Cochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsExercises For Mechanical Neck Disorders (Review)

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review)
Gross A, Kay TM, Paquin JP, Blanchette S, Lalonde P, Christie T, Dupont G, Graham N, Burnie SJ,
Gelley G, Goldsmith CH, Forget M, Hoving JL, Brønfort G, Santaguida PL, Cervical Overview Group
Gross A, Kay TM, Paquin JP, Blanchette S, Lalonde P, Christie T, Dupont G, Graham N, Burnie SJ, Gelley G, Goldsmith CH, Forget M, Hoving
JL, Brønfort G, Santaguida PL, Cervical Overview Group.
Exercises for mechanical neck disorders.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD004250.
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004250.pub5.
www.cochranelibrary.com

Copyright © 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HEADER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR THE MAIN COMPARISON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
ADDITIONAL SUMMARY OF FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
DATA AND ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Chronic MND: Breathing Patterns vs CONTROL, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (Borg 0 to 10):
10 weeks of treatment vs Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Chronic MND: Breathing Patterns vs CONTROL, Outcome 2 Function (NDI 0 to 100): 10
weeks of treatment vs Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Chronic MND: Breathing Patterns vs CONTROL, Outcome 3 SF-36 (physical function): 10
weeks of treatment vs Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Acute to Chronic MND: General Fitness Training vs CONTROL, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity
(VAS): 10 weeks of treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Acute to Chronic MND: General Fitness Training vs CONTROL, Outcome 2 Pain Intensity
(VAS): 10 weeks of treatment + 10 weeks follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Chronic MND: Cervical Stretch/ROM Exercises + Dynamic Cervical Stabilization vs SHAM,
Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 8 weeks of treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Outcome 2 Pain Intensity (VAS): 8 weeks of treatment + 6 month follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Outcome 3 Pain Intensity (VAS): 8 weeks of treatment + 12 months follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Outcome 4 Function (NDI): 8 weeks of treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Outcome 5 Function (NDI): 8 weeks of treatment + 6 month follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Outcome 6 Function (NDI): 8 weeks of treatment + 12 month follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Chronic MND: Static Cervical Strengthening + Static Stabilization vs NO INTERVENTION
OR WAIT LIST, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 6 weeks of treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
OR WAIT LIST, Outcome 2 Pain Intensity (VAS): 6 weeks of treatment + 6 weeks follow-up. . . . . . . 151
Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) i
OR WAIT LIST, Outcome 3 Function (NPQ): 6 weeks of treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
OR WAIT LIST, Outcome 4 Function (NPQ): 6 weeks of treatment + 6 weeks follow-up. . . . . . . . 152
OR WAIT LIST, Outcome 6 Quality of Life (SF-36): 6 weeks of treatment + 6 w follow-up. . . . . . . 153
Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 Chronic MND: Pattern synchronization (sitting posture) vs CONTROL, Outcome 1 Pain
intensity (VAS) 2 weeks of treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Analysis 6.2. Comparison 6 Chronic MND: Pattern synchronization (sitting posture) vs CONTROL, Outcome 2 Function
(NDI): 2 weeks of treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Analysis 7.1. Comparison 7 Acute to Chronic MND: Scapulothoracic + UE Strengthening vs CONTROL, Outcome 1
Pain Intensity (NPS): 4 weeks of treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Pain Intensity: 10 to 20 weeks of treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Pain Intensity: 20 weeks of treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Pain Intensity (VAS): 10 weeks of treatment + 10 weeks follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Function: 4 weeks of treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Function: 20 weeks of treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Function: 12 to 20 weeks of treatment/follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Analysis 8.1. Comparison 8 Chronic MND: Cervical/UE Stretch/ROM Exercise + Cervical/UE Strengthening + Dynamic
Cervical Stabilization vs PLACEBO or SHAM, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 8 weeks of treatment. . . . 158
Cervical Stabilization vs PLACEBO or SHAM, Outcome 2 Pain Intensity (VAS): 8 weeks of treatment + 6 month
follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Cervical Stabilization vs PLACEBO or SHAM, Outcome 3 Pain Intensity (VAS): 8 weeks of treatment + 12 month
follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Cervical Stabilization vs PLACEBO or SHAM, Outcome 4 Function (NDI): 8 weeks of treatment. . . . . 160
Cervical Stabilization vs PLACEBO or SHAM, Outcome 5 Function (NDI): 8 weeks of treatment + 6 month follow-
up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Cervical Stabilization vs PLACEBO or SHAM, Outcome 6 Function (NDI): 8 weeks treatment + 12 month follow-
up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Analysis 9.1. Comparison 9 Chronic MND: Cervical/UE Stretch/ROM Exercises + Cervical/Scapulothoracic+/-UE
Strengthening + Dynamic/Static Cervical Stabilization + ANOTHER INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME
INTERVENTION, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity: Immediate Post Treatment (<11w of treatment). . . . . . 161
INTERVENTION, Outcome 2 Pain Intensity: 11 w of treatment + 3 month follow-up. . . . . . . . . 162
INTERVENTION, Outcome 3 Pain Intensity: Treatment + IT follow-up (11 weeks of treatment + 6 month follow-
up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
INTERVENTION, Outcome 4 Pain Intensity: Treatment + LT follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) ii
INTERVENTION, Outcome 5 Function: Immediate Post treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
INTERVENTION, Outcome 6 Function: Treatment + ST follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
INTERVENTION, Outcome 7 Function: Treatment + IT follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
INTERVENTION, Outcome 8 Function: Treatment + LT follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
INTERVENTION, Outcome 9 Quality of Life: Immediate Post Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Analysis 9.10. Comparison 9 Chronic MND: Cervical/UE Stretch/ROM Exercises + Cervical/Scapulothoracic+/-
UE Strengthening + Dynamic/Static Cervical Stabilization + ANOTHER INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME
INTERVENTION, Outcome 10 Quality of Life: Treatment + ST follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
INTERVENTION, Outcome 11 Quality of Life: Treatment + IT follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
INTERVENTION, Outcome 12 Quality of Life: Treatment + LT follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
INTERVENTION, Outcome 13 Patient Satisfaction: Immediate Post Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . 169
INTERVENTION, Outcome 14 Patient Satisfaction: Treatment + ST follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . 170
INTERVENTION, Outcome 15 Patient Satisfaction: Treatment + IT follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . 170
INTERVENTION, Outcome 16 Patient Satisfaction: Treatment + LT follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . 171
INTERVENTION, Outcome 17 Global Perceived Effect: Immediate Post Treatment. . . . . . . . . . 171
INTERVENTION, Outcome 18 Global Perceived Effect: Treatment + ST follow-up. . . . . . . . . . 172
INTERVENTION, Outcome 19 Global Perceived Effect: Treatment + IT follow-up. . . . . . . . . . 172
INTERVENTION, Outcome 20 Global Perceived Effect: Treatment + LT follow-up. . . . . . . . . . 173
Analysis 10.1. Comparison 10 Chronic MND: Cervical Stretch/ROM Exercises + Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening
+ Static/Dynamic Cervical/Shoulder Stabilization vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 12 weeks of
treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) iii

+ Static/Dynamic Cervical/Shoulder Stabilization vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 2 Pain Intensity (VAS): 24 weeks of
treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
+ Static/Dynamic Cervical/Shoulder Stabilization vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 3 Function: 12 weeks of treatment. 175
+ Static/Dynamic Cervical/Shoulder Stabilization vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 4 Function: 24 weeks of treatment. 176
+ Static/Dynamic Cervical/Shoulder Stabilization vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 5 Global Perceived Effect (General Health
Perception): 12 weeks of treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
+ Static/Dynamic Cervical/Shoulder Stabilization vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 6 Global Perceived Effect (General Health
Perception): 12 weeks of treatment + 12 weeks follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
+ Static/Dynamic Cervical/Shoulder Stabilization vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 7 Quality of Life (SF-36): 12 weeks of
treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
+ Static/Dynamic Cervical/Shoulder Stabilization vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 8 Quality of Life (SF-36): 24 weeks of
treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Analysis 11.1. Comparison 11 Chronic MND: Cervical/Scapulothoracic/UE Stretch + UE Endurance Training vs NO
INTERVENTION or WAIT LIST, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 12 weeks of treatment. . . . . . . 179
INTERVENTION or WAIT LIST, Outcome 2 Pain Intensity (VAS): 12 weeks of treatment + 3 month follow-up. 180
INTERVENTION or WAIT LIST, Outcome 3 Pain Intensity (VAS): 12 weeks of treatment + 9 month follow-up. 180
INTERVENTION or WAIT LIST, Outcome 4 Function (Neck Disability 0-80): 12 weeks of treatment. . . 181
INTERVENTION or WAIT LIST, Outcome 5 Function (Neck Disability 0-80): 12 weeks of treatment + 3 month
follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
INTERVENTION or WAIT LIST, Outcome 6 Function (Neck Disability 0-80): 12 weeks of treatment + 9 month
follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Analysis 12.1. Comparison 12 Acute to Chronic MND: Pattern synchronization + cervical/scapulothoracic strengthening
+ scapulothoracic endurance vs NO INTERVENTION, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (VAS 0 to 10): 24 weeks of
treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Analysis 13.1. Comparison 13 Chronic MND: Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening + Cervical/Scapulothoracic
Endurance Training, Outcome 1 Pain Prevelance during previous week: 6 weeks of treatment + 46 weeks follow-
up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Analysis 14.1. Comparison 14 Acute to Chronic MND: Scapulothoracic/UE Endurance Training vs CONTROL,
Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 10 weeks treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Analysis 15.1. Comparison 15 Chronic MND: Neuromuscular Education (eye neck coordination/proprioception) +
ANOTHER INTERVENTION VS THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 8 weeks
treatment + 10 weeks follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
Analysis 15.2. Comparison 15 Chronic MND: Neuromuscular Education (eye neck coordination/proprioception) +
ANOTHER INTERVENTION VS THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 2 Function (pt’s assessment of
functional improvement): 8 weeks treatment + 10 weeks follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
Analysis 16.1. Comparison 16 Chronic MND:Trunk/Extremity Stretch + Pattern/Synchronization: Balance and
Coordination + Cardiovascular/Aerobic vs NO TREATMENT, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 10 weeks of
treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Analysis 17.1. Comparison 17 Chronic MND:General Endurance Training + Dynamic/Static Lowback/pelvic Stabilization
+ General Stretching + Neuromuscular/body Mechanics Movement Training vs NO INTERVENTION OR WAIT
LIST, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 16 weeks treatment + 6 weeks follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . 185
Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) iv
Analysis 18.1. Comparison 18 Chronic MND: Stretch/ROM + Endurance Training + Dynamic Stabilization + Cognitive
(mindfulness & emotional balance) vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 12 weeks of treatment. . 186
(mindfulness & emotional balance) vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 2 Pain Intensity (VAS): 24 weeks of treatment. . 187
(mindfulness & emotional balance) vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 3 Function: 12 weeks of treatment. . . . . . 188
(mindfulness & emotional balance) vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 4 Function: 24 weeks of treatment. . . . . . 189
(mindfulness & emotional balance) vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 5 Global Perceived Effect (General Health Perception):
12 weeks of treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
(mindfulness & emotional balance) vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 6 Global Perceived Effect (General Health Perception):
12 weeks of treatment + 12 weeks Follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
(mindfulness & emotional balance) vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 7 Quality of Life (SF-36 physical component): 12 weeks
of treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
(mindfulness & emotional balance) vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 8 Quality of Life: 24 weeks of treatment. . . . 191
Analysis 19.1. Comparison 19 Subacute to chronic WAD: Trunk/Extremity Stretch/ROM + Trunk/Extremity Strengthening
+ Trunk/Extremity Endurance Training + Pattern/Synchronization: Coordination + Cardiovascular/Aerobic +
Cognitive (CBT) + ANOTHER TREATMENT vs THAT SAME OTHER TREATMENT, Outcome 1 Pain
Intensity: (0-10 box scale): 6 weeks of treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Cognitive (CBT) + ANOTHER TREATMENT vs THAT SAME OTHER TREATMENT, Outcome 2 Pain
Intensity (0-10 box scale): 6 weeks treatment + 12 month follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Cognitive (CBT) + ANOTHER TREATMENT vs THAT SAME OTHER TREATMENT, Outcome 3 Function
(NDI): 6 weeks of treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Cognitive (CBT) + ANOTHER TREATMENT vs THAT SAME OTHER TREATMENT, Outcome 4 Function
(NDI): 6 weeks of treatment + 12 month follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Cognitive (CBT) + ANOTHER TREATMENT vs THAT SAME OTHER TREATMENT, Outcome 5 Global
Perceived Effect (-5 to 5 scale): 6 weeks of treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Cognitive (CBT) + ANOTHER TREATMENT vs THAT SAME OTHER TREATMENT, Outcome 6 Global
Perceived Effect (-5 to 5 scale): 6 weeks of treatment + 12 month follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Cognitive (CBT) + ANOTHER TREATMENT vs THAT SAME OTHER TREATMENT, Outcome 7 Quality of
Life (SF-36): 6 weeks of treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Cognitive (CBT) + ANOTHER TREATMENT vs THAT SAME OTHER TREATMENT, Outcome 8 Quality of
Life (SF-36): 6 weeks of treatment + 12 month follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Analysis 20.1. Comparison 20 Acute to Subacute CGH: Cervical Stretch/ROM vs SHAM, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity
(Headache Questionnaire): Treatment + 4 weeks follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) v
Analysis 20.2. Comparison 20 Acute to Subacute CGH: Cervical Stretch/ROM vs SHAM, Outcome 2 Pain Intensity
(Headache Questionnaire): Treatment + 12 month follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Analysis 21.1. Comparison 21 Chronic CGH: Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance Training +
Craniocervical Pressure Biofeedback + Dynamic Cervical Stabilization vs NO INTERVENTION or WAIT LIST,
Outcome 1 Headache Intensity (VAS 0-10): 6 weeks of treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Outcome 2 Headache Intensity (VAS 0-10): 6 weeks treatment + 12 month follow-up. . . . . . . . . 197
Outcome 3 Function (NPNPQ 0-36): 6 weeks treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Outcome 4 Function (NPNPQ 0-36): 6 weeks treatment + 12 month follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . 199
Outcome 5 Global Perceived Effect (VAS): 6 weeks treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Outcome 6 Global Perceived Effect (VAS): 6 weeks treatment + 12 month follow-up. . . . . . . . . . 200
Analysis 22.1. Comparison 22 Acute Radiculopathy (NDR): Cervical Stretch/ROM + Cervical/Scapulothoracic/UE
Strengthening + Static/Dynamic Cervical Stabilization vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 6 weeks
treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Strengthening + Static/Dynamic Cervical Stabilization vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 2 Pain Intensity (VAS): 6 weeks
treatment + 6 month follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Strengthening + Static/Dynamic Cervical Stabilization vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 3 Function (NDI): 6 weeks
treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Strengthening + Static/Dynamic Cervical Stabilization vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 4 Function (NDI): 6 weeks treatment
+ 6 month follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Strengthening + Static/Dynamic Cervical Stabilization vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 5 Satisfaction (5 point scale): 6 weeks
treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Analysis 23.1. Comparison 23 Chronic MND: Patterns synchronization + Feedforward/feedback: vestibular rehabilitation
(balance on unstable surfaces and walking with head movements and eyes closed) vs NO INTERVENTION,
Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (VAS) 6 weeks vs Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Analysis 23.2. Comparison 23 Chronic MND: Patterns synchronization + Feedforward/feedback: vestibular rehabilitation
(balance on unstable surfaces and walking with head movements and eyes closed) vs NO INTERVENTION,
Outcome 2 Pain Intensity (VAS) 3 months vs control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Analysis 24.1. Comparison 24 Chronic MND: Patterns synchronization + Feedforward/feedback: exercises for coordinating
the neck, eyes and upper limbs vs NO INTERVENTION, Outcome 1 Pain intensity (VAS) 4 weeks vs Control. 204
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
WHAT’S NEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
SOURCES OF SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
INDEX TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) vi

[Intervention Review]
Exercises for mechanical neck disorders
Anita Gross1 , Theresa M Kay2,3 , Jean-Philippe Paquin4 , Samuel Blanchette5 , Patrick Lalonde6 , Trevor Christie6 , Genevieve Dupont
6,Nadine Graham7 , Stephen J Burnie8 , Geoff Gelley9 , Charles H Goldsmith10 , Mario Forget11 , Jan L Hoving12 , Gert Brønfort13 ,
Pasqualina L Santaguida14 , Cervical Overview Group15
1 School of Rehabilitation Science & Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
2 Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, Canada. 3 Department of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 4 Physio St-
Maurice, Trois-Rivières, Canada. 5 Laval University, Québec, Canada. 6 University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. 7 School of Re-
habilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. 8 Department of Clinical Education, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic
College, Toronto, Canada. 9 Applied Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. 10 Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon
Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada. 11 Canadian Forces Health Services Group | Groupe de services de santé des Forces Canadiennes,
National Defence | Défense Nationale, Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada, Kingston, Canada. 12 Coronel Institute of
Occupational Health and Research Center for Insurance Medicine, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam,
Netherlands. 13 Integrative Health & Wellbeing Research Program, Center for Spirituality & Healing, University of Minnesota, Min-
neapolis, MN, USA. 14 Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. 15 Hamilton,
Canada
Contact address: Theresa M Kay, Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. theresa.m.kay@gmail.com.
Editorial group: Cochrane Back and Neck Group.

Publication status and date: New search for studies and content updated (conclusions changed), published in Issue 1, 2015.
Citation: Gross A, Kay TM, Paquin JP, Blanchette S, Lalonde P, Christie T, Dupont G, Graham N, Burnie SJ, Gelley G, Goldsmith
CH, Forget M, Hoving JL, Brønfort G, Santaguida PL, Cervical Overview Group. Exercises for mechanical neck disorders. Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD004250. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004250.pub5.
ABSTRACT
Background
Neck pain is common, disabling and costly. Exercise is one treatment approach.
Objectives
To assess the effectiveness of exercises to improve pain, disability, function, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect
in adults with neck pain.
Search methods
We searched MEDLINE, MANTIS, ClinicalTrials.gov and three other computerized databases up to between January and May 2014
plus additional sources (reference checking, citation searching, contact with authors).
Selection criteria
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing single therapeutic exercise with a control for adults suffering from neck
pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radiculopathy.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently conducted trial selection, data extraction, ’Risk of bias’ assessment and clinical relevance. The quality
of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. Meta-analyses were performed for relative risk and standardized mean differences (SMD)
with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) after judging clinical and statistical heterogeneity.
Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) 1
Main results
Twenty-seven trials (2485 analyzed /3005 randomized participants) met our inclusion criteria.
For acute neck pain only, no evidence was found.
For chronic neck pain, moderate quality evidence supports 1) cervico-scapulothoracic and upper extremity strength training to improve
pain of a moderate to large amount immediately post treatment [pooled SMD (SMDp) -0.71 (95% CI: -1.33 to -0.10)] and at
short-term follow-up; 2) scapulothoracic and upper extremity endurance training for slight beneficial effect on pain at immediate post
treatment and short-term follow-up; 3) combined cervical, shoulder and scapulothoracic strengthening and stretching exercises varied
from a small to large magnitude of beneficial effect on pain at immediate post treatment [SMDp -0.33 (95% CI: -0.55 to -0.10)] and
up to long-term follow-up and a medium magnitude of effect improving function at both immediate post treatment and at short-term
follow-up [SMDp -0.45 (95%CI: -0.72 to -0.18)]; 4) cervico-scapulothoracic strengthening/stabilization exercises to improve pain
and function at intermediate term [SMDp -14.90 (95% CI:-22.40 to -7.39)]; 5) Mindfulness exercises (Qigong) minimally improved
function but not global perceived effect at short term. Low evidence suggests 1) breathing exercises; 2) general fitness training; 3)
stretching alone; and 4) feedback exercises combined with pattern synchronization may not change pain or function at immediate post
treatment to short-term follow-up. Very low evidence suggests neuromuscular eye-neck co-ordination/proprioceptive exercises may
improve pain and function at short-term follow-up.
For chronic cervicogenic headache, moderate quality evidence supports static-dynamic cervico-scapulothoracic strengthening/endurance
exercises including pressure biofeedback immediate post treatment and probably improves pain, function and global perceived effect
at long-term follow-up. Low grade evidence supports sustained natural apophyseal glides (SNAG) exercises.
For acute radiculopathy, low quality evidence suggests a small benefit for pain reduction at immediate post treatment with cervical
stretch/strengthening/stabilization exercises.
Authors’ conclusions
No high quality evidence was found, indicating that there is still uncertainty about the effectiveness of exercise for neck pain. Using
specific strengthening exercises as a part of routine practice for chronic neck pain, cervicogenic headache and radiculopathy may be
beneficial. Research showed the use of strengthening and endurance exercises for the cervico-scapulothoracic and shoulder may be
beneficial in reducing pain and improving function. However, when only stretching exercises were used no beneficial effects may be
expected. Future research should explore optimal dosage.
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Exercise for Neck Pain
Review question
We reviewed the evidence about the effect of exercise therapy on pain, disability, patient satisfaction, and quality of life among people
with neck pain.
Background
Neck pain is common; it can limit a person’s ability to participate in normal activities and is costly. Exercise therapy is a widely used
treatment for neck pain. This review includes active exercises (including specific neck and shoulder exercises, stretching, strengthening,
postural, breathing, cognitive, functional, eye-fixation and proprioception exercises) prescribed or performed in the treatment of neck
pain. Studies in which exercise therapy was given as part of a multidisciplinary treatment, multimodal treatment (along with other
treatments such as manipulation or ultrasound), or exercises requiring application by a trained individual (such as hold-relax techniques,
rhythmic stabilization, and passive techniques) were excluded.
Study characteristics
The evidence is current to May 2014. We found 27 trials (with a total of 2485 participants) examining whether exercise can help reduce
neck pain and disability; improve function, global perceived effect, patient satisfaction and/or quality of life. In these trials, exercise was
compared to either a placebo treatment, or no treatment (waiting list), or exercise combined with another intervention was compared
with that same intervention (which could include manipulation, education/advice, acupuncture, massage, heat or medications). Twenty-
four of 27 trials evaluating neck pain reported on the duration of the disorder: 1 acute; 1 acute to chronic; 1 subacute; 4 subacute/
chronic; and 16 chronic. One study reported on neck disorder with acute radiculopathy; two trials investigated subacute to chronic
cervicogenic headache.
Key results
Results showed that exercise is safe, with temporary and benign side effects, although more than half of the trials did not report on
adverse effects. An exercise classification system was used to ensure similarity between protocols when looking at the effects of different
types of exercises. Some types of exercise did show an advantage over the other comparison groups. There appears to be a role for
strengthening exercises in the treatment of chronic neck pain, cervicogenic headache and cervical radiculopathy if these exercises are
focused on the neck, shoulder and shoulder blade region. Furthermore, the use of strengthening exercises, combined with endurance
or stretching exercises has also been shown to be beneficial. There is some evidence to suggest the beneficial effects of specific exercises
(e.g. sustained natural apophyseal glides) with cervicogenic headaches and mindfulness exercises (e.g. Qigong) for chronic mechanical
neck pain. There appears to be minimal effect on neck pain and function when only stretching or endurance type exercises are used
for the neck, shoulder and shoulder blade region.
Quality of the evidence
No high quality evidence was found, indicating that there is still uncertainty about the effectiveness of exercise for neck pain. Future
research is likely to have an important impact on the effect estimate.There were a number of challenges with this review; for example,
the number of participants in most trials was small, more than half of the included studies were either of low or very low quality and
there was limited evidence on optimum dosage requirements.

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) S U M M A R Y O F F I N D I N G S F O R T H E M A I N C O M P A R I S O N [Explanation]
Cervical/ UE Stretch/ ROM Exercises + Cervical/ Scapulothoracic+/ - UE Strengthening + Dynamic/ Static Cervical Stabilization + ANOTHER INTERVENTION compared to THAT
SAM E INTERVENTION for chronic mechanical neck disorders
Patient or population: patients with m echanical neck disorders

Settings: am bulatory care clinic
Intervention: Cervical/ UE Stretch/ ROM Exercises + Cervical/ Scapulothoracic+/ -UE Strengthening + Dynam ic/ Static Cervical Stabilization + ANOTHER INTERVENTION
Comparison: THAT SAM E INTERVENTION
Outcomes Effects No of Participants Quality of the evidence

(studies) (GRADE)
Pain Intensity: VAS 0 no pain to 10 worst Three trials showed a sm all reduction in 241 ⊕⊕⊕
pain pain. (3 studies: Bronf ort 2011, Chiu 2005, moderate 1
(f ollow-up: 6 m onths) Pooled scores estim ated using a m ean Franca 2008)
dif f erence of -0.67 (-1.32 to -0.02)
Function: NDI 0 no disability to 50 m axi- Three trials showed a sm all to m oderate 241 ⊕⊕⊕
m um disability (f ollow-up: 6 m onths) im provem ent in f unction (3 studies: Bronf ort 2011, Chiu 2005, moderate 1
Pooled scores estim ated using a m ean Franca 2008)
dif f erence of -2.80 (-6.36 to 0.76)
Quality of Life: SF-36 (physical com po- Two trials showed no signif icant dif f erence 165 ⊕⊕
nent) 0 worse to 100 better, SF-12. Pooled scores estim ated using a standard (2 studies: Bronf ort 2001, M artel 2011) low1
(f ollow-up: Im m ediate post treatm ent) m ean dif f erence of -0.18 (-0.48 to 0.13)
Patient Satisfaction: 1 to 7; com pletely One trial showed m oderate im provem ent 101 ⊕⊕⊕
satisf ied to com pletely dissatisf ied in satisf action (1 study: Bronf ort 2001) moderate
(f ollow-up: 24 m onths) Scores estim ated using a standard m ean
dif f erence of -0.93 (-1.35 to -0.52)
Global Perceived Effect: Patient- Rated One trial showed a sm all to m oderate im - 101 ⊕⊕⊕
Im provem ent 1 m ore im provem ent to 9 provem ent in global perceived ef f ect (1 study: Bronf ort 2001) moderate
less im provem ent Scores estim ated using a standard m ean
(f ollow-up: 24 m onths) dif f erence of -0.42 (-0.81 to -0.03)
4
Adverse Effects One study reported increased neck or headache pain: Intervention group (n = 8), com parison group (n = 6); increased radicular
pain intervention group (n = 1); severe thoracic pain com parison group (n = 1); all cases self -lim iting and no perm anent injuries
(Bronf ort 2001). 3 trials reported no com plications or serious adverse events (Chiu 2005, Franca 2008, M artel 2011)
M oderate quality evidence: (4 trials, 341 participants, Bronf ort 2001; Chiu 2005; Franca 2008; M artel 2011) shows m oderate pain relief and im proved f unction up to long-term
f ollow-up f or com bined cervical, scapulothoracic stretching and strengthening f or chronic neck pain. A clinician m ay need to treat 6 to18 people to achieve this type of pain
relief and 4 to 13 to achieve this f unctional benef it. M oderate quality evidence (one trial, 101 participants; Bronf ort 2001) dem onstrates patients are very satisf ied with their
care. Changes in quality of lif e are suggestive of benef it but not conclusive. Changes in global perceived ef f ect m easures indicate a dif f erence im m ediately post treatm ent
and at long-term f ollow-up
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence

High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our conf idence in the estim ate of ef f ect.
M oderate quality: Further research is likely to have an im portant im pact on our conf idence in the estim ate of ef f ect and m ay change the estim ate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an im portant im pact on our conf idence in the estim ate of ef f ect and is likely to change the estim ate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estim ate.
1
Two of the pooled studies had high risk of bias scores (Franca 4/ 12 and M artel 5/ 12). That is, the studies m et f ewer than 6
of the 12 criteria, indicating high risk of bias.
5
BACKGROUND • patterns and synchronization of muscle recruitment, and
• feed-forward or feedback systems using verbal, visual, tactile
and other proprioceptive input to the patient.
Description of the condition 4. Biomechanical Element: This element is an interface between the
Neck disorders are common (Hogg-Johnson 2008; Hoy 2014), motor control associated with the modulator element and muscu-
painful, and limit function in the general population (Carroll loskeletal function associated with the base element. Components
2008a, Haldeman 2010,), workers (Côté 2008) and people with of the biomechanical element include:
whiplash associated disorders (WAD) (Carroll 2008b; Buitenhuis • static stabilization forces involved in alignment and
2009). The global point prevalence of neck pain was estimated muscle recruitment, and
to be 4.9% in 2010 (Hoy 2014). In the United States, 15.1% of • dynamic stabilization forces involved in arthrokinetics,
adults state having had neck pain within the previous three months osteokinetics and kinematics.
(NCHS 2013). 5. Cognitive or Affective Element: Exercises in this category affect
In 2005, the mean medical expenditure amongst Americans with the functional status of the psychological system as it is related to
spine problems was estimated to be $6096USD per individual an- movement as follows:
nually compared with $3516USD amongst those without spine • the cognitive ability to learn,
problems (Martin 2008). Côté 2008 reported 3% to 11% of • patient and caregiver compliance,
claimants in the work force were sufficiently disabled to lose time • motivation, and
from work each year. Direct and indirect costs are substantive • emotional status.
(Martin 2008).
How the intervention might work

