Incomplete reporting of manual therapy interventions and a lack of clinician and setting diversity in clinical trials for neck pain limits replication and real-world translation. A scoping review

Effectiveness of Manual Joint Mobilization Techniques in the Treatment of Nonspecific Neck Pain: Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of cervical joint mobilization techniques (JMTs) on pain and disability in adults with nonspecific neck pain. DESIGN: This study is an intervention systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and Web of Science databases, including references from other reviews or clinical practice guidelines up to October 16, 2024. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible RCTs evaluated JMTs compared to routine physiotherapy, minimally active interventions, or no treatment. The primary outcome was pain; secondary outcomes were disability, Global Perceived Effect (GPE), quality of life, psychosocial status, and adverse events. DATA SYNTHESIS: Meta-analyses and meta-regression were conducted for pain, disability, and GPE. The risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane RoB 2.0 Tool; the certainty of the evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. We used The Template for the Intervention Description and Replication checklist to evaluate the quality of reporting of interventions delivered. RESULTS: Results from 16 RCTs were pooled (n = 1,157 participants), reporting nonclinically positive results on pain reduction (mean difference [MD] = -0.86 (95% confidence interval [-1.35, -0.36])), disability (MD=-2.11 [-3.31, -0.91]), and GPE (standardized mean difference = 0.11 ([-0.15, 0.37]) and high heterogeneity. The meta-regressions did not identify any covariates associated with the treatment effects. Minor side effects (increased neck pain and headache) were reported. CONCLUSION: There was very low certainty evidence supporting the efficacy of JTMs for reducing pain and improving disability in people with NSNP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2025;55(3):1-20. Epub 12 February 2025. doi:10.2519/jospt.2025.12836.

Manual physical therapy for neck disorders: an umbrella review

INTRODUCTION

Neck pain is a common musculoskeletal disorder, with a prevalence rate (age-standardized) of 27.0 per 1000 in 2019. Approximately 50-85% of individuals with acute neck pain do not experience complete resolution of symptoms, experiencing chronic pain. Manual therapy is a widely employed treatment approach for nonspecific neck pain (NSNP), cervical radiculopathy (CR) and cervicogenic headaches (CGH). This umbrella review synthesized systematic reviews examining manual physical therapy for individuals with cervical disorders.

METHODS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed with Prospero registration (CRD42022327434). Four databases were searched from January 2016 to May 2023 for systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis examining manual therapy for individuals with neck pain of any stage. Interventions included any manual physical therapy of the cervical or thoracic spine as well as neuromobilization of the upper quarter. Primary outcomes included pain and disability. Two reviewers screened for eligibility and completed data extraction. Methodological quality was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool.

RESULTS

A total of 35 SRs were included: 15 NSNP, 7 cervical radiculopathy, 9 CGH and 4 samples with combined diagnoses. AMSTAR 2 ratings of the SRs support high confidence in results for 10 reviews, moderate confidence in 12 reviews and low to critically low confidence in 13 reviews. For NSNP, there was high confidence in the results showing manual therapy combined with exercise was superior to either treatment in isolation. In cervical radiculopathy, neural mobilization, distraction, soft tissue treatment and mobilization/manipulation to cervical and thoracic spine were supported with moderate confidence in results. For CGH, there was high confidence in the results supporting the use of cervical spine mobilization/manipulation, soft tissue mobilization, and manual therapy combined with exercise. Original authors of SRs reported varying quality of primary studies with lack of consistent high quality/low risk of bias designs.

CONCLUSION

Manual therapy plus exercise, cervical or thoracic mobilization and manipulation, neuromobilization, and other types of manual therapy were supported as effective interventions in the management of pain and disability for individuals with NSNP, CGH, or CR in the short-term.

A critical review of the role of manual therapy in the treatment of individuals with low back pain

The number of low back pain (LBP) cases is projected to increase to more than 800 million by 2050. To address the substantial burden of disease associated with this rise in prevalence, effective treatments are needed. While clinical practice guidelines (CPG) consistently recommend non-pharmacological therapies as first-line treatments, recommendations regarding manual therapy (MT) in treating low back pain vary. The goal of this narrative review was to critically summarize the available evidence for MT behind these recommendations, to scrutinize its mechanisms of action, and propose some actionable steps for clinicians on how this knowledge can be integrated into a person-centered approach. Despite disparate recommendations from CPG, MT is as effective as other available treatments and may be offered to patients with LBP, especially as part of a treatment package with exercise and education. Most of the effects of MT are not specific to the technique. MT and other interventions share several mechanisms of action that mediate treatment success. These mechanisms can encompass patients' expectations, prior experiences, beliefs and convictions, epistemic trust, and nonspecific contextual effects. Although MT is safer than opioids for patients with LBP, this alone is insufficient. Our goal is to encourage clinicians to shift away from outdated and refuted ideas in MT and embrace a person-centered approach rooted in a comprehensive biopsychosocial framework while incorporating patients' beliefs, addressing illness behaviors, and seeking to understand each patient's journey.

