Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Orthoses for mechanical neck disorders

References

Additional references

Borghouts 1998

Borghouts JAJ, Koes BW, Bouter LM. The clinical course and prognostic factors of non‐specific neck pain: A systematic review. Pain 1998;77:1‐13.

Bovim 1994

Bovim G, Schrader H, Sand T. Neck pain in the general population. Spine 1994;19:1307‐9.

Cohen 1988

Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. 2nd Edition. Hilldale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.

Côté 1998

Côté P, Cassidy D, Corroll L. The Saskatchewan health and back pain survey. The prevalence of neck pain and related disability in Saskatchewan adults. Spine 1998;23(15):1689‐98.

Dupont 1990

Dupont WD, Plummer WD. Power and sample size calculations: A review and computer program. Controlled Clinical Trials 1990;11:116‐8.

Farrar 2001

Farrar JT, Young Jr JP, LaMoureaux L, Worth JL, Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11‐point numerical rating scale. Pain 2001;94:149‐58.

Felson 1995

Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Boers M, Bombardier C, Furst D, Goldsmith C, et al. American College of Rheumatology. Preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism 1995;38(6):727‐35.

Furlan 2008

Furlan AD, Pennick V, van Tulder MW, Shekelle P, Bombardier C, Bouter L on behalf of the Cochrane Back Review Group Editorial Board. 2008 Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. in progress 2008.

Jadad 1996

Jadad AR, Moore RA, Corroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavagha DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials: Is blinding necessary?. Contr Clin Trials 1996;17(1):1‐12.

Kendal 1963

Kendal MG, Stuart A. The Advanced Theory of Statistics: Distribution Theory. 2nd Edition. Vol. 1, New York: Hofner Publishing Company, 1963.

Landis 1977

Landis RJ, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33(4):159‐74.

Linton 1998

Linton SJ, Hellsing AL, Hallden K. A population‐based study of spinal pain among 35‐45 year old individuals. Prevalence, sick leave and health care use. Spine 1998;23(13):1457‐63.

Makela 1991

Makela M, Heliovaara M, Sievers K, Impivaara O, Knekt P, Aromaa A. Prevalence determinants and consequences of chronic neck pain in Finland. American Journal of Epidemiology 1991;134:1356‐67.

Olesen 1988

Olesen J. Classification and diagnostic criteria for headache disorders, cranial neuralgias and facial pain. Cephalgia 1988;8(7):61‐2.

Olesen 1997

Olesen J, Gobel H. ICD‐10 Guide for Headaches. Guide to the classification, diagnosis and assessment of headaches in accordance with the tenth revision of the International classification of diseases and related health problems and its application to neurology. Cephalgia 1997;17 Supplement 19:29‐30.

PEDro scale 1999

PEDro Scale. Physiotherapy Evidence Database website (http://www.pedro.fhs.usyd.edu.au/scale_item.html) 1999; accessed 16 July 2007.

Rajala 1995

Rajala U, Keinanen‐Kiukanniemi S, Uusimaki A, Kivela S‐L. Muscoloskeletal pains and depression in a middle‐aged Finnish population. Pain 1995;61:451‐7.

Schumacher 1993

Schumacher HR, Klippel JH, Koopman WJ (eds). Primer on the Rheumatic Diseases. 10th Edition. Atlanta: Arthritis Foundation, 1993.

Shields 2006

Shields N, Capper J, Polak T, Taylor N. Are Cervical Pillows effective in reducing neck pain?. NZ Journal of Physiotherapy 2006;34(1):3‐9.

Sjaastad 1990

Sjaastad O, Fredriksen T A, Pfaffenrath V. Cervicogenic headache: diagnostic criteria. Headache 1990;30:725‐6.

Skargren 1998

Skargren EI, Carlsson PG, Oberg BE. One‐year follow‐up comparison of the cost and effectiveness of chiropractic and physiotherapy as primary management for back pain. Subgroup analysis, recurrence, and additional health care utilization. Spine 1998;23(17):1875‐84.

Spitzer 1987

Spitzer WO, Leblanc FE, Dupuis M. Scientific approach to the assessment and managment of activity related spinal disorders. Spine 1987;supplement 7:S1‐S59.