Description of the intervention
Exercise has both physical and mental benefits through its effects
We adopted the Therapeutic Exercise Intervention Model to sub- on numerous systems such as the cardiovascular system; immune
classify exercise (Sahrmann 2002). This model is based on the ele- system; brain function; sleep; mood; and the musculoskeletal sys-
ments of movement system. Sahrmann 2002 originally described tem (Abernethy 2013). Exercise can result in the following.
movement as a system made up of five elements. Hall 2005 further • Increase flexibility and mobility of structures; improve
developed this concept into a three dimensional model. The ele- muscle strength and endurance; increase tensile strength of
ments of movement system intersect with two other axes - activity ligaments and capsule; amplify strength and prevent injury of
and dosage. After determining which element of the movement tendons and cartilage; and is also important for repair of these
system needs to be addressed to restore function, the activity or tissues.
technique to achieve the functional goal is chosen. The dosage • Improve cardiovascular function resulting in less chance of
parameters are modified according to the tissues involved and the developing heart conditions, strokes, or high blood pressure.
principles of tissue healing. A brief description of each element • Relieve stress, anxiety and depression; improve mood; and
follows. increase self-esteem and weight management by producing
1. Support Element: An exercise categorized under this element positive biochemical changes in the body and brain. Endorphins
would affect the functional status of the cardiac, pulmonary and released post exercise act as a natural pain reliever and
metabolic systems (e.g. aerobic endurance activities). antidepressant in the body.
2. Base Element: Exercises categorized under base element would • Reduce the risk of premature mortality; improve functional
affect the functional status of the muscular and skeletal systems and capacity and help older adults maintain independence. Exercise
is commonly linked to the biomechanical element. This element increases circulation throughout the spine and supporting
provides the basis for movement as follows: structures, which is crucial to promote healing.
• extensibility/stiffness properties of muscle, fascia and • Improve quality and duration of sleep and help sleep
periarticular tissues for range of motion and stretching exercises, disorders such as insomnia.
• mobility of neuromeningeal tissue for neural mobilization • Enhance cognitive function in older adults through
exercises, physical activity and aerobic exercise.
• force or torque capability of muscles and the related muscle • Positively benefit the human immune system if done in
length-tension properties for strengthening exercises, and moderation.
• endurance of muscle also involved in strengthening for
Central to these benefits are the stages of change, encompassing
endurance-strength training.
the health belief and cognitive behavior models, used to help pa-
3. Modulator Element: Exercises under this element relate to motor tients make the lifestyle changes necessary for successful adher-
control for neuromuscular reeducation as follows: ence to exercise, maintain new behaviours over time and address

anticipated relapses (Zimmerman 2000). Helping patients change In the current update, our objective was to adapt a therapeutic
behavior is an important role for all clinicians. model for exercise and sub-classify the different exercises. This
allowed us to link the specific aims of the exercise activity to its
anatomical rationale. As a result, we gained a better perspective
on the intended aim of the specific exercise, which allowed us to
Why it is important to do this review clarify some of the reporting variances and the variance in exercise
types that may have been affecting the estimates of effect size. We
In our last update on exercise therapy, we found low to mod-
wanted to determine the more accurate effect of exercises, which
erate quality evidence of pain relief benefit for combined cer-
have clinical implications in patients with neck pain.
vical, scapulothoracic stretching and strengthening for chronic
neck pain in the short and long term. The relative benefit of
other types of exercise was not clear (Kay 2012). Since then, five
other reviews have found primarily very low to low grade ev-
idence as follows: 1) Stretching and strengthening for chronic OBJECTIVES
neck pain (Bertozzi 2013; Southerst 2014; Vincent 2013), 2) This systematic review assessed the short- to long-term effect of
Strengthening, endurance and modular element (Bronfort 2009; exercise therapy on pain, function, patient satisfaction, quality of
Racicki 2012) for chronic cervicogenic headache, 3) Neuromus- life, and global perceived effect in adults experiencing mechanical
cular exercises (proprioception/eye-neck co-ordination) (Leaver neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radiculopathy.
2010; Teasell 2010a) for subacute and chronic WAD, 4) Stretch- Where appropriate, the influence of risk of bias, duration of the
ing and range of motion (ROM) exercises (Leaver 2010) for disorder and subtypes of neck disorder on the treatment effect was
non-specific neck pain, 5) Stretching, strengthening, endurance assessed.
training, balance/co-ordination, cardio and cognitive/affective el-
ements (Leaver 2010; Lee 2009; Salt 2011; Southerst 2014; Teasell
2010c) for chronic neck pain, 6) Qigong exercises (; Lee 2009;
METHODS
Southerst 2014) for chronic neck pain, 7) Supervised exercise
(Teasell 2010c) for chronic WAD, and 8) Strengthening neck ex-
ercises (Bertozzi 2013; Southerst 2014) for chronic neck pain.
In contrast, reviews found low grade evidence for no beneficial Criteria for considering studies for this review
effect on pain as follows: 1) Stretching and strengthening (Salt
2011; Southerst 2014) for radiculopathy, 2) General fitness train-
Types of studies
ing (Bertozzi 2013; Kay 2012) for acute to chronic neck pain,
and 3) Stretching and endurance training in chronic neck pain We included any published or unpublished randomized controlled
(Bertozzi 2013; Kay 2012). There may be more than one way to trials (RCTs) in any language. We excluded quasi-RCTs and clin-
summarize the results but few used the grade system. The GRADE ical controlled trials (CCTs).
approach considers a number of additional factors (adverse events,
costs, temporality, plausibility, dose response, strength of associ- Types of participants
ation, and clinical applicability) to place the results into a larger
Participants included in the review were adults (males or females
context (Guyatt 2006).
aged 18 years or older) with acute (less than 30 days), subacute (30
Many previous reviews looked at multimodal approaches such as
days to 90 days) or chronic (greater than 90 days) neck disorders
manual therapy and exercise (Bronfort 2009; Clar 2014; Miller
categorized as:
2010; Schroeder 2013) but our focus is on exercise alone.
• mechanical neck disorders (MND), which included
A number of these reviews included studies that were not clearly
whiplash associated disorders (WAD) category I and II (Spitzer
categorized; they also included studies that were not single inter-
1987; Spitzer 1995), myofascial neck pain, and degenerative
vention trials. The results limited our ability to understand the
changes that encompassed osteoarthritis and cervical spondylosis
comparative effectiveness of exercise interventions for the man-
(Schumacher 1993),
agement of neck pain. Therefore, the true impact of exercise alone
• cervicogenic headache (CGH) (Olesen 1988; Olesen 1997;
could not be determined with strong evidence. Although there
Sjaastad 1990; Sjaastad 1998; Sjaastad 2008), and
was some evidence of benefit as noted above, it became clear that
• neck disorders with radicular findings (NDR) (Spitzer
categorizing exercises into a classification system according to their
1987; Spitzer 1995).
elements was essential in differentiating the intended effect that
different types of exercises may have had. Exploring the dosage and We excluded studies if they investigated neck disorders with
mode of delivery of recommended exercises is essential in future definitive or possible long tract signs (e.g. myelopathies); neck
reviews. pain caused by other pathological entities (Schumacher 1993);

headache associated with the neck, but not of cervical origin; co- words included anatomical terms, disorder or syndrome terms,
existing headache, when either neck pain was not dominant or the treatment terms and methodological terms.
headache was not provoked by neck movements or sustained neck
postures; and ’mixed’ headache.
Electronic searches
We searched the following databases from their inception up to
Types of interventions
between January and May 2014:
We included studies that used one or more type of exercise ther- • Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials
apy specified in the Therapeutic Exercise Intervention Model to (CENTRAL, which includes the CBRG Trials Register; Ovid,
sub-classify exercise (Sahrmann 2002) prescribed or performed in 21 May 2014),
the treatment of neck pain. For the purposes of this review, we • MEDLINE(Ovid, 1950 to April 2014 week 4),
excluded studies in which exercise therapy was given as part of a • Embase (Ovid, 1980 to April 21, 2014),
multidisciplinary treatment, multimodal treatment (e.g. manual • Manual Alternative and Natural Therapy (MANTIS; Ovid,
therapy plus exercise), or exercises that required manual therapy 1980 to May 2014),
techniques by a trained individual (such as hold-relax techniques, • Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature
rhythmic stabilization, and passive techniques). (CINAHL; EBSCO, 1982 to March 2014),
• Index to Chiropractic literature (ICL; Jan 2014), and
• ClinicalTrials.gov (May 2014).
Types of comparisons
We contrasted interventions against the following comparisons: See Appendix 1 for the search strategies used for CENTRAL,
• sham or placebo, MEDLINE, Embase, MANTIS, CINAHL, and ICL.
• no treatment or wait list, and
• exercise plus another intervention versus that same
intervention (for example, exercise plus manual therapy versus Searching other resources
manual therapy). We also screened references of all retrieved full-text articles, iden-
tified content experts and searched conference proceedings from
We excluded all other comparisons. the World Confederation of Physical Therapist ( WCPT 2007;
WCPT 2011, International Federation of Orthopaedic and Ma-
Types of outcome measures nipulative Therapists IFOMPT 2012; IFOMPT 2008 - hardcopy
used), World Federation of Chiropractic ( WFC 2013 - CD copy
A study was included if it used at least one of the four primary
used), and searched personal files up to May 2014 for grey litera-
outcome measures of interest:
ture.
• pain,
• measures of function/disability (including, but not limited
to, neck disability index, activities of daily living, return to work,
and sick leave), Data collection and analysis
• patient satisfaction, and
For continuous data, standardized mean differences (SMD) with
• global perceived effect/quality of life. 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-
We extracted information on adverse events and costs of care when effects model. Standard mean difference was selected over mean
available. difference (WMD) because different types of exercises were as-
We defined the duration of follow-up as: sessed and most interventions used different outcome measures
• immediately post treatment (≤ one day), that used different scales.
• short-term follow-up (one day to three months),
• intermediate-term follow-up (three months up to, but not
Selection of studies
including, one year), and
• long-term follow-up (one year or longer). Two review authors with expertise in medicine, physiotherapy, chi-
ropractic, massage therapy, statistics, or clinical epidemiology in-
dependently conducted citation identification and study selection
using pre-piloted forms. The assembled group did not author any
Search methods for identification of studies of the primary trials. We assessed agreement for study selection us-
A research librarian searched computerized bibliographic ing the quadratic weighted Kappa statistic (Kw), Cicchetti weights
databases, without language restrictions, for medical, chiroprac- (Cicchetti 1976). We resolved disagreements through consensus
tic and allied health literature. Subject headings (MeSH) and key and consultation with a third party if required.

Data extraction and management considered the effect to be small when it was less than 10% of the
Two review authors independently conducted data abstraction on visual analogue scale (VAS) scale, medium when it was between
pre-piloted forms. We resolved disagreements through consensus. 10% and 20% of the VAS scale, and large when it was 20% to 30%
We consulted a neutral third party if consensus was not reached. of the VAS scale. For the neck disability index (NDI), we used a
We contacted study authors for missing information and data clar- MCID of 7/50 neck disability index units (MacDermid 2009). It
ification. We extracted data on design (RCT, number analyzed/ is noted that the minimal detectable change varies from 5/50 for
number randomized, intention-to-treat analysis, power analysis), non-complicated neck pain to 10/50 for cervical radiculopathy
participants (disorder subtype, duration of disorder), intervention (MacDermid 2009). For other outcomes (i.e. global perceived ef-
(treatment characteristics for the treatment and comparison group, fect and quality of life), where there was an absence of clear guid-
dosage/treatment parameters, co-intervention, treatment sched- ance on the size of clinically important effect sizes, we used the
ule, duration of follow-up), and outcomes (baseline mean, end common hierarchy of Cohen 1988: small (0.20), medium (0.50)
of study mean, absolute benefit, reported results, point estimate or large (0.80). Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for dichotomous
with 95% CI, power, side effects, cost of care, and adverse events). outcomes. When neither continuous nor dichotomous data were
These factors are noted in the Characteristics of included studies available, we extracted the findings and the statistical significance
table. as reported by the author(s) in the original study.
Assessment of risk of bias in included studies Dealing with missing data

Two review authors independently conducted assessment of risk Where data were not extractable, we contacted the primary au-
of bias in included studies using pre-piloted forms. Disagreements thors. For continuous outcomes reported as medians, we calcu-
were resolved through consensus (Graham 2011). The Cervical lated effect sizes (Kendal 1963; p 237).
Overview Group used a calibrated team of assessors and at least
two assessors independently assessed the risk of bias. ’Risk of bias’ Assessment of heterogeneity
tables were presented and discussed by the broader validity assess- Prior to calculation of a pooled effect measure, the reasonableness
ment team to maximize inter-rater reliability (Graham 2011), and of pooling was assessed, based on clinical judgement. Using a ran-
consensus was reached on final ’Risk of bias’ assessments. We did dom-effects model, statistical heterogeneity was tested using the
not exclude studies from this review on the basis of the ’Risk of Chi2 method between the studies. In the absence of heterogeneity
bias’ assessment results. The following biases were assessed: selec- (P > 0.10), we calculated a pooled SMD, MD or RR.
tion bias (random sequence generation, allocation concealment,
groups similarity at baseline); performance bias (blinding of per-
sonnel/care providers, co-intervention, and compliance); detec- Assessment of reporting biases
tion bias (blinding of outcome assessor); attrition bias (incomplete We planned to assess reporting bias using sensitivity analysis but
outcome data); reporting bias (selective reporting) (see Appendix this was not possible due to a paucity of trials in any one category.
2 for the ’Risk of bias’ criteria recommended by the Cochrane Assessment of publication bias included use of the graphical aide
Back Review Group (Furlan 2009)). We rated each ’Risk of bias’ funnel plot.
item as low, high, or unclear and entered it into the ’Risk of bias’
table for each included study.
Data synthesis
We assessed the quality of the body of the evidence using the
Measures of treatment effect GRADE approach (Guyatt 2006). Domains that may have de-
We used primarily SMD with 95% CIs for continuous data. There creased the quality of the evidence are: 1) study design, 2) risk
are two summary statistics used for meta-analysis of continuous of bias, 3) inconsistency of results, 4) indirectness (not generaliz-
data, the mean difference (MD) and the standard mean difference able), 5) imprecision (insufficient data), other factors (e.g. report-
(SMD). The selection of the summary statistic was determined by ing bias) (Higgins 2009). The quality of the evidence was adjusted
whether all studies in a homogenous meta-analysis group reported by a level based on the performance of the studies against the five
an outcome using the same scale (pooled MD) or using a differ- domains. All plausible confounding factors were considered, as
ent scale (pooled SMD). The estimation of minimal clinically im- were their effects on the demonstrated treatment effects and their
portant difference (MCID) for pain, function and disability were impact on the dose-response gradient (Atkins 2004).
in accordance with the Cochrane Back Group recommendations Levels of evidence were defined as follows.
(Furlan 2009). For the purpose of the review, the MCID for pain • High quality evidence: Further research is very unlikely to
was 10 on a 100-point pain intensity scale (Farrar 2001; Felson change our confidence in the estimate of effect. There are
1995; Goldsmith 1993). To assign some descriptors on the size of consistent findings among 75% of RCTs, with low risk of bias,
the difference between the treatment group and control groups, we that generalize to the population in question. There are sufficient

data, with narrow confidence intervals. There are no known or Sensitivity analysis
suspected reporting biases (all of the domains are met). Sensitivity analysis or meta-regression for the factors: symptom
• Moderate quality evidence: Further research is likely to duration, methodological quality and subtype of neck disorder
have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of were planned but were not carried out because we did not have
effect and may change the estimate (one of the domains is not enough data in any one category.
met).
• Low quality evidence: 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 (two of the domains are
RESULTS
not met).
• Very low quality evidence: We are very uncertain about
the estimate (three of the domains are not met).
• No evidence: No RCTs were identified that measured this Description of studies
outcome.
We used the Cochrane GRADE approach and considered a num- Results of the search
ber of additional factors (adverse events, costs, temporality, plau- Considering all sources, we identified 5614 records through
sibility, dose response, strength of association, and clinical appli- database searches and we found 44 records from other sources
cability) to place the results into a larger context. The number searched from start up to November 2013. Following screening
needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) and treatment advantages were of 201 full text articles, 192 were assessed for eligibility, (agree-
calculated to communicate the magnitude of effect for main find- ment on selection showed weighted kappa 0.94, SE 0.02). After
ings (Gross 2002). further application of the eligibility criteria, we found 27 trials
that used exercise treatment for non-specific subacute and chronic
neck pain, and selected them for this review; Figure 1 describes the
Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity flow of included, excluded, and ongoing, as well as those awaiting
Not conducted due to lack of data. classification.

Figure 1. Study flow diagram (PRISMA).

Studies varied in sample size from 16 to 340 (n analyzed), and 27
Included studies
of 28 trials were considered small (less than 70 participants per
Twenty-seven trials [(2485/3005) analyzed at end of study /ran- intervention arm).
domized participants] were selected for this review.
• Three studies described different aspects of the same study
population under additional publications: Andersen 2008 - one Excluded studies
trial, two publications; Bronfort 2001 - one trial, four Studies (n=130 primary papers and 30 companion paper) were
publications; Stewart 2007 - one trial, three publications. excluded for the following reasons: two used a quasi-RCT design,
one used a prospective observational design, 12 examined a dif-
• Twenty-four trials evaluated neck pain: one evaluated acute
ferent type of participant (e.g. chronic tension headache, cervical
neck pain (Lange 2013); one evaluated acute/subacute/chronic
dystonia), one reported on a subgroup of the included popula-
neck pain (Kjellman 2002); one evaluated subacute neck pain
tion, 96 tested a different intervention (e.g. not active exercise, the
(Chiu 2005); four evaluated subacute/chronic neck pain
exercise was the same in all groups, or the exercise group could
(Andersen 2008; Andersen 2011; Andersen Ch 2012; Stewart
not be separated out from a multimodal intervention), 11 used a
2007); 16 trials evaluated chronic neck pain (Allan 2003; Ang
comparison group and seven did not measure any of the identified
2009; Beer 2012; Bronfort 2001; Dellve 2011; Franca 2008;
primary outcomes. See Characteristics of excluded studies tables
Hansson 2013; Helewa 2007; Humphreys 2002; Lundblad
for more details.
1999; Hallman 2011; Martel 2011; Rendant 2011; Revel 1994;
Viljanen 2003; von Trott 2009); and one trial did not specify the
duration of neck pain (Takala 1994). Risk of bias in included studies
We used the quadratic weighted Kappa (Kw) statistic to assess
• One study reported on neck disorder with radicular signs agreement on a per question basis (Kw 0.23 to 1.00). Each ’Risk
and symptoms (Kuijper 2009) and 14 studies did not specify if of Bias’ item is presented as a percentage across all included studies
radicular signs and symptoms were present (Andersen 2011; Figure 2. Common methodological weaknesses included each of
Andersen Ch 2012; Beer 2012; Dellve 2011; Hall 2007; the criteria listed below (see ’Risk of Bias’ tables). Methodological
Hallman 2011; Hansson 2013; Helewa 2007; Humphreys 2002; quality did not appear to influence the end results of the reviews;
Lange 2013; Lundblad 1999; Rendant 2011; Viljanen 2003; von both high and low quality studies had similar outcome directions.
Trott 2009). Albeit, limited data were available to analyze for publication bias;
• Two trials investigated cervicogenic headache, one subacute Figure 3 suggests that we cannot rule out publication bias. This
(Hall 2007) and the other chronic (Jull 2002). relationship between risk of bias and end results of the review was
not formally tested using sensitivity analysis or meta-regression, as
• One trial investigated acute radiculopathy (Kuijper 2009). there were not enough trials in any one meta-analysis.

Figure 2. ’Risk of bias’ graph: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item presented as
percentages across all included studies.
Figure 3. Funnel plot of comparison: 7 Acute to Chronic MND: Scapulothoracic + UE Strengthening vs

CONTROL, outcome: 7.2 Pain Intensity: 10 to 20 weeks of treatment.

Allocation
Cervical Stabilization vs WAIT LIST; Summary of findings
There was failure to describe or use appropriate concealment of 5 Acute to subacute CGH: Cervical stretch/ROM vs SHAM;
allocation in 42.9% of studies. Summary of findings 6 Chronic CGH: Cervical/Scapulothoracic
Strengthening with Endurance Training + Craniocervical
Pressure Biofeedback + Dynamic Cervical Stabilization vs NO
Blinding INTERVENTION; Summary of findings 7 Chronic CGH:
There was a lack of effective “blinding” procedures in 92.9% of Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance Training
trials - the minimum expectation being blinding of the outcome + Craniocervical Pressure Biofeedback + Dynamic Cervical
assessor. Stabilization + Manual Therapy vs Manual Therapy; Summary of
findings 8 Chronic MND: Cervical/UE Stretch/ROM Exercise
+ Cervical/UE Strengthening + Dynamic Cervical Stabilization
Incomplete outcome data vs PLACEBO or SHAM; Summary of findings 9 Chronic
There were incomplete outcome data provided by 28.6% of the MND: Cervical Stretch/ROM Exercises + Dynamic Cervical
trials. Stabilization vs SHAM; Summary of findings 10 Chronic MND:
Cervical/Scapulothoracic/UE Stretch + UE Endurance Training
vs NO INTERVENTION or WAIT LIST; Summary of findings
Selective reporting 11 Acute to Chronic MND: Scapulothoracic/UE Endurance
Training vs CONTROL; Summary of findings 12 Subacute
There was selective reporting bias with 78.6% of the trials.
to Chronic WAD: Trunk/Extremity Stretch/ROM + Trunk/
Extremity Strengthening + Trunk/Extremity Endurance Training
Other potential sources of bias + Pattern/Synchronization: Coordination + Cardiovascular/
Aerobic + Cognitive (CBT) + ANOTHER TREATMENT vs
Compliance was monitored and acceptable in only 42.9% of trials,
THAT SAME OTHER TREATMENT; Summary of findings
and co-intervention was either not avoided or not described in
13 Acute to Chronic MND: Scapulothoracic + UE Strengthening
71.4% of trials. The funnel plot (Figure 3) has the classic small
vs CONTROL
negative trial missing that may suggest publication bias (language
bias); we did not search non-English databases. Alternatively, it
could reflect the poor methodological quality leading to inflated Chronic Mechanical Neck Pain
effects in smaller trials.
Effects of interventions 1. Support Element
See: Summary of findings for the main comparison

Chronic MND: Cervical/UE Stretch/ROM Exercises + Cervical/ a) Breathing Exercises
Scapulothoracic+/-UE Strengthening + Dynamic/Static Cervical
Stabilization + ANOTHER INTERVENTION compared to
THAT SAME INTERVENTION; Summary of findings 2 Diaphragmatic Breathing Exercises versus Control
Chronic MND: Cervical Stretch/ROM Exercises + Cervical/
One trial Hallman 2011 compared diaphragmatic breathing with
Scapulothoracic Strengthening + Static/Dynamic Cervical/
a no treatment control. This latter group took part in the breathing
Shoulder Stabilization compared to WAIT LIST; Summary of
protocol in sessions 1 and 10, without any prescribed treatment
findings 3 Chronic MND: Qigong Stretch/ROM + Endurance
in between.
Training + Dynamic Stabilization + Cognitive (mindfulness
• Pain Intensity outcomes
& emotional balance) compared to WAIT LIST; Summary
of findings 4 Acute Radiculopathy: Cervical Stretch/ROM + No difference in pain between groups immediately post treatment
Cervical/Scapulothoracic/UE Strengthening + Static/Dynamic (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Chronic MND: Breathing Patterns vs CONTROL, outcome: 1.1 Pain
Intensity (Borg 0 to 10): 10 weeks of treatment vs Control.
• Function outcomes
b) Cardiovascular/Aerobic Training
No difference in function between groups immediately post treat-
ment.
• Quality of Life outcomes
General Fitness Training versus Control
No difference in quality of life between groups immediately post One trial with two publications (Andersen 2008) compared a gen-
treatment. eral exercise program with a no treatment control (general health
Conclusion: There is low quality evidence (one trial, 24 partici- information) intervention.
pants, Hallman 2011) that diaphragmatic breathing may have no • Pain Intensity Outcomes
effect on pain, function and quality of life when compared to a no
treatment control for chronic mechanical neck pain immediately No difference in pain between both (see above: general exercise
post treatment (50 sessions over 10 weeks). versus control) groups immediately post treatment (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Forest plot of comparison: 2 Acute to Chronic MND: General Fitness Training vs CONTROL,
outcome: 2.2 Pain Intensity (VAS): 10 weeks of treatment + 10 weeks follow-up.
Conclusion: There is low quality evidence (one trial with two publi-
cations, 24 participants, Andersen 2008) that general fitness train- One trial (Allan 2003) evaluated neck stretching either before or
ing exercises may have no difference in pain when compared with after manipulation compared with manipulation alone.
a reference intervention for (sub)acute/chronic neck pain imme- • Pain Intensity Outcomes
diately post treatment.
No difference in pain between all groups immediately post treat-
ment.
2. Base Element • Function Outcomes
No difference in function between all groups immediately post

a) Stretching treatment.
Conclusion: There is low quality evidence (one trial, 16 partici-
pants, Allan 2003) that stretching exercises, either before or after
a manipulation, made no difference on pain and function when
Cervical Stretch/range of motion (ROM) Exercises + Another compared with that same manipulation for chronic neck pain im-
Intervention versus That Same Intervention mediately post treatment. Manipulation was the control group in
both arms of the trial and therefore, the contribution of the base
element of stretching could be factored out.
Cervical Stretch/ROM Exercises + Dynamic Cervical

Stabilization versus Sham
One trial (Kjellman 2002) compared cervical movement exercises
(McKenzie protocol) with sham ultrasound.
• Pain Intensity Outcomes
There is no evidence of benefit on pain immediately post treat-
ment, at intermediate-term or long-term follow-up (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Forest plot of comparison: 4 Chronic MND: Cervical Stretch/ROM Exercises + Dynamic Cervical
Stabilization vs SHAM, outcome: 4.3 Pain Intensity (VAS): 8 weeks of treatment + 12 months follow-up.
• Function Outcomes
fit (exercise + an intervention versus that same intervention) on
There was no evidence of benefit on function immediately post
function immediately post treatment and at short-term follow-up.
treatment, at intermediate-term or long-term follow-up.
(Helewa 2007).
Conclusion: Low quality evidence (one trial, 50 participants,
Kjellman 2002) shows no difference for pain relief and function
immediately post intervention, at six- and 12-month follow-up Of the two comparisons, one showed no evidence of benefit (ex-
using Cervical Stretch/ROM Exercise + Dynamic Cervical Stabi- ercise versus control) while the other showed evidence of bene-
lization for chronic MND. fit (exercise + an intervention versus that same intervention) on
function immediately post treatment and at short-term follow-up.
b) Strengthening (Helewa 2007).
• Quality of Life
Static Cervical Strengthening + Static Stabilization versus No In two comparisons (exercise versus control, exercise + an inter-
Intervention or Wait List vention versus that same intervention), there was no evidence of
benefit immediately post treatment and at short-term follow-up
One trials (two comparisons) studying chronic neck pain com-
on quality of life (Helewa 2007), albeit there may be a clinically
pared either manually (1) resisted isometric neck exercise plus pos-
important effect favouring exercise + pillow versus pillow alone.
tural training with mirror feedback to a control, or (2) these same
Conclusion : Evidence exists from two trials (three comparisons)
isometric neck exercises and the use of an orthopaedic pillow were
where data are not combinable. Low quality evidence from one
compared with the use of an orthopaedic pillow (Helewa 2007).
trial (two independent comparisons, 50 participants, Helewa
• Pain Intensity Outcomes
2007) gives varying results. Evidence of benefit showed people
Of the two comparisons, one showed no evidence of benefit (ex- may improve slightly when exercise was added to a pillow versus a
ercise versus control) while the other showed evidence of bene- pillow alone (NNTB = 9). However, this was not observed when
isometric exercise alone was evaluated for function and quality of on pain and function when compared to control for chronic me-
life, from immediately post treatment to short-term follow-up. chanical neck pain immediately post treatment (two-week inter-
vention).
Postural Exercise versus Control

Scapulothoracic + Upper Extremity (UE) Strengthening
One trial Beer 2012 compared sitting postural exercises versus versus Control
control. Three trials (Andersen 2008; Andersen Ch 2012; Dellve 2011),
• Pain Intensity Outcomes: each with different dosages compared specific strength training of
the scapulothoracic region and upper extremity with a reference
No difference in pain between groups immediately post treatment.
intervention.
• Physical Function outcomes • Pain Intensity Outcomes
No difference in physical function between groups immediately No difference in pain at four weeks of treatment. There is a mod-
post treatment. erate to large difference in pain reduction between groups at 10
Conclusion: We are uncertain whether postural exercises improve to 20 weeks of treatment, [SMD pooled -0.71 (95%CI:-1.33 to -
pain or function. There is very low quality evidence (one trial, 20 0.10); Figure 7]. Additionally one and nine weekly sessions were
participants, Beer 2012) that postural exercises have no difference no different when contrasted with the reference group.
Figure 7. Forest plot of comparison for (sub)Acute/Chronic MND: Scapulothoracic + UE Strengthening vs

CONTROL, outcome: Pain Intensity: 10 to 20 weeks of treatment.
• Physical Function Outcomes

c) Stretch and Strengthening
No statistical difference in physical function between groups im-

mediately post treatment, but may achieve a minimal clinically
important difference at short-term follow-up.
Cervical/UE Stretch/ROM Exercise + Cervical/UE
Conclusion: There is moderate quality evidence (three trials, 157
Strengthening + Dynamic Cervical Stabilization versus
participants, Andersen 2008; Andersen Ch 2012; Dellve 2011)
Placebo or Sham
that scapulothoracic and UE strength training probably improves
pain a moderate to large amount immediately post treatment One trial (Kjellman 2002) compared general exercises including
and at short-term follow-up. It may improve functional outcomes neck and shoulder ROM, active neck endurance and strength ex-
when compared to control at short-term follow-up (10 to 20 weeks ercises with sham ultrasound.
of intervention). • Pain Intensity Outcomes
There was no evidence of benefit immediately post treatment, at Stabilization versus Wait List
intermediate-term and long-term follow-up. Two trials (Rendant 2011; von Trott 2009) compared a standard-
• Physical Function Outcomes ized exercise program for neck pain including repeated active cer-
There was no evidence of benefit immediately post treatment, at vical rotations, strength and flexibility exercises to a wait list. The
intermediate-term and long-term follow-up. two trials appeared clinically similar and were pooled.
Conclusion: Low quality evidence (one trial, 50 participants, • Pain Intensity Outcomes
Kjellman 2002) shows no difference for pain relief and function
immediately post intervention, at six and 12 months follow-up us- When two studies (Rendant 2011; von Trott 2009) were pooled,
ing Cervical/UE Stretch/ROM Exercise + Cervical/UE Strength- there was a significant difference, moderate clinically important
ening + Dynamic Cervical Stabilization for chronic MND. 15-point change post treatment [Heterogeneity: Chi² = 0.74, df
= 1 (P = 0.39); I² = 0% MD pooled -14.90 (CI 95% -22.40 to -
7.39), NNTB =4]. This reduced to a small difference of [pooled
Cervical Stretch/ROM Exercises + Cervical/Scapulothoracic MD -10.94 (CI 95% -18.81 to -3.08)] at short-term follow-up
Strengthening + Static/Dynamic Cervical/Shoulder (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Forest plot of comparison for Chronic MND: Cervical Stretch/ROM Exercises +
Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening + Static/Dynamic Cervical/Shoulder Stabilization vs WAIT LIST,
outcome: Pain Intensity (VAS): 24 weeks of treatment.
When the two trials were pooled, no significant difference in qual-
One trial (Rendant 2011), showed evidence of benefit for function ity of life was found at any time point. [Heterogeneity: Tau² =
post treatment. One trial (von Trott 2009) showed no significant 0.00; Chi² = 0.95, df = 1 (P = 0.33); I² = 0% MD pooled at
difference immediately post treatment and at short-term follow- 12 weeks -2.22 (CI 95% -5.17 to 0.72) (Analysis 10.7), at short-
up. When the two studies were pooled, there was a significantly term follow-up pooled MD 0.01 (CI 95% -0.47 to 0.49) (Analysis
different, clinically important, moderate change in function. [Het- 10.8)].
erogeneity: Tau² = 0.09; Chi² = 2.63, df = 1 (P = 0.10); I² = 62% Conclusion : Moderate quality evidence (two trials, 147 partic-
SMD pooled:-0.50 (CI 95% -1.04 to 0.03), NNTB = 5 (Analysis ipants, Rendant 2011; von Trott 2009) shows cervical stretch/
10.3)]. At short-term follow-up (24 weeks of treatment), pooled ROM exercises + cervical/scapulothoracic strengthening + static/
SMD: -0.40 (CI 95% -0.74 to -0.06) (Analysis 10.4). dynamic cervical/shoulder stabilization probably has moderate
• Global Perceived Effect benefit for pain and function, but not global perceived effect and
quality of life immediately post treatment and at short-term fol-
No significant difference in global perceived effect was found at low-up. A clinician may need to treat four people to achieve a
any time points. moderate degree of pain relief and five to achieve moderate func-
• Quality of Life tional benefit in one patient.

Cervical/UE Stretch/ROM Exercises + ilar; that is, they all contained an exercise component, which ap-
Cervical/Scapulothoracic +/-UE Strengthening + plied a resistance force directly to the cervicoscapular region. Other
Dynamic/Static Cervical Stabilization + Another similar clinical elements included the dosage and duration of care.
Intervention versus That Same Intervention We judged these exercise trials to be both clinically and statistically
homogeneous (P = 0.67, I2 = 0%).
Four trials studying chronic neck pain compared the following • Pain Intensity Outcomes
exercise interventions with a control group:
When data were pooled into a summary estimate, we found con-
1. deep neck flexor retraining with pressure biofeedback and
sistent evidence of reduced pain from immediately post treat-
resisted neck flexion/extension strengthening using multicervical
ment pooled SMD -0.33 (95% CI:-0.55 to -0.10) (Analysis 9.1;
rehabilitation unit (Chiu 2005);
Bronfort 2001; Chiu 2005; Franca 2008; Martel 2011) to inter-
2. low technology exercise including progressive resisted neck
mediate-term (Analysis 9.3) and long-term follow-up (Bronfort
and upper body strengthening using dumbells and pulley
2001). This suggests an initial small- to longer-term large treat-
systems, light stretching and a short aerobic warm-up program
ment benefit. The number needed to treat for one patient to ben-
(Bronfort 2001);
efit varies from six to 18.
3. muscle stretching and strengthening exercises of the neck
and upper limb regions including strengthening of the deep
cervical flexor muscles (Franca 2008); and There was evidence of benefit in function immediately post treat-
4. a home exercise program of ROM, stretching/mobilization ment pooled SMD -0.25 (95% CI: -0.48 to -0.01), intermedi-
and strengthening exercises of the cervical and upper thoracic ate-term pooled SMD -0.45 (95% CI: -0.72, to -0.18) (Figure 9;
spine (Martel 2011). Bronfort 2001; Chiu 2005; Franca 2008) and long-term follow-
Both treatment arms of all groups received another intervention up (Bronfort 2001). The latter represents the largest improvement.
and were compared with that same intervention combined with The number needed to treat for one patient to benefit varies from
exercise. We considered the exercise protocols to be clinically sim- four to 13.
Figure 9. Forest plot of comparison for chronic MND: Cervical/UE Stretch/ROM Exercises +
Cervical/Scapulothoracic+/-UE Strengthening + Dynamic/Static Cervical Stabilization + ANOTHER
INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION in the outcome Function at intermediate term follow-up.
• Global Perceived Effect and Quality of Life

patient satisfaction noted at all time points (Bronfort 2001).
There was a statistically important difference in global perceived Conclusion : Moderate quality evidence (four trials, 341 partic-
effect noted immediately post treatment (Analysis 9.9) and at long- ipants, Bronfort 2001; Chiu 2005; Franca 2008; Martel 2011)
term follow-up (Bronfort 2001; Martel 2011). shows moderate pain relief and improved function up to long-
• Patient Satisfaction term follow-up for combined cervical, scapulothoracic stretching
and strengthening for chronic neck pain. A clinician may need
There were statistically and clinically important differences for
to treat six to 18 people to achieve this type of pain relief and • Pain Intensity Outcomes
four to 13 to achieve this functional benefit. Moderate quality ev-
idence (one trial, 101 participants) demonstrates patients are very There was evidence of a very small change in pain intensity im-
satisfied with their care. Changes in quality of life are suggestive mediately post treatment (24 weeks of treatment).
of benefit but not conclusive. Changes in global perceived effect Conclusion: Low quality evidence due to floor effect (one trial,
measures indicate a difference immediately post treatment and at 55 participants, Lange 2013) shows deep neck flexor recruitment
long-term follow-up. combined with UE strengthening/endurance exercises may have
little difference in pain immediately post treatment.
d) Stretching and Endurance Training

f ) Endurance Training
Cervical/Scapulothoracic/UE Stretch + UE Endurance

Training versus No Intervention
Scapulothoracic/UE Endurance Training versus Control
One trial (Viljanen 2003) compared dynamic muscle training with
free weights with ordinary activity. One trial (Andersen 2011) with two comparisons compared shoul-
• Pain Intensity Outcomes der abduction endurance training for two minutes or 12 minutes
with a control group.
There was no significant pain relief immediately post treatment • Pain Intensity Outcomes
and at short-term or long-term follow-up.
• Function Outcomes There was evidence of benefit immediately post treatment for pain
There was no significant change in function at the same three time for both the two-minute and 12-minute training programs.
points. Conclusion: Moderate quality evidence (one trial, 198 participants,
Conclusion : Moderate quality evidence (one trial, 393 participants, Andersen 2011) shows moderate benefit for pain relief immedi-
Viljanen 2003), shows little to no difference for UE stretching and ately post intervention using scapulothoracic/UE endurance train-
endurance training for chronic neck pain and function immedi- ing for (sub)acute/chronic MND. A clinician may need to treat
ately post treatment, at short-term and long-term follow-up. four people to achieve this type of pain relief.
e) Strengthening and Endurance Training 3. Modulator Elements
Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening + Endurance

Training versus Control Neuromuscular Exercise (eye-neck co-
ordination/proprioception) + Another Intervention versus
One trial (Ang 2009) compared non-postural and postural
That Same Intervention
strengthening exercises and endurance-strength exercises versus a
control group. One trial (Revel 1994) compared eye-neck co-ordination exercises
• Pain Prevalence Outcomes and analgesic/anti-inflammatory medication with that same med-
ication only for chronic neck pain.
There was no significant decrease in pain prevalence immediately • Pain Intensity
post treatment or at long-term follow-up.
Conclusion: Very low quality evidence (one trial, 68 participants, There was evidence of benefit on pain at short-term follow-up.
Ang 2009) shows we are uncertain whether cervical/scapulotho- The number needed to treat for one patient to benefit is four.
racic strengthening and endurance-strength exercises improves the • Function
prevalence of neck pain in chronic neck pain at immediately post
treatment and at long-term follow-up. There was evidence of benefit on function at short-term follow-
up. The number needed to treat for one patient to benefit is three.
Conclusion: We are uncertain whether eye-neck co-ordination ex-
Pattern synchronization and Cervical/Scapulothoracic ercises improve pain or function. Very low quality evidence (one
Strengthening and Scapulothoracic Endurance versus trial, 60 participants, Revel 1994) shows a moderate reduction in
Control pain and improved function in chronic neck pain in the short term
One trial Lange 2013 compared deep neck flexor recruitment for eye-neck co-ordination exercises. A clinician may need to treat
combined with upper extremity strengthening/endurance exer- four people to achieve this type of pain relief and three to achieve
cises versus control. this functional benefit in one person.