The majority of clinical trials assessing mobilization and manipulation for neck pain lack a pragmatic approach: a systematic review of 174 trials

BACKGROUND

Disorders of the cervical spine are some of the costliest musculoskeletal conditions to manage globally. Joint mobilization and manipulation have been shown to be an effective treatment for neck pain. However, the generalizability and clinical translation depends on the nature of the trial designs that inform its use. The extent to which randomized control trials (RCTs) assessing manual therapy treatments for cervical spine disorders fall on the efficacy (explanatory) -effectiveness (pragmatic) spectrum often informs how the findings are translated into clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to determine where RCTs of manual therapy for neck disorders fall on the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum.

METHODS

A search of three electronic databases including PubMed, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were completed for trials published from inception to May 2023. RCTs in which joint mobilization or manipulation were used to treat cervical spine disorders were assessed on the effectiveness-efficacy spectrum using the Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool and risk of bias using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

RESULTS

A total of 174 trials met eligibility. RITES domain two trial setting (71.3% vs 16.1%), domain three flexibility of intervention(s) (62.1% vs 23%), and domain four clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention(s) (51.7% vs 29.3%) all favored efficacy over effectiveness. Domain one participant characteristic(s) had a slightly greater emphasis on effectiveness compared to efficacy (36.8% vs 44.8%). Most studies (96%) had at least some risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Over half of the RCTs assessing the treatment effect of joint mobilization and manipulation for neck pain favor efficacy (explanatory) over effectiveness (pragmatic) designs. Future RCTs on this topic should consider a greater emphasis on pragmatic trial design components in order to better reflect real-world translation to clinical practice.

A Critical Appraisal of Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials Investigating Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment: A Meta-Research Study

Background/Objectives: In osteopathy, it becomes necessary to produce high-quality evidence to demonstrate its effectiveness. The aim of this meta-research study is to assess the reporting quality of RCTs published in the osteopathic field. Methods: The protocol was preliminarily registered on the "Open Science Framework (OSF)" website. For reporting, we considered the PRISMA 2020 checklist. We included all the RCTs, published between 2011 and 2023, investigating the effectiveness of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment (OMT) in any possible condition. The search process was conducted on four major biomedical databases including PubMed, Central, Scopus and Embase. A data extraction form was implemented to collect all relevant information. The completeness of reporting was calculated as the percentage of adherence to the CONSORT checklist; the Cochrane ROB 2 tool was considered to assess the risk of bias (RoB) in the following five major domains: randomization (D1), interventions (D2), missing data (D3), outcome measurement (D4), selective reporting (D5). Results: A total of 131 studies were included and the overall adherence was 57%, with the worst section being "other information" (42%). Studies with a lower RoB showed higher adherence to the CONSORT. The "results" section presented the highest differences as follows: D1 (-36.7%), D2 (-27.2%), D3 (-21.5%) and D5 (-25.5%). Significant correlations were also found between the preliminary protocol registration, higher journal quartile, publication in hybrid journals and the completeness of reporting (β: 19.22, CI: 14.45-24.00, p < 0.001; β: 5.41; CI: 2.80-8.02, p ≤ 0.001; β: 5.64, CI: 1.06-10.23, p = 0.016, respectively). Conclusions: The adherence to the CONSORT checklist in osteopathic RCTs is lacking. An association was found between a lower completeness of reporting and a higher RoB, a good journal ranking, publication in hybrid journals and a prospective protocol registration. Journals and authors should adopt all the strategies to adhere to reporting guidelines to guarantee generalization of the results arising from RCTs.

Evaluating and Characterizing the Scope of Care for Interventions Labeled as Manual Therapy in Low Back Pain Trials: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this scoping review was to evaluate and characterize the scope of care for low back pain that falls under the specific label of manual therapy.