Spitzer 1995

Spitzer WO, Skovron M L, Salmi L R, Cassidy JD, Duranceau J, Suissa S, et al. Scientific monograph of the Quebec Task Force on Whiplash‐Associated Disorders: redefining "whiplash" and its management. Spine 1995;20:1S‐73S.

Stratford 1999

Stratford PW, Riddle DL, Binkley JM, Spadoni G, Westaway MD, Padfield B. Using the Neck Disability Index to make decisions concerning individual patients. Physiotherapy Canada 1999;Spring:107‐19.

Takala 1982

Takala J, Sievers K, Klaukka T. Rheumatic symptoms in the middle‐aged population in southwestern Findland. Scand J Rheumatol 1982;47:15‐29.

Turk 2005

Turk DC, Dworkin RH. What should be the core outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials?. Arthritis Research and Therapeutics 2005;6:151‐4.

van Tulder 2003

van Tulder M, Bombardier C, Bouter L, Editorial Board of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine 2003;28(12):120‐9.

Verhagen 2007

Verhagen AP, Scholten‐Peeters GGGM, van Wijngaarden S, de Bie RA, Bierma‐Zeinstra SMA. Conservative Treatment for Whiplash. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003338.pub3]

Westerling 1980

Westerling D, Jonsson BG. Pain from the neck‐shoulder region and sick leave. Scand J Soc Med 1980;8(3):131‐6.
Table 1. Quality assessment criteria

van Tulder 2003

Jadad 1996

The van Tulder et al criteria, operationalization and scores are as follows:
Total criteria = 11; high quality = at least 6 criteria met; Score 1 for each criteria met

A. Was the method of randomisation adequate? A random (unpredictable) assignment sequence. Examples of adequate methods are computer‐generated random numbers table and use of sealed opaque envelopes. Methods of allocation using date of birth, date of admission, hospital numbers, or alternation should not be regarded as appropriate.

B. Was the treatment allocation concealed? Assignment generated by an independent person not responsible for determining the eligibility of the patients. This person has no information about the persons included in the trial and has no influence on the assignment sequence or on the decision about eligibility of the patient.

C. Were the groups similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators? In order to receive a "yes," groups have to be similar at baseline regarding demographic factors, duration and severity of complaints, percentage of patients with neurological symptoms, and value of main outcome measure(s).

D. Was the patient blinded to the intervention? The review author determines if enough information about the blinding is given in order to score a "yes."

E. Was the care provider blinded to the intervention? The review author determines if enough information about the blinding is given in order to score a "yes."

F. Was the outcome assessor blinded to the intervention? The review author determines if enough information about the blinding is given in order to score a "yes."

G. Were co‐interventions avoided or similar? Co‐interventions should either be avoided in the trial design or be similar between the index and control groups.

H. Was the compliance acceptable in all groups? The review author determines if the compliance to the interventions is acceptable, based on the reported intensity, duration, number and frequency of sessions for both the index intervention and control intervention(s).

I. Was the drop‐out rate described and acceptable? The number of participants who were included in the study but did not complete the observation period or were not included in the analysis must be described and reasons given. If the percentage of withdrawals and drop‐outs does not exceed 20% for immediate and short‐term follow‐ups, 30% for intermediate and long‐term follow‐ups and does not lead to substantial bias a "yes" is scored.

J. Was the timing of the outcome assessment in all groups similar? Timing of outcome assessment should be identical for all intervention groups and for all important outcome assessments.

K. Did the analysis include an intention‐to‐treat analysis? All randomized patients are reported/analyzed in the group to which they were allocated by randomization for the most important moments of effect measurement (minus missing values), irrespective of noncompliance and co‐interventions. 

The Jadad et al. criteria and scores are as follows:
Maximum score = 5; high quality = at least 3

1a. Was the study described as randomised? (Score 1 if yes)

1b and 1c. Was the method of randomisation described and appropriate to conceal allocation? (Score 1 if appropriate and ‐1 if not appropriate)

2a. Was the study described as double‐blinded? (Score 1 if yes)

2b and 2c. Was the method of double blinding described and appropriate to maintain double blinding? (Score 1 if appropriate and ‐1 if not appropriate)

3. Was there a description of how withdrawals and dropouts were handled? (Score1 if yes)

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Quality assessment criteria