Patterns synchronization + Feedforward/feedback exercises General Endurance Training + Dynamic/Static
for co-ordinating the neck, eyes and upper limbs versus No Lowback/pelvic Stabilization + General Stretching +
Intervention Neuromuscular/body Mechanics Movement Training versus
No Intervention
One trial (Humphreys 2002) compared eye-neck-upper limb co-
ordination exercises versus no intervention in patients with chronic One trial (Lundblad 1999) compared lumbopelvic stabilization,
neck pain. ergonomic exercises, endurance, general strengthening, and co-
• Pain Intensity ordination exercises with no treatment.
• Pain Intensity
No difference in pain between groups immediately post treatment. There was no evidence of benefit for pain reduction at short-term
follow-up.
Conclusion : Low quality evidence (one trial, 56 participants, Conclusion: Low quality evidence (one trial, 38 participants,
Humphreys 2002) shows eye-neck-upper limb exercises show lit- Lundblad 1999) shows little to no difference for pain reduction
tle or no difference in pain immediately post treatment. with a combined exercise approach of stabilization of the low back
and pelvis, posture awareness, ergonomic training, and strength,
co-ordination, endurance, flexibility/smoothness and rhythm ex-
Patterns synchronization + Feedforward/feedback: vestibular ercises when compared to no intervention or a wait list control in
rehabilitation (balance on unstable surfaces and walking chronic neck pain at short-term follow-up.
with head movements and eyes closed) vs No Intervention
One trial (Hansson 2013) compared vestibular rehabilitation pro- 5. Base + Cognitive/Affective Element
gram vs no intervention in patients with chronic neck pain.
• Pain Intensity
Stretch/ROM + Endurance Training + Dynamic Stabilization
No difference in pain between groups immediately post treatment + Cognitive (mindfulness & emotional balance) versus Wait
or at short-term follow-up. List
Conclusion: Low quality evidence (one trial, 29 participants, Two trials (Rendant 2011; von Trott 2009) compared a program of
Hansson 2013) shows vestibular rehabilitation type exercises may Qigong exercises (Dantian Qigong) including relaxation of mind
have little or no difference in neck pain both immediately post and body, conscious breathing and movement exercises of the hip,
treatment and at short-term follow-up. legs, shoulders, arms and head with a wait list.
• Pain Intensity
When data were pooled into a summary estimate, there was ev-
4. Base + Modulator Elements + Support idence of reduced pain post treatment at 12 weeks [pooled MD
-13.28 (-20.98 to -5.58)] (Analysis 18.1) and 24 weeks [pooled
MD -7.82 (-14.57, -1.07)] (Analysis 18.2) of treatment (Rendant
2011; von Trott 2009).
Trunk and Extremity Stretch + Pattern/Synchronization: • Function
Balance Co-ordination + Cardiovascular/Aerobic versus No
When data were pooled into a summary estimate, there was ev-
Intervention
idence of reduced function post treatment at 12 weeks [pooled
One trial (Takala 1994) with unspecified duration of neck pain SMD -0.36 (-0.68 to -0.03); Analysis 18.3] and 24 weeks [pooled
at baseline, compared a group of whole body exercise program, SMD -0.28 (-0.68 to 0.11); Analysis 18.4] of treatment (Rendant
which included aerobic training and shoulder/thoracic exercises, 2011; von Trott 2009)
with no treatment. • Global Perceived Effect
• Pain Intensity
There was no evidence of benefit for global perceived effect im-
mediately post treatment and at short-term follow-up.
There was no evidence of benefit for pain reduction immediately
• Quality of Life
post treatment.
Conclusion: Low quality evidence (one trial, 44 participants,Takala There was evidence of benefit for SF36 physical component im-
1994) shows little to no difference for pain reduction immediately mediately post 12 weeks of treatment [pooled MD -2.72 (95% CI:
post treatment in patients with neck pain of unspecified duration -5.42 to -0.01); Analysis 18.7]; but not at short-term follow-up
when treated with group exercise that combined extensibility and of 24 weeks [pooled MD -1.88 (95%CI: -5.80 to 2.04); Analysis
co-ordination exercises with cardiovascular training. 18.8] (Rendant 2011; von Trott 2009).

Conclusion: Moderate quality evidence (two trials, 191 partici- One trial (Hall 2007) investigated patients with subacute cervico-
pants, Rendant 2011; von Trott 2009) shows Qigong exercises genic headache; this trial compared C1-C2 self-sustained natural
(Dantian Qigong) may improve pain and function slightly when apophyseal glide (SNAG) exercises with a sham mobilization.
compared with a wait list control at immediate- and short-term • Pain Intensity Outcomes
follow-up. It may have little or no benefit at immediate and short-
There was pain reduction at both short- and long-term follow-up.
term follow-up on quality of life and global perceived effect. A
The number needed to treat for one patient to benefit is three.
clinician may need to treat four to six people to achieve this type of
Conclusion: Low quality evidence (one trial, 32 participants, Hall
pain relief, five to eight people to achieve this functional benefit,
2007) shows people may improve a large amount for pain reduc-
and seven to 10 people for this improvement in quality of life.
tion at short- and long-term follow-up with the use of C1-C2
self-SNAG exercises when compared with a sham for (sub)acute
6. Base + Modular + Cognitive Affective + Support cervicogenic headache. A clinician may need to treat three people
to achieve this type of long-term pain relief.
Stretch/ROM + Strength and Endurance Training (trunk and 2. Base and Modular Element
limb) + Pattern/Synchronization: Balance Co-ordination +
Cardiovascular/Aerobic + Cognitive (Coaching +
Motivational) versus that Same Intervention Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance
One trial (Stewart 2007) compared an individualized, progressive Training + Craniocervical Pressure Biofeedback + Dynamic
submaximal program, which included aerobic training, trunk and Cervical Stabilization versus No Intervention
limb exercises and advice compared with advice alone. One trial (Jull 2002) studied chronic cervicogenic headache and
• Pain Intensity compared endurance exercises including pressure biofeedback for
the cervicoscapular region with no treatment.
There was evidence of small benefit on pain post treatment but
• Pain Intensity
not at long-term follow-up.
• Function When compared with no treatment, there was evidence of a large
benefit post treatment and a moderate size benefit at long-term
There was evidence of small benefit on function post treatment follow-up (Analysis 21.2) for pain relief. The number needed to
and at long-term follow-up. treat for one patient to benefit is six.
• Global Perceived Effect • Function
There was evidence of small benefit on global perceived effect post When compared with no treatment, there was evidence of a mod-
treatment but not at long-term follow-up. erate degree of benefit at post treatment and at long-term follow-
• Quality of Life up (Analysis 21.4) on function. The number needed to treat for
There was evidence of small benefit on quality of life post treatment one patient to benefit is six.
but not at long-term follow-up. • Global Perceived Effect
Conclusion: Low quality evidence (one trial, 132 participants, When compared with no treatment, there was evidence of a large
Stewart 2007) shows small benefits for pain relief, function,global benefit post treatment and at long-term follow-up (Analysis 21.6)
perceived effect and quality of life immediately post treatment and on global perceived effect.
small benefit at 12-month follow-up for function using Trunk/Ex- Conclusion : Moderate quality evidence (one trial, 97 partici-
tremity Stretch/ROM + Trunk/Extremity Strengthening + Trunk/ pants, Jull 2002) shows cervicoscapular strengthening and en-
Extremity Endurance Training + Pattern/Synchronization: Co-or- durance exercises including pressure biofeedback probably im-
dination + Cardiovascular/Aerobic + Cognitive (CBT) + another prove pain, function and global perceived effect for chronic cer-
treatment for Subacute/chronic WAD. vicogenic headaches at long-term follow-up when compared to
no treatment. A clinician may need to treat six people to achieve
this type (medium to large amount) of pain relief and functional
Cervicogenic Headache benefit in one patient.
1. Base Element Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance

Training + Craniocervical Pressure Biofeedback + Dynamic
Cervical Stabilization + Manual Therapy versus Manual
Stretch/ROM exercises versus Sham Therapy

One trial (Jull 2002) studied chronic cervicogenic headache and One trial (Kuijper 2009) studying acute cervical radiculopathy
compared endurance exercises including pressure biofeedback plus compared cervical mobilizing and stabilizing exercises with a wait
manual therapy for the cervicoscapular region with manual ther- list control.
apy. • Pain Intensity
• Pain Intensity
There was a significant difference in reduction of pain immediately
When compared with manual therapy, there was evidence of no
post treatment but no difference at intermediate-term follow-up.
difference post treatment and at long-term follow-up for pain re-
• Function
lief.
• Function
There was no statistical significant difference in improved function
When compared with manual therapy, there was evidence of no immediately post treatment and at intermediate-term follow-up.
difference post treatment and at long-term follow-up on function. • Patient Satisfaction
• Global Perceived Effect
When compared with manual therapy, there was evidence of no There was no difference between groups in patient satisfaction at
difference post treatment and at long-term follow-up on global immediate post treatment follow-up.
perceived effect. However, we believe there may be a clinically Conclusion : There is low quality evidence (one trial, 133 partici-
important but not statistical difference at long-term follow-up. pants, Kuijper 2009) showing cervical mobilization and stabiliza-
Conclusion : Moderate quality evidence (one trial, 96 participants, tion exercises may improve pain slightly, but may make no differ-
Jull 2002) shows when exercise combined with manual therapy ence in function and patient satisfaction when compared imme-
contrasted with manual therapy alone there is probably no dif- diately post treatment with a control for acute cervical radiculopa-
ference in pain, function and global perceived effect for chronic thy. However, there may be no difference in pain and functional
cervicogenic headaches at long-term follow-up. improvement at intermediate-term follow-up.
Acute Radiculopathy
Adverse Events
Fifteen of the 27 trials did not report on adverse events (Andersen
1. Base Element 2008; Andersen Ch 2012; Ang 2009; Beer 2012; Dellve 2011; Hall
2007; Hallman 2011; Hansson 2013; Humphreys 2002; Kjellman
2002; Kuijper 2009; Lundblad 1999; Revel 1994; Takala 1994;
a) Stretching and Strengthening Viljanen 2003); six trials found patients did not report any adverse
events (Allan 2003; Chiu 2005; Franca 2008; Helewa 2007; Lange
2013; Martel 2011; six studies reported self-limiting side effects
Cervical Stretch/ROM + Cervical/Scapulothoracic/UE such as headache, neck, shoulder or thoracic pain or worsening of
Strengthening + Static/Dynamic Cervical Stabilization versus symptoms (Andersen 2011; Bronfort 2001; Jull 2002; Rendant
Wait List 2011; Stewart 2007; von Trott 2009).

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) A D D I T I O N A L S U M M A R Y O F F I N D I N G S [Explanation]
Cervical Stretch/ ROM Exercises + Cervical/ Scapulothoracic Strengthening + Static/ Dynamic Cervical/ Shoulder Stabilization compared to WAIT LIST for mechanical neck
disorders
Patient or population: patients with chronic m echanical neck disorders

Settings: residential com m unity
Intervention: Cervical Stretch/ ROM Exercises + Cervical/ Scapulothoracic Strengthening + Static/ Dynam ic Cervical/ Shoulder Stabilization
Comparison: WAIT LIST

(studies) (GRADE)
Pain Intensity: VAS 0 no pain to 100 Two trials showed a m edium reduction in 147 ⊕⊕⊕
worst pain; (f ollow-up: im m ediate post pain. (2 studies: Rendant 2011, von Trott 2009) moderate 1,2
treatm ent) a. Pooled m ean dif f erence -14.90 (-22.40
a. 12 weeks of treatm ent to -7.39)
b. 24 weeks of treatm ent or 12 weeks of b. Pooled m ean dif f erence -10.94 (-18.81
treatm ent+ 12 weeks f ollow-up to -3.08)
Function: NPDI or NDI 0 no disability to 100 Two trials showed a m edium im provem ent 147 ⊕⊕⊕
m axim um disability; (f ollow-up: im m ediate in f unction. (2 studies: Rendant 2011, von Trott 2009) moderate 1,2
post treatm ent) a. Pooled SM D -0.50 (-1.04 to 0.03)
a. 12 weeks of treatm ent b. Pooled SM D -0.40 (-0.74 to -0.06)
b. 24 weeks of treatm ent or 12 weeks
treatm ent + 12 weeks f ollow-up
Quality of Life: SF-36 (physical com po- Two trials showed no signif icant dif f erence 143 ⊕⊕⊕
nent) 0 worse to 100 better; (f ollow-up: in quality of lif e scores (2 studies: Rendant 2011, von Trott 2009) moderate 1,2
im m ediate post treatm ent) a. Pooled m ean dif f erence -2.22 (-5.17 to
a. 12 weeks of treatm ent 0.72)
b. 24 weeks of treatm ent or 12 weeks b. Pooled m ean dif f erence 0.06 (-4.06 to
treatm ent + 12 weeks f ollow-up 4.17)
24
Global Perceived Effect: General Health One trial showed no signif icant dif f erence 70 ⊕⊕⊕
Perception 0 worse to 100 better (f ollow- in GPE. (1 study: von Trott 2009) moderate 2
up: im m ediate post treatm ent)
a. 12 weeks of treatm ent
b. 24 weeks of treatm ent
Adverse Effects Reported by 18 patients in exercise group:

m uscle soreness (n = 15), m yogelosis (n
= 11), headaches (n = 5), vertigo (n = 2),
change in m ood (n = 1), worsening of neck
pain (n = 1), worsening of tinnitus (n = 1) ,
nausea (n = 1), m uscle tensions (n = 2)
M oderate quality evidence (two trials, 147 participants, von Trott 2009; Rendant 2011) shows cervical stretch/ ROM exercises + cervical/ scapulothoracic strengthening +
static/ dynam ic cervical/ shoulder stabilization probably has m oderate benef it f or pain and f unction, but not GPE and QoL at im m ediate post treatm ent and short-term f ollow-
up. A clinician m ay need to treat f our people to achieve m oderate degree of pain relief and f ive to achieve m oderate f unctional benef it in one patient

1 One of the studies (Rendant 2011) scored 6/ 12 on ’Risk of bias’ assessm ent.That is, the study m et 6 or f ewer than 6 of the
12 criteria, indicating high risk of bias.
2 Sm all studies
25
Stretch/ ROM + Endurance Training + Dynamic Stabilization + Cognitive (mindfulness & emotional balance) compared to WAIT LIST for mechanical neck disorders
Patient or population: patients with chronic m echanical neck disorders

Settings: residential com m unity
Intervention: Stretch/ ROM + Endurance Training + Dynam ic Stabilization + Cognitive (m indf ulness & em otional balance)
Comparison: WAIT LIST

(studies) (GRADE)
Pain Intensity: VAS 0 no pain to 100 worst Two trials showed a m oderate reduction in 148 ⊕⊕⊕
pain (f ollow-up: im m ediate post treatm ent) pain (2 studies: Rendant 2011, von Trott 2009) moderate 1
a. 12 weeks of treatm ent Pooled scores estim ated using a
b. 24 weeks of treatm ent or 12 treatm ents a. M ean dif f erence of -13.28 (-20.98 to -5.
+ 12 weeks f ollow-up 58)
b. M ean dif f erence of -7.82 (-14.57 to -1.
07)
Function: NPDI 0 no disability to 100 m axi- Two trials showed a sm all im provem ent in 148 ⊕⊕⊕
m um disability (f ollow-up: im m ediate post f unction (2 studies: Rendant 2011, von Trott 2009) moderate 1
treatm ent) Pooled scores estim ated using a
a. 12 weeks of treatm ent a. Standard m ean dif f erence of -0.36 (-0.
b. 24 weeks of treatm ent or 12 weeks 68 to -0.03)
treatm ent + 12 weeks f ollow-up b. Standard m ean dif f erence of -0.28 (-0.
68 to 0.11)
Quality of Life: SF-36 (physical com po- Two trials showed little to no dif f erence in 148 ⊕⊕⊕ 1
nent) 0 worse to 100 better (f ollow-up: im - quality of lif e (2 studies: Rendant 2011, von Trott 2009) moderate
m ediate post treatm ent) Pooled scores estim ated using a
a. 12 weeks of treatm ent a. M ean dif f erence of -2.72 (-5.42 to -0.01)
b. 24 weeks of treatm ent or 12 weeks b. M ean dif f erence of -1.88 (-5.80 to 2.04)
treatm ent + 12 weeks f ollow-up
26
Global Perceived Effect: General Health One trial showed no signif icant dif f erence 70 ⊕⊕⊕
Perception 0 worse to 100 better (f ollow- in GPE. (1 study: von Trott 2009) moderate 1,2
up im m ediate post treatm ent and short-
term )
Adverse Effects Reported by 23 patients in qigong group

including: m uscle soreness (n = 17), m yo-
gelosis (n = 12), vertigo (n = 10), other pain
(n = 4), headache (n = 3), thirst (n = 1),
engorged hands (n = 1), twinge in the neck
(n = 1), urinary urgency (n = 1), bursitis of
lef t shoulder (n = 1), nausea (n = 2), m uscle
tension (n = 1)
M oderate quality evidence: (2 trials, 148 participants, Rendant 2011; von Trott 2009) shows Qigong exercises (Dantian Qigong) m ay im prove pain and f unction slightly when
com pared with a wait list control at im m ediate and short-term f ollow-up. It m ay have little or no benef it at im m ediate and short-term f ollow-up on quality of lif e and global
perceived ef f ect. A clinician m ay need to treat f our to six people to achieve this type of pain relief , f ive to eight people to achieve this f unctional benef it, and seven to 10
people f or this im provem ent in quality of lif e

1 One included study (Rendant 2011) scored 6/ 12 on risk of bias assessm ent.That is, the study m et 6 or f ewer than 6 of the
2 Sm all studies.
27
Cervical Stretch/ ROM + Cervical/ Scapulothoracic/ UE Strengthening + Static/ Dynamic Cervical Stabilization compared with wait list for acute radiculopathy
Patient or population: patients with acute radiculopathy

Settings: Three hospitals in Netherlands
Intervention: Cervical Stretch/ ROM + Cervical/ Scapulothoracic/ UE Strengthening + Static/ Dynam ic Cervical Stabilization
Comparison: Wait list
Outcomes Relative effect No of Participants Quality of the evidence

(95% CI) (studies) (GRADE)
Pain Intensity: VAS 0 no pain to 10 worst One trial showed a sm all reduction in pain 133 participants ⊕⊕ 1,2
pain im m ediately post treatm ent and no benef it (1 study: Kuijper 2009) low
(f ollow-up: im m ediate post treatm ent) at 6 m onths f ollow-up
a. 6 weeks of treatm ent a. Standard m ean dif f erence are -0.47 (-0.
(f ollow-up period af ter treatm ent) 81 to -0.12) post intervention
b. 6 m onths b. Standard m ean dif f erence are 0.16 (-0.
19 to 0.51) at 6 m onths f ollow-up
Function: NDI 0 no disability to 50 m axi- One trial showed a sm all reduction in f unc- 133 participants ⊕⊕ 1,2
m um disability (f ollow-up: im m ediate post tional disability im m ediately post treat- (1 study: Kuijper 2009) low
treatm ent) m ent and no benef it at 6 m onths f ollow-up
(f ollow-up period af ter treatm ent) 45 to 0.23) post intervention
b. 6 m onths b. Standard m ean dif f erence are 0.06 (-0.
29 to 0.40) at 6 m onth f ollow-up
Patient Satisfaction: 5-point scale, 1 to 5; a. One trial showed no dif f erence in patient 129 participants ⊕⊕ 1,2
very satisf ied to unsatisf ied satisf action im m ediately post treatm ent. (1 study: Kuijper 2009) low
(f ollow-up: im m ediate post treatm ent) relative risk ratio are 0.92 (0.62 to 1.37)
a. 6 weeks of treatm ent post intervention
Adverse Effects Not reported
Low quality evidence: (one trial, 133 participants, Kuijper 2009) Cervical Stretch/ ROM + Cervical/ Scapulothoracic/ UE Strengthening + Static/ Dynam ic Cervical Stabilization
m ay im prove pain slightly, but m ay m ake no dif f erence in f unction and patient satisf action when com pared im m ediately post treatm ent with a control f or acute cervical
radiculopathy. However, there m ay be no dif f erence in pain and f unctional im provem ent at interm ediate-term f ollow-up
28

1 One included study (Kuijper 2009) scored 4/ 12 on risk of bias assessm ent.That is, the study m et 6 or f ewer than 6 of the 12
criteria, indicating high risk of bias.
2
Sm all study.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
29
Cervical stretch/ ROM vs SHAM compared with SHAM intervention for subAcute CGH
Patient or population: patients with subAcute cervicogenic headache (CGH)

Settings: Physiotherapy Private Practice
Intervention: Cervical stretch/ ROM
Comparison: SHAM INTERVENTION

Pain Intensity: VAS 0 no pain to 100 worst One trial showed a sm all reduction in pain 32 ⊕⊕
pain a. Standard m ean dif f erence are -1.58 (-2. (1 study: Hall 2007) low1,2
(f ollow-up: im m ediate post treatm ent ) 38 to -0.77) at 4 weeks
a. 4 weeks of treatm ent b. Standard m ean dif f erence are -1.74 (-2.
(f ollow-up period af ter treatm ent) 57 to -0.91) at 12 m onths
b. 12 m onths
Adverse effects Not reported
Low quality evidence: (one trial, 32 participants, Hall 2007 ) shows Cervical stretch/ ROM m ay im prove a large am ount f or pain reduction at short- and long-term f ollow-up with
the use of C1 to C2 self -SNAG exercises when com pared with a sham f or (sub)acute cervicogenic headache. A clinician m ay need to treat three people to achieve this type of
long-term pain relief

1
Percision: Sm all study (n=16 per arm ).
2
Reporting bias: due to trial size and single outcom e, f uture research is likely to inf luence the direction of reported ef f ect.
Replication in a second trial is needed.
30
Cervical/ Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance Training + Craniocervical Pressure Biofeedback + Dynamic Cervical Stabilization compared with NO INTERVENTION
for Chronic CGH
Patient or population: patients with chronic CGH

Settings: m ultiple trial centres
Intervention: Cervical/ Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance Training + Craniocervical Pressure Biof eedback + Dynam ic Cervical Stabilization
Comparison: NO INTERVENTION

Pain Intensity: VAS 0 no pain to 10 worst One trial showed a large reduction in pain 97 ⊕⊕⊕
pain at 6 weeks and 12 m onths f ollow up (1 study: Jull 2002) moderate 1
(f ollow-up: im m ediate post treatm ent) a. Standard m ean dif f erence are -0.75 (-1.
a. 6 weeks 16 to -0.34) at 6 weeks
(f ollow-up period af ter treatm ent) b. Standard m ean dif f erence are -0.59 (-1.
b. 12 m onths 00 to -0.18) at 12 m onths f ollow-up
Function: NPNPQ 0% no disability to 100% One trial showed a m oderate reduction in 97 ⊕⊕⊕
m axim um disability f unctional disability (1 study: Jull 2002) moderate 1
a. 6 weeks 96 to -0.15) at 6 weeks
b. 12 m onths 11 to 0.29) at 12 m onths f ollow-up
Global Perceived Effect: VAS 0 to 100 One trial showed a large benef it in global 97 ⊕⊕⊕
(f ollow-up: im m ediate post treatm ent) perceived ef f ect (1 study: Jull 2002) moderate 1
a. 6 weeks a. Standard m ean dif f erence are -2.96 (-3.
(f ollow-up period af ter treatm ent) 55 to -2.38) at 6 weeks
b. 12 m onths b. Standard m ean dif f erence are -2.51 (-3.
05 to -1.97) at 12 m onths f ollow-up
Adverse effects M inor and tem porary adverse ef f ects were noted: 6.7% of headaches were provoked by treatm ent
31
M oderate quality evidence: (one trial, 97 participants, Jull 2002) shows cervicoscapular strengthening and endurance exercises including pressure biof eedback probably
im proves pain, f unction and global perceived ef f ect f or chronic cervicogenic headaches at long term f ollow-up when com pared to no treatm ent. A clinician m ay need to treat
six people to achieve this type of pain relief and f unctional benef it in one patient

1 Percision: Although sm all study, consistent f indings are noted across m ultiple outcom es at long term f ollow-up.
32
Cervical/ Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance Training + Craniocervical Pressure Biofeedback + Dynamic Cervical Stabilization + M anual Therapy compared with
M anual Therapy for Chronic CGH
Patient or population: patients with Chronic CGH

Settings: m ultiple trial centres
Intervention: Cervical/ Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance Training + Craniocervical Pressure Biof eedback + Dynam ic Cervical Stabilization + M anual Therapy
Comparison: M ANUAL THERAPY

Pain Intensity: 6 weeks treatm ent VAS 0 One trial showed a sm all reduction in pain 96 ⊕⊕⊕
no pain to 10 worst pain a. Standard m ean dif f erence are -0.11 (-0. (1 study: Jull 2002) moderate 1
(f ollow-up: im m ediate post treatm ent) 50 to 0.29) at 6 weeks
a. 6 weeks b. Standard m ean dif f erence are -0.17 (-0.
(f ollow-up period af ter treatm ent) 57 to 0.23) at 12 m onths f ollow-up
b. 12 m onths
Function: NPNPQ 0% no disability to 100% One trial showed a sm all reduction in f unc- 96 ⊕⊕⊕
m axim um disability tional disability (1 study: Jull 2002) moderate 1
a. 6 weeks of treatm ent 51 to 0.28) at 6 weeks
b. 12 m onths 63 to 0.17) at 12 m onths f ollow-up
Global Perceived Effect: VAS 0 to 100 One trial showed a sm all benef it in global 96 ⊕⊕⊕
(f ollow-up: im m ediate post treatm ent) perceived ef f ect (1 study: Jull 2002) moderate 1
(f ollow-up period af ter treatm ent) 68 to 0.11) at 6 weeks
b. 12 m onths b. Standard m ean dif f erence -0.30 (-0.70
to 0.10) at 12 m onths f ollow-up
Adverse effects M inor and tem porary adverse ef f ects were noted: 6.7% of headaches were provoked by treatm ent
M oderate quality evidence (one trial, 96 participants, Jull 2002) shows when exercise com bined with m anual therapy contrasted with m anual therapy alone there is probably
no dif f erence in pain, f unction and global perceived ef f ect f or chronic cervicogenic headaches at long-term f ollow-up
33

1 Percision: Although sm all study, consistent f indings are noted across m ultiple outcom es at long term f ollow-up.
34
Cervical/ UE Stretch/ ROM Exercise + Cervical/ UE Strengthening + Dynamic Cervical Stabilization compared with PLACEBO or SHAM for Chronic M ND
Patient or population: patients with chronic M ND

Settings: Prim ary care physical therapy and private physical therapy practices
Intervention: Cervical/ UE Stretch/ ROM Exercise + Cervical/ UE Strengthening + Dynam ic Cervical Stabilization
Comparison: PLACEBO or SHAM

Pain Intensity: VAS 0 no pain to 100 worst One trial showed no dif f erence in pain 77 ⊕⊕
pain im m ediately post intervention and at 6 and (1 study: Kjellm an 2002) low1,2
(f ollow-up: im m ediate post treatm ent) 12 m onths f ollow-up
a. 2 m onths of treatm ent a. Standard m ean dif f erence 0.26 (-0.33 to
(f ollow-up period af ter treatm ent) 0.85) im m ediately 2 m onths post interven-
b. 6 m onths tion
c. 12 m onths b. Standard m ean dif f erence -0.16 (-0.75
c. Standard m ean dif f erence -0.19 (-0.40
Function: 2 m onths treatm ent NDI 0 no One trial showed no dif f erence in f unction 77 ⊕⊕
disability to 50 m axim um disability im m ediately post intervention and at 6 and (1 study: Kjellm an 2002) low1,2
(f ollow-up: im m ediate post treatm ent) 12 m onths f ollow-up
a. 2 m onths of treatm ent a. Standard m ean dif f erence are 0.14 (-
(f ollow-up period af ter treatm ent ) 0.45 to 0.73) im m ediately post 2 m onths
b. 6 m onths intervention
c. Standard m ean dif f erence 0.12 (-0.47 to
0.72) at 12 m onths f ollow-up
Low quality evidence: (One trial, 77 participants, Kjellm an 2002) No dif f erence f or pain relief and f unction im m ediately post intervention, at 6 and 12 m onths f ollow-up using
Cervical/ UE Stretch/ ROM Exercise + Cervical/ UE Strengthening + Dynam ic Cervical Stabilization f or chronic M ND
35

1 One of the studies (Kjellm an 2002)) scored 5/ 12 on ’Risk of bias’ assessm ent.That is, the study m et 6 or f ewer than 6 of the
2
Sm all studies
36
Cervical Stretch/ ROM Exercise + Dynamic Cervical Stabilization compared with SHAM for Chronic M ND

Settings: Prim ary care physical therapy and private physical therapy practices
Intervention: Cervical/ UE Stretch/ ROM Exercise + Cervical/ UE Strengthening + Dynam ic Cervical Stabilization
Comparison: PLACEBO or SHAM

Pain Intensity: VAS 0 no pain to 100 worst One trial showed no dif f erence in pain 50 ⊕⊕
pain (f ollow-up: im m ediate post treatm ent) im m ediately post intervention and at 6 and (1 study: Kjellm an 2002) low1,2
a. 2 m onths of treatm ent 12 m onths f ollow-up
(f ollow-up period af ter treatm ent) a. Standard m ean dif f erence are -0.10 (-
b. 6 m onths 0.66 to 0.45) im m ediately post 2 m onths
c. 12 m onths intervention
b. Standard m ean dif f erence -0.29 (-0.85
Function: NDI 0 no disability to 50 m axi- One trial showed no dif f erence in f unction 50 ⊕⊕
m um disability (f ollow-up: im m ediate post im m ediately post intervention and at 6 and (1 study: Kjellm an 2002) low1,2
treatm ent) 12 m onths f ollow-up
a. 2 m onths of treatm ent a. Standard m ean dif f erence are -0.24 (-
(f ollow-up period af ter treatm ent ) 0.79 to 0.32) im m ediately post 2 m onth
Low quality evidence: (One trial, 50 participants, Kjellm an 2002) No dif f erence f or pain relief and f unction im m ediately post intervention, at 6 and 12 m onth f ollow-up using
Cervical Stretch/ ROM Exercise + Dynam ic Cervical Stabilization f or chronic M ND
37

1 One of the studies (Kjellm an 2002) scored 5/ 12 on ’Risk of bias’ assessm ent.That is, the study m et 6 or f ewer than 6 of the
2
Sm all studies
38
Chronic M ND: Cervical/ Scapulothoracic/ UE Stretch + UE Endurance Training compared with NO INTERVENTION or WAIT LIST for chronic M ND

Settings: of f ice workers
Intervention: Cervical/ Scapulothoracic/ UE Stretch + UE Endurance Training
Comparison: NO INTERVENTION or WAIT LIST

Pain Intensity: VAS 0 no pain to 100 worst One trial showed no dif f erence in pain 393 ⊕⊕⊕
pain im m ediately post intervention and at 3 (1 study: Viljanen 2003) moderate 1
(f ollow-up: im m ediate post treatm ent) and 9 m onths f ollow-up
a. 12 weeks of treatm ent a. Standard m ean dif f erence are 0.08 (-
(f ollow-up period af ter treatm ent) 0.16 to 0.32) im m ediately post 12 weeks
c. 9 m onths b. Standard m ean dif f erence 0.00 (-0.24
c. Standard m ean dif f erence -0.04 (-0.28
Function: NDI 0 no disability to 50 m axi- One trial showed no dif f erence in f unction 393 ⊕⊕⊕
m um disability im m ediately post intervention and at 3 (1 study: Viljanen 2003) moderate 1
(f ollow-up: im m ediate post treatm ent) and 9 m onths f ollow up
a. 12 weeks of treatm ent a. Standard m ean dif f erence 0.07 (-0.17
(f ollow-up period af ter treatm ent) to 0.31) im m ediately post 12 weeks inter-
b. 3 m onths vention
c. 9 m onths b. Standard m ean dif f erence 0.07 (-0.17
c. Standard m ean dif f erence 0.14 (-0.11
M oderate quality evidence: (one trial, 393 participants, Viljanen 2003) Little to no dif f erence f or pain relief and f unction im m ediately post intervention, at 3 and 9 m onths
f ollow-up using Cervical/ Scapulothoracic/ UE Stretch + UE Endurance Training f or chronic M ND
39

1 Percision: high drop out rate (14%); reason f or dropout not described.
40
Scapulothoracic/ UE Endurance Training compared with CONTROL for (sub)Acute/ Chroninc M ND
Patient or population: patients with Acute to Chronic M ND

Settings: two large withe collar organizations
Intervention: Scapulothoracic/ UE Endurance Training
Comparison: CONTROL

Pain Intensity: VAS 0 no pain to 10 worst One trial showed m oderate pain relief im - 198 ⊕⊕⊕
pain (f ollow-up: im m ediate post 10 weeks m ediately post intervention (1 study: Andersen 2011) moderate 1
treatm ent) a. Standard m ean dif f erence f or the 2
a. 2-m inute training group m inute training group -0.66 (-1.02 to -0.30)
b. 12-m inute training group b. Standard m ean dif f erence f or the 12
m inute training group -0.59 (-0.94 to -0.23)
Adverse effects Reported worsening of neck m uscle tension during and/ or in the days af ter training (2-m inute n = 1, 12-m inute n = 4), shoulder
joint pain during training (2-m inute n = 1, 12-m inute n = 4), pain in the upper arm during training (2-m inute n = 1, 12-m inute n = 1),
pain of the f orearm / wrist during training (12-m inute n = 2), worsening of headache af ter training (2-m inute n = 1, 12-m inute n = 1).
No long-lasting or m ajor com plications resulted f rom the training program
M oderate quality evidence: (one trial, 198 participants, Andersen 2011) M oderate benef it f or pain relief im m ediately post intervention using Scapulothoracic/ UE Endurance
Training f or (sub)Acute/ Chronic M ND. A clinician m ay need to treat f our people to achieve this type of pain relief

