) compared with inactive control for neck pain
Summary of findings 3. Manipulation compared with mobilisation for neck pain

Manipulation compared with mobilisation for neck pain

Patient or population: patients with acute, subacute and chronic neck pain

Settings: ambulatory care or outpatient clinic

Intervention: manipulation of cervical region ‐ multiple sessions

Comparison: mobilisation

Outcomes

Relative effect
(95% CI)

Number of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

PAIN

Acute, subacute and chronic neck pain

Intermediate‐term follow‐up

MD pooled ‐0.07

(‐0.72 to 0.59)

446
(2 trials; Hurwitz 2002, Leaver 2010)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderatea

No significant differences between groups

FUNCTION AND DISABILITY

Acute and subacute neck pain

Short‐term follow‐up

SMD: ‐0.06

(‐0.35 to 0.24)

176
(1 trial; Leaver 2010)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderateb

No significant differences between groups

Acute, subacute and chronic neck pain

Intermediate‐term follow‐up

SMD pooled: 0.10 

(‐0.18 to 0.37)

 

446
(2 trials; Hurwitz 2002; Leaver 2010)

⊕⊕⊕⊕

High

No significant differences between groups

PARTICIPANT SATISFACTION

Subacute and chronic neck pain

Short‐term follow‐up

SMD: ‐0.02

(‐0.21 to 0.24)

269
(1 trial; Hurwitz 2002)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderateb

No significant differences between groups

GLOBAL PERCEIVED EFFECT

Acute and subacute neck pain

Intermediate‐term follow‐up

SMD: ‐0.06
(‐0.35 to 0.24)

177
(1 trial; Leaver 2010)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderateb

No significant differences between groups

QUALITY OF LIFE

Acute and subacute neck pain

Short‐term follow‐up

SMD: 0.08

(‐0.21 to 0.38)

176
(1 trial; Leaver 2010)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderateb

No significant differences between groups

Acute and subacute neck pain

Intermediate‐term follow‐up

SMD: ‐0.06

(‐0.35 to 0.24)

177
(1 trial; Leaver 2010)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderateb

No significant differences between groups

Moderate‐ to highquality evidence (2 trials, 446 participants) suggests that multiple sessions of cervical manipulation produced similar changes in pain, function, quality of life, global perceived effect and patient satisfaction when compared with multiple sessions of cervical mobilisation at immediate‐, short‐ and intermediate‐term follow‐up.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: 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.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

aInconsistency: ‐1.

bIndirectness: ‐1.

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings 3. Manipulation compared with mobilisation for neck pain
Summary of findings 4. Manipulation compared with exercise for neck pain

Manipulation compared with exercise for neck pain

Patient or population: patients with acute and subacute neck pain

Settings: ambulatory care or outpatient clinic setting

Intervention: manipulation of cervical region

Comparison: exercise

Outcomes

Relative effect
(95% CI)

Number of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

PAIN

Acute and subacute neck pain

Intermediate‐term follow‐up

SMD: ‐0.16

(‐0.45 to 0.13)

182
(1 trial; Bronfort 2012)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderatea

No significant differences between groups

Acute and subacute neck pain

Long‐term follow‐up

SMD: 0.06

(‐0.23 to 0.35)

182
(1 trial; Bronfort 2012)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderatea

No significant differences between groups

FUNCTION

Acute and subacute neck pain

Intermediate‐term follow‐up

SMD: ‐0.01

(‐0.30 to 0.28)

   

182
(1 trial; Bronfort 2012)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderatea

No significant differences between groups

Acute and subacute neck pain

Long‐term follow‐up

SMD: ‐0.02

(‐0.31 to 0.27)

   

182
(1 trial; Bronfort 2012)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderatea

No significant differences between groups

PARTICIPANT SATISFACTION

Acute and subacute neck pain

Long‐term follow‐up

Not estimable

182
(1 trial; Bronfort 2012)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderatea

Improvement in participant satisfaction for manipulation over exercise

GLOBAL PERCEIVED EFFECT

Acute and subacute neck pain

Immediate post‐treatment follow‐up

Not estimable

182

(1 trial; Bronfort 2012)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderatea

No significant differences between groups

QUALITY OF LIFE

Acute and subacute neck pain

Intermediate‐term follow‐up

SMD: ‐0.05 (‐0.35 to 0.24)

182
(1 trial; Bronfort 2012)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderatea

No significant differences between groups

Acute and subacute neck pain

Long‐term follow‐up

SMD: 0.0 (‐0.29 to 0.29)

182
(1 trial; Bronfort 2012)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderatea

No significant differences between groups

Moderate‐quality evidence suggests no differences in pain, function, global perceived effect and quality of life when multiple sessions of cervical manipulation are compared with exercise at immediate‐, intermediate‐ and long‐term follow‐up. Moderate‐quality evidence indicates that use of cervical manipulation led to greater participant satisfaction when compared with an exercise programme at long‐term follow‐up.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: 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.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

aIndirectness: ‐1.

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings 4. Manipulation compared with exercise for neck pain
Summary of findings 5. High dose of manipulation compared with low dose of manipulation for chronic neck pain

High dose of manipulation compared with low dose of manipulation for chronic neck pain

Patient or population: patients with chronic neck pain with cervicogenic headache (CGH)

Settings: ambulatory care or outpatient clinic setting

Intervention: manipulation of cervical region

Comparison: high dose vs low dose

Outcomes

Relative effect
(95% CI)

Number of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

PAIN

Chronic neck pain and CGH

Intermediate‐term follow‐up

SMD pooled: ‐0.40

(‐0.96 to 0.16)

 

50
(2 trials; Haas 2004; Haas 2010)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderatea

Two trials showed no significant differences between groups

FUNCTION

Chronic neck pain and CGH

Intermediate‐term follow‐up

SMD pooled: ‐0.61  

(‐1.38 to 0.17)

50
(2 trials; Haas 2004; Haas 2010)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderatea

Two trials showed no significant differences between groups

Moderate‐quality evidence shows that high‐dose (12 to 18 sessions) contrasted against low‐dose (3 to 8 sessions) cervical manipulation produced similar changes in pain and function at intermediate‐term follow‐up for individuals with chronic neck pain with cervicogenic headache.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: 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.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

aImprecision: ‐1.

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings 5. High dose of manipulation compared with low dose of manipulation for chronic neck pain
Table 1. Calculations for number needed to treat and treatment advantage

Term

Definiton

Per cent treatment advantage (%)

Calculation of the clinically important difference or change in a per cent scale was estimated as follows. Karlberg 1996 data are used in this example.

The assumption made was that a positive mean/median value is improvement and a negative value is deterioration.

Treatment/Control
Mean/Median; Mean/Median; Mean/Median; Mean/Median
Baseline (SD); Final (SD); Baseline (SD); Final (SD)
54 (23); 31 (10); 56 (1); 55 (20)

% improvement (treatment) equals the difference between the change in the treatment group (23) divided by the treatment baseline (54), which equals 42.6%.

% improvement (control) equals the difference between the change in the control group (1) divided by the control baseline (56), which equals 1.8%.

Treatment advantage = 42.6% ‐ 1.8% = 40.8%

Number needed to treat (NNTB)

For this example, Karlberg 1996 outcomes measured at short‐term follow‐up are used to derive the data.

Number needed to treat is the number of patients a clinician needs to treat to achieve a clinically important improvement in 1. If we assume the minimal clinically important difference to be 10% of the baseline mean in the control group, and the control group mean at baseline is 56, then 10% of 56 is 5.6

The effect is baseline ‐ final value; therefore:

  • for the experimental group, the effect is 54.0 ‐ 31.0 = ‐23.0; and

  • for the control group, the effect is 56.0 ‐ 55.0 = 1.0.

Converting these to standard normal values means that:

  • for the experimental group, z = (‐5.6 + 23.0)/10.0 = 17.4/10.0 = 1.74, which gives an area under the normal curve of 0.9591; and

  • for the control group, z = (‐5.6 + 1.0)/20.0 = ‐4.6/20.0 = ‐0.23, which gives an area under the normal curve of 0.4090.

NNTB = 1 divided by the difference in areas under the normal curve (experimental group ‐ control group):

  • 0.9591 ‐ 0.4090 = 0.5500; and

  • NNTB equals 1 divided by 0.5500 = 1.81, or 2 when grown to the lowest integer.