METHODS

PubMed database, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and SPORTDiscus were searched from journal inception through May 2022 for randomized controlled trials that investigated the treatment of low back pain using manual therapy. Terminology used to define manual therapy was extracted and categorized by using only the words included in the description of the intervention. An expert consultation phase was undertaken to gather feedback.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-six trials met final inclusion criteria, and 169 unique terms labeled as manual therapy for the treatment of low back pain were found. The most frequent terms were mobilization (29.0%), manipulation (16.0%), and thrust (6.4%). Eight percent of trials did not define or specify what type of manual therapy was used in the study. After removing duplicates, 169 unique terms emerged within 18 categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Manual therapy intervention labels used in low back pain trials are highly variable. With such variation, the heterogeneity of the intervention in trials is likely large, and the likelihood that different trials are comparing the same interventions is low. Researchers should consider being more judicious with the use of the term manual therapy and provide greater detail in titles, methods, and supplementary appendices in order to improve clarity, clinical applicability, and usefulness of future research.

IMPACT

The ability to interpret and apply findings from manual therapy-related research for low back pain is challenging due to the heterogeneity of interventions under this umbrella term. A clear use of terminology and description of interventions by researchers will allow for improved understanding for the role of manual therapy in managing back pain.

Reproducibility of Exercise Interventions in Randomized Controlled Trials for the Treatment of Rotator Cuff-Related Shoulder Pain: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To determine the reproducibility of exercise therapy interventions in randomized controlled trials for rotator cuff-related shoulder pain (RCRSP).

DATA SOURCES

Data sources included Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and SPORTDiscus from studies published from database inception to April 23, 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials studying the use of exercise therapy for RCRSP.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers extracted exercise reporting details from all studies using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) and the modified Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT). The same 2 reviewers assessed risk of bias of all studies using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool version 2.0.

DATA SYNTHESIS

For 104 studies meeting inclusion criteria, the average number of items reported on the TIDieR was 5.27 (SD 2.50, range 1-12 out of 12) and 5.09 (SD 4.01, range 0-16 out of 16) on the CERT. Improved reporting over time was seen on both the TIDieR and CERT dating back to 1993 and through April 23, 2022. When comparing groups of studies published before and after the TIDieR (2014) and CERT (2016) were established, a statistically significant increase in median scores was noted on the TIDieR (P=.02) but not the CERT (P=.31). Quality of exercise therapy reporting was highest in studies with "low risk" of bias, and lowest in studies with "high risk" of bias on the RoB-2.

CONCLUSION

Overall exercise reporting in trials for RCRSP is incomplete despite the development of the TIDieR and CERT checklists. This has implications for translating evidence into practice.

Identifying Conservative Interventions for Individuals with Subacromial Pain Syndrome Prior to Undergoing a Subacromial Decompression: A Scoping Review

Background

Subacromial decompression (SAD) surgery remains a common treatment for individuals suffering from subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS), despite numerous studies indicating that SAD provides no benefit over conservative care. Surgical protocols typically recommend surgery only after exhausting conservative measures; however, there is no consensus in the published literature detailing what constitutes conservative care "best practice" before undergoing surgery.

Purpose

To describe conservative interventions received by individuals with SAPS prior to undergoing a SAD.

Study Design

Scoping review.

Methods

An electronic search using MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, and Scopus databases was conducted. Peer-reviewed randomized controlled control trials and cohort studies published between January 2000 and February 2022 that included subjects diagnosed with SAPS who progressed to receive a SAD were eligible. Subjects who received previous or concurrent rotator cuff repair with SAPS were excluded. Conservative interventions and treatment details that subjects received prior to undergoing a SAD were extracted.

Results

Forty-seven studies were included after screening 1,426 studies. Thirty-six studies (76.6%) provided physical therapy (PT) services, and six studies (12.8%) included only a home exercise program. Twelve studies (25.5%) specifically detailed the delivered PT services, and 20 studies (42.6%) stated who provided the PT interventions. Subacromial injections (SI) (55.3%, n=26) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) (31.9%, n=15) were the next most frequently delivered interventions. Thirteen studies (27.7%) included combined PT and SI. The duration of conservative care varied from 1.5 months to 16 months.

Conclusion

Conservative care that individuals with SAPS receive to prevent advancement to SAD appears inadequate based on the literature. Interventions, such as PT, SI, and NSAIDs, are either underreported or not offered to individuals with SAP prior to advancing to surgery. Many questions regarding optimal conservative management for SAPS persists.

Level of Evidence

n/a.