1 Percision: sm all sam ple (n = 63 or 64 per Arm ) m easured at Im m ediate post treatm ent.
41
Trunk/ Extremity Stretch/ ROM + Trunk/ Extremity Strengthening + Trunk/ Extremity Endurance Training + Pattern/ Synchronization: Coordination + Cardiovascular/ Aerobic +
Cognitive (CBT) + ANOTHER TREATM ENT compared with THAT SAM E OTHER TREATM ENT for Subacute/ chronic WAD
Patient or population: patients with subacute/ chronic WAD

Settings: two physiotherapy clinics
Intervention: Trunk/ Extrem ity Stretch/ ROM + Trunk/ Extrem ity Strengthening + Trunk/ Extrem ity Endurance Training + Pattern/ Synchronization: Coordination + Cardiovascular/
Aerobic + Cognitive (CBT) + ANOTHER TREATM ENT
Comparison: THAT SAM E OTHER TREATM ENT

Pain Intensity: VAS 0 no pain to 10 worst One trial showed sm all pain relief im m e- 132 ⊕⊕
pain diately post intervention and no dif f erence (1 study: Stewart 2007) low1,2
(f ollow-up: im m ediate post treatm ent) at 12 m onths f ollow-up
a. 6 weeks of treatm ent a. Standard m ean dif f erence -0.46 (-0.81
(f ollow-up period af ter treatm ent) to -0.12) im m ediately post 6 weeks inter-
Function: NDI 0 no disability to 50 m axi- One trial showed sm all benef it in f unction 132 ⊕⊕
m um disability im m ediately post intervention and at 12 (1 study: Stewart 2007) low1,2
(f ollow-up: im m ediate post treatm ent) m onths f ollow-up
a. 6 weeks of treatm ent a. Standard m ean dif f erence -0.50 (-0.85
(f ollow-up period af ter treatm ent) to -0.15) im m ediately post 6 weeks inter-
to -0.03) at 12 m onths f ollow-up
Global perceived effect: -5 to 5 scale; One trial showed sm all benef it in global 132 ⊕⊕
vastly worse to com pletely recovered perceived ef f ect im m ediately post inter- (1 study: Stewart 2007) low1,2
(f ollow-up: im m ediate post treatm ent) vention and no dif f erence at 12 m onths
a. 6 weeks of treatm ent f ollow-up
(f ollow-up af ter treatm ent) a. Standard m ean dif f erence -0.46 (-0.80
b. 12 m onths to -0.11) im m ediately post 6 weeks inter-
vention
42

Quality of Life: SF-36 0 high disability One trial showed sm all benef it in global 132 ⊕⊕
to 100 no disability (f ollow-up: im m ediate perceived ef f ect im m ediately post inter- (1 study: Stewart 2007) low1,2
post treatm ent) vention and no dif f erence at 12 m onth f ol-
a. 6 weeks of treatm ent low-up
(f ollow-up af ter treatm ent) a. Standard m ean dif f erence -0.35 (-0.69
b. 12 m onths to -0.01) im m ediately post 6 weeks inter-
vention
to 0.20) at 12 m onth f ollow-up
Adverse effects Reported; The m ain com plaint in this group was m uscle pain with exercise (3) f ollowed
by knee pain (2) and lum bar spine pain (2).
Low quality evidence: (one trial, 132 participants, Stewart 2007) Sm all benef it f or pain relief , f unction, global perceived ef f ect and quality of lif e im m ediately post treatm ent
and sm all benef it at 12 m onth f ollow up f or f unction using Trunk/ Extrem ity Stretch/ ROM + Trunk/ Extrem ity Strengthening + Trunk/ Extrem ity Endurance Training + Pattern/
Synchronization: Coordination + Cardiovascular/ Aerobic + Cognitive (CBT) + ANOTHER TREATM ENT f or Subacute/ chronic WAD

1 One of the studies (Stewart 2007) scored 6/ 12 on ’Risk of bias’ assessm ent.That is, the study m et 6 or f ewer than 6 of the
2 Sm all studies
43
Scapulothoracic + UE Strengthening compared with CONTROL for (sub)Acute/ Chronic M ND
Patient or population: patients with Acute to Chronic M ND

Settings: Seven workplaces
Intervention: Scapulothoracic + UE Strengthening
Comparison: CONTROL

Pain Intensity: VAS 0 no pain to 100 worst Three trials showed a m oderate reduction 157 ⊕⊕⊕
pain (f ollow-up: im m ediate post 10 to 20 in pain. Pooled scores estim ated using a (3 studies: Andesen 2008, Andersen CH moderate
weeks of treatm ent) standard m ean dif f erence -0.71 (-1.33 to - 2012, Dellve 2011)
0.10)
Pain Intensity: VAS 0 no pain to 100 worst One trial (two com parisons) showed no 163
pain (f ollow-up: im m ediate post 20 weeks dif f erence in pain relief im m ediately post (1 study: three groups, Andersen CH 2012) very low1
of treatm ent) intervention
a. 1 weekly session a. One weekly session of 60 m inutes,
b. 9 weekly sessions scores using a standard m ean dif f erence -
0.20 (-0.63 to 0.22)
b. Nine weekly sessions of seven m inutes,
scores using a standard m ean dif f erence -
0.13 (-0.61 to 0.34)
Pain Intensity: VAS 0 no pain to 100 worst One trial showed m oderate reduction in 26 ⊕⊕
pain (f ollow-up: im m ediate post 10 weeks pain 10 weeks post intervention. Scores (1 study: Andersen 2008) low
of treatm ent) using a standard m ean dif f erence -0.89 (-
1.76 to -0.01) at 10 week f ollow-up
Function: DASH 20% no dif f iculty to 100% One trial showed no dif f erence in f unction 163
f ully unable (f ollow-up: im m ediate post 20 im m ediately post intervention (1 study: Andersen CH 2012) very low1
weeks of treatm ent) a. Standard m ean dif f erence -0.17 (-0.58
a. 1 weekly session to 0.24) im m ediately post intervention f or
b. 9 weekly sessions one weekly session of 60 m inutes
44
to 0.41) f or nine weekly sessions of seven

m inutes
Work ability index: 7 poor ability to 49 One trial showed a sm all im provem ent in 88 ⊕⊕
excellent ability treatm ent (f ollow-up: im - work ability im m ediately post intervention. (1 study: Dellve 2011) low
m ediate post 20 weeks treatm ent) Standard m ean dif f erence -0.23 (-0.66 to
0.19) im m ediately post 20 weeks interven-
tion
M oderate quality evidence: (3 trials, 157 participants, Andersen 2008, Andersen Ch 2012, Dellve 2011) that scapulothoracic and upper extrem ity strength training probably
im proves pain. It probably f unctional outcom es when com pared to control f or chronic m echanical neck pain im m ediately post treatm ent (10 or 20 week interventions).
However low quality evidence suggests that scapulothoracic and upper extrem ity strength training m ay im prove pain slightly

1 Design: 0, Lim itations: -1, Inconsistency: 0, Indirectness: 0, Im precision: -1, Other: -1 subgroup analysis.
45
DISCUSSION cervicogenic headaches at long-term follow-up. There was also a
moderate beneficial effect on function immediately post
Summary of main results treatment and at long-term follow-up.
Limiting the eligible trials to those with single interventions that • Low quality evidence suggest that there is a slight beneficial
compared exercise with a control or comparative group maximized effect on pain with acute cervical radiculopathy when combining
the opportunity to evaluate the treatment effect of exercise inter- the use of static and dynamic cervical, scapulothoracic and upper
ventions. Moreover, having selected a priori an exercise classifi- extremity stretching and strengthening immediately post
cation system allowed us to use a clinical rationale for selecting treatment but not at intermediate-term follow-up. There was
studies with similar interventions for interpretation and inclusion little to no difference in function.
within meta-analyses, particularly for the outcomes of pain and
function. Although there were only 28 studies eligible for this sys- • Low grade evidence suggests there is little to no difference
tematic review, these two new strategies provided greater clarity in chronic mechanical neck pain and function with respect to the
in our conclusions about the effectiveness of exercise therapy. In use of breathing exercises or general fitness training
summary, for moderate quality evidence there is still uncertainty
• Low grade evidence suggests there is little to no difference
about the effectiveness of exercise for neck pain. Further research
in chronic mechanical neck pain and function with respect to the
is likely to have an important impact on the effect estimate. Fur-
use of cervical spine stretches and range of motion exercises.
thermore, for low quality evidence further research is very likely
to have an important impact on the effect estimate. The reader • Moderate grade evidence suggests there is little to no
should take these limitations into account when interpreting the difference in chronic neck pain and function with the use of
following evidence statements. cervical, scapulothoracic and upper extremity stretching and
• Moderate to low quality evidence suggests there can be endurance training both immediately post treatment as well as
small to large beneficial effects on chronic mechanical neck pain short- and long-term follow-up.
when combining the use of cervical, shoulder/scapulothoracic
strengthening and stretching exercises immediately post • Low quality evidence suggests that there is little to no
treatment and at short- and long-term follow-up. There may also difference in chronic mechanical neck pain when combining the
be a small to moderate beneficial effect on function when use of trunk and upper extremity stretching, balance exercises
combining the use of cervical, shoulder/scapulothoracic and aerobic training immediately post treatment.
strengthening and stretching exercises immediately post
• Low quality evidence suggests that there is little to no
treatment and at short- to long-term follow-up.
difference in chronic mechanical neck pain when combining the
• Moderate grade evidence suggests there may be a slight use of endurance, general stretching, body mechanics and
beneficial effect on chronic mechanical neck pain with the use of lumbar stabilization exercises at short-term follow-up.
scapulothoracic and upper extremity endurance training
immediately post treatment. Knowledge of key multimodal approaches like exercise and manual
therapy is still needed as this model of combined care is commonly
• Moderate quality evidence suggests there may be a slight used in clinical practice.
improvement in chronic mechanical neck pain and function
with the use of Qigong (stretch, endurance, dynamic
stabilization exercises combined with cognitive exercises
emphasizing mindfulness and emotion) immediately post
Overall completeness and applicability of
treatment and at short-term follow-up. There may be little to no
evidence
difference in quality of life and general perceived effect measures Our group looked at the clinical applicability of 28 trials associ-
with the use of qigong exercises. ated with neck disorders versus control: 25 studies were interested
in neck pain, two in cervicogenic headache and one in cervical
• Low quality evidence suggests there may be a large
radiculopathy. The level of evidence ranged from low to moderate.
beneficial effect in cervicogenic headaches with the use of
Most studies adequately described the study population. Three
craniovertebral stretch and range of motion exercises (C1-C2
studies did not specify the duration of neck pain. Radicular signs
Self-SNAG) both at short- and long-term follow-up.
and symptoms were present in 14% of the studies, absent in 29%
• Moderate quality evidence suggests there is a large beneficial and not specified in 57%. Of the 28 studies in this update, 36%
effect on pain in cervicogenic headaches when combining the use provided sufficient details for the treatment protocol to be repli-
of static and dynamic cervical, scapulothoracic strengthening and cated and 18 studies omitted important details about the treat-
endurance exercises including pressure biofeedback immediately ment administration or included insufficient description of the
post treatment and probably improves pain moderately in qualifications of the treatment provider.

The outcomes were as follow: 96% of the studies reported pain, grouping based on diagnosis, treatment or prognosis system classi-
64% reported function and 36% reported quality of life or patient fication would be useful to increase homogeneity for research and
satisfaction. Of the ones that reported pain, function and quality clinical applicability.
of life, benefit was shown in respectively 81%, 89% and 80%, but Exercise classification is also of utmost importance when inter-
no study reached the minimal clinically important difference for ested in the nature of the intervention. The model implemented
any outcome. These results can be applied to an adult population in this review, proposed by Sahrmann 2002, reveals the interac-
suffering from acute, subacute and chronic mechanical neck pain. tion between dosage, elements of movement system and activity
Follow-up was reported at immediate or short term in 54% of the by describing the physiological effect of exercise on the body rather
studies and the remaining trials (46%) had intermediate- or long- than describing the types of activity used to produce that effect.
term measurement timing. Minor and short lasting adverse events Using this kind of model would allow practitioners and researchers
were reported in 25% of the studies, their occurrence was not to classify exercises into a specific category by recognizing their
specified in 57%, and no adverse events happened in the remaining mechanisms of actions. It also allows placement of similar exercise
studies (18%). Drop-outs occurred in 68% of the studies and interventions from different trials into more homogeneous sub-
none evaluated the cost of care. To better understand the direct groups enabling meta-analyses. Thus, by a better understanding
and indirect costs of the different treatments and make decisions and classification of the physical impairments, exercise interven-
regarding the most effective and efficient type of care, attempts to tions and stage or type of pathology, accuracy in the clinical ap-
evaluate and report cost-related outcomes are required. plicability of results could be improved.
The clinical applicability was evaluated in 28 studies contrasting In general, there is also limited evidence on optimal dosage re-
the use of exercise for neck pain compared with a control group. quirements (Bronfort 2001; Jull 2002) for exercise therapies, and
Sample population was adequately described in 82% of the trials. other modalities used to treat neck disorders. To address ques-
Treatment protocol was adequately described in 36% of the tri- tions regarding the dose of therapies used to treat the neck, re-
als; the remaining studies omitted information about treatment searchers (Gross 2007) have recommended using factorial designs
providers and exercise dosage, which hinders reproducibility. The and studying only single interventions (Carroll 2008b; Helewa
magnitude of effect and clinical applicability showed benefits that 2007). Subsequently, dosage comparisons of similar types of ex-
outweigh any transient and minor side effects. The level of evi- ercises (or exercises that address the same element) can be made;
dence of these studies varied from low to moderate; thus clinicians these comparisons can be used to evaluate the impact of dosage
should not underestimate their clinical judgement in the choice variation of the exercise element on the magnitude of treatment
of optimal treatment modality for client needs. outcomes. Specific dosage information is clinically relevant and
The stage of the pathology, commonly described as acute, subacute specific therapeutic recommendations can be drawn from such
and chronic, can certainly affect the effect size of an intervention clinical trials.
such as exercise. For instance, in regards to pain, none of the Different control interventions have been used in the reference
included trials reached the minimal clinically important difference group, but were absent in the experimental group in eight trials
of 2.0 points (NPRS) or 20 mm (VAS); this could be related to of this review. A study design comparing exercise and another
the low to moderate pain levels experienced by the chronic neck intervention with the same intervention was used in four trials. No
pain population with lesser room for improvement compared to intervention or wait list as a control intervention was used in the
an acute neck pain population with high initial levels of pain. remaining 12 studies. Using different control interventions could
Thus, according to the stage of the pathology, it could respectively lead to underestimation of the effect of exercise if that intervention
under or overestimate the size effect of a specific exercise. also shows beneficial effects. Using the same intervention in both
To date, there is no standardized definition of mechanical neck exercise and control group may provide a better idea of adding
pain even if it has evolved over the last three decades. Spitzer 1987 exercise to a treatment plan, but an interaction of effect is also
defined mechanical neck pain as complaints of pain, stiffness, and possible and could lead to overestimation of the effect of exercise.
tenderness with or without referral to proximal extremity. Merskey Self-reported outcome measures of function are popular in the
1994 proposed the following definition: “pain perceived as aris- literature to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment in a patient’s
ing from anywhere within the region bounded superiorly by the everyday life. The Neck Disability Index (NDI) is well accepted
superior nuchal line through the tip of the first thoracic spinous in the current literature and is one of the most used tools to assess
process, and laterally by the sagittal plane tangential to the lateral patient’s functional capacities. However, the NDI recently showed
borders of the neck.” More recently, other authors suggested dif- an insufficient unidimensionality ( Ailliet 2013;Hung 2014; van
ferent definitions such as generalized neck and/or shoulder pain der Velde 2009) and a very large floor effect. Its use in research in
with mechanical characteristics including: symptoms provoked by regards to construct validity is now questioned.
maintained neck postures or by movement, or by palpation of The use of only self-reported outcome measures may bias the ef-
the cervical muscles (Fernandez-de-las-Penas 2007). Thus, con- fect estimate. More objective and performance-based measures of
sidering that mechanical neck pain is a heterogeneous group, sub- functional tasks should be used in conjunction with subjective

measures and questionnaires to establish a complete picture of the ipation has been linked to types of personal benefit, including fi-
results. Such tools need to be developed and integrated into future nancial and therapeutic (Nappo 2013). Although financial incen-
research. tives are important in recruiting healthy volunteers, their motiva-
The timing of outcome measurement has been well reported in all tions are not limited to financial gains (Stunkel 2011). It has been
trials. However, most studies did not specify if participants contin- proposed that altruism should be the main reason for a person’s
ued their exercises program at home after the end of the interven- decision to participate in a research study (Grady 2001). Ideally,
tion period. Knowing the instructions given for the continuation the volunteer is capable of making decisions based on the infor-
or cessation of the exercise before follow-up would improve the ac- mation provided about the proposed study, and understands the
curacy of their effectiveness according to how long they were per- purpose, risks, benefits, alternatives and requirements of the study.
formed. This information could lead to conclusions about carry- After receiving this information, the volunteer is able to decide
over effect of the exercise program. to participate, free from coercion or improper influences (Grady
2001). Second, clinician recruitment may be difficult. Technology
has the potential to facilitate this task. With the emerging presence
Quality of the evidence of electronic medical charting, data sharing has become a point of
interest. By training clinicians around the world, patients could be
One of the major methodological difficulties inherent to studies
screened on a global scale. A standardized protocol could then be
evaluating exercise interventions is blinding of therapists and pa-
applied in a standardized setting to those who meet the inclusion
tients. None of the trials in this review blinded the care provider,
criteria. As a result, valid and reliable objective measures with low
as this is not possible in an exercise trial. Patient blinding can
risk of bias could be gathered and accessed by researchers interna-
minimize expectation bias by ensuring the treatments are equally
tionally. Finally, it is imperative for investigators to clearly articu-
credible and acceptable to patients; patients have limited experi-
late the relevance of the study to the appropriate stakeholders: the
ence or expectations for either the index treatment or control in-
neck pain patients who will allocate a significant amount of time
tervention. However, the nature of exercise interventions makes it
to the trial and the clinicians who will contribute patients to the
difficult to blind the patient and care provider. Therefore, it is very
study and, in the process, upset their usual routine and suffer some
important to control for measurement bias by blinding the out-
financial loss. The relevance of the study needs to emphasize the
come assessor and the data analyst. A caveat to this is that the use
possible benefits to present and future patients, to the healthcare
of self-reported outcome measures de facto makes the patient the
system and to society in general.
outcome assessor and blinding cannot be achieved easily. Two of
This being said, the overarching feature to low precision resides
the 28 trials did blind the outcome assessor and therefore, blinding
in the subclassification of control trials and restriction of their
can be obtained for certain outcomes.
use. What first must be done is to establish a firm foundation of
Other issues that are important in studies evaluating exercise ther-
the effect of (x type of ) exercise in clinical control trials and not
apy are that of compliance (reducing the treatment effect), co-in-
include head-to-head exercise comparison trials. We believe once
tervention (increasing the treatment effect and reducing the mag-
sound evidence has been formed, the next step is to do comparison
nitude of effect if it occurs in the control group) and contamina-
trials to establish the superiority of different variations of similar
tion (reducing the magnitude of effect). The intervention requires
exercises.
patient motivation and therefore strategies to support behavior
changes (Teixeira 2012). Twelve of the 28 studies had acceptable
compliance, and eight of 28 studies monitored co-interventions.
This provides greater confidence that the outcome is due to the Potential biases in the review process
exercise intervention and that the dosage is consistent between in-
The validity of any systematic review is dependent on the selection
dividual participants and treatment groups.
of all relevant studies. Although studies published in any language
Adequate randomization is a crucial component for a randomized
were accepted, many scientific journals in non-English languages
controlled trial. However, adequate sequence generation was ev-
are not indexed in MEDLINE and Embase. We did not search
ident in only 46% (13/28) of the trials included in this review.
non-English databases, which may have introduced ’language bias’
Greater care should be taken to ensure the method of randomiza-
in the review. Studies without a control or comparative group
tion is adequate and clearly reported.
were excluded so that exercise treatment effectiveness and efficacy
Ninety-six per cent (27/28) of the clinical trials contained small
could be properly ascertained (Carroll 2008b). This review con-
sample sizes (<70 per arm analyzed). Risk of random error will
tains only published studies therefore ’publication bias’ was not
of course be reduced with increased precision or increased sample
guarded against.
size. Request for larger trials is a challenge on a per site basis. A co-
ordinated multi-centre trial is one answer but recruiting and retain-
ing is the challenge. For this it is helpful to identify the motivation
factors for participation. First, motivation for clinical study partic- Agreements and disagreements with other

studies or reviews idence (Kuijper 2009) showing cervical mobilization and specific
stabilization exercises may improve pain slightly, but may make
This review has provided more detailed informations with respect
no difference in function and patient satisfaction when compared
to the degree of evidence and the types of exercise that have an
immediately post treatment with a control. There may be no dif-
impact on neck pain.
ference in pain and functional improvement at intermediate-term
There were no new trials added to our update with respect to acute
follow-up. The challenge in acute radiculopathy is to determine
whiplash associated disorders (WAD) that compared exercise with
the utility of exercises that provide immediate relief but not longer-
a control.
term benefit.
For chronic neck pain, Leaver 2010 showed evidence supporting
Our review is in agreement with 1) The reports by Racicki 2012,
stretching/range of motion (ROM) exercises for pain relief imme-
Bronfort 2009, and Hurwitz 2008, suggesting evidence of benefit
diately post treatment but no change in the intermediate and long
for exercise in subacute/chronic cervicogenic headache and 2)
term for pain and function. Our review disagreed with these find-
Bertozzi 2013 about cardiovascular/aerobic training. There is low
ings while using the same evidence. We found low quality evidence
quality evidence (Andersen 2008) that 3) general fitness training
that neck stretching or ROM had no benefit relative to a control
may have no difference in pain when compared with a reference
treatment for chronic neck pain and function from immediately
intervention for (sub)acute/chronic neck pain immediately post
post treatment up to long-term follow-up.
treatment.
Three reviews included Qigong (an approach encompassing
stretching, strengthening, endurance training, balance/co-ordina-
tion, cardiovascular and cognitive/affective elements). Lee 2009
showed no evidence of benefit in the short term while Southerst
2014 and Teasell 2010c found Qigong exercise effective on pain AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS
in the short term for chronic WAD. Although our review sup-
ported the latter findings, there was only a very small magnitude Implications for practice
of effect on pain and function, but not on global perceived ef- This review shows that there is still no high quality evidence and
fect and quality of life immediately post treatment. Additionally, a uncertainty about the effectiveness of exercise for neck pain. Fur-
non-significant effect of a three-point change on NDI (zero to 50 ther research is likely and in some cases very likely to have an
scale) for function was noted at long-term follow-up. For cervico- important impact on the effect estimate. Moderate quality evi-
scapulothoracic and upper extremity stretching and strengthening, dence supports the use specific strengthening exercises as a part
Bertozzi 2013, similarly to our data, suggested that it may improve of routine practice for chronic neck pain, cervicogenic headache
pain immediately post treatment and at short-term follow-up. A and radiculopathy. Specifically the use of strengthening exercises
meta-analysis of four studies (Bronfort 2001; Chiu 2005; Franca for the cervical spine, scapulothoracic and shoulders may be ben-
2008; Martel 2011) of moderate quality evidence showed medium eficial in reducing pain and improving function when used for the
pain relief and function improvement at immediately post treat- treatment of chronic mechanical neck pain, cervicogenic headache
ment and long-term follow-up. Changes in global perceived effect and cervical radiculopathy. Moderate quality evidence supports
measures indicated a difference immediately post treatment and the use of strengthening exercises, combined with endurance or
at long-term follow-up. Finally, for stretching and strengthening, stretching exercises may also yield similar beneficial results. How-
two new reviews (Bertozzi 2013; Southerst 2014) showed evidence ever, low quality evidence notes when only stretching or only en-
of benefit on pain and function in long-term follow-up. Our re- durance type exercises were used for the cervical, scapulothoracic
view concurred with these reviews. The studies showed moderate and shoulders regions, there may be minimal beneficial effects for
quality evidence and two trials (Rendant 2011; von Trott 2009) both neck pain and function. There is moderate quality evidence
showed cervico-scapulothoracic and shoulder stretching, strength- to suggest beneficial effects of a specific type exercises (e.g. sus-
ening and stabilization exercises probably have medium benefit tained natural apophyseal glides) for cervicogenic headache.
for pain and function, but not global perceived effect and quality
of life at immediately post treatment and at short-term follow-up. Implications for research
Neuromuscular exercises (Leaver 2010; Teasell 2010b) showed
evidence of benefit for subacute/chronic neck pain with or without This update shows some positive findings for using exercise for
WAD in the short term for pain and function. This review found neck pain, but further research is warranted because it is (very)
very low quality evidence (Revel 1994) for a moderate reduction likely to have an important impact on the effect estimate. On-
in pain and function improvement in the short term for eye-neck going research to increase sample size and to pool similar data is
co-ordination exercises. required to further validate these findings, particularly in the area
Salt 2011 found a multimodal exercise approach favoured exer- of cervicogenic headache and cervical radiculopathy.
cise in acute radiculopathy. There was inconclusive evidence for Neck pain continues to be a somewhat heterogeneous classifica-
the effect of non-invasive management. We found low quality ev- tion. Use of prognostic and treatment classification variables may