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Calculations for number needed to treat and treatment advantage
Table 2. NNTB and treatment advantage

Author/Comparison

NNTB

Advantage, %

PAIN

Haas 2004: pain

12 (clinically important pain reduction) at ST

23

Haas 2010: pain

4 (clinically important pain reduction) at IT

29

Cleland 2005
outcome: pain

5 (clinically important pain reduction)

29

Cheung Lau 2011: pain

4 (clinically important pain reduction)

Fernandez 2004a
outcome: pain

Unable to calculate because baseline data not reported
(study author was unable to provide these data)

Gonzalez‐Iglesias 2009
outcome: pain

7 (clinically important pain reduction)

47

Martinez‐Segura 2006,
outcome: pain

2 (clinically important pain reduction)

54

Massaracchio 2013: pain

4 (clinically important pain reduction)

von Piekartz 2011: pain

2 (clinically important pain reduction) at IT

FUNCTION

Cheung Lau 2011: function

5 (clinically important functional improvement) at IT

Gonzalez‐Iglesias 2009
outcome: function

5 (clinically important functional improvement)

41

Haas 2010: function

5 (clinically important functional improvement) at ST and IT

ST: 41

IT: 39

Massaracchio 2013: function

4 (clinically important functional improvement)

Figures and Tables -
Table 2. NNTB and treatment advantage
Comparison 1. Manipulation versus placebo

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs placebo Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Single session: immediate‐ or short‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 PAIN: thoracic manipulation vs placebo Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Single session: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Manipulation versus placebo
Comparison 2. Manipulation versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs control Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain with HA: short‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 PAIN: cervical manipulation plus treatment vs same treatment in both arms Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Single session for subacute/chronic neck pain: immediate‐ or short‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 Multiple sessions for subacute/chronic neck pain: short‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs same treatment in both arms Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Single session for subacute/chronic neck pain with radicular findings and HA: short‐term follow‐up

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 PAIN: thoracic manipulation vs control Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Single session for neck pain of not reported duration: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 PAIN: thoracic manipulation vs same treatment in both arms Show forest plot

8

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Multiple sessions for acute neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

2

90

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐3.46 [‐4.13, ‐2.79]

5.2 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

2

141

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.23 [‐1.15, 0.69]

5.3 Single session for chronic neck pain: short‐term follow‐up

1

82

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.08 [‐0.36, 0.51]

5.4 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: short‐term follow‐up

4

242

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.46 [‐2.20, ‐0.71]

5.5 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: short‐term follow‐up

1

104

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.60 [‐0.99, ‐0.20]

5.6 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

103

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.64 [‐1.04, ‐0.25]

6 PAIN: cervical and thoracic manipulation vs control Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: long‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 FUNCTION: thoracic manipulation vs same treatment in both arms Show forest plot

6

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

2

141

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.52 [‐0.85, ‐0.18]

7.2 Single session for chronic neck pain: short‐term follow‐up

1

81

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.17 [‐0.61, 0.27]

7.3 Multiple sessions for acute neck pain: short‐term follow‐up

3

154

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.73 [‐2.68, ‐0.78]

7.4 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: short‐term follow‐up

1

104

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.50 [‐0.89, ‐0.10]

7.5 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

103

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.38 [‐0.77, 0.01]

8 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs same treatment in both arms Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8.1 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: short‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9 FUNCTION: cervical and thoracic manipulation vs control Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9.1 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: long‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10 QUALITY OF LIFE: thoracic manipulation vs control Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10.1 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10.2 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: short‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10.3 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11 FUNNEL PLOT for pain: thoracic manipulation vs same treatment in both arms Show forest plot

5

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

11.1 Multiple sessions for acute to chronic neck pain: short‐term follow‐up

5

346

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.26 [‐1.86, ‐0.66]

12 FUNNEL PLOT for function: thoracic manipulation vs same treatment in both arms Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

12.1 Multiple sessions: short‐term follow‐up

4

258

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.40 [‐2.24, ‐0.55]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. Manipulation versus control
Comparison 3. Mobilisation versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs control Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Single session: intermediate post treatment

