Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Concomitant Treatment with Chuna Manual Therapy and Usual Care for Whiplash Injuries: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Korean Herbal Medicine for Patients with Post-Accident Syndrome, Persistent after Acute Phase: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

This is a pragmatic, two-armed, parallel, single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial for comparative evaluation between the effectiveness of integrated Korean medicine (IKM) and herbal medicine treatment with that of IKM monotherapy (control) for post-accident syndrome persistent after the acute phase. Participants were randomized into Herbal Medicine (HM, n = 20) and Control groups (n = 20) to receive the allocated treatment of 1-3 sessions/week for 4 weeks. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. The Difference of Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) change of overall post-accident syndromes from baseline to week 5 for the two groups was 1.78 (95% CI: 1.08-2.48; p < 0.001). Regarding secondary outcomes, a significant decrease compared to the baseline values was confirmed for NRS of musculoskeletal, neurological, psychiatric complaints and general symptoms of post-accident syndromes. In a survival analysis based on the recovery criteria of "patients with a reduction in the NRS of overall post-accident syndromes of ≥50%," the HM group showed a shorter time to recovery than the control group during the 17-week study period (p < 0.001 by the log-rank test). IKM combined with herbal medicine treatment significantly improved the quality of life by relieving somatic pain and alleviating the overall post-accident syndrome persistent after the acute phase; this effect was maintained for at least 17 weeks.