aid in distilling, which subgroups will most benefit from what ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
specific exercise. An international standardization of a ‘core out-
come measure set’ is needed to improve reporting of effects and
to aid in the systematic review process. The length of follow-up in
many studies is limited and adherence to exercise not monitored.
Adequate recording of the types and exact dosage of the exercise We thank the Cervical Overview Group, Bruce Craven, for their
programs is also important to assist in translation of its use into contribution to this document. Dr. Craven was instrumental in
practice as well as for the pooling of data to improve in directness directing us to the exercise classification framework that was used
of the outcomes. as our foundation within this review.
REFERENCES
References to studies included in this review a randomized controlled trial. Spine 2009;34(16):
E544–E551.
Allan 2003 {published data only} Beer 2012 {published data only}
Allan M, Brantingham JW, Menezes A. Stretching as an Beer A, Treleaven J, Jull G. Can a functional postural
adjunct to chiropractic manipulation of chronic neck pain exercise improve performance in the cranio-cervical flexion
- before, after or not at all? A prospective randomized test?- A preliminary study. Manual Therapy 2012;17:
controlled clinical trial. European Journal of Chiropractic 219–24.
2003;50:41–52.
Bronfort 2001 {published data only}
Andersen 2008 {published data only} ∗
Bronfort G, Aker PD, Evans R, Goldsmith CH, Nelson
∗
Andersen L, Kjaer M, Sogaard K, Hansen L, Kryger A, B, Vernon H. A randomized controlled clinical trial of
Sjogaard G. Effect of two contrasting types of physical rehabilitative exercise and chiropractic spinal manipulation
exercise on chronic neck muscle pain. Arthritis and for chronic neck pain. Spine 2001;26(7):788–99.
Rheumatism 2008;59(1):84–91. Bronfort G, Evan R, Nelson B. Aker PD, Goldsmith CH,
Sogaard K, Blangsted AK, Nielsen PK, Hansen L, Vernon H. A randomized controlled clinical trial of spinal
Andersen LL, Vedsted P, Sjogaard G. Changed activation, manipulation and exercise for chronic neck pain: A report
oxygenation, and pain response of chronically painful on neck performance outcomes after 11 weeks and long-
muscles to repetitive work after training interventions:a term effects on patient-rated outcomes. Proceedings of the
randomized controlled trial.. European Journal of Applied Scientific symposium, 1997 World Chiropractic Congress.
Physiology 2012;112:173–81. 1998:62–8. [{CO97:65}]
Andersen 2011 {published data only} Bronfort G, Evans R, Nelson B, Aker PD, Goldsmith
Andersen LL. Influence of psychosocial work environment CH, Vernon H. A randomized controlled clinical trial of
on adherence to workplace exercise. Journal of Occupational rehabilitative exercise and spinal manipulation for chronic
& Enfironmental Medicine 2011;53:182–4. neck pain. Effects on neck pain and disability, functional
Andersen LL, Mortensen OS, Zebis MK, Jensen Rh, Poulsen health status, biomechanical neck dysfunction, and somato-
OM. Effect of brief daily exercise on headache among visceral symptoms. Proceedings of the 1998 International
adults--secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Conference of Spinal Manipulation. 1998:67–70. [{CO97:
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 2011; 310}]
37:547–50. Evans R, Bronfort G, Nelson B, Goldsmith C. Two-
∗
Andersen LL, Saervoll CA, Mortensen OS, Poulsen OM, year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial of spinal
Hannerz H, Zebis MK. Effectiveness of small daily amounts manipulation and two types of exercise for patients with
of progressive resistance training for frequent neck/shoulder chronic neck pain. Spine 2002;27:2383–9. [CO2002]
pain: randomised controlled trial. Pain 2011;152:440–6.
Chiu 2005 {published data only}
Andersen Ch 2012 {published data only} Chiu T, Huiu-Chan C, Cheing G. A randomized clinical
Andersen CH, Andersen LL, Gram B, Pedersen MT, trial of TENS and exercise for patients with chronic neck
Mortensen OS, Zebis MK, et al. Influence of frequency pain. Clinical Rehabilitation 2005;19:850–60.
and duration of strength training for effective management
Dellve 2011 {published data only}
of neck and shoulder pain: a randomised controlled trial.
Dellve L, Ahlstrom L, Johsson A, Sandsjo L, Forsman M,
British Journal of Sports Medicine 2012;46:1004-10.
Lindegard A, et al. Myofeedback training and intensive
Ang 2009 {published data only} muscular strength training to decrease pain and improve
Ang BO, Monnier A, Harms-Ringdahl K. Neck/shoulder work ability among female workers on long-term sick leave
exercise for neck pain in air force helicopter pilots: with neck pain: a randomized controlled trial. International
Archives of Occupational & Environmental Health 2011;84: Lundblad 1999 {published data only}
335–46. Lundblad I, Elert J, Gerdle B. Randomized controlled
Franca 2008 {published data only} trial of physiotherapy and Feldenkrais interventions in
Franca DLM, Senna-Fernades V, Martins Cortez C, Jackson female workers with neck-shoulder complaints. Journal of
MN, Bernardo-Filho M, Guimaraes MAM. Tension Occupational Rehabilitation 1999;9(3):179–94.
neck syndrome treated by acupuncture combined with Martel 2011 {published data only}
physiotherapy: A comparative clinical trial (pilot study). Martel J, Dugas C, Dubois JD, Descarreaux M.
Complementary Therapies in Medicine 2008;16:268–77. A randomised controlled trial of preventive spinal
Hall 2007 {published data only} manipulation with and without a home exercise program
Hall T, Chan H, Christensen L, Odenthal B, Wells for patients with chronic neck pain. BMC Musculoskeletal
C, Robinson K. Efficacy of a C1-C2 self-sustained Disorders 2011;12:41–54.
natural apophyseal glide (SNAG) in the management of
Rendant 2011 {published and unpublished data}
cervicogenic headache. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports
Rendant D, Pach D, Ludtke R, Reishauer A, Mietzner A,
Physical Therapy 2007;37(3):100–7.
Willich SN, et al. Qigong versus exercise versus no therapy
Hallman 2011 {published data only} for patients with chronic neck pain. Spine 2011;36(6):
Hallman D, Olsson E, Schéele B, Melin L, Lyskov E. 419–29.
Effects of heart rate variability biofeedback in subjects with
Revel 1994 {published data only}
stress-related chronic neck pain: a pilot study. Applied
Revel M, Minguet M, Gergoy P, Vaillant J, Manuel JL.
Psychophysiology and Biofeedback 2011;36(2):71–80.
Changes in cervicocephalic kinesthesia after a proprioceptive
Hansson 2013 {published data only} rehabilitation program in patients with neck pain: a
Hansson EE, Persson L, Malmström EM. Influence of randomized controlled study. Archives of Physical Medicine
vestibular rehabilitation on neck pain and cervical range of Rehabilitation 1994;75:895–9.
motion among patients with whiplash associated disorders:
Stewart 2007 {published data only}
a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Rehabilitation ∗
Stewart MJ, Maher CG, Refshauge KM, Herbert RD,
Medicine 2013;45(9):906-10.
Bogduk N, Nicholas M. Randomized controlled trial of
Helewa 2007 {published data only} exercise for chronic whiplash-associated disorders. Pain
Helewa A, Goldsmith C, Smythe H, Lee P, Obright K. 2007;128:59–68.
Effect of therapeutic exercise and sleeping neck support on Stewart MJ, Maher CG, Refshauge KM, Herbert RD,
patients with chronic neck pain: a randomized clinical trial. Bogduk N, Nicholas N. Advice or exercise for chronic
Journal of Rheumatology 2007;34(1):151–8. whiplash disorders? Design of a randomized controlled trial.
Humphreys 2002 {published data only} BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2003;4:18.
Humphreys BK, Irgens PM. The effect of a rehabilitation Stewart MJ, Maher CG, Refshauge KM, Herbert RD,
exercise program on head repositioning accuracy and Nicholas MK. Patient and clinician treatment preferences
reported levels of pain in chronic neck pain subjects. Journal do not moderate the effect of exercise treatment in chronic
of Whiplash & Related Disorders 2002;1(1):99–112. whiplash-associated disorders. European Journal of Pain
Jull 2002 {published data only} 2008;12:879–85.
Jull G, Trott P, Potter H, Zito G, Niere K, Shirley D, et al. Takala 1994 {published data only}
A randomized controlled trial of exercise and manipulative Takala EP, Viikari-Juntura E, Tynkkynen EM. Does group
therapy for cervicogenic headache. Spine 2002;27(17): gymnastics at the workplace help in neck pain? A controlled
1835–43. [CO2002] study. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Kjellman 2002 {published data only} 1994;26:17–20.
Kjellman G, Oberg B. A randomized clinical trial comparing Viljanen 2003 {published data only}
general exercise, McKenzie treatment and a control group in Viljanen M, Malmivaara A, Uitti J, Rinne M, Palmroos
patients with neck pain. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine P, Laippala P. Effectiveness of dynamic muscle training,
2002;34:183–90. relaxation training, or ordinary activity for chronic neck
Kuijper 2009 {published data only} pain: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2003;327(7413):
Kuijper B, Tans JT, Beelen A, Nollet F, de Visser M. Cervical 475–80.
collar or physiotherapy versus wait and see policy for recent
von Trott 2009 {published data only}
onset cervical radiculopathy: randomised trial. BMJ 2009;
von Trott P, Wiedemann A, Ludtke R, Reibhauer A, Willich
339:b3883.
ST, Witt CM. Qigong and exercise therapy for elderly
Lange 2013 {published data only} patients with chronic neck pain (QIBANE): A randomized
Lange B, Toft P, Myburgh C, Sjogaard G. Effect of targeted controlled study. Journal of Pain 2009;10(5):501–8.
strength, endurance, and coordination exercise on neck
and shoulder pain among fighter pilots: a randomized References to studies excluded from this review
controlled trial. Clinical Journal of Pain 2013;29(1):50–9.
Acar 2012 {published data only} computer workers with neck and upper limb symptoms.
Acar B, Yilmaz OT. Effects of different physiotherapy Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 2008;18(1):87–101.
applications on pain and mobility of connective tissue in Bernaards 2012 {published data only}
patients with myofascial pain syndrome. Journal of Back Bernaards CM, Ariens GAM, Knold DL, Hildebrandt VH.
and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation 2012;25(4):261–7. The effectiveness of a work style intervention and a lifestyle
Ahlgren 2001 {published data only} physical activity intervention on the recovery from neck and
Ahlgren C, Waling K, Kadi F, Djupsjöbacka M, Thornell upper limb symptoms in computer workers. Pain 2007;
LE, Sundelin G. Effects on physical performance and pain 132:142–53.
from three dynamic training programs for women with Bissett 1985 {published data only}
work-related trapezius myalgia. Journal of Rehabilitation Bissett A, Mitchell KR, Major G. The cervico-brachial
Medicine 2001;33(4):162–9. pain syndrome: Muscle activity and pain relief. Behaviour
Allison 2002 {published data only} Change 1985;2(2):129–35.
Allison GT, Nagy BM, Hall T. A randomized clinical trial Blangsted 2008 {published data only}
of manual therapy for cervico-brachial pain syndrome - a Blangsted AK, Sogaard K, Hansen EA, Hannerz H, Sjogaard
pilot study. Manual Therapy 2002;7(2):95–102. G. One-year randomized controlled trial with different
physical-activity programs to reduce musculoskeletal
Andersen 2008a {published data only}
symptoms in the neck and shoulder among office workers.
Andersen LL, Andersen CH, Zebis MK, Nielsen PK,
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 2008;
Sogaard K, Sjogaard G. Effect of physical training on
34(1):55–65.
function of chronically painful muscles: a randomized
controlled trial. Journal of Applied Physiology 2008b;105: Bonk 2000 {published data only}
1796–801. Bonk AD, Ferrari R, Giebel GD, Edelmann M, Huser
Andersen LL, Andersen JL, Suetta C, Kjaer M, Sogaard R. Prospective randomized controlled study of activity
K, Sjogaard G. Effect of contrasting physical exercise versus collar and the natural history for whiplash injury in
interventions on rapid force capacity of chronically painful Germany. Journal of Musculoskeletal Pain 2000;8:123–32.
muscles. Journal of Applied Physiology 2009;107:1413–19. Bosmans 2011 {published data only}
∗
Andersen LL, Jorgensen MB, Blangsted AK, Pedersen Bosmans J, Pool J, de Vet H, Van Tulder M, Ostelo R. Is
MT, Hansen EA, Sjogaard G. A randomized controlled behavioral graded activity cost-effective in comparison with
intervention trial to relieve and prevent neck/shoulder manual therapy for patients with subacute neck pain. Spine
pain. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2008a;40(6): 2011;36(18):E1179–E1186.
983–90. Boyce 2012 {published data only}
Andersen 2010 {published data only} Boyce MJ, Canning CG, Mahant N, Morris J, Latimer
Andersen LL, Christensen KB, Holtermann A, Poulsen J, Fung VS. Active exercise for individuals with cervical
OM, Sjogaard G, Pedersen MT, et al. Effect of physical dystonia: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Clinical
exercise interventions on musculoskeletal pain in all body Rehabilitation 2012;27(3):226–35.
regions among office workers: A one-year randomized Brewerton 1966 {published data only}
controlled trial. Manual Therapy 2010;15:100–4. Brewerton DA. Pain in the neck and arm: a multicentre
Arami 2012 {published data only} trial of the effects of physiotherapy, arranged by the British
Arami J, Rezasoltani A, Khalkhali Zaavich M, Rahnama L. Association of Physical Medicine. BMJ 1966;1(5482):
The effect of two exercise therapy programs (proprioceptive 253–8.
and endurance training) to treat patients with chronic non- Brodin 1985 {published data only}
specific neck pain. Journal of Babol University Medical Brodin H. Cervical pain and mobilization. International
Sciences 2012;14(1):78–84. Journal of Rehabilitation Research 1984;7(2):190–1.
∗
Brodin H. Cervical pain and mobilization. Manual
Ardic 2002 {published data only}
Medicine 1985;2:18–22.
Ardic F, Sarhus M, Topuz O. Comparison of two different
Bronfort 2012 {published data only}
techniques of electrotherapy on myofascial pain. Journal of
Bronfort G, Evans R, Anderson AV, Svendsen KH, Bracha
Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation 2012;16(1):11–6.
Y, Grimm RH. Spinal manipulation, medication, or home
Bernaards 2007 {published data only} exercise with advice for acute and subacute neck pain: a
Bernaards CM, Ariens GAM, Knol DL, Hildebrandt VH. randomized trial. Annals of Internal Medicine 2012;159:
The effectiveness of a work style intervention and a lifestyle 1–10.
physical activity intervention on the recovery from neck and Burketorp 2006 {published data only}
upper limb symptoms in computer workers. Pain 2007; Burketorp L. Psychological determinants of quality of life in
132:142–53. patients with whiplash associated disorders - a prospective
Bernaards 2008 {published data only} study. Disability and Rehabilitation 2009;31(3):227–36.
∗
Bernaards CM, Ariens GAM, Simons M, Knol DL, Burketorp L, Lindh M, Carlsson J, Stener-Victorin E.
Hildebrandt VH. Improving work style behavior in The effectiveness of a supervised physical training model
tailored to the individual needs of patients with whiplash- pacientes con cervicalgia mecanica en atencion primaria:
associated disorders- a randomized controlled trial. Clinical terapia manual frente a elctroestimulacion nerviosa
Rehabilitation 2006;20:201–17. transcutanea]. Aten Primaria 2008;40(7):337–43.
Burketorp L, Lindh M, Carlsson J, Stener-Victorin E. The Escortell-Mayor 2011 {published data only}
perception of pain and pain-related cognitions in subacute Escortell-Mayor E, Riesgo-Fuertes R, Garrido-Elustondo S,
whiplash-associated disorders; Its influence on prolonged Asunsolo-del Barco A, Diaz-Pulido B, Blanco-Diaz M, et
disability. Disability and Rehabilitation 2006;28(5):271–9. al. TEMA-TENS Group. Primary care randomized clinical
Carlsson 1990 {published data only} trial: Manual therapy effectiveness in comparison with
Carlsson J, Fahlcrantz A, Augustinsson L. Muscle TENS in patients with neck pain. Manual Therapy 2011;
tenderness in tension headache treated with acupuncture or 16:66–73.
physiotherapy. Cephalgia 1990;10(3):131–41. Evans 2002 {published data only}
Cleland 2010 {published data only} Evans R, Bronfort G, Bittell S, Anderson AV. A pilot study
Cleland J, Childs JD, Glynn PE, Mintken P, Carpenter for a randomized clinical trial assessing chiropractic care,
K, Whitman J. Thoracic spine manipulation and exercise medical care, and self-care education for acute and subacute
versus exercise alone in the management of mechanical neck neck pain patients. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological
pain: Preliminary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. Therapeutics September 2003;26:403–11.
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 2010;40: Falla 2006 {published data only}
A23. Falla D, Jull G, Russel T, Vincenzino B, Hodges P. Effect
∗
Cleland JA, Mintken PE, Carpenter K, Fritz JM, Glynn of neck exercise on sitting posture in patients with chronic
P, Whitman J. Examination of a clinical prediction rule neck pain. Physical Therapy 2007;87:408–17.
to identify patients with neck pain likely to benefit from ∗
Falla D, Jull G, Vincenzino B, Hodges P. An endurance-
thoracic spine thrust manipulation and a general cervical strength training regime is effective in reducing myoelectric
range of motion exercise: multi-center randomized clinical manifestations of cervical flexor muscle fatigue in females
trial. Physical therapy 2010;90:1239–50. with chronic neck pain. Clinical Neurophysiology 2006;117:
Cramer 2013 {published data only} 828–37.
Cramer H, Lauche R, Hohmann C, Langhorst J, Dobos G. Fitz-Ritson 1995 {published data only}
Yoga for chronic neck pain: a 12-month follow-up. Pain Fitz-Ritson D. Phasic exercises for cervical rehabilitation
Medicine 2013;14(4):541-8. after “whiplash” trauma. Journal of Manipulative and
Cunha 2008 {published data only} Physiological Therapeutics 1995;18(1):21–4.
Cunha ACV, Burke TN, Rendovato FJ, Marques AP. Effect
Foley-Nolan 1992 {published data only}
of global posture reeducation and of static stretching on
Foley-Nolan D, Moore K, Codd M, Barry C, O’Connor
pain, range of motion and quality of life in women with
P, Coughlan RJ. Low energy high frequency pulsed
chronic neck pain: A randomized clinical trial. Clinics
electromagnetic therapy for acute whiplash injuries: A
2008;63(6):763–70.
double blind randomized controlled study. Scandinavian
Cuzdan 2013 {published data only} Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 1992;24:51–9. [CO97;
Cuzdan N, Koldas SK, Evcik D, Ay S. The effectiveness 61]
of portable audio biofeedback device in myofascial pain
Friedrich 1996 {published data only}
syndrome in neck and upper trapezius muscles. Journal of
Friedrich M, Cermak T, Maderbacher P. The effect
Musculoskeletal Pain 2013;21(3):217–23.
of brochure use versus therapist teaching on patients
Dusunceli 2009 {published data only} performing therapeutic exercise and on changes in
Dusunceli Y, Ozturk C, Atamaz F, Hepguler S, Durmaz impairment status. Physical Therapy 1996;76(10):1082–8.
B. Efficacy of neck stabilization exercise for neck pain: A
randomized controlled study. Journal of Rehabilitation Gam 1998 {published data only}
Medicine 2009;41:626–31. Gam AN, Warming S, Larsen LH, Jensen B, Hoydalsmo
O, Allon I, et al. Treatment of myofascial trigger-points
Ehrenborg 2010 {published data only}
with ultrasound combined with massage and exercise
Ehrenborg C, Archenholtz B. Is surface EMG biofeedback
- a randomised controlled trial. Pain 1998;77:73–9.
an effective training method for persons with neck and
[CO2002]
shoulder complaints after whiplash-associated disorders
concerning activities of daily living and pain--a randomized Giebel 1997 {published data only}
controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation 2010;24:715–26. Giebel GD, Edelmann M, Huser R. Die distorsion der
halswirbelsaule: Fruhfunktionalle vs. ruhigstellende
Escortell-Mayor 2008 {published data only}
behandlung. Zentralblatt für Chirurgie 1997;122:517–21.
Escortell-Mayor E, Lebrijo-Perez G, Perez-Martin Y,
Asunsolo-del Barco A, Riesgo-Fuertes R, Saa-Requejo Goldie 1970 {published data only}
C, TEMA-TENS Group. Randomised clinical trial for Goldie I, Landquist A. Evaluation of the effects of different
primary care patients with neck pain: manual therapy forms of physiotherapy in cervical pain. Scandinavian
versus electrical stimulation [Ensayo clinico aleatorizado en Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 1970;2-3:117–21.
Gustavsson 2006 {published data only} therapy, physical therapy, or continued care by a general
Gustavsson C, Van Koch L. Applied relaxation in the practitioner for patients with neck pain. Annals of Internal
treatment of long-lasting neck pain: a randomized Medicine 2002;136(10):713–59. [CO2002]
controlled pilot study. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine Hoving JL, de Vet HCW, Koes BW, Van Mameren H,
2006;38:100–7. Deville WJLM, Van der Windt DAWM, et al. Manual
Guzel 2006 {published data only} therapy, physical therapy, or continued care by the general
Guzel R, Akkoca H, Seydaoglu G, Uguz S, Kozanoglu practitioner for patients with neck pain: long-term results
E, Sarpel T. Efficacy of local anesthetic injection versus from a pragmatic randomized trial. In: Hoving JL editor(s).
dry needling in myofascial pain syndrome treatment Neck pain in primary care. 1st Edition. Wageningen: Pons
[Miyofasiyal agri sendromunun tedavisinde lokal anestezik & Looijen bv, 2001:59–73. [CO97]
enjeksiyonu ve kuru lgneleme yontemlerinin etkinliginin Korthals-de Bos IBC, Hoving JL, Van Tulder MW, Rutten-
karsilastirilmasi]. Turkish Journal of Physical and Medical van Molken MPMH, Ader HJ, de Vet HCW, et al. Manual
Rehabilitation 2006;52(1):22–7. therapy is more cost-effective than physical therapy and GP
Hagberg 2000 {published data only} care for patients with neck pain. In: Hoving JL editor(s).
Hagberg M, Harms-Ringdahl K, Nisell R, Hjelm EW. Neck pain in primary care. 1st Edition. Wageningen: Pons
Rehabilitation of neck-shoulder pain in women industrial & Looijen bv, 2001:75–90. [CO97]
workers: A randomized trial comparing isometric shoulder Hoving 2006 {published data only}
endurance training with isometric shoulder strength Hoving JL, de Vet HC, Koes BW, van Mameren H, Devillé
training. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation WL, van der Windt DA, et al. Manual therapy, physical
2000;81:1051–8. therapy, or continued care by the general practitioner for
Häkkinen 2008 {published data only} patients with neck pain long-term results from a pragmatic
Häkkinen A, Kautiainen H, Hannonen P, Ylinen J. randomized clinical trial. Clinical Journal of Pain May 2006;
Strength training and streching versus stretching only in the 22(4):370–7.
treatment of patients with chronic neck pain: a randomized
Huber 2013 {published data only}
one-year follow-up study. Clinical Rehabilitation 2008;22
Huber J, Lisinski P, Polowczyk A. Reinvestigation of the
(7):592–600.
dysfunction in neck and shoulder girdle muscles as the
Hamberg-van Reenen 2009 {published data only}
reason of cervicogenic headache among office workers.
Hamberg-van Reenen HH, Visser B, Van der Beek AJ,
Disability and Rehabilitation 2013;35(10):793–802.
Blatter BM, Van Dieen JH, Van Mechelen W. The effect of
a resistance-training program on muscle strength, physical Hudson 2010 {published data only}
workload, muscle fatigue and musculoskeletal discomfort: Hudson JS, Ryan CG. Multimodal group rehabilitation
An experiment. Applied Ergonomics 2009;40:396–403. compared to usual care for patients with chronic neck pain:
Hansson 2006 {published data only} a pilot study. Manual Therapy 2010;15:552–6.
Hansson EE, Mansson N, Ringsberg KAM, Hakansson A. Hurwitz 2002 {published data only}
Dizziness among patients with whiplash-associated disorder: Hurwitz EL, Morgenstern H, Harber P, Kominski GF, Yu F,
A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Rehabilitation Adams AH. A randomized trial of chiropractic manipulation
Medicine 2006;38:387–90. and mobilization for patients with neck pain: clinical
Hanten 1997 {published data only} outcomes from the UCLA neck-pain study.. Research and
Hanten WP, Barrett M, Gillespie-Plesko M, Jump KA, Practice 2002;92(10):1634–41. [CO2002:]
Olson SL. Effects of active head retraction with retraction/
extension and occipital release on the pressure pain threshold Hurwitz 2005 {published data only}
of cervical and scapular trigger points. Physiotherapy Theory Hurwitz E, Morganstern H, Vassilki M, Chiang LM.
and Practice 1997;13:285–91. [CO2002] Frequency and clinical predictors of adverse reactions to
chiropractic care in the UCLA neck pain study. Spine 2005;
Hanten 2000 {published data only}
30:1477–84.
Hanten WP, Olson SL, Butts NL, Nowicki AL. Effectiveness
of a home program of ischemic pressure followed by Jay 2013 {published data only}
sustained stretch for treatment of myofascial trigger points. Jay K, Schraefel M, Andersen CH, Ebbesen FS, Christiansen
Physical Therapy 2000;80(10):997–1003. DH, Skotte J, et al. Effect of brief daily resistance training
Henning 1997 {published data only} on rapid force development in painful neck and shoulder
Henning RA, Jacques P, Kissel GV, Sullivan AB, Alter as- muscles: randomized controllled trial. Clinical Physiology
Webb SM. Frequent short rest breaks from computer work: and Functional Imaging 2013;33(5):386–92.
effects on productivity and well-being at two field sites. Jensen 2001 {published data only}
Ergonomics 1997;40(1):78–91. Jensen IB, Bergstrom G, Ljungquist T, Bodin L, Nygren AL.
Hoving 2002 {published data only} A randomized controlled component analysis of a behavioral
∗
Hoving JL, Koes BW, de Vet HCW, Van der Windt medicine rehabilitation program for chronic spinal pain:
DAWM, Assendelft WJJ, Van Mameren H, et al. Manual Are the effects dependent on gender?. Pain 2001;91:65–78.
Jensen 2005 {published data only} Koes 1991 {published data only}
∗
Jensen I, Bergstrom G, Ljungquist T, Bodin L. A 3-year Koes B, Bouter LM, Knipshild PG. The effectiveness of
follow-up of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme manual therapy, physiotherapy and continued treatment
for back and neck pain. Pain 2005;115:273–83. by general practitioner for chronic nonspecific back and
neck complaints. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological
Jordan 1998 {published data only}
Therapeutics 1991;14:498–502. [{C097:3285}]
Jordan A, Bendix T, Nielsen H, Hansen FR, Host D, Winkel
Koes BW. Efficacy of manual therapy and physiotherapy for
A. Intensive training, physiotherapy, or manipulation for
back and neck complaints (Thesis). den Haag: Cip-Gegevens
patients with chronic neck pain. A prospective single-
Koninklijke Bibliotheek, 1992a. [{CO97:124}]
blind randomized clinical trial. Proceedings of the 1996
Koes BW, Bouter LM, Van Mameren H, Esser AH,
International conference on spinal manipulation. 1996.
∗
Verstegen GH, Hofhuizen DM, et al. Randomized
Jordan A, Bendix T, Nielsen H, Hansen FR, Host
clinical trial of manual therapy and physiotherapy for
D, Winkel A. Intensive training, physiotherapy, or
persistent back and neck complaints. Manual Therapy in the
manipulation for patients with chronic neck pain: A
Netherlands 1992d;1:7–12. [{CO97:128}]
prospective single-blind randomized clinical trial. Spine
Koes BW, Bouter LM, Van Mameren H, Esser AH,
1998;23(3):311–9.
Verstegen GM, Hofhuizen DM, et al. A blind randomized
Jull 2007 JOR {published data only} clinical trial of manual therapy and physiotherapy for
Jull G, Falla D, Treleaven J, Hodges P, Vicenzino B. chronic back and neck complaints: Physical outcome
Retraining cervical joint position sense: the effect of two measures. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological
exercise regimes. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 2007;25: Therapeutics 1992e;15(1):16–23. [{CO97:126}]
404–12. Koes BW, Bouter LM, Van Mameren H, Esser AH,
Jull 2007 Pain {published data only} Verstegen GM, Hofhuizen DM, et al. Randomized
Jull G, Sterling M, Kenardy J, Beller E. Does the presence clinical trial of manipulative therapy and physiotherapy for
of sensory hypersensitivity influence outcomes of physical persistent back and neck complaints: results of one year
rehabilitation for chronic whiplash?- A preliminary RCT. follow up. BMJ 1992b;304:601–5. [{CO97:127}]
Pain 2007;129:28–34. Koes BW, Bouter LM, Van Mameren H, Essers AH,
Verstegen GM, Hofhuizen DM, et al. The effectiveness of
Jull 2009 {published data only} manual therapy, physiotherapy, and treatment by the general
Jull GA, Falla D, Vcenzino B, Hodges PW. The effect of practitioner for nonspecific back and neck complaints.
therapeutic exercise on activation of the deep cervical flexor Spine 1992c;17(1):28–35. [{CO97:129}]
muscles in people with chronic neck pain. Manual Therapy Koes BW, Bouter LM, van Mameren H, Essers AH,
2009;14:696–701. Verstegen GJ, Hofhuizen DM, et al. A randomized
Jull 2013 {published data only} clinical trial of manual therapy and physiotherapy for
Jull G, Kenardi J, Hendrik J, Cohen M, Sterling M. persistent back and neck complaints: subgroup analysis
Management of acute whiplash: a randomized controlled and relationship between outcomes measure. Journal of
trial of multidisciplinary stratified treatments. PAIN 2013; Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 1993;16(4):
154:1798–806. 211–9. [{CO97:2320}]
Kogstad 1978 {published data only}
Kamwendo 1991 {published data only}
Kogstad OA, Karterud S, Gudmundsen J.
Kamwendo K, Linton SJ. A controlled study of the effect of
Cervicobrachialgia. A controlled trial with conventional
neck school in medical secretaries. Scandinavian Journal of
treatment and manipulation. Tidiskr Nor Loegeforen 1978;
Rehabilitation Medicine 1991;23:143–52. [CO97;119]
98(16):845–8.
Karlberg 1996 {published data only} Lamb 2013 {published data only}
Karlberg M, Magnusson M, Malmström EM, Melander A, Lamb SE, Gates S, Williams MA, Williamson EM, Mt-Isa
Moritz U. Postural and symptomatic improvement after S, Withers EJ, et al. Managing Injuries of the Neck Trial
physiotherapy in patients with dizziness of suspected cervical (MINT) Study Team. Emergency department treatments
origin. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and physiotherapy for acute whiplash: a pragmatic, two-
1996;77(9):874–82. [{CO97:262}] step, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2013;381(9866):
Karlsson 2011 {published data only} 546–56.
Karlsson L, Takala E-P, Ghafouri N, Frumerie A, Gerdle Lansinger 2007 {published data only}
B, Larsson B. The effects of two different home-exercise Lansinger B, Larsson E, Persson LC, Carlsson JY. Qigong
programmes on women suffering long-term neck muscle and exercise therapy in patients with long-term neck pain: A
pain.. European Journal of Pain Supplements 2011 2011;5: prospective randomized trial. Spine 2007;32(22):2415–22.
285.
Lansinger 2013 {published data only}
Kietrys 2007 {published data only} Lansinger B, Carlesson JY, Kreuter M, Taft C. Health-
Kietrkys DM, Galper JS, Verno V. Effects of at-work related quality of life in persons with long-term neck
exercises on computer operators. Work 2007;28:67–75. pain after treatment with qigong and exercise therapy
respectively. European Journal of Physiotherapy 2013;15: McKinney 1989 {published data only}
111-7. McKinney LA. Early mobilization and outcome in acute
sprain of the neck. BMJ 1989b;299:1006–8. [{CO97:154}]
Lee 2013 {published data only} ∗
McKinney LA, Dornan JO, Ryan M. The role of
Lee JH, Park SJ, Na SS. The effect of proprioceptive
physiotherapy in the management of acute neck sprains
neuromuscular facilitation therapy on pain and function.
following road traffic accidents. Archives of Emergency
Journal of Physical Therapy Science 2013;25(6):713-6.
Medicine 1989a;6(1):27–33. [{CO97:155}]
Levoska 1993 {published data only} Mealy 1986 {published data only}
Levoska S, Keinanen-Kiukaanneimi S. Active or passive Mealy K, Brennan H, Fenelon GC. Early mobilisation of
physiotherapy for occupational cervicobrachial disorders? A acute whiplash injuries. British Medical Journal 1986;92:
comparison of two treatment methods with a 1-year follow- 656–7.
up. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1993; Michalsen 2012 {published data only}
74:425–30. Michalsen A, Traitteur H, Lüdtke R, Brunnhuber S, Meier
L, Jeitler M, et al. Yoga for chronic neck pain: a pilot
Linton 2001a {published data only}
randomized controlled clinical trial. Journal of Pain 2012;
Linton SJ, Ryberg M. A cognitive-behavioral group
13(11):1122–30.
intervention as prevention for persistent neck and back pain
in a non-patient population: A randomized controlled trial. Moffet 2006 {published data only}
Pain 2001;90:83–90. Moffett J, McLean ST. The role of physiotherapy in the
management of non-specific back pain and neck pain.
Lluch 2014 {published data only} Rheumatology (Oxford) 2006;45(4):371–8.
Lluch E, Schomacher J, Gizzi L, Petzke F, Seegar D, Falla D.
Mongini 2012 {published data only}
Immediate effects of active cranio-cervical flexion exercise
Mongini F, Evangelista A, Milani C, Ferrero L, Ciccone
versus passive mobilisation of the upper cervical spine on
G, Ugolini A, et al. An educational and physical program
pain and performance on the cranio-cervical flexion test.
to reduce headache, neck/shoulder pain in a working
Manual Therapy 2014;19(1):25–31.
community: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. PLoS
Ma 2011 {published data only} ONE 2012;7(1):1–10.
Ma C, Szeto GP, YanT, Wu S, Lin C, Li L. Comparing Murphy 2010 {published data only}
biofeedback with active exercise and passive treatment for Murphy B, Taylor HH, Marshall P. The effect of spinal
the management of work-related neck and shoulder pain: a manipulation on the efficacy of a rehabilitation protocol
randomized controlled trial. Archives of Physical Medicine for patients with chronic neck pain: A pilot study. Journal
and Rehabilitation 2011;92:849–58. of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 2010;33:
168–77.
Madson 2010 {published data only}
Nielsen 2010 {published data only}
Madson TJ, Cieslak KR, Gay RE. Joint mobilization vs
Nielsen PK, Andersen LL, Olsen HB, Rosendal L, Sjøgaard
massage for chronic mechanical neck pain: A pilot study to
G, Søgaard K. Effect of physical training on pain sensitivity
assess recruitment strategies and estimate outcome measure
and trapezius muscle morphology. Muscle and Nerve 2010;
variability. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological
41:836–44.
Therapeutics 2010;33:644–51.
Nordemar 1981 {published data only}
Maiers 2013 {published data only} Nordemar R, Thorner C. Treatment of acute cervical pain -
Maiers M, Bronfort G, Evans R, Hartvigsen J, Svendsen K, a comparative group study. Pain 1981;10:93–101.
Bracha Y, et al. Spinal manipulative therapy and exercise for O’Leary 2007 {published data only}
seniors with chronic neck pain. Spine Journal 2013;14(9): O’Leary S, Jull G, Kim M, Vincenzino B. Specificity in
1879–89. retraining craniocervical flexor muscle performance. Journal
of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy 2007;37:3–9.
Manca 2006 {published data only}
Manca A, Epstein, Torgerson D, Moffet J, Coulton S, O’Leary 2007 JoPain {published data only}
Farrin A, et al. Randomized trial of a brief physiotherapy O’Leary S, Falla D, Hodges P, Jull G, Vicenzino B. Specific
intervention compared with usual physiotherapy of neck therapeutic exercise of the neck induces immediate local
pain patients: Cost effectiveness analysis. International hypoalgesia. Journal of Pain 2007;8(11):832–9.
Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2006;22:1: Pato 2010 {published data only}
67–75. Pato U, DiStefano G, Fravi N, Arnold M, Curatolo M,
Marangoni 2010 {published data only} Fadanov BP, et al. Comparison of randomized treatment for
Marangoni AH. Effects of intermittent stretching exercises late whiplash. Neurology 2010;74:1223–30.
at work on musculoskeletal pain associated with the use of a Pedersen 2013 {published data only}
personal computer and the influence of media on outcomes. Pedersen MM, Zebis MK, Langberg H, Poulsen OM,
Work 2010;36:27–37. Mortensen OS, Jensen JN, er al. Influence of self-efficacy
on compliance to workplace exercise. International Journal with chronic neck/shoulder pain. A randomized controlled
of Behavioral Medicine 2013;20(3):365–370. trial. Clinical Rehabilitation 1998;12(3):200–10.
Pennie 1990 {published data only} Rosenfeld 2000 {published data only}
Pennie B, Agambar L. Whiplash injuries. A trial of early Rosenfeld M, Gunnarsson R, Borenstein P. Early
management. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery 1990;72(2): intervention in whiplash-associated disorders. Spine 2000;
277–9. [{CO97:178}] 25(14):1782–7. [CO2002]
Rosenfeld 2003 {published data only}
Persson 1994 {published data only} ∗
Rosenfeld M, Seferiadis A, Carlsson J, Gunnarsson R.
Persson L, Karlberg M, Magnusson M. Effects of different
Active intervention in patients with whiplash-associated
treatments on postural performance in patients with cervical
disorders improves long-term prognosis: A randomized
root compression. A randomized prospective study assessing
controlled clinical trial. Spine 2003;28(22):2491–8.
the importance of the neck in postural control. Journal of
Rosenfeld M, Seferiadis A, Gunnarsson R. Active
Vestibular Research 1996;6(6):439–53. [CO2002]
involvement and intervention in patients exposed to
Persson LCG, Carlsson CA, Carlsson JY. Long-lasting
whiplash trauma in automobile crashes reduces costs: A
cervical radicular pain managed with surgery, physiotherapy,
randomized, controlled clinical trial and health economic
or a cervical collar. A prospective, randomized study. Spine
evaluation. Spine 2006;31(16):1799–804.
1997;22(7):751–8. [CO97: 324]
Persson LCG, Lilja A. Pain, coping, emotional state and Rundcrantz 1991 {published data only}
physical function in patients with chronic radicular neck Rundcrantz B, Johnsson B, Moritz U, Roxendal G. Cervico-
pain. A comparison between patients treated with surgery, brachial disorders in dentists: A comparison between two
physiotherapy or neck collar - a blinded, prospective kinds of physiotherapeutic interventions. Scandinavian
randomized study. Disability and Rehabilitation 2001;23 Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 1991;23:11–7.
(8):325–35. [CO2002:2809] Ryan 2001 {published data only}
∗
Persson LCG, Moritz U, Brandt L, Carlsson CA. Cervical Ryan JM. Reducing pain and disability for for patients with
radiculopathy: pain, muscle weakness and sensory loss in chronic neck pain: A double-blind randomised controlled
patients with cervical radiculopathy treated with surgery, trial. Thesis. Canberra: Australian National University,
physiotherapy or cervical collar. A prospective, controlled 2001.
study. European Spine Journal 1994;6(4):256–66. [CO97:
Salmon 2013 {published data only}
1493]
Salmon DM, Harrison MF, Sharpe D, Candow D, Albert
Pool 2006 {published data only} WJ, Neary PJ. Exercise therapy for improved neck muscle
Bosmans JE, Pool JJM, DeVet HC, VanTulder MW, function in helicopter aircrew. Aviation, Space, and
Ostelo RWJG. Is behavioral graded activity cost-effective in Environmental Medicine 2013;84(10):1046–54.
comparison with manual therapy for patients with subacute
Schnabel 2004 {published data only}
neck pain. Spine 2011;36(18):1179–86.
Schnabel M, Ferrari R, Vassiliou T, Kaluza G. Randomised,
Pool JJM, Ostelo RWJG, Knol DL, Vlaeyen JWS, Bouter
controlled outcome study of active mobilisation compared
LM, DeVet HCW. Is a behavioral graded activity program
with collar therapy for whiplash injury. Emergency Medicine
more effective than manual therapy in patients with
Journal 2004;21:306–10.
subacute neck pain. Spine 2010;35(10):1017–24.
∗
Pool JJM, Ostelo RWJG, Koke AJ, BouterLM, DeVet Scholten-Peeters 2006 {published data only}
HCW. Comparison of the effectiveness of a behavioural Scholten-Peeters GM, Neeleman-van der Steen CWM,
graded activity program and manual therapy in patients Van der Windt DAWM, Hendriks EJM, Verhagen AP,
with sub-acute neck pain: Design of a randomized clinical Oostendorp RAB. Education by general practitioners or
trial. Manual Therapy 2006;11:297–305. education and exercises by physiotherapists for patients with
whiplash-associated disorders? A randomized clinical trial.
Provinciali 1996 {published data only} Spine 2006;31(7):723–31.
Provinciali L, Baroni M, Illuminati L, Ceravolo MG.
Sharan 2011 {published data only}
Multimodal treatment to prevent the late whiplash
Sharan D, Jacob BN, Ajeesh PS, Bookout JB, Barathur RR.
syndrome. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
The effect cetylated fatty esters and physical therapy on
1996;28:105–11.
myofascial pain syndrome of the neck. Journal of Bodywork
Ragonese 2009 {published data only} and Movement Therapies 2011;15(3):363–74.
Ragonese J. A randomized trial comparing manual physical
Skargren 1997 {published data only}
therapy to therapeutic exercises, to a combination of
Skargren EI, Carlsson PG, Oberg BE. One-year follow-up
therapies, for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy.
comparison of the cost and effectiveness of chiropractic and
Orthopaedic Practice 2009;21(3):71–7.
physiotherapy as primary management for back pain. Spine
Randlov 1998 {published data only} 1998;23(17):1875–84.
∗
Randlov A, Ostergaard M, Manniche C, Kryger P, Jordan Skargren EI, Oberg BE, Carlsson PG, Gade M. Cost and
A, Heegaard S, et al. Intensive dynamic training for females effectiveness analysis of chiropractic and physiotherapy
treatment for low back and neck pain: Six-month follow- trapezius muscle activity in workers with shoulder and
up. Spine 1997;22(18):2167–71. neck pain. 1995; 27:243-252. Scandinavian Journal of
Skillgate 2007 {published data only} Rehabilitation Medicine 1995;27:243–52.
Skillgate E, Vingard E, Alfredsson L. Naprapathic manual Vikne 2007 {published data only}
therapy or evidence-based care for back and neck pain: a Vikne J, Oedegaard A, Laerum E, Ihlebaek C, Kirkesola
randomized, controlled trial. Clinical Journal of Pain 2007; G. A randomized study of new sling exercise treatment
23(5):431–9. vs traditional physiotherapy for patients with chronic
Skoglund 2011 {published data only} whiplash-associated disorders with unsettled compensation
Skoglund L, Josephson M, Wahlstedt K, Lampa E, Norbäck claims. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2007;39(3):
D. Qigong training and effects on stress, neck-shoulder 252–9.
pain and life quality ina computerised office environment. Voerman 2007 {published data only}
Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice 2011;17:54–7. Voerman G, Sandsjo L, Vollenbroek-Hutten M, Larsman P,
Soderlund 2000 {published data only} Kadefors R, Hermans H. Changes in cognitive-behavioral
Soderlund A, Olerud C, Lindberg P. Acute whiplash- factors and muscle activation patterns after interventions
associated disorders (WAD): the effects of early mobilization for work-related neck-shoulder complaints: Relations
and prognostic factors in long-term symptomatology. with discomfort and disability. Journal of Occupational
Clinical Rehabilitation 2000;14:457–67. [CO2002] Rehabilitation 2007;17:593–609.
∗
Soderlund 2001 {published data only} Voerman GE, Sandsjo L, Vollenbroek-Hullen MMR,
Soderlund A, Lindberg P. Cognitive behavioural Larsman P, Kadefors R, Hermens HJ. Effects of ambulant
components in physiotherapy management of chronic myofeedback training and ergonomic counselling in
whiplash associated disorders (WAD)--a randomised group female computer workers with work-related neck-shoulder
study. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 2001;17:229–38. complaints: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of
Song 2012 Abstract {unpublished data only} Occupational Rehabilitation 2007;17:137–52.
Song CH, Jang HJ, Lee K J, Lee YW. Active exercise Voerman GE, Vollenbrock-Hutten MMR, Sandsjo L,
program in patient with nonspecific chronic neck pain: A Kadefors R, Hermens HJ. Prognostic factors for the
randomised controlled trial. 6th World Congress - World effects of two interventions for work-related neck-
Institute of Pain. Miami Beach, Florida, USA, February shoulder complaints: Myofeedback training and ergonomic
2012; Vol. 12:1–199. counselling. Applied Ergonomics 2008;39:743–53.
Taimela 2000 {published data only} von Piekartz 2011 {published data only}
Taimela S, Takala EP, Asklof T, Seppala K, Parviainen S. von Piekartz H, Ludtke K. Effect of treatment of
Active treatment of chronic neck pain. Spine 2000;25(8): temporomandibular disorders (TMD) in patients with
1021–7. cervicogenic headache: A single-blind, randomized
Telci 2012 {published data only} controlled study. Journal of Craniomandibular Practice
Aslan Telci E, Karaduman A. Effects of three different 2011;29(1):1–14.
conservative treatments on pain, disability, quality of
Waling 2002 {published data only}
life, and mood in patients with cervical spondylosis. ∗
Waling K, Jarvholm B, Sundelin G. Effects of training on
Rheumatology International 2012;32(4):1033–40.
female trapezius myalgia. Spine 2002;27(8):789–96.
Tsauo 2004 {published data only} Waling K, Sundelin G, Ahlgren C, Jarvholm B. Perceived
Tsauo JY, Lee HY, Hsu JH, Chen CY, Chen CJ. pain before and after three exercise programs--a controlled
Physical exercise and health education for neck and clinical trial of women with work-related trapezius myalgia.
shoulder complaints among sedentary workers. Journal of Pain 2000;85:201–7.
Rehabilitation Medicine 2004;36:253–7.
Wani 2013 {unpublished data only}
van den Heuvel 2003 {published data only}
Wani SK, Raka N, Jethwa J. Comparative efficacy of cervical
van den Heuvel SG, de Looze MP, Hildebrandt VH, The
retraction exercises (McKenzie) with and without using
KH. Effects of software programs stimulating regular
pressure biofeedback in cervical spondylosis. International
breaks and exercises on work-related neck and upper-limb
Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation 2013;20(10):501..
disorders. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment &
Health 2003;29(2):106–16. Wei 2007 {published data only}
van Ettekoven 2006 {published data only} Wei FA, Jiang J, Zhang SF. Preventative and curative effect
van Ettekoven H, Lucas C. Efficacy of physiotherapy of initiative motion on cervical headache. Zhongguo Zuzhi
including a craniocervical training programme for tension- Gongcheng Yanjlu yu Linchuang Kangfu 2007;11(39):
type headache; a randomized clinical trial. Cephalagia 2006; 8012–4.
26(8):983-91. Yang 2013 {published data only}
Vasseljen 1995 {published data only} Yang Jun-xiong, Zhang Jian-ping, Yu Jian-chun, Han Jing-
Vasseljen O, Johansen BM, Westgaard RH. The effect of xian. Treatment of cervical spondylosis by spinal balancing
pain reduction on perceived tension and EMG-recoded combined with intervention of pathway of qi: a randomized
controlled study. Chinese Acupuncture and Moxibustion Jul. References to studies awaiting assessment
2013;33(7):582–6.
Ylinen 2003 {published data only} Falla 2013 {published data only}
Ylinen J, Hakkinen A, Nykanen M, Kautiainen HJ, Takala Falla D, Lindstrom R, Rechter L, Boudreau S, Petzke F.
P. Neck muscle training in the treatment of chronic neck Effectiveness of an 8-week exercise programme on pain and
pain: a three year follow-up study. Europa Medicophysica specificity of neck muscle activity in patients with chronic
2007;43(2):161–9. neck pain: A randomized controlled study. European
Ylinen J, Takala EP, Kautiainen H, Nykanen M, Hakkinen Journal of Pain 2013;17:1517–28.
A, Phojolainen T, et al. Effect of long-term neck muscle References to ongoing studies
training on pressure pain threshold: a randomized
controlled trial. European Journal of Pain 2005;9:673–81. Andersen 2010a (Protocol) {published data only}
∗
Ylinen J, Takala EP, Nykanen M, Hakkinen A, Malkia E, Andersen LL, Zebis MK, Pedersen MT, Roessler KK,
Pohjolainen T, et al. Active neck muscle training in the Andersen CH, Pedersen MM, et al. Protocol for work
treatment of chronic neck pain in women: a randomized place adjusted intelligent physical exercise reducing
controlled trial. JAMA 2003;289(19):2509–16. musculoskeletal pain in shoulder and (VMS): A cluster
Ylinen JJ, Hakkinen AH, Takala EP, Nykanen MJ, randomized controlled. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Kautiainen HJ, Malkia EA, et al. Effects of neck muscle 2010;11:173.
training in women with chronic neck pain: one-year follow-
Andersen 2011a (Protocol) {published data only}
up study. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Andersen Ch, Andersen LL, Mortensen OS, Zebis MK,
2006;20(1):6–13.
Sjogaard G. Protocol for shoulder function training reducing
Ylinen 2006b {published data only} musculoskeletal pain in shoulder and neck: A randomized
Ylinen JJ, Takala EP, Nykanen MJ, Kautiainen HJ, controlled trial. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2011;12:14.
Hakkinen AH, Airaksinen OVP. Effects of twelve-month
Guerriero 1997 {published data only}
stretching exercise in treatment of chronic neck pain.
Guerriero D. Comparative effects of manipulation
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2006;20(2):
and physical therapy on motion in the cervical spine.
304–8.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Spinal
Ylinen 2007b {published data only} Manipulation. 1991.
Ylinen J, Kautiainen H, Wirén K, Häkkinen A. Stretching
Gurumoorthy 2000 {published data only}
exercises vs manual therapy in treatment of chronic neck
Gurumoorthy D, Twomey LT, Batalin NJ. A prospective
pain: a randomized, controlled cross-over trial. Journal of
study of acute whiplash injury and its clinical management.
Rehabilitation Medicine 2007;39:126-32.
Internation Federation of Manipulation Therapy, 7th
Ylinen 2010 {published data only} Scientific Conference. November 2000:Abstract 78.
Ylinen J, Nikander R, Nukanen M, Kautiainen H, [CO2002]
Hakkinen A. Effect of neck exercises on cervicogenic
Hansen 2011 (Protocol) {published data only}
headache: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of
Hansen I, Sogaard K, Christensen R, Thomsen B, Manniche
Rehabilitation Medicine 2010;42:344–9.
C, Juul-Kristensen B. Neck exercises, physical and cognitive
Yogitha 2012 {published data only} behavioural-graded activity as a treatment for adult whiplash
Yogitha B, Ebnezar J. Efficacy of mind sound resonance patients with chronic neck pain: Design of a randomised
technique in common neck pain. International Journal of controlled trial. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2011;12:
Research in Ayurveda & Pharmacy 2012;3(2):227–32. 274.
Youseff 2013 {published data only} Michaleff 2009 (Protocol) {published data only}
Youssef EF, Shanb AS A. Mobilization versus massage Michaleff ZA, Maher CG, Jull G, Latimer J, Connelly
therapy in the treatment of cervicogenic headache: A clinical LB, Lin CWC, et al. A randomised clinical trial of a
study. Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation comprehensive exercise program for chronic whiplash: trial
2013;26:17-24. protocol. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2009;10:149.
Zaproudina 2007 {published data only} [doi:10.1186/1471–2474–10–149]
Zaproudina N, Hanninen O, Airaksinen O. Effectiveness of Reginiussen 2000 {published data only}
traditional bone setting in chronic neck pain: randomized Reginiussen T, Johnsen R, Torstensen TA. Efficiency of
clinical trial. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological manual therapy on patients with cervicogenic headache.
Therapuetics July/August;30(6):432–7. A randomized single blinded controlled trial. Internation
Zebis 2011 {published data only} Federation of Manipulation Therapy, 7th Scientific
Zebis M, Andersen L, Pedersen M, Mortensen P, Andersen Conference. November 2000:Abstract 105.
C, Pedersen M, et al. Implementation of neck/shoulder Stokke 1995 {published data only}
exercises for pain relief among industrial workers: A Stokke O. A randomized comparison of chiropractic
randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders and physiotherapy treatment of neck pain of functional
2011;12(205):1–9. (mechanical) origins: A controlled clinical trial. Conference
Proceedings of the Chiropractic Centennial Foundation. Carroll 2008b
1995:372–3. Carroll L, Holm L, Hogg-Johnson S, Cote P, Cassidy J,
Williamson 2009 (Protocol {published data only} Haldeman S, et al. Course and prognostic factors for neck
Williamson E, Williams M, Hansen Z, Joseph S, Lamb SE. pain in whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). Spine 2008;
Development and delivery of a physiotherapy intervention 33(4S):S83–92.
for the early management of whiplash injuries: The Cicchetti 1976
managing injuries of neck trial (MINT) intervention. Cicchetti DV. Assessing inter-rater reliability for rating
Physiotherapy 2009;95:1523. scales: resolving some basic issues. British Journal of
Psychiatry 1976;129:452–6.
Additional references Clar 2014
Clar C, Tsertsvadze A, Court R, Hundt GL, Clarke A,
Abernethy 2013 Sutcliffe P. Clinical effectiveness of manual therapy for the
Abernethy B, Kippers V, Hanrahan SJ, Paddy MG, management of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal
McManus AM, MacKinnon L. Biophysical Foundations of conditions: systematic review and update of UK evidence
Human Movement. 3rd Edition. Champaign: Sheridan report. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies 2014;22(12):
Books, 2013. 1–34.
Ailliet 2013 Cohen 1988
Ailliet L, Knol DL, Rubinstein SM, de Vet HCW, van Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural
Tulder MW, Terwee CB. Definition of the construct to be Sciences. 2nd Edition. Hilldale, NJ: Lawance Erlbaum,
measured in a prerequisite for the assessment of validity. 1988.
The Neck Disability Index as an example. Journal of Clinical Côté 2008
Epidemiology 2013;66:775–82. Côté P, Van der Velde G, Cassidy D, Carroll LJ, Hogg-
Johnson S, Holm LW, et al. The burden and determinants
Atkins 2004
of neck pain in workers: Results of the Bone and Joint
Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y,
Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its
Flottorp S, et al. Grade Working Group. Grading quality of
Associated Disorders. Spine 2008;33(4S):S60–74.
evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004;328
(7454):1490. Farrar 2001
Farrar JT, Young JP Jr, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM.
Bertozzi 2013
Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity
Bertozzi L, Gardenghi I, Turoni F, Villafane JH, Capra F,
measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain
Guccione AA, Pillastrini P. Effect of therapeutic exercise
2001;94(2):149–58.
on pain and disability in the management of chronic
Nonspecific neck pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis Felson 1995
of randomized trials. Physical Therapy 2013;93(8):1026–36. Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Boers M, Bombardier C, Furst D,
Goldsmith C, et al. Preliminary definition of improvement
Boutron 2005 in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism 1995;
Boutron I, Moher D, Tugwell P, Giraudeau B, Poiraudeau Jun;38(6):727–35.
S, Nizard R, et al. A checklist to evaluate a report of a
Fernandez-de-las-Penas 2007
non pharmacological trial (CLEAR NPT) was developed
Fernandez-de-las-Penas C, Simons DG, Cuadrado
using consensus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2005;58:
ML, Pareja JA. The role of myofascial trigger points in
1233–40.
musculoskeletal pain syndromes of the head and neck.
Bronfort 2009 Current Pain and Headache Reports 2007;11(5):365–72.
Brønfort G, Nilsson N, Haas M, Evans RL, Goldsmith CH, Furlan 2009
Assendelft WJJ, et al. Non-invasive physical treatments for
Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, Van Tulder M,
chronic/recurrent headache (Review). Cochrane Database Editorial Board, Cochrane Back Review Group. Updated
of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 3. DOI: 10.1002/
method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane
14651858.CD001878.pub2 Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009 Aug 15;
Buitenhuis 2009 34(18):1929–41.
Buitenhuis J, de Jong PJ, Jaspers JP, Groothoff JW. Work Goldsmith 1993
disability after whiplash: A prospective cohort study. Spine Goldsmith CH, Boers M, Bombardier C, Tugwell P. Criteria
2009;34:262–7. for clinically important changes in outcomes. Development,
Carroll 2008a scoring and evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis patients and
Carroll LJ, Hogg-Johnson S, Van der Velde G, Haldeman S, rial profiles. Journal of Rheumatology 1993;20(3):561–5.
Holm LW, Carragee EJ, et al. Course and prognostic factors Grady 2001
for neck pain in the general population: results of the Bone Grady C. Money for Research Participation: Does it
and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and jeopardize informed consent?. American Journal of Bioethics
Its Associated Disorders. Spine 2008;22(4S):S75–82. 2001;2:40–4.
Graham 2011 Hurwitz 2008
Graham N, Haines T, Goldsmith CG, Gross A, Burnie S, Hurwitz EL, Carragee JEJ, Van der Velde G, Carroll LJ,
Shahzad U, et al. Reliability of 3 assessment tools used to Nordin M, Guzman J, et al. Treatment of neck pain:
evaluate randomized controlled trials for treatment of neck Noninvasive interventions: Results of the bone and joint
pain.. Spine 2012;37(6):515–22. decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its
Gross 2002 associated disorders. Spine 2008;33(4S):S123–52.
Gross AR, Kay T, Hondras M, Goldsmith C, Haines Kendal 1963
T, Peloso P, et al. Manual therapy for mechanical neck Kendal MG, Stuart A. The Advanced Theory of Statistics:
disorders: a systematic review. Manual Therapy 2002;7(3): Distribution Theory. 2nd Edition. New York: Hofner
131–49. Publishing Co, 1963.
Gross 2007 Leaver 2010
Gross AR, Goldsmith C, Hoving JL, Haines T, Peloso P, Leaver AM, Refshauge KM, Maher CG, McAuley JH.
Aker P, et al and the Cervical Overview Group. Conservative Conservative interventions provide short-term relief for
Management of Mechanical NeckDisorders: A Systematic non-specific neck pain: a systematic review. Journal of
Review. Journal of Rheumatology 2007;34:1083–102. Physiotherapy 2010;56(2):73–85.
Guyatt 2006 Lee 2009
Guyatt G, Gutterman D, Baumann MH, Addrizzo- Lee MS, Pittler MH, Ernst E. Internal qigong for pain
Harris D, Hylek EM, Phillips B, et al. Grading strength conditions: a systematic review. Journal of Pain 2009;10
of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical (11):1121–7.
guidelines:Report fom an American College of Chest
MacDermid 2009
Physicians task force. Chest 2006;129:174–81.
MacDermid JC, Walton DM, Avery S, Blanchard A, Etruw
Haldeman 2010 E, McAlpine C, et al. Measurement properties of the neck
Haldeman S, Carroll L, Cassidy JD. Findings from the disability index: a systematic review. Journal of Orthopaedic
bone and joint decade 2000 to 2010 task force on neck pain & Sports Physical Therapy 2009;39(5):400–17.
and its associated disorders. Journal of Occupational and
Martin 2008
Environmental Medicine 2010;52:424–7.
Martin BI, Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Turner JA, Comstock BA,
Hall 2005
Hollingworth W, et al. Expenditures and health status
Hall CM, Brody L. Therapeutic Exercise: Moving Toward
among adults with back and neck problems. JAMA 2008;
Function. 1st Edition. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams
299(6):656–64.
& Wilkins, 2005.
Merskey 1994
Higgins 2009
Merskey H, Bogduk N. Classification of Chronic Pain:
Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbookfor
Descriptions of Chronic Pain Syndromes and Definition of
Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.0.2. www.cochrane-
Pain Terms, second edition. International Association for
handbook.org. [updated September 2009]. Chichester:
the Study of Pain 1994.
John Wiley& Sons, Ltd, 2008. [Higgins JPT, Green S
(editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews Miller 2010
of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Miller J, Gross A, D’Sylva J, Burnie SJ, Goldsmith CH,
The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from Graham N, et al. Manual therapy and exercise for neck
www.cochrane–handbook.org.] pain: A systematic review. Manual Therapy 2010;15:
334–54.
Hogg-Johnson 2008
Hogg-Johnson S, Van der Velde G, Carroll LJ, Holm LW, Nappo 2013
Cassidy JD, Guzman J, et al. The burden and determinants Nappo S, Lafrate G, Sanchez Z. Motives for participating in
of neck pain in the general population: results of the Bone a clinical research trial: a pilot study in Brazil. BMC Public
and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Health 2013;13(19):1–9.
Its Associated Disorders. Spine 2008;33((4 Suppl)):S39–51. NCHS 2013
Hoy 2014 National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States,
Hoy D, March L, Woolf A, Blyth F, Brooks P, Smith E, 2012: With Special Feature on Emergency Care. Available
et al. The global burden of neck pain: estimates from from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ (accessed 17 March 2014).
the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Annals of Hyattsville, MD.
Rheumaric Diseases 2014;73(7):1309–15. [doi:10.1136/ Olesen 1988
annrheumdis–2013–204431] Olesen J. Classification and diagnostic criteria for headache
Hung 2014 disorders, cranial neuralgias and facial pain. Cephalgia
Hung M, Cheng C, Hon SD, Franklin JD, Lawrence BD, 1988;8(7):61–2.
Neese A, et al. Challenging the norm: further psychometric Olesen 1997
investigation of the neck disability index. Spine Journal Olesen J, Gobel H. ICD-10 Guide for Headaches. Guide
manuscript accepted Feb 2014. to the classification, diagnosis and assessment of headaches
in accordance with the tenth revision of the International Quebec Task Force on Whiplash-Associated Disorders:
classification of diseases and related health problems and its redefining “whiplash” and its management. Spine 1995;20:
application to neurology. Cephalalgia 1997;17 Suppl 19: 1S–73S.
29–30. Stunkel 2011
Racicki 2012 Stunkel L, Grady C. More than the money: A review of
Racicki S, Gerwin S, DiClaudio S, Reinmann S, Donaldson the literature examining healthy volunteer motivations.
M. Conservative physical therapy management for the Contemporary Clinical Trials 2011;32(3):342-52.
treatment of cervicogenic headache: a systematic review. Teasell 2010a
Journal of Manual and Manipulative Therapy. 2013;21(2): Teasell RW, McClure JA, Walton D, Pretty J, Salter
113–24. K, Meyer M, et al. A research synthesis of therapeutic
Sahrmann 2002 interventions for whiplash associated disorder (WAD)
Sahrmann SA. Diagnosis and Treatment of Movement Part 2 - interventions for acute WAD. Pain Research &
Impairment Syndromes. St.Louis:Mosby, Inc, 2002.. Management 2010a;15(5):295–304.
Diagnosis and Treatment of Movement Impairment Syndromes.
Teasell 2010b
1. St.Louis: Mosby Inc, 2002.
Teasell RW, McClure AJ, Walton D, Pretty J, Salter
Salt 2011 K, Meyer M, et al. A research synthesis of therapeutic
Salt E, Wright C, Kelly S, Dean A. A systematic literature interventions for whiplash-associated disorder (WAD):
review on the effectiveness of non-invasive therapy for Part 3 - interventions for subacute WAD. Pain Research &
cervicobrachial pain. Manual Therapy 2011;16:53–65. Management 2010;15(5):305–12.
Schroeder 2013 Teasell 2010c
Schroeder J, Kaplan L, Fischer DJ, Skelly AC. The outcomes Teasell RW, McClure JA, Walton D, Pretty J, Salter
of manipulation or mobilization therapy compared with K, Meyer M, et al. A research synthesis of therapeutic
physical therapy or exercise for neck pain: a systematic interventions for whiplash-associated disorder (WAD):
review. Evidence-Based Spine-Care Journal 2013;4(1):30–41. Part 4 - interventions for chronic WAD. Pain Research &
Schumacher 1993 Management 2010;15(5):313–22.
Schumacher HR, Klippel JH, Koopman WJ (eds). Primer Teixeira 2012
on the Rheumatic Diseases. 10th Edition. Atlanta: Arthritis Teixeira P, Carraça E, Markland D, Silva M, Ryan R.
Foundation, 1993. Exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory:
Sherrington 1961 A systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral
Sherrington C. The Integrative Action of the Nervous System. Nutrition and Physical Activity 2012;9(78):1–30.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961:340. van der Velde 2009
Sjaastad 1990 van der Velde G, Beaten D, Hogg-Johnston S, Hurwitz
Sjaastad O, Fredriksen TA, Pfaffenrath V. Cervicogenic E, Tennant A. Rasch analysis provides new insights into
headache: diagnostic criteria. Headache 1990;30:723–6. the measurement properties of the neck disability index.
Sjaastad 1998 Arthritis and Rheumatism 2009;61(4):544–51.
Sjaastad O, Fredriksen TA, Pfaffenrath V. Cervicogenic Van Tulder 2003
headache: diagnostic criteria. Headache 1998;38:442–5. Van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L, Editorial
Sjaastad 2008 Board of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group.
Sjaastad O. Cervicogenic headache: Comparison with Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the
migraine without aura; vaga study. Cephalgia 2008;28(S1): Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine 2003;
18–20. 28(12):1290–9.
Southerst 2014 Vincent 2013
Southerst D, Nordin M, Côté P, Shearer H, Varatharajan Vincent K, Maigne JV, Fischhoff C, Lanlo O, Dagenais S.
S, Yu H, et al. Is exercise effective for the management of Systematic review of manual therapies for non specific neck
neck pain and associated disorders or whiplash-associated pain. Joint Bone Spine. 2013;80(5):508–15.
disorders? A systematic review by the Ontario Protocolfor Zimmerman 2000
Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration. Zimmerman GL, Olsen CG, Bosworth MF. A ’stages of
Spine Journal 2014;Available on line(15 Feb):1–70. change’ approach to helping patients change behavior.
Spitzer 1987 American Family Physician 2000;61(5):1409–16.
Spitzer WO, Leblanc FE, Dupuis M. Scientific approach
References to other published versions of this review
to the assessment and managment of activity related spinal
disorders. Spine 1987;suppl 7:S1–S59. Aker 1996
Spitzer 1995 Aker P, Gross AR, Goldsmith CH, Peloso P. Conservative
Spitzer WO, Skovron M L, Salmi L R, Cassidy JD, management of neck pain: systematic overview and meta-
Duranceau J, Suissa S, et al. Scientific monograph of the analysis. BMJ 1996;313:1291–6.