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Multiple sessions: short‐term follow‐up

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 3. Mobilisation versus control
Comparison 4. Manipulation vs another treatment

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs mobilisation at immediate post treatment Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Single session for acute to chronic neck pain: immediate‐ or short‐term follow‐up

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Multiple sessions for acute to subacute neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs mobilisation at intermediate‐term follow‐up Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Multiple sessions for acute to chronic neck pain: intermediate‐term follow‐up

2

446

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.07 [‐0.72, 0.59]

3 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs massage Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Multiple sessions for chronic CGH: short‐term follow‐up

2

85

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.50 [‐0.93, ‐0.07]

3.2 Multiple sessions for chronic CGH: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

36

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.79 [‐1.47, ‐0.11]

4 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs medicine Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.3 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: long‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.4 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.5 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: long‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs exercise Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.3 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: long‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs electrotherapy Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 Multiple sessions for subacute to chronic CGH: short‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.2 Multiple sessions for subacute to chronic neck pain: short‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs acupuncture Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7.1 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.2 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: long‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs orthotic devices (K‐tape) Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8.1 Single session for acute to chronic neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9 PAIN: cervical manipulation vs varied multi‐modal approaches Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9.1 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10 PAIN: cervical manipulation ‐ 1 technique vs another technique Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10.1 Single session for acute to chronic neck pain: immediate‐ or short‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10.2 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10.3 Multiple sessions for subacute to chronic neck pain: short‐term follow‐up

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10.4 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11 PAIN: cervical manipulation ‐ varied dosage comparison Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

11.1 High vs low dosage ‐ multiple sessions for chronic CGH: short‐term follow‐up

2

47

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.66 [‐1.81, 0.49]

11.2 High vs low dosage ‐ multiple sessions for chronic CGH: intermediate‐term follow‐up

2

50

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.40 [‐0.96, 0.16]

12 PAIN: thoracic manipulation vs exercise Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

12.1 Multiple sessions for neck pain chronicity NR: long‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

13 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs mobilisation Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

13.1 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: short‐term follow‐up

1

176

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.06 [‐0.35, 0.24]

13.2 Multiple sessions for acute to chronic neck pain: intermediate‐term follow‐up

2

445

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.01 [‐0.21, 0.18]

14 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs massage Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

14.1 Multiple sessions for chronic CGH: short‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

14.2 Multiple sessions for chronic CGH: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

15 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs medicine Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

15.1 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

181

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.35 [‐0.64, ‐0.06]

15.2 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

30

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.50 [‐1.30, 0.29]

15.3 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

181

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.30 [‐0.59, ‐0.00]

15.4 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: long‐term follow‐up

1

181

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.11 [‐0.40, 0.18]

15.5 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: long‐term follow‐up

1

42

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.36 [‐0.97, 0.25]

16 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs exercise Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

16.1 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

16.2 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

16.3 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: long‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

17 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs orthotic devices (K‐taping) Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

17.1 Single session for chronic neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

18 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs acupuncture Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

18.1 Multiple sessions for subacute/chronic neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

18.2 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: long‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

19 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation vs varied multi‐modal approaches Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

19.1 Multiple sessions for subacute/chronic neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

19.2 Multiple sessions for subacute/chronic neck pain: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

20 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation ‐ 1 technique vs another technique Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

20.1 Multiple sessions for subacute/chronic neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

20.2 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: short‐term follow‐up

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

20.3 Multiple sessions for neck pain chronicity NR: short‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

20.4 Multiple sessions for acute neck pain: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

21 FUNCTION: cervical manipulation ‐ varied dosage comparison Show forest plot

2

97

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.61 [‐1.09, ‐0.14]

21.1 High vs low dosage ‐ multiple sessions for chronic CGH: short‐term follow‐up

2

47

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.75 [‐1.71, 0.22]

21.2 High vs low dosage ‐ multiple sessions for chronic CGH: intermediate‐term follow‐up

2

50

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.61 [‐1.38, 0.17]

22 PATIENT SATISFACTION: cervical manipulation vs mobilisation Show forest plot

1

303

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.02 [‐0.21, 0.24]