Gross 1996
Gross AR, Aker PD, Goldsmith CH, Peloso P. Conservative
management of mechanical neck disorders: A meta-analysis.
Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials 1996 July 30;5:Doc
No 200-1.
Kay 2005
Kay TM, Gross A, Goldsmith CH, Hoving JL, Brønfort G.
Exercises for mechanical neck disorders. Cochrane Database
of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 3. DOI: 10.1002/
14651858.CD004250.pub3
Kay 2012
Kay TM, Gross A, Goldsmith CH, Rutherford S, Voth S,
Hoving JL, et al. Exercises for mechanical neck disorders.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 8.
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004250.pub4
∗
Indicates the major publication for the study

CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES
Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]
Allan 2003
Methods Type of Trial: RCT

Number Analyzed/Randomized: 16/16
Intention-to-treat Analysis: N/A
Power Analysis: NR
Participants Chronic MND (Myofascial Pain Syndrome)

Radicular signs/symptoms: Absent
Setting: Outpatient university teaching clinic
Country: UK
Interventions INDEX TREATMENT

Arm 1- a. Stretch before Manipulation: Activity- Static passive stretches into Movement
- lateral flexion and rotation on both sides of neck, held for 15 seconds, Mode- adminis-
tered by chiropractor with patient in supine position, immediately followed by cervical
manipulation given in accordance with the motion palpation findings. Manipulation
was administered with patient in supine position and the chiropractor making an index-
finger contact on the affected cervical segment(s); Dosage- 8 sessions over 4 weeks,
b. Cervical manipulation given in accordance with the motion palpation findings. Maip-
ulation was administered with patient in supine position and the chiropractor making an
index-finger contact on the affected cervical segment(s) immediately followed by static
passive stretches in lateral flexion and rotation on both sides of neck, held for 15 seconds,
administered by chiropractor with patient in seated position;
Arm 2- a. Stretch after Manipulation: Stretches as in Arm 1 was administered after
manipulation treatment
b. Cervical manipulation administered as in Arm 1.
Treatment Schedule: 8 sessions over 4 weeks
COMPARISON TREATMENT
Arm 3- Manipulation: Cervical manipulation given in accordance with the motion
palpation findings. Maipulation was administered with patient in supine position and
the chiropractor making an index-finger contact on the affected cervical segment(s); 8
sessions over 4 weeks
Treatment Schedule: 4 weeks, 20 sessions
Duration of Follow-up: none
CO-INTERVENTION: avoided in trial design
Outcomes PAIN
NRS, 0 to 100
Baseline Mean: Manip 30, Stretch before 58, Stretch After 63
Reported Results: no significant difference between groups
FUNCTION
NDI, 0 to 50
Baseline Mean: Manip 5, Stretch before 16, Stretch After 11
REASON FOR DROP-OUTS: N/A

Allan 2003 (Continued)
SIDE EFFECTS: none

COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias Authors’ judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection Unclear risk No description

bias)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk No description given
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Not possible due to design
bias)
All outcomes - patients?
bias)
All outcomes - providers?
bias)
All outcomes - outcome assessors?
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk See abstract

All outcomes - drop-outs?
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk No drop-outs

All outcomes - ITT analysis?
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk No protocol available
Similarity of baseline characteristics? High risk ROM different between groups
Co-interventions avoided or similar? Unclear risk No mention
Compliance acceptable? Low risk See abstract
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk Tables 1 and 2

Andersen 2008

Intention-to-treat Analysis: NR
Power Analysis: NR
Participants (sub) Acute/Chronic MND (Trapezius Myalgia)

Setting: Seven workplaces
Country: Denmark

Arm 1- Specific Strength Training (SST) or General Fitness Training (GFT): Activity-
(SST): high intensity specific strength training locally for neck and shoulder muscles.
(GFT): Cycling high-intensity general fitness training with legs only, upright position
without holding onto the handlebars (relaxing shoulders during training), Mode- (SST)
: 5 dumbbell exercises. (GFT): Monark bicycle ergometer, Movement- (SST): single
arm row, shoulder abduction, shoulder elevation, reverse flies, and upright row).Training
program progressively increased using the principles of periodization and progressive
overload from 12 repetitions maximum (~70% of maximal intensity) at beginning to 8
repetitions maximum (~80% of maximal intensity) later. (GFT): high-intensity cycling,
Dosage- (SST): performed using consecutive concentric and eccentric muscle contrac-
tions (raising and lowering pair of dumbbells) in a controlled manner without pause,
each set lasting 25-35 seconds. 30 of 5 different exercises with 3 sets per exercise were
performed during each training session in an alternating manner (shoulder elevation was
performed during each session). Doubled training load by end of 10 weeks. 20 minutes,
3x/week for 10 weeks of intervention for an average of 26 ± 3.6 sessions (GFT): 20 min
at a relative workloads of 50% (initial training level) to 70% (increased during following
weeks and maintained) of maximal oxygen uptake (V02max ). Heart rate monitor (Polar
Sport Tester, Polar, Kempele, Finland) used to adjust workload to meet the intended
relative level
Treatment schedule: (SST): Doubled training load by end of 10 weeks. 20 minutes 3
times/week for 10 weeks of intervention for an average of 25 ± 4.8 sessions. (GFT): 20
minutes 3 times/week for 10 weeks
Arm 2- Health Counseling Group: Lectures with information on activities promoting
general health and individual: workplace ergonomics, diet, health, relaxation, and stress
management. 1 hour per week for 10 weeks for an average of average 27 ± 2.8 sessions
Duration of Follow-up: 10 weeks
CO-INTERVENTION: Not avoided
Reference intervention without physical activity (REF): Activity-the participants re-
ceived health counselling on group and individual levels regarding workplace ergonomics,
diet, health, relaxation, and stress management, frequency: 3x per week. Dosage- 20-
minutes sessions
Treatment Schedule: 30 sessions over 10 weeks
CO-INTERVENTION: Not specified

Andersen 2008 (Continued)
Outcomes PAIN in trapezius muscle

VAS, 0 to 100
Baseline Mean: SST 44, GFT 50, REF 43
SMD immediate post: 0.18 (-0.67 to 1.03)
SMD ST: -0.06 (95% CI: -0.91 to 0.79)
REASON FOR DROP-OUTS: 6 in Reference group, reason not specified
SIDE EFFECTS: NR
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection Unclear risk Not described

bias)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk No description of concealment
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Not possible due to intervention
bias)
bias)
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Not possible due to study design
bias)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Unclear risk 9% drop-out acceptable, but reason for
All outcomes - drop-outs? drop-outs not described. Furthermore, it
is unclear which groups’ data were missing
(see Sogaard 2012)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Unclear risk p 90 - 6 drop-outs in the REF group - not
All outcomes - ITT analysis? analyzed
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Trial registration adequate. International
Standard Randomized Controlled Trial
Number Register: ISRCTN87055459.
(see Sogaard 2012)
Similarity of baseline characteristics? Unclear risk Table 1 p 88

Co-interventions avoided or similar? Unclear risk Not reported
Compliance acceptable? High risk p 87
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk P175, right column, 2nd paragraph (So-
gaard 2012)
Andersen 2011

Intention-to-treat Analysis: calculated
Power Analysis: 95%
Participants (sub) Acute/Chronic MND (Myofascial Pain Syndrome/Cervicogenic headache/tension

type headache?)
Radicular signs/symptoms: Not specified
Setting: two large white collar organizations
Country: Denmark

Arm 1- 2 minute training (2-minutes):Activity- Progressive resistance training with
theraband. Mode-Shoulder Movement- abduction- lateral raise. Dosage: 2 minutes, 5
times/week for 10 weeks of intervention for an average of 26 ± 3.6 sessions
Arm 2- 12-minute training: Activity- Progressive resistance training with theraband.
Mode-Shoulder, Movement- abduction- lateral raise. Dosage- 12 minutes 5 times/week
for 10 weeks of intervention for an average of 25 ± 4.8 sessions
Arm 3- Control Group: Weekly e-mailed information on various aspects of general health
and internet links with additional relevant information
Treatment Schedule:10 weeks, 20 sessions
Outcomes PAIN
VAS, 0 to 10
Baseline Mean: 2 minutes 3.5, 12 minutes 3.9, Control 3.5
Reported Results: ANOVA showed a strong group-by-time effect for neck/shoulder
pain intensity (P < 0.0001). Compared with the control group, pain intensity decreased
in both training groups. This change was not significantly different between the 2 training
groups.
SMD (2 min): -0.66 (95% CI: -1.02 to -0.30)
SMD (12 min): -0.59 (95% CI: -0.94 to -0.23)
REASON FOR DROP-OUTS: 3 in 2 minutes group, 1 in 12 minutes group, 2 in
Control group, reasons reported
SIDE EFFECTS: Reported worsening of neck muscle tension during and/or in the days
after training (2-minute n = 1, 12-minute n = 4), shoulder joint pain during training
(2-minute n = 1, 12-minute n = 4), pain in the upper arm during training (2-minute

n = 1, 12-minute n = 1), pain of the forearm/wrist during training (12-minute n = 2),

worsening of headache after training (2-minute n = 1, 12-minute n = 1). No long-lasting
or major complications resulted from the training program.
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection Low risk pg 444 second column/ pg 442 first column
bias)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Described pg 444
bias)
bias)
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Not possible self- assessment evaluation
bias) NPRS
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk p 443 second column
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk Figure 1 p 441 - not all participants ran-
All outcomes - ITT analysis? domized were analyzed
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk No protocol
Similarity of baseline characteristics? Low risk
Co-interventions avoided or similar? Low risk Co-interventions similar p 443 section 2.5
Compliance acceptable? Low risk p 443 second column
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk p 443 top of 1st/p 441 under methods

Andersen Ch 2012
Methods Type of trial: RCT

Intention-to-treat analysis: calculated
Power Analysis: 95%
Participants Non specific neck pain

Radicular signs/symptoms: NR
Setting: NR
Country: Denmark

Arm 1- Training groups (WS): Activity- Upper extremity strength training Mode-
Weights. Movement- Dumbbell exercises front raise, lateral raise, reverse flies shrugs
and wrist extension.Dosage- Type of contraction (dynamic); Intensity (20 repetition
maximum at baseline to 8 repetition maximum at later phase); Speed (NR); Duration/
Frequency (1-weekly session WS = 1hour/week, 3WS = 20 minutes at 3 sessions/week,
9 WS = 7 minutes at 9 sessions/week; Sequence (NR); Environment (NR); Feedback
(experienced instructor supervised every other training session)
Treatment Schedule: 20 weeks.
Arm 2- Reference group: No treatment
Treatment Schedule: 20 weeks
Duration of Follow-up: NR
CO-INTERVENTION: NR
Outcomes PAIN
Modified Nordic Questionnaire (MNQ), 0 to 9
Baseline Mean: 1WS (4.83), 3WS (4.96), 9WS (4.71), REF (4.83)
SMD (1WS vs control): -0.44 (95% CI: -1.31 to 0.43); SMD (3WS vs control): -0.67
(95% CI: -1.59 to 0.25); SMD (9WS vs control): -0.30 (95% CI: -1.36 to 0.76)
FUNCTION
Disability of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH), 0 to100
Baseline Mean: 1WS (16), 3WS (18), 9WS (15), REF (16)
SMD (1WS vs control): -0.17 (95% CI: -0.58 to 0.24); SMD (3WS vs control): -0.23
(95% CI: -0.66 to 0.19); SMD (9WS vs control): -0.06 (95% CI: -0.53 to 0.41)
REASON FOR DROP-OUTS: NR
SIDE EFFECTS: NR
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection Unclear risk Not described in this paper, but Anderson
bias) 2010 is referenced to have details

Andersen Ch 2012 (Continued)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not described in this paper, but Anderson
2010 is referenced to have details
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Perceptible difference between groups
bias)
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Perceptible difference between groups
bias)
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Patient is the assessor
bias)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk 38% drop-out rate
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Unclear risk Minimum supervision group not described
All outcomes - ITT analysis? (Figure 1); P1007Lp
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk See trial registration
Similarity of baseline characteristics? Low risk Table 2 - gave yes, but some hesitation be-
cause of higher proportion of males in 3WS
group
Compliance acceptable? High risk P1007Lp1; 56% did more than 20 min-
utes exercise per week - 60min/week was
planned
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk Baseline, 20 weeks
Ang 2009

Intention-to-treat Analysis: Calculated
Power Analysis: Calculated
Participants Chronic MND (Mechanical Neck Pain & Myofascial Pain Syndrome)
Setting: 2 air force helicopter bases
Country: Sweden

Ang 2009 (Continued)

Arm 1- Exercise Group: Activity- Patterns and synchronization of muscle recruitment,
Endurance-Strengthening exercises, Mode- Progression from non postural (supine,
prone) low-load active craniocervical flexion at 5 pressure levels (22 to 30 mmHg), seated
postural exercises with active craniocervical flexion and active scapular retraction. Seated
and standing elastic resistance, Movement- supine craniocervical flexion exercises, prone
isometric shoulder/scapular, seated active craniocervical flexion with cervical rotation to
end range and simultaneous scapular retraction to mid motion range, sitting controlled
dynamic shoulder retraction following a rowing exercise movement, dynamic scapular
retraction with weight load over long movement arms in “rowing”exercises in regular
pulls, emphasizing shoulder retraction in the initial concentric phase and upright trunk
postures in the inner range, Dynamic neck rotation exercises in upright posture against
moderate resistance using elastic bands, Dosage- Non postural exercises-held isometri-
cally (low load) for 10 seconds, repeated 10 times. Postural (seated, isometric held at 5
pressure levels like supine, holding 10 seconds, repeated 10 times, neck rotation to end
range 3 sets repeated 10 to 15 times on each side. Endurance-strength exercises 3 sets
of 15 repetitions (elastic bands were used to replicate the exercises at home). Feedback
The supervising physiotherapist monitored potential surface flexor activity visually, with
palpation if necessary
Treatment schedule: Assigned exercises (2 to 4) were to be completed 2 times/day lasting
10 to 15 minutes, supervised weekly by a physiotherapist providing instruction and
manual guidance
Arm 2- Control: No exercise, encouraged to continue with ordinary exercise activity
Treatment Schedule: 6 weeks, instructed to do 2 to 4 exercises 2 times/day, for 10 to
15 minutes, supervised by physiotherapist weekly.
Duration of Follow-up: 12 months
Outcomes PAIN
Prevelance during previous week
Baseline Mean (SD): Exercise 13 (38), Control 11 (32)
Reported Results: In the exercise group, the prevalence of cases for the previous week
and the previous 3 months decreased from 38% to 15% and 76% to 44% respectively,
whereas in controls it was unchanged
RR (exercise group vs control): 0.45 (95% CI: 0.18 to 1.14). Between-group regression
analyses revealed that the members of the exercising group had a 3.2 times greater chance
(odds ratio) than the control group of having been pain-free during the previous 7 days
and a 1.9 times great chance (odds ratio) of having been pain-free during the previous 3
months, P = 0.01
REASON FOR DROP-OUTS: 6 in Exercise Group, 6 in Control Group, reasons
reported
SIDE EFFECTS: NR
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias

Ang 2009 (Continued)
Random sequence generation (selection Unclear risk Randomization technique not adequately
bias) described
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not adequately described
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Not possible

bias)

bias)
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Patient is assessor

bias)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk Described in Figure 2

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk Figure 2; P 457Lp3

Similarity of baseline characteristics? Low risk See Tables 1-3
Compliance acceptable? Unclear risk Unsure of long-term compliance in exercise

group; unsure what compliance data refer
to
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk Baseline, 6 weeks, 1 year
Beer 2012

Intention-to-treat Analysis: Not calculated
Power Analysis: Not calculated
Participants Persistent neck pain

Setting: Local university and newsletter, sedentary office workers

Beer 2012 (Continued)
Country: Australia

Arm 1- Exercise group: Activity- Functional postural exercise. Mode- Sitting. Move-
ment- Assumes an upright posture in a neutral lumbo-pelvic position and then gently
lengthens the cervical spine by imagining they are lifting the base of their skull from the
top of their neck. Dosage- concentric-isometric hold with postural awareness, low in-
tensity,10 second hold every 15 to 20 minutes throughout the day for a total of 2 weeks,
all sorts of environment throughout their waking day, feedback was taught initially but
not reviewed during the 2 weeks
Treatment schedule: 2 weeks
Arm 2- Control group: Did not undertake any exercise intervention during the study
Duration of Follow-up: NR
CO-INTERVENTION: participants in control group were requested not to seek other
treatment for their neck pain for the 2 weeks
Outcomes PAIN
VAS, 0 to 10
Baseline mean: treatment 3.0 control 2.6
Reported results: no significant
SMD (exercise vs control): 0.13 (95% CI: -0.74 to 1.01)
FUNCTION
NDI, 0 to100
Baseline mean: treatment 18.1 control 20.6
Reported results: no significant
SMD (exercise vs control): -0.32 (95% CI: -1.21 to 0.56)
REASONS FOR DROP-OUTS: NR
SIDE EFFECTS: NR
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection Unclear risk Randomization technique not adequately
bias) described (p.221- left column)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not described.
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Not possible. Required active patient par-
bias) ticipation (exercise/posture)

Beer 2012 (Continued)
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Not possible. Required active provider
bias) participation (exercise prescription/posture
All outcomes - providers? education)
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Patient is the outcome assessor.
bias)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Unclear risk Not described.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Unclear risk Not described.

Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk No protocol.
Similarity of baseline characteristics? Low risk p.222- Table 1
Co-interventions avoided or similar? Unclear risk Not measured
Compliance acceptable? Unclear risk Study group was supposed to do exercise

every 15-20 minutes; see p.222/right col-
umn/paragraph 1 for vast range
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk Baseline and 2 weeks
Bronfort 2001

Number Analyzed/Randomized: 158 to 160/191
Intention-to-treat analysis: NR
Power Analysis: NR
Participants Chronic MND

Setting: University Centre for Clinical Studies and the Physician’s Neck and Back Clinic
Country: USA, Canada

Arm 1- MedX Exercise (MedX): Activity- High technology exercise, Mode/Movement-
medically supervised rehabilitative exercise. Dosage- 20 sessions over 3 months
Arm 2- Manipulation and low tech Exercise (SMT/Ex):Activity- Chiropractic manip-
ulation, supervised low technology rehabilitative exercise, Mode- progressive strength-
ening exercises for the neck and upper body proceeded by a short aerobic warm up of
the upper body and light stretching, Movement- the upper body strengthening exercises
included push ups and dumbbell shoulder exercises as described by Dyrssen et al 1989.
Dosage- 45 minutes total, 2 sets of 15 to 30 repetitions, weight 2 to 10 lbs; cervical
progressive resisted strengthening exercises where performed while lying on a therapy

Bronfort 2001 (Continued)
table with wearing head gear with variable weights from 1.25 lb to 10 lbs guided by a
simple pulley system attached to the table
Treatment Schedule: 20 sessions over 3 months
Arm 3- Spinal Manipulative (SMT): Chiropractic manipulation, 20 sessions over 3
months
Treatment Schedule: 11 weeks, 20 session
CO-INTERVENTION: NR
Outcomes CUMULATIVE ADVANTAGE for six patient-oriented outcomes

Reported Results: favours SMT/Ex over SMT; MONOVA value yielded a significant
group difference (Wilk’s Lambda = 0.85, F(12,302) = 2.2, P < 0.01)
PAIN
VAS, 0 to 10
Baseline Mean: SMT 56.6, MedX 57.1, SMT/Ex 56.0
Reported Results: group difference in patient-rated pain ANOVA F(2,156) = 4.2, P =
0.02 favours the two exercise groups
SMD (SMT/Ex vs SMT) at LT follow-up: -0.21 (95% CI: -0.60 to 0.18); power 28%,
NNTB 10; treatment advantage 15%
FUNCTION
NDI, 0 to 50
Reported Results: no significant group differences were found ANOVA: F(2, 156) = 2.
04, P = 0.13
SMD (SMT/Ex vs SMT) at LT follow-up: -0.38 (95% CI: -0.78 to 0.01), power 28%,
NNTB 11, treatment advantage 11%
HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE
SF-36, 0 to 100
Baseline mean: SMT 69.1, MedX 69.0, SMT/Ex 71.7
Reported Results: SMD at LT follow-up: -0.30 (95% CI: -0.69 to 0.09)
PATIENT SATISFACTION
scale 1 to 7
completely satisfied to completely dissatisfied
Reported Results: A clinically worthwhile cumulative advantage was reported favouring
manipulation/exercise (low tech) group over exercise (high tech) and manipulation alone
ANOVA: F(2, 158) = 6.7, P = 0.002
SMD (SMT/Ex vs SMT) at LT follow-up:-0.93 (95% CI: -1.35 to -0.52)
PATIENT-RATED IMPROVEMENT
scale 1 to 9
Reported Results: substantial improvement over time, ANOVA: F(2, 174) = 1.7, P =
0.18
SMD (SMT/Ex vs SMT) at LT follow-up: -0.42 (95% CI: -0.81 to 0.03); power 44%
REASONS FOR DROP-OUTS: Reported
SIDE EFFECTS: increase neck or headache pain 8 SMT/Ex, 9 MedX, 6 SMT; increased
radicular pain 1 SMT/Ex; severe thoracic pain 1 SMT; all cases self-limiting and no
permanent injuries;
RR(SMT/Ex vs MedX): 0.81 (95% CI: 0.23 to 1.55) RR(SMT vs MedX): 0.61 (95%
CI: 0.23 to 1.55)
COST OF CARE: NR

Bronfort 2001 (Continued)
Notes Final data since there was small difference in reporting data between Bronfort 2001 and
Evans 2002, we elected to abstract Evans 2002 data for the data and analyses table.
Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection Low risk Sequentially numbered, opaque envelopes,
bias) prepared using a computer-generated list
prior to start of study p2384
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Study staff, investigators, clinicians, and
patients were masked to upcoming treat-
ment assignments p2384
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Not possible due to self-report measures
bias)
bias)
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Not possible due to study design.
bias)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk 93% at 11 weeks, 76% overall, but not de-
All outcomes - drop-outs? scribed.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk Only 145 out of 178 participants were an-
All outcomes - ITT analysis? alyzed according to Table 2
Similarity of baseline characteristics? Low risk Comparable on measured clinical and de-
mographic characteristics, see Table 1
Compliance acceptable? Unclear risk Not reported with respect to exercise
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk 5, 11 weeks of treatment, 3, 6, 12 months

Chiu 2005
Methods Type of Trial: RCT cross-over design

Number Analyzed/Ransomized: 109/145
Power Analysis: 90%
Participants Subacute MND (Cervical Brachial Pain Syndrome)

Setting: Physiotherapy Outpatient Department
Country: Hong Kong

Arm 1- Craniocervical Flexion and isometric neck strengthening (CCF): Activity- deep
neck flexor strengthening, Infrared irradiation Mode- -using pressure sensor @20mmhg
x10 minutes (10 seconds on/15 seconds off ) Strengthening using a Multi Cervical Re-
habilitation Unit (MCRU). Movement/Dosage- 15 repetitions of flexion, extension at
20% of Peak Isometric Strength (PIS) as warm-up. Then dynamic flexion and extension
with variable resistance x 0 to 12 repetitions.
Treatment Schedule: 35 minutes of exercise per session
COMPARISON TREATMENT:
Arm 2- Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS): 30 minutes of dual chan-
nel portable TENS unit (ITO model 1302). Continuous trains of 150ms square pulse
at 80Hz. 4 Electrodes (4x4cm)
Arm 3- Control Group: Infrared Irradiation (IR): place on Ex 21, GB21, LI 11, intensity
2 to 3 times of participants sensory threshold education on neck care
Treatment schedule: 20 minutes per session, 6 weeks, 2 sessions/wk
CO-INTERVENTION: NS
Outcomes PAIN
VAS, 0 to 10
Baseline Mean: CCF 4.61, TENS 4.69, IR 4.26
Reported Results: NS
SMD (CCF vs IR): -0.34 (95% CI: -0.72 to 0.04); NNTB 6, treatment advantage 24%
FUNCTION
Northwick Park Questionnaire (NPQ) - Chinese version, 0 to 4
Baseline Mean: CCF 1.39, TENS 1.55, IR 1.36
Reported Results: CCF vs IR was significant (P = 0.02)
SMD (CCF vs IR): -0.33 (95% CI: -0.71 to 0.05); NNTB 6, treatment advantage 16%
REASON FOR DROP-OUTS: Reported
SIDE EFFECTS: No complications occurred.
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection Low risk Computer-generated minimization

bias) method

Chiu 2005 (Continued)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Computer-based randomization
bias)
bias)
bias)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk


Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk
Similarity of baseline characteristics? Low risk See Table 1
Co-interventions avoided or similar? Low risk
Compliance acceptable? Low risk
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk See Table 2
Dellve 2011

Participants Chronic cervical neck pain or cervicobrachial pain syndrome

Setting: University Hospital Clinic
Country: Sweden

Arm 1- Myofeedback Training (MT): Activity- activities of daily living; Mode- wearing a
myofeedback device; Movement- ergonomic adjustments; Dosage- Duration/Frequency
(minimum of 8 hours per week, typically 2 hours per day and 4 days per week); ;
Environment (various); Feedback (discussion with ergonomist once per week)

Dellve 2011 (Continued)
Arm 2- Intensive Muscular Strength Training (IMST): Activity- Upper extremity

strength training Mode- resistance bands Movement- Exercises for strengthening and
co-ordinating the upper extremities. Dosage- Type of contraction (NR); Intensity (NR)
; Speed (NR); Duration/Frequency (2 times per day, 6 days per week for 4 weeks);
Sequence (warm-up movements followed by strengthening exercises then ending with
breathing and slow down movements); Environment (participant’s home); Feedback (er-
gonomist coaching)
Arm 3- Control Group: Diary entries to record activities, discomfort, pain and sleeping
disturbances
CO-INTERVENTION: not avoided
Outcomes PAIN
Numeric Pain Scale, 0 to 10
Baseline Mean: MT (6.0), IMST (6.3), Control (6.2)
SMD (IMST vs control) at immediate post-treatment: -0.30 (95% CI: -0.92 to 0.33);
SMD (IMST vs control) at 2 months follow-up: -0.63 (95% CI: -1.27 to 0.00)
FUNCTION
Work Ability Index, 7 to 49
Baseline Mean: MT (19.3), IMST (19.0), Control (19.0)
SMD (IMST vs control) at immediate post-treatment: -0.18 (95% CI: -0.80 to 0.44);
SMD (IMST vs control) at 2 months follow-up: 0.38 (95% CI: -0.25 to 1.01)
REASON FOR DROP-OUTS: 5 in MT Group, 7 in IMST Group, 1 in Control Group,
reasons reported
SIDE EFFECTS: NR
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias

bias)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not described
bias)
bias)
Dellve 2011 (Continued)
bias)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Unclear risk High drop-out rate in second group; rea-
All outcomes - drop-outs? sons for drop-outs not described
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk Figure 1 - only 20 analyzed per group
Similarity of baseline characteristics? Low risk Table 1
Co-interventions avoided or similar? Unclear risk Not reported by group
Compliance acceptable? Unclear risk Not reported
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk Baseline, 1 month, 3 months
Franca 2008

Intention-to-treat Analysis: Not specified
Participants Chronic MND (Myofascial Pain Syndrome)

Setting: University Research and Rehabilitation Department
Country: Brazil

Arm 1- Physiotherapy protocol performed according to Hall and Brody consisting of
Activity-stretching, strengthening Mode- muscle stretching of neck and upper limbs
regions; recruitment exercise of Deep Cervical Flexion Muscles; Movement- strengthen-
ing exercise of Deep Cervical Flexion Muscles and upper limbs. Duration of treatment
20 minutes, 1 to 2 times/week for 10 weeks
Arm 2- Acupuncture combined with Physiotherapy (G1) Activity- Stage 1: acupuncture
therapy based on the TCM theory of biao-li (symptom/root) treatment. Mode- Chinese
acupuncture, as the root treatment, was performed with a selection of body points by
means of the diagnostic of syndromes of TCM. Movement- Disposable stainless steel
needles (0.25 mm x 30 mm) with guide-tubes (Dong-bang Acupuncture Needle, Korea)
inserted bilaterally into the body points to a depth of 10 to 15 mm. YNSA was carried out
as the symptom treatment with a selection of the kinetic and ypsilon points as the main
scalp points to treat TNS. The kinetic points were stimulated bilaterally with needle

Franca 2008 (Continued)
measuring 0.25 mm x 5 to 15 mm (Dongbang Acupuncture Needle, Korea) to a depth

of 1 to 2 mm, whereas the selection of the ypsilon points were ipsilateral of the scalp to
the diagnosed side of the neck. All acupoints (body and scalp points) were stimulated
in an uneven manner every 10 minutes to maintain the needling sensation. Chinese
acupuncture was performed in 20 minutes and YNSA was maintained until 40 minutes.
Stage 2: Physiotherapy given simultaneously with YNSA
COMPARISON TREATMENTS:
Arm 3- Acupuncture (G2): Same protocol of acupuncture therapy as described in the
first stage of G1 for 20 minutes
Arm 4- Physiotherapy (G3): Same protocol of physiotherapy as described in the second
stage of G1 for 20 minutes
Duration of Follow-up: 6 months follow-up
CO-INTERVENTION: avoided in trial
Outcomes PAIN
VAS, 0 to 100
Baseline Mean: PT+Acup 85.0, Acup 80.0, PT 70.0
Reported Results: According to KWT (Kruskal-Wallis test), the statistical analysis of
the inter-groups demonstrated significant (P < 0.05) differences among the groups. The
DMCT (Dunn’s Multiple Comparison test) showed that G1 was superior to G3 in pain
improvement (P < 0.05)
SMD (PT+ Acup vs Acup) at immediate post treatment: -0.73 (95% CI: -1.46 to -0.
00), treatment advantage 11%
FUNCTION
NDI - Brazilian/Portuguese version
Baseline Mean: PT+Acup 24.0, Acup 30.0, PT 28.0
Reported Results: The DMCT (Dunn’s Multiple Comparison test) showed that G1
was superior to G3 in reducing functional disability (P < 0.0001)
SMD (PT + Acup vs Acup) at IT follow-up: -0.95 (95% CI: -1.70 to -0.20), NNTB13,
treatment advantage 13%
REASONS FOR DROP-OUTS: Reported (3 drop-outs, 1 in each group)
SIDE EFFECTS: Reported; no record of serious complication of acupuncture or phys-
iotherapy occurred during treatments or during the follow-up period after any of the
treatments that could harm the patients during the assessment all stages of the trial
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection Low risk

bias)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk

Franca 2008 (Continued)
bias)
bias)
bias)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk 1 per group

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk No ITT performed

Similarity of baseline characteristics? High risk VAS scores were significantly different be-
tween groups
Co-interventions avoided or similar? Unclear risk Not clear
Compliance acceptable? Unclear risk Not clear
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk 10 weeks and 6 months
Hall 2007

Power Analysis: NR
Participants (sub)acute Cervicogenic headache (CGH)

Radicular symptoms/signs: NS
Setting: Physiotherapy Private Practice

Arm 1- C1-2 self SNAG (SSng): Activity-Belt was used as per Mulligans detailed tech-
niques. Mode- The participant was instructed by the PT on the proper positioning and
technique of mobilization belt on 3 trials to familiarize themselves. The participant was
instructed to perform technique without producing pain. Movement- (supplemental
video available on line)

Hall 2007 (Continued)
Treatment schedule: 1 day

Arm 2- Control group (Mock): Sham mobilizations with same belt. This group did not
receive instruction to rotate head towards restriction
Treatment Schedule: 1 day
Duration of Follow-up: 4 weeks and 12 months
Outcomes PAIN
Headache intensity change score (VAS), 0 to 100
Baseline Mean: SSng 52 Mock 51
Reported Results: group difference in patient-rated pain favours the SSng exercise group
SMD(SSng vs Mock) at ST follow-up: -1.58 (95% CI: -2.38 to -0.77); power 100%,
NNTB 2, Treatment advantage 40%
SMD(SSng vs Mock) at LT follow-up: -1.74 (95% CI:-2.57 to -0.91);power 100%,
REASONS FOR DROP-OUTS: N/A
SIDE EFFECTS: NR
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection High risk Participans were allocated to treatment
bias) group using lottery ticket randomization
chosen from a concealed container
Allocation concealment (selection bias) High risk
Blinding (performance bias and detection Low risk

bias)
bias)

bias)

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk No drop-outs


Hall 2007 (Continued)
Similarity of baseline characteristics? Low risk No significant differences were detected

between the 2 groups in terms of age,
headache history, FRT range, and headache
severity index score. Gender distribution
was similar. See Table 2
Co-interventions avoided or similar? High risk Not addressed
Compliance acceptable? Low risk Compliance investigated
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk 4 weeks postintervention and 12 months
postintervention
Hallman 2011

Intention-to-treat Analysis: Not calculated
Participants Stress-related chronic neck-shoulder pain

Setting: NR
Country: Sweden

Arm 1- Practice paced breathing: Activity- breathing exercises;Mode- resonance heart
rate variability (HRV) biofeedback (BF) training and paced breathing; Movement- res-
piration.Dosage- Type of contraction (concentric diaphragm concentrically contracts
with this breathing exercise), intensity (low as was breathing exercises), On-site sessions:
speed (Sessions 1 and 10: between 4.5 to 6.5 breaths per minute to determine speed with
highest HRV. Sessions 2 to 9: performed at speed of highest HRV.), duration (Sessions 1
and 10: 2-minutes of paced breathing for 2-minutes of free, non-paced breathing. Ses-
sions 2 to 9: 4 times 5-minutes of resonant HRV BF with 2-minutes breaks), frequency
(1time/week), environment in which exercise is performed (morning or afternoon is
standardized in a comfortable semi-reclined chair semi-reclined, 23 Celsius, dim light,
relaxing atmosphere), feedback (psychologist weekly session)
Home exercise-program: at least 15-minutes of paced breathing with watch or easy air
pacer software, 5 times/week
Arm 2- Control Group: This group took part in the breathing protocol in sessions 1 and
10, without any prescribed treatment in between
Treatment schedule: week 1 and 10
Duration of Follow-up: Directly after 10 weeks

Hallman 2011 (Continued)
Outcomes PAIN
Borg Scale, 0 to 10
Baseline Mean : Treatment 2.6, Control 2.5
SMD (treatment vs control): -0.19 (95% CI: -1.01 to 0.63)
FUNCTION
NDI, 0 to 100
Baseline Mean: Treatment 21.3, Control 25.6
SMD (treatment vs control): -0.52 (95% CI: -1.35 to 0.32)
QUALITY OF LIFE
SF-36 (physical function subscale)
Baseline mean: Treatment 89.6, Control 77.5
SMD (treatment vs control): 0.65 (95% CI: -0.19 to 1.49)
SIDE EFFECTS: NR
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes Author contacted but no response
Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection Unclear risk Method not described

bias)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Method not described
bias)
bias)
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Patient is outcome assessor
bias)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk P.74, right column
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk 1 drop-out not included in analysis - Table
All outcomes - ITT analysis? 1

Hallman 2011 (Continued)
Similarity of baseline characteristics? Unclear risk See Table 2 - differences in physical func-
tion, vitality, social function, depression
Hansson 2013

Power Analysis: calculated
Participants WAD
Setting: Physiotherapy centre
Country: Sweden

Arm 1- Vestibular rehabilitation program: Activity- circuit training of six balance ex-
ercises with warm-up and recovery phases;Mode- static and dynamic balance exercises
with neck movements, eyes opened and closed; Movement- Warm-up phase- walking
around the room and changing direction as well as turning the head from side to side.
Exercises in standing, including training of co-ordination of movements. Circuit train-
ing- Standing up and sitting down on a chair while turning the head from side to side.
Eyes closed if possible. Standing on a trampoline, eyes closed and slightly flexing the
knees and turning the head from side to side simultaneously. Standing on a 10 cm foam
with eyes closed and turning the head from side to side. Standing on a sport mat, walk-
ing on the spot and turning the head from side to side. Eyes closed if possible. Sitting
on a ball, feet on foam, eyes closed and bouncing slightly while turning the head from
side to side. Walking forward and backward while turning the head from side to side.
Recovery phase- Soft, relaxing movements. Stretch of the muscles in the upper cervical
region. Dosage- Warm-up duration- 10-minutes. Circuit training duration- 2- minutes
per exercise, 2 laps. Recovery phase duration- 5-minutes. Frequency (2 times/week), en-
vironment in which exercise is performed (physical therapy centre), feedback (supervised
group sessions)
Arm 2- Control Group: no intervention
Duration of Follow-up: 6 weeks and 3 months
CO-INTERVENTION: reported and not avoided

Hansson 2013 (Continued)
Outcomes PAIN
VAS, 0 to 100
Baseline Median : Intervention 60, Control 60
Reported Results: no significant difference between groups, SMD (6 weeks vs control)
6 weeks 0.07 (95% CI: -0.68 to 0.82); SMD (3 months vs control) -0.60 (95% CI: -1.
35 to 0.15)
REASONS FOR DROP-OUTS: reported
SIDE EFFECTS: NR
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes We utilized median values (SD) rather than mean scores (SMD) to calculate SMD
Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection Low risk p.907 L bottom column: Random number
bias) table
Allocation concealment (selection bias) High risk p. 907 L bottom column: The same inde-
pendent person also carried out the inter-
vention
bias)
bias)
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Not possible since pt is outcome assessor
bias) for VAS.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk Drop- out rate too high: 17/29 dropped
All outcomes - drop-outs? out (figure 1)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk Table 3- 6 weeks control (N = 12)
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Unable to find registration online (reg.
number lu 702-01)
Co-interventions avoided or similar? High risk P907 Lp1 - 5 patients underwent other
types of physio during the study

Hansson 2013 (Continued)
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk p.907 bottom right column: the control
group was tested at the same intervals as the
intervention group
Helewa 2007

Power Analysis: Calculated: For factorial effects (not differences between treatment
groups) and based on a change on the Northwick Park Questionnaire

Radicular signs/symptoms: NS
Setting: University School of Physical Therapy
Country: Canada

Arm 1- Exercise: Activity-Standard Pillow + Exercise + Active Control Treatment Group:
Standard (regular) pillow is assumed to be used by this group. Mode- Exercise includ-
ing: Posture, Relaxation, Active Movement- 1-Postural correction in sitting, standing
or during work and leisure activities emphasizing chin in retracted position with cer-
vical spine elongations not beyond normal curves of cervical spine practised with mir-
ror feedback first, then freely using other prompts to become habitual), 2-Relaxation
Exercise Techniques designed to interrupt cycle of pain and muscle spasm (hold-relax
approach repeated up to 5 times and/or rhythmic stabilization applied manually by the
PT and taught to the patient), 3-Free Active Exercise (following relaxation techniques
patients freely move head and neck according to normal patterns of movement, may
initially be helped by the physiotherapists, patterns are diagonal and involve head flexion
and rotation to the right followed by head extension and rotation to the left, diagonal
patterns are then repeated to the contralateral sides), and 4- Strengthening Exercises
(to strengthen the anterior neck muscles using manual resistance (within the limit of
pain) with a combination of isometric and isotonic movements, the principle involving
reversing movements of flexion and extension, using the principles of successive induc-
tion (Sherrington 1961)). Dosage- 13 sessions over 10 weeks, as well as home exercises
and Active Control treatment (massage and thermal modality) were administered to this
group isometric rehabilitative exercise
Arm 2- Neck Support (Pillow): Activity- Orthopaedic Pillow(s) + Active Control Treat-
ment Group: Mode- Neck Support Pillows Movement- could be one of two designs:
Shape of Sleep pillow (Manutex Products, Mississauga, ON, Canada) or the Sissel Design
AB pillow (Sissel Design AB, Svedala, Sweden). The two types of pillows were randomly
assigned equally in each arm. The pillows did not differ in shape but in the firmness of
the foam. The pillow use was combined with the Active Control treatment (massage and
thermal modality)

Helewa 2007 (Continued)
Arm 3- Neck Support and Exercise (Exercise + Pillow): Orthopaedic Pillow(s) + Exercise
+ Active Control Treatment: Orthopaedic pillows were used and were of two types: Shape
of Sleep pillow (Manutex Products, Mississauga, ON, Canada) or the SIssel Design AB
pillow (Sissel Design AB, Svedala, Sweden). The two types of pillows were randomly
assigned equally in each arm. The pillows did not differ in shape but in the firmness of
the foam. Pillow use, plus Exercise plus Active control treatment (massage and thermal
modality) were administered in this group
Arm 4- Massage Therapy and thermal modality (Control): Standard (regular) Pillow +
Active Control Group: The Standard (regular) pillow is assumed to be used by this group.
Active Control treatment that included massage and thermal modality,
Efflurage type massage for 10 sessions in 10 weeks. Visits were 2 sessions/week for 3
weeks, then 1 visit/week for 3 weeks, then 1 visit in 10th week.
Arm 5- Thermal modality: 20 minutes of moist heat or ice.
Treatment Schedule: 6 weeks (assume that the use of the pillow was constrained to these
6 weeks)
Outcomes PAIN
VAS, 0 to 10
Baseline Mean: Exercise 2.9, Pillow 3.6, Exercise + Pillow 2.3, Control 2.5
Reported Results: Not significant at all points
SMD (Exercise v Control): SMD -0.00 (95% CI: -0.52 to 0.52) SMD (Exercise + Pillow
v Pillow): SMD -0.59 (95% CI: -1.09 to -0.09); power 50.69%
FUNCTION
Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), 0 to 100
Reported Results: Interaction of pillow and exercises are statistically significant and
clinically important
SMD (Exercise vs Control): 0.00 (-0.52 to 0.52); power 100% SMD (Exercise + Pillow
vs Pillow): -0.61 (-1.11 to -0.12); power 100%
QUALITY OF LIFE
SF 36, 0 to 100
SMD (Exercise vs Control): 0.15 (95% CI: -0.34 to 0.65); power 100% SMD (Exercise
+ Pillow vs Pillow): -0.46 (95% CI: -0.95, to 0.04); power 100%
SIDE EFFECTS: None present
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection Low risk 2x2 balanced factorial design, balanced
bias) treatment-group allocation was done us-

Helewa 2007 (Continued)
ing randomly selected randomly ordered

blocks
bias)
bias)
bias)

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk Not reported

Similarity of baseline characteristics? Low risk See Table 1
Co-interventions avoided or similar? Low risk Reminder to participants at 12 weeks
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk Post treatment, 6 weeks treatment + 6
weeks follow-up, 6 weeks treatment + 18
weeks follow-up, 6 weeks treatment + 46
weeks follow-up
Humphreys 2002

Intention-to-treat Analysis: Not specified
Power Analysis: NR
Participants Chronic neck pain

Radicular Signs/Symptoms: Not specified
Setting: Students attending a chiropractic college
Country: United Kingdom

Humphreys 2002 (Continued)

Arm 1- Symptomatic exercise group (SEG): Activity- One eye-head-neck co-ordination
and one eye-head-neck-upper limb co-ordination. Mode- sitting. Movement- Exercise
one: participants were required to fix their eyes on a target in front of them and move
their head maximally in a slow and carefully controlled movement in one direction while
keeping their eyes fixed on the target straight ahead. Exercise two: participants were
required to hold up both arms in front of them with their thumb extended upwards and
to keep their eyes fixed on one thumb as the ipsilateral arm went through the sequential
movements of the left and right rotation, flexion and extension, with the eyes and head
followed the movement in a slow and co-ordinated fashion. Dosage- Speed (slow and
co-ordinated movement), Duration/Frequency (4 weeks, 2 times/day), Feedback (one
training session given by the author and an instruction sheet), Monitoring (exercise
compliance form), Environment (home exercise program). Dose (NR)
Treatment Schedule: 4 weeks, 2 daily sessions.
Arm 2- Control group: Symptomatic non-exercise group (SNEG).
CO-INTERVENTION: NR
Outcomes PAIN
VAS, 0 to 100
Baseline Mean: SEG 55, SNEG 49
Reported Results: no significant difference between groups SMD (SEG vs SNEG): 0.
00 (95% CI: -0.74 to 0.74)
SIDE EFFECTS: NR
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias

bias)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not described

bias)

bias)

Humphreys 2002 (Continued)
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Patient is the assessor
bias)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk p.105, Results: 56/63
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Unclear risk Not described

Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk No registration or protocol
Similarity of baseline characteristics? Unclear risk Inadequate information provided
Co-interventions avoided or similar? Unclear risk Not described
Compliance acceptable? Low risk p.107-108 Exercise Compliance: 95% &

89% compliance per group
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk Baseline, 2 weeks & 4 weeks
Jull 2002

Power Analysis: NR
Participants Chronic CGH

Setting: Multiple trial centres
Country: Australia

Arm 1- Exercise Therapy (CCF/ISO) Activity- therapeutic low load exercise to cervical-
scapular region Mode- craniocervical flexor training with pressure biofeedback, scapular
muscle training, postural correction, Movement- exercise performed throughout the day,
isometric strengthening with co-contraction of neck flexion and extension, stretching
as needed. Treatment Schedule: 30-minute session duration, 2 sessions/weeks, 8 to 12
sessions total
Arm 2- Combined Therapy (MT/ET): Activity- manipulation, mobilization & exercise
Treatment Schedule: 30-minute session duration, two sessions/weeks, 8 to 12 sessions
total
Arm 3- Manipulative Therapy (SMT): manipulation: high velocity, low-amplitude ma-
nipulation described by Maitland; mobilization (low velocity), 30-minute session dura-
tion. Dosage: 2 sessions/week, 8 to 12 sessions total

Jull 2002 (Continued)
Arm 4- Control Group (NT): no treatment

Treatment Schedule: 6 weeks, 8 to 12 sessions
CO-INTERVENTION: NR
Outcomes PAIN
Headache intensity change score (VAS), 0 to 10
Baseline Mean: SMT 4.8, CCF 5.4, MT/ET 5.1, NT 5.3
Reported Results: significant favouring SMT and CCF
SMD (CCF v NT) at LT follow-up:-0.59 (95% CI:-1.00 to -0.18), NNTB 6, treatment
advantage 28%
FUNCTION
Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ) change score, 0 to 36
Baseline Mean: SMT 27.5, CCF 29.6, MT/ET 29.7, NT 30.7
Reported Results: significant favouring MT or MT/ET over control; no significant
difference between MT, ET and MT/ET comparisons
SMD (CCF vs NT) at LT follow-up:-0.59 (95% CI:-1.00 to -0.18), NNTB 6, treatment
advantage 32%
GLOBAL PERCEIVED EFFECT
Participant perceived effect (VAS 0 to 100)
Reported Results: significant favouring SMT and MT/ET over NT, not significant for
SMT or MT/ET when compared to CCF
SMD (CCF vs NT):-2.51 (95% CI:-3.05 to -1.97)
SIDE EFFECT: minor and temporary, 6.7% of headaches were provoked by treatment
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection Low risk 2x2 factorial design, randomized permuted
bias) block design was used with stratification
for length of headache history and city of
residence
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk An independent body implemented ran-
domization by telephone contact with each
trial centre
bias)
bias)

Jull 2002 (Continued)

bias)

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk ITT analysis performed
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk No protocol provided
Similarity of baseline characteristics? Low risk Baseline characteristics across the four
treatment groups were similar (See Table 1)
. The only exception was the distribution
of females across treatment groups, subse-
quently included as a covariate in the anal-
ysis
Co-interventions avoided or similar? High risk Present
Compliance acceptable? Low risk Reported
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk 6 weeks treatment + 1 week, 3 months, 6
months and 12 months follow-up
Kjellman 2002

Power Analysis: NR
Participants (sub)Acute to Chronic MND with or without radiation

Radicular signs/symptoms: Present
Setting: Primary care physical therapy and private physical therapy practices
Country: Sweden

Arm 1- General Exercise (ET): Activity-stretching, strengthening, Mode- neck and
shoulder, Movement- ROM, active neck endurance and strength exercises, 16 sessions
over 2 months
Arm 2- McKenzie Exercise (McK): Specific McKenzie protocol. Sessions over 2 months.
Number not specified
Arm 3- Sham Ultrasound (SUS): Set at lowest setting for 7 minutes. Applied over the
superior portion of the trapezius

Kjellman 2002 (Continued)
Treatment Schedule: 4 weeks of treatment

Duration of Follow-up: 6 and 12 months
CO-INTERVENTION: Comparable between index and control groups.
Outcomes PAIN
VAS, 0 to 100
Baseline Mean: ET 27.0, McK 19, SUS 21
SMD (ET vs SUS) at LT follow-up: -0.19 (95% CI: -0.41 to 0.80)
SMD (McK vs SUS) at LT follow-up: 0.04 (95% CI: -0.51 to 0.60)
FUNCTION
NDI, 0 to 50
Baseline Mean: ET 27.0, McK 19, US 21
SMD (ET vs SUS) at LT follow-up: -0.19 (95% CI: -0.41 to 0.80)
SMD (McK vs SUS) at LT follow-up: 0.04 (95% CI: -0.51 to 0.60)
SIDE EFFECTS: NR
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection Low risk Randomization by drawing sealed en-
bias) velopes out of a box
Allocation concealment (selection bias) High risk Not reported
bias)
bias)
bias)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk Drop-outs noted



Kjellman 2002 (Continued)
Similarity of baseline characteristics? High risk Reported Table 1; no analysis
Co-interventions avoided or similar? High risk Table 5, higher use by control group
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk Post treatment, 8 weeks treatment + 6
months, 8 weeks treatment + 52 weeks fol-
low-up
Kuijper 2009

Number Analyzed/Randomized: 200/205 at 6 weeks, 192/205 at 6-month follow-up
Intention-to-treat Analysis: Calculated; sample size based on 90% power and to detect
a 10mm difference in the VAS (primary outcome) for arm pain (not neck pain).
Participants Acute NDR

Setting: Three Hospitals
Country: Netherlands

Arm 1- Physiotherapy Group (PG): Activity-Therapy was focused on mobilizing and
stabilizing the neck and was characterized as “hands off ”. Mode- The sessions were
standardized provided by a certified Physiotherapist, the patient was instructed on graded
exercise activities to strengthen the superficial and deep muscle of the neck. The patients
were also instructed in a home exercise program. Movement- Patients were advised
to practice the exercises daily and asked to record the duration of their exercise daily.
Dosage: 2 times/week for 6 weeks
Arm 2- Wait and see list Group (WLG): Patients in the control group were advised to
continue their daily activities as much as possible. As well they were asked to note in their
diaries the parts of the day where they were unable to continue their normal activities.
Patients were asked to contact the investigators if they had any questions
Arm 3- Collar Group (CG): Semi-hard collar (Cerviflex S, Bauerfeind and available in 6
sizes), The best size (to fit snugly) was selected for each patient. Patients advised to wear
the pillow during the day for 3 weeks. Over the next 3 weeks patients were weaned off
the collar. After 6 weeks they were asked to no longer wear the collar
CO-INTERVENTION: Comparable between index and control groups. Patients were
asked to take paracetamol (usually) either with or without a non-steriodal antiinflam-
matory. If necessary opioids were prescribed

Kuijper 2009 (Continued)
Outcomes PAIN
VAS, 0 to100
Baseline Mean: Cervical Collar 57.4, Physiotherapy 61.7, WLG 55.6
Reported Results: At 6 weeks there was a significant decrease in neck pain in the collar
group 2.8 mm/week (17 mm in 6 weeks) and 2.4 mm/week in the physiotherapy group
(14 mm in 6 weeks), while the control group showed only 0.9 mm reduction in pain
over the 6 weeks. After 6 months the pain scores in the two treatment groups did not
differ from those of the control patients.
SMD (PT vs WLG) at Immediate post treatment: -0.47 (95% CI: -0.81 to -0.12);
FUNCTION
NDI, 0 to 100
Baseline Mean: Cervical Collar 41.0, Physiotherapy 45.1, WLG 39.8
Reported Results: The collar group showed a significant difference in rate of improve-
ment compared with the control group, the weekly change in the physiotherapy group
was not significantly different from that of the control patients.
SMD (PT vs WLC) at immediate post treatment: -0.11 (95% CI: -0.45 to 0.23)
PATIENT SATISFACTION
scale 0 to 5
Reported Results: NR
RR (PT vs WLC) at immediate post treatment: 0.92 (95% CI: 0.62 to 1.37)
SIDE EFFECT: NR
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias

bias)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Sealed envelopes prepared by an employee
who had no other involvement with the
study. The investigator assigned patients to
specific groups
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Stated within text page 2
bias)
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Stated within text page 2
bias)

Kuijper 2009 (Continued)
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Patient self-report so not blinded
bias)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk There were 5 participants who were not
All outcomes - drop-outs? available for follow-up at 6 weeks;similarly
there were 13 participants lost to follow-up
at 6 months. Figure one details this
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk Not all those randomized were included in
All outcomes - ITT analysis? the analysis ( those without follow-up data
were excluded). However this was a very
small number and unlikely to affect the es-
timates. They undertook a LOCF analysis
but did not state an ITT analysis within the
report
Similarity of baseline characteristics? High risk Greater arm pain in the collar group. Also
the control group had the smallest evidence
for root compression based on MRI
Co-interventions avoided or similar? Unclear risk All groups were allowed to take anal-
gesics and anitinflammatories.All patients
received the same information about the
natural course of the disease
Compliance acceptable? Low risk Compliance was monitored for both collar
use and physiotherapy. A total of 6 patients
(almost 10%) did not wear the collar at all
during the first 3 weeks
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk 6 weeks of treatment + 6 months and 12
months follow-up
Lange 2013

Power Analysis: NR
Participants Acute to chronic non-specific neck and shoulder pain

Radicular Signs/Symptoms: Not specified
Setting: Air force base- Fighter Wing Skrydstrup
Country: Denmark

Lange 2013 (Continued)

Arm 1- Training group: Activity- Patterns and synchronization of muscle recruitment,
Strengthening exercises, Endurance exercises Mode- Patterns and synchronization -
Standing supine and gentle rotation stood erect, Strenthening-the whole spine was held
in an anatomic neutral position during pull exercises, shrugs standing erect holding the
dumbbells in their hands on both sides and sitting position leaning the upper body 45
degrees forward with a straight back for reverse flies. Endurance-holding the bodyblade
with both hands, and with shoulders 90% flexed and elbows 5% flexed Movement-
Patterns and synchronization-3 conditioning exercises focusing on activation of the deep
cervical flexors, Strengthening-Static pull in 8 directions, shrugs, reverse flys, Endurance-
Small shoulder extensions and flexions were performed to make the bodyblade oscillate
Dosage- Patterns and synchronization-Type of contraction (concentric), Speed (slow
and controlled movement), Duration/Frequency (5 reps, 3x week), Sequence (sequence
warm-up then strengthening then endurance), Feedback (the pilots had access to help
from educated trainers at the base and at Tactical Air Command Karup), Strengthening-
Type of contraction (concentric), Intensity (equivalent to 70% to 85% of 1 repetition
maximum), Duration/Frequency (8-15 reps, 3x week), Shrugs and static neck pull were
performed during every session and reverse flies were performed every second session),
Sequence (after warm-up), Feedback (the pilots had access to help from educated trainers
at the base and at Tactical Air Command Karup), Endurance-Type of contraction (dy-
namic), Intensity (equivalent to 70% to 85% of 1 repetition maximum), Speed (as the
participants became more accustomed to the bodyblade exercise, they attempted to make
it oscillate increasingly more rapidly) Duration/Frequency (up to 60 seconds, performed
every second session, 3x week), Sequence (after strengthening), Feedback (the pilots had
access to help from educated trainers at the base and at Tactical Air Command Karup).
Dosage- 3 sessions a week, 20 minutes of training session for 24 weeks
Arm 2- Control group: No intervention but offered the training after the study. Encour-
aged to continue their physical activity as usual
CO-INTERVENTION: comparable between index and control groups
Outcomes PAIN
VAS, 0 to 10
Baseline Mean:Training group 1 and control 1.2
SMD (training vs control): -0.58 (95% CI: -1.12 to -0.04)
SIDE EFFECTS: Reported
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias

Lange 2013 (Continued)
Random sequence generation (selection Unclear risk P.51, right column, 1st paragraph: method
bias) of randomization very unconventional
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk p.51, top R column
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Not possible due to design.
bias)
bias)
bias)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk P53, left column: 1 drop-out per group
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk P53, left column, paragraph 6
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Consistent with registration
Similarity of baseline characteristics? Low risk Table 1, Table 3, Table 4
Co-interventions avoided or similar? Unclear risk Not monitored
Compliance acceptable? High risk P54, right column, Figure 3: 58% compli-
ance
Lundblad 1999

Power Analysis: NR

Setting: Factory
Country: Sweden

Lundblad 1999 (Continued)

Arm 1- Feldenkrais Intervention (F): Activity-Education Mode- Individualized (func-
tional integration) teacher guides through movement sequences; Group (awareness
through movement) verbally guided through exercises for Movement- neck-shoulder
complaints, home exercises, frequency (individually 4 times and in group (7 to 8 par-
ticipants) 12 times; required 50% participation in both segments of program). Dosage-
50 minutes per week
Arm 2- Physiotherapy Intervention (MmPT): Activity- Stabilization exercises for low
back and pelvis, isolated and relaxed shoulder movements Mode- Education use of
body emphasizing self-directed control and responsibility for body, ability to cope with
pain, muscle tension, and complaints. Awareness of body posture. Movement- Practice
work-related lift and movement techniques. Exercise program of strength, co-ordination,
endurance, flexibility/smoothness and rhythm, Home exercises. Dosage- 50 minutes; 2
times/week for 16 weeks in group of 5 to 8 participants; Required 50% participation in
the exercises
COMPARISON GROUP
Arm 3- Control Regimen (NT): no treatment
CO-INTERVENTION: NR
Outcomes PAIN
VAS, 0 to 10
Baseline Mean: VAS - usually MmPT 1.2, F 1.5, NT 2.0, VAS - worst MmPT 4.1, F
4.4, NT 5.5
Reported Results: no significant differences
SMD (PT vs no treatment) at LT follow-up: -0.14 (95% CI: -0.80 to 0.51)
DISABILITY
Work and leisure, 0 to 4; Sick leave, days and %
Baseline Mean:
Disability - work MmPT 1.3, F 1.2, NT 1.3,
Disability - leisure MmPT 0.6, F 0.9, NT 0.6
Sick leave (days) MmPT 12.7, F 12.0, NT 11.5,
Sick leave (%) MmPT 6.5, F 5.8, NT 5.9
SIDE EFFECTS: NR
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection High risk Randomization not described

bias)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) High risk Concealment not described

Lundblad 1999 (Continued)
bias)
bias)
bias)

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk No ITT analysis

Similarity of baseline characteristics? Low risk Table 3 no significant difference
Co-interventions avoided or similar? Low risk Avoided in trial design
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk 16 weeks of treatment + 6 weeks follow-up
Martel 2011

Power Analysis: NR
Participants Chronic MND with or without referral/radiation to the head, trunk or limbs
Setting: Chiropractic Clinic and Human Research Laboratory of the Department of
Chiropractice at the Universite du Quebec
Country: Canada

Arm 1- SMT Group: Activity- Spinal Manipulation Mode- Maximum 4 spinal ma-
nipulations Movement- cervical and upper thoracic areas. Dosage- One treatment per
month, lasted 10 to 15 minutes
Arm 2- SMT + Exercise Group:Activity- Spinal Manipulation + Home Exercise Pro-
gram, range of motion, stretching, strengthening Mode- Maximum 4 spinal manipula-

Martel 2011 (Continued)
tions. Advised to perform a home exercise program Movement- manipulation- cervical

and upper thoracic areas (down to T4). home exercise program- range of motion exer-
cises, followed by 4 stretching/ mobilization, and 4 strengthening exercises (concentric
and isometric contractions) of the cervical and upper thoracic spine (primarily flexion,
extension, lateral flexion and rotation of the cervical spine). Dosage- manipulation- one
treatment per month, lasted 10 to15 minutes. Home exercise program 3x/week. Three
series of each exercises with a 30 to 60 second rest between series were performed during
each training session. A training session lasted 20 to 30 minutes
All participants were instructed in the same routine, exercise volume was tailored to each
participant’s strength, flexibility and ability to complete the routine with minimal neck
pain. Each patient received a written copy of the program. Exercise checked every 2
months by a kinesiologist
Arm 3- Control Group: Attention-control, No treatment, attended clinic once every 2
months, visited lasted 20 to 30 minutes for data collection
Treatment Schedule: 10 months, 10 sessions
CO-INTERVENTION: NR
Outcomes PAIN
VAS, 0 to 10
Baseline Mean: SMT 3.1, SMT + Ex 3.8
FUNCTION
NDI, 0 to 50
Baseline Mean: SMT 21.4, SMT + Ex 22.2
HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE
SF-12, 0 to 100
Baseline Mean Physical Scale: SMT 48.7, SMT + Ex 50.0, Mental Scale: SMT 45.3,
SMT + Ex 44.8
SIDE EFFECTS: Reported: No serious adverse events were reported during RCT
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias

bias)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Sealed, opaque envelopes
bias)
Martel 2011 (Continued)
bias)
bias)


Co-interventions avoided or similar? High risk
Compliance acceptable? High risk Not Reported
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk 10 months of treatment
Rendant 2011


Setting: Community
Country: Germany

Arm 1- Qigong: Activity-12 neck exercises, 9 shoulder exercises Mode/Movement-
ROM/mobility, imagery, breathing and moving exercise (Figure 1) home exercise with
a manual; Qigong qualified teacher was certified by German Qigong Society Dosage-
18 sessions, 90 minute sessions over 6 months
Arm 2- Exercise: Activity- ROM, stretching, strengthening Mode/Movement- Warm-
up included neck ROM, use of soft ball, strengthening using a theraband; flexibility
exercise, home exercise with a manual, individual pain level was not exceeded;Dosage-
18 sessions over 6 months; exercise is monitored by a qualified physiotherapist

Rendant 2011 (Continued)
Arm 3- Control: no intervention

Treatment Schedule: 24 weeks treatment, 18 sessions
Duration Follow-up: none
CO-INTERVENTION: not avoided
Outcomes PAIN
VAS, 0 to 100
Baseline Mean: Qigong 57.7, E 57.5, NT 53.4
Reported Results: significant differences Qigong vs no treatment;
MD (Qigong vs no treatment) at 12 weeks treatment: -15.60 (-24.72 to -6.48)
MD (Qigong vs no treatment) at 24 weeks treatment: -8.10 (-15.72 to -0.48)
MD (Exercise vs no treatment) at 12 weeks treatment:-17.30 (95%CI: -26.60 to -8.00)
MD (Exercise vs no treatment) at 24 weeks treatment:-10.30 (95%CI: -19.97 to -0.63)
No significant difference Qigong vs exercise
FUNCTION
NPDI, 0 to 100
Reported Results: significant differences Qigong vs no treatment;
SMD (Qigong vs no treatment) at 12 weeks treatment: -0.48 (95%CI: -0.92 to -0.04)
SMD (Qigong vs no treatment) at 24 weeks treatment: -0.47 (95%CI: -0.92 to -0.02)
SMD (Exercise vs no treatment) at 12 weeks treatment: -0.78 (95%CI: -1.24 to -0.31)
SMD (Exercise vs no treatment) at 24 weeks treatment: -0.50 (95%CI: -0.97 to -0.04)
No difference Qigong vs exercise
QUALITY of LIFE
SF 36, physical component
Reported Results: significant differences qigong vs no treatment;
MD (Qigong vs no treatment) at 12 weeks treatment: -3.40 (95% CI: -6.97 to 0.17)
MD (Qigong vs no treatment) at 24 weeks treatment: -3.90 (95%CI: -8.07 to 0.27)
MD (Exercise vs no treatment) at 12 weeks treatment:-2.70 (95%CI: -6.76 to 1.36)
MD (Exercise vs no treatment) at 24 weeks treatment:-2.00 (95%CI: -5.83 to 1.83)
No difference qigong vs exercise
REASON FOR DROP-OUTS: detailed
SIDE EFFECTS: Reported by 19 patients in qigong group including: muscle soreness
(n = 15), myogelosis (n = 12), vertigo (n = 10), other pain (n = 4), headache (n = 3)
, thirst (n = 1), engorged hands (n = 1), twinge in the neck (n = 1), urinary urgency
(n = 1), bursitis of left shoulder (n = 1). Reported by 16 patients muscle soreness (n =
14), myogelosis (n = 11), headaches (n = 5), vertigo (n = 2), change in mood (n = 1),
worsening of neck pain (n = 1), worsening of tinnitus (n = 1)
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes Additional unpublished data received from author

* attrition bias may exist as ITT analysis are not presented in this overviews; ITT was
performed in the RCT report
Risk of bias

Rendant 2011 (Continued)
Random sequence generation (selection Low risk page 420

bias)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk page 420
bias)
bias)
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk The outcome assessor was the patient (i.e.
bias) VAS) therefore not blind to previous an-
All outcomes - outcome assessors? swer
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk Quigong 39/42 - acceptable; exercise 35/
All outcomes - drop-outs? 39 acceptable ; Wait list 39/41
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk ITT was stated
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk No study protocol
Similarity of baseline characteristics? Low risk Table 1, Overall no difference noted be-
tween most variables albeit perceived effec-
tiveness has some differences
Co-interventions avoided or similar? Unclear risk Not noted
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk Baseline, 3 months and 6 months
Revel 1994

Intention-to-treat: NA
Power analysis: NR
Participants Chronic MND (osteoarthritic changes 27 of 30)

Setting: Outpatient Rheumatology Department
Country: France

Revel 1994 (Continued)

Arm 1- Proprioception Rehabilitation Group (RG) Activity- Proprioceptive rehabili-
tation program: purpose to improve neck proprioception; Mode- 15 minute individ-
ualized exercise session, exercises were mainly concerned with eye-neck co-ordination
including; Movement- a) slow passive motions of the head with gaze on a fixed target,
b) active movements of the head, automatic movements of the neck with passive trunk
movements and head position relocation exercises, c) exercises in a wide range of motion
with free eye-head coupling (author description well detailed in Rehabilitation Procedure
page 896). Dosage- 2 times per week; 30 to 40 minute sessions
Arm 2- Control Group (CG): Medication: analgesic, antiinflammatory typical dosage
was indomethacin 100mg; aspirin, 3000 mg; diclofenac, 150 mg; naproxen, 1000 mg
CO-INTERVENTION: NR
Outcomes PAIN
VAS, 0 to 100
Baseline Mean: RG 50.5, CG 45.9
Reported Results: significant favouring RG
SMD at ST follow-up: -0.77 (95% CI: -1.29 to -0.24), NNTB 4, treatment advantage
34%
DAILY INTAKE OF NSAID / ANALGESICS
Baseline Mean: RG 2.0/1.8, CG 2.3/1.6
Reported Results: not significant
FUNCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT SELF-ASSESSED
scale 0 to 5
Reported Results: significant favouring RG
SMD at ST follow-up: 0.55 (95% CI: 0.33 to 0.89), NNTB 3, treatment advantage NA
SIDE EFFECTS: NR
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection High risk Randomization not described

bias)

bias)

Revel 1994 (Continued)
bias)
bias)


Similarity of baseline characteristics? High risk
Co-interventions avoided or similar? Low risk
Compliance acceptable? High risk Not reported
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk 8 weeks of treatment + 10 weeks follow-up
Stewart 2007

Intention-to-treat Analysis: NA
Power Analysis: NR
Participants Subacute and Chronic WAD with or without radiation

Setting: Two physiotherapy clinics
Country: Australia

Arm 1- Exercise and Advice: Activity- Exercise, Mode- aerobic exercise, stretches, func-
tional activities, activities to build speed, endurance and co-ordination, trunk and limb
strengthening, CBT (setting goals of progressively increasing difficulty, shaping, encour-
aging self-monitoring of progress, self-reinforcement), home exercise program (indi-
vidual specified), Movement- graded exercise program supervised by a physiotherapist,
Dosage- duration (1 hour of exercise per session), feedback (supervised for 30 minutes)
Individualized, progressive, intensity (submaximal program) designed to improve par-
ticipants ability to complete functional activities specified by the participant as being
difficult because of whiplash. Regular evaluation by a physiotherapist. Encouraged to
continue home exercises even after intervention was completed. Dosage- 6 weeks, 12

Stewart 2007 (Continued)
sessions
Arm 2- Advice Alone: Standardised education, reassurance and encouragement to re-
sume light activity alone. One consultation and 2 follow-up phone contacts. Favorable
prognosis of whiplash, addressed common inaccurate beliefs about whiplash, exploration
of fear-avoidance beliefs. Participants given a written report of main points of advice
session. Standardized advice reinforced at 2 weeks and 4 weeks
Outcomes PAIN
VAS, 0 to 10
Baseline Mean: Exercise + Advice 5.2, Advice Alone 5.3
Reported Results: Groups were similar at baseline.
SMD post: -0.46 (95% CI: -0.81 to -0.12) SMD 12 month: -0.12 (95% CI: -0.47 to
0.23)
FUNCTION
NDI, 0 to 50
SMD post: -0.50 (95% CI: -0.85 to -0.15) SMD 12 month: -0.39 (95% CI: -0.74 to -
0.03)
scale -5 to 5
SMD post: -0.46 (95% CI: -0.80 to -0.11), SMD 12 month: -0.18 (95% CI: -0.54 to
0.17)
QUALITY OF LIFE
SF-36 Physical, 0 to 100
Reported Results: Groups were similar at baseline
SMD post: -0.35 (95% CI: -0.69 to -0.01), SMD 12 month: -0.15 (95% CI: -0.50 to
0.20)
REASON FOR DROP-OUTS: Reported but not specified
SIDE EFFECTS: Reported; The main complaint in this group was muscle pain with
exercise (3) followed
by knee pain (2) and lumbar spine pain (2).
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection High risk Randomized method is not described
bias)

Stewart 2007 (Continued)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Reported p 60
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Not described

bias)

bias)
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk pg 61, self-report scales therefore patient is
bias) assessor even though author reports scales
All outcomes - outcome assessors? being administered and scored by staff
blind to group assignment
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk Although descriptions of drop-outs were
All outcomes - drop-outs? not given, due to the low number of drop-
outs we feel this is acceptable
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk

Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk pg 61, referenced protocol
Co-interventions avoided or similar? High risk Not similar at 12 months
Compliance acceptable? Low risk Section 3.3
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk 6 weeks and 12 months
Takala 1994

Intention-to-treat: NR
Power Analysis: NR
Participants MND, disorder duration NR

Setting: Printing Company
Country: Finland

Arm 1- Exercise treatment (ET): Activity- Group gymnastic, instructional type (group)
, Mode- setting (work); treatment characteristics (exercise planned to train whole body)

Takala 1994 (Continued)
, Movement- aerobic dynamic exercise (10 minutes walking or stepping), relaxation,

stretching of muscles of the trunk and extremities and dynamic exercises (10 minutes),
Dosage- sequence (10 minutes walking/stepping, 10 minutes stretch/dynamic exercises,
5 minutes walking/stepping, 10 minutes dynamic and co-ordination exercises, 10 min-
utes stretch and relaxation); duration of session (45 minutes);1 time/week
Arm 2- No treatment (NT)
Treatment Schedule: 10 weeks, 10 sessions of treatment in the spring session (cross-
over of placebo group occurred in autumn, the groups were reversed)
CO-INTERVENTION: NR
Outcomes PAIN
VAS, 0 to 100
Baseline Median: ET 40, NT 50
Reported Results: no significant difference
PRESSURE PAIN SENSITIVITY
Algometer (pressure pain threshold (PPT) on upper trapezius, levator scapulae, rhom-
boid, infraspinatus) mean score of 8 measures
Baseline Mean: ET 45.2, NT 44.8
Reported Results: no significant difference
SMD at immediate post treatment: -0.06 (95% CI: -0.65 to 0.53)
SIDE EFFECTS: NR
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection High risk Matching then random allocation not de-
bias) scribed
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk The rater was blinded with respect to the
group status (treatment or control) of the
participant

bias)
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk

bias)
bias)

Takala 1994 (Continued)

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk ITT not performed
Similarity of baseline characteristics? High risk
Co-interventions avoided or similar? Low risk Similar in all groups
Compliance acceptable? High risk Not monitored
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk 10 weeks of treatment
Viljanen 2003

Participants Chronic MND (NDR, NDH, WAD)

Setting: Office workers

Arm 1- Exercise: Activity- muscle training; Mode- activating large muscle groups in
neck and shoulders Movement- dumbbells with weight of 1 to 3 kg; Dosage- Dynamic
muscle training, Sequence (stretching followed each exercise); progression in weeks 5
and 9
Arm 2- Relax: Activity- Relaxation training; Mode/Movement- progressive relaxation,
autogenic training, functional relaxation, systematic desensitization
Arm 3- Control: No treatment
Treatment Schedule: 12 weeks plus 1 week reinforcement, Arm 1-13.6 sessions; Arm
2- 14.6 sessions
Duration of Follow-up: 3 and 9 months
CO-INTERVENTION: Comparable between groups
Outcomes PAIN
VAS, 0 to 10
Baseline Mean: Exercise 4.8, Relax 4.8, Cntl 4.1
Reported Results: no group difference

Viljanen 2003 (Continued)
SMD (Exercise v Cntl): -0.04 (95% CI: -0.28 to 0.20)

FUNCTION
NDI, 0 to 50
Baseline Mean: Exercise 29, Relax 2 29, Cntl 26
Reported Results: no significant group differences were found
SMD (Exercise vs Cntl): -0.11 (95% CI: -0.11 to 0.38)
REASON FOR DROP-OUTS: Noted but no difference between groups
SIDE EFFECTS: NR
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection Low risk Randomization according to a random

bias) numbers table
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Treatment allocation was concealed in a
numbered opaque envelope, which was
opened by the physician after baseline mea-
surements had been taken
bias)
bias)
bias)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk Reasons for drop-outs not described

Similarity of baseline characteristics? Low risk
Co-interventions avoided or similar? Low risk Comparable between groups
Compliance acceptable? High risk

Viljanen 2003 (Continued)
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk 12 weeks of treatment + 3 and 9 month
follow-up
von Trott 2009

Participants Chronic MND in elderly adults

Setting: Residents of residential homes for elderly people
Country: Germany

Arm 1- Qigong: Activity- Qigong, Mode- lessons, Movement- started with about 10
minutes of typical Qigong “opening” exercises, continued with up to 4 exercises of
Dantian Qigong, and finished with about 10 minutes of “closing” exercises. Dosage-
Qigong was provided by 5 approved Qigong therapists; 24 sessions (45 minutes) over 3
months (2 sessions/week)
Arm 2- Exercise: Activity- Exercise therapy Mode- was based on a standardized program
for computer and workplace related neck pain Movement- including repeated active
cervical rotations, strength and flexibility exercises. A detailed description is provided in
Weidmann 2008. Dosage- 24 sessions (45 minutes) over 3 months (2 sessions/week).
Participants were asked to continue exercising on their own for the next 3 months
Arm 3- Wait List Control: Patients were free to treat their neck pain with the treatment
or therapies they were using prior to randomization. Patients did not received Qigong
or exercise therapy. After 6 months they were offered an intervention of their choice
Duration of Follow-up: 12 weeks follow-up
CO-INTERVENTION: Comparable between index and control groups
Outcomes PAIN
VAS, 0 to100
Baseline Mean : Qigong 56.4, Exercise 47.1, Wait List Control 49.9
Reported Results: After 3 months there was not significant difference for the average
neck pain between the Qigong and the wait list group -11.0 mm (95% CI: -24.0 to 2.1;
P = 0.99, ANCOVA), and no significant difference between the Qigong and the exercise
therapy group the group difference being -2.5 mm (95% CI: -15.4 to 10.3, P = 0.68)
MD (Qigong vs control) at 12 weeks treatment: -7.50 (95% CI: -21.88 to 6.88)
MD (Qigong vs control) at 12 weeks treatment + 12 weeks follow-up: -6.80 (95% CI:
-21.34 to 7.74)
MD (Exercise vs control) at 12 weeks treatment: -10.40 (95%CI: -23.11 to 2.31)
MD (Exercise vs control) at 12 weeks treatment + 12 weeks follow-up: -12.20 (95%CI:
-25.73 to 1.33)
FUNCTION

von Trott 2009 (Continued)
NDI, 0 to100
Baseline Mean: Qigong 38.5, Exercise 41.8, Wait List Control 36.1
Reported Results: No significant difference was found between the groups after 3 and
6 months
SMD (Qigong vs control) at 12 weeks treatment: -0.21 (95% CI: -0.69 to 0.28)
SMD (Qigong vs control) at 12 weeks treatment + 12 weeks follow-up: -0.06 (95% CI:
-0.57 to 0.45)
SMD (Exercise vs control) at 12 weeks treatment: -0.23 (95%CI: -0.70 to 0.24)
SMD (Exercise vs control) at 12 weeks treatment + 12 weeks follow-up: -0.29 (95%CI:
-0.77 to 0.20)
SMD (Qigong vs control) at 12 weeks treatment: -0.01 (95% CI: -0.49 to 0.47)
SMD (Qigong vs control) at 12 weeks treatment + 12 weeks follow-up: -0.09 (95% CI:
-0.60 to 0.42)
SMD (Exercise vs control) at 12 weeks treatment: 0.09 (95%CI: -0.38 to 0.56)
SMD (Exercise vs control) at 12 weeks treatment + 12 weeks follow-up: -0.21 (95% CI:
-0.69 to 0.28)
QUALITY OF LIFE
SF-36 physical component, 0 to 100
Baseline Mean: Qigong 30.4, Exercise 28.7, Wait List Control 30.6
Reported Results: No significant difference was found between the groups after 3 and
6 months
MD (Qigong vs control) at 12 weeks treatment: -1.80 (95% CI: -5.94 to 2.34)
MD (Qigong vs control) at 12 weeks treatment + 12 weeks follow-up: 0.10 (95% CI: -
3.99 to 4.19)
MD (Exercise vs control) at 12 weeks treatment: -1.70 (95%CI: -5.96 to 2.56)
MD (Exercise vs control) at 12 weeks treatment + 12 weeks follow-up: 2.20 (95%CI: -
1.81 to 6.21)
SIDE EFFECTS: Reported; 5 side-effects were reported by 4 patients in the Qigong
group (2 nausea, 2 aching muscles, 1 muscle tension) and 4 side effects by 2 patients in
the exercise therapy group (2 muscle tensions, 1 acing muscles, 1 nausea)
COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias

bias)
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Perceptibly different interventions between
bias) groups

von Trott 2009 (Continued)
bias)
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk Patient is assessor

bias)


Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Wiedmann 2008
Co-interventions avoided or similar? Unclear risk Unclear about the wait list group
Compliance acceptable? Unclear risk Compliance of home based exercises was

not measured
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk 3 months, 6 months
1.0 Definitions of terms

1.1 duration of disorder:
Acute = <30 days (1 month, 4 weeks)
Subacute = 30 days (1 month, 4 weeks) to 90 days (3 months, 12 weeks)
Chronic = > 90 days (3 months, 12 weeks)
1.2 duration of follow-up
immediate post (IP) treatment ≤ one day
short-term (ST) follow-up = one day to three months
intermediate-term (IT) follow-up = three months up to, but not including, one year
long-term (LT) follow-up = one year or longer
2.0 Short forms commonly used in text and tables:
2.1 Clinical terms
CBT = Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
CCF = Craniocervical Flexion
CGH = Cervicogenic
ED = Education
ET = Exercise Therapy
F = Feldenkrais
GFT = General