22.1 Multiple sessions for subacute/chronic neck pain: short‐term follow‐up

1

303

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.02 [‐0.21, 0.24]

23 PATIENT SATISFACTION: cervical manipulation vs varied multi‐modal approaches Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

23.1 Multiple sessions for subacute/chronic neck pain: short‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

24 GLOBAL PERCEIVED EFFECT: cervical manipulation vs mobilisation Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

24.1 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

24.2 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

25 QUALITY OF LIFE: cervical manipulation vs mobilisation Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

25.1 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: short‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

25.2 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

26 QUALITY OF LIFE: cervical manipulation vs medicine Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

26.1 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

26.2 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: long‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

27 QUALITY OF LIFE: cervical manipulation vs exercise Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

27.1 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

27.2 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

27.3 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: long‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 4. Manipulation vs another treatment
Comparison 5. Mobilisation versus another treatment

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs medical injection ‐ trigger point Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Multiple sessions for neck pain chronicity NR: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs exercise Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Multiple sessions for radiculopathy chronicity NR: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs electrotherapy Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs sonic devices ‐ ultrasound, shock wave therapy Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Single session for subacute/chronic neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 Multiple sessions for neck pain chronicity NR: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs mechanical traction Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 Multiple sessions for neck pain chronicity NR: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs acupuncture Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs varied multi‐modal approaches Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7.1 Multiple sessions for subacute/chronic neck pain ± radiculopathy or CGH: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 PAIN: cervical mobilisation ‐ 1 technique vs another technique Show forest plot

5

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8.1 Single session for chronic neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8.2 Single session for chronic neck pain ± radiculopathy: immediate‐term follow‐up

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8.3 Multiple sessions for chronic CGH: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8.4 Multiple sessions for chronic CGH: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9 PAIN: cervical mobilisation ‐ 1 technique vs another technique Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9.1 PA vs other mobilisation for acute/subacute neck pain: multiple sessions: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9.2 AP vs other mobilisation: multiple sessions: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10 PAIN: cervical mobilisation vs massage Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

10.1 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

2

58

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.56 [‐4.15, 1.03]

10.2 Multiple sessions for chronic CGH: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

36

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.89 [‐3.85, ‐1.93]

11 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation vs medical injection ‐ trigger point Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

11.1 Multiple sessions for neck pain chronicity NR: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

12 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation vs exercise Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

12.1 Multiple sessions for radiculopathy: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

13 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation vs electrotherapy Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

13.1 Multiple sessions for neck pain chronicity NR: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

13.2 Multiple sessions for neck pain chronicity NR: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

14 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation vs sonic devices ‐ shock wave therapy Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

14.1 Multiple sessions for neck pain chronicity NR: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

14.2 Multiple sessions for acute/subacute neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

15 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation vs acupuncture Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

15.1 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

16 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation vs varied multi‐modal approaches Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

16.1 Multiple sessions for subacute/chronic neck pain ± radiculopathy or CGH: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

17 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation vs massage Show forest plot

2

59

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.03 [‐0.90, 0.84]

17.1 Multiple sessions for chronic neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

23

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.52 [‐1.35, 0.32]

17.2 Multiple sessions for subacute/chronic CGH: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

36

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.38 [‐0.28, 1.04]

18 FUNCTION: cervical mobilisation ‐ 1 technique vs another technique Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

18.1 Multiple sessions for chronic CGH: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

18.2 Multiple sessions for chronic CGH: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

19 QUALITY OF LIFE: mobilisation vs electrotherapy Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

19.1 Multiple sessions for neck pain chronicity NR: immediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

19.2 Multiple sessions for neck pain chronicity NR: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

20 PATIENT SATISFACTION: cervical mobilisation vs varied multi‐modal approaches Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

20.1 Multiple sessions for subacute/chronic neck pain ± radiculopathy or CGH: short‐term follow‐up

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

21 PATIENT SATISFACTION: cervical mobilisation vs electrotherapy Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

21.1 Multiple sessions for neck pain chronicity NR: intermediate‐term follow‐up

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

22 GLOBAL PERCEIVED EFFECT: cervical mobilisation ‐ 1 technique vs another technique Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

22.1 Single session for chronic neck pain: immediate‐term follow‐up

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 5. Mobilisation versus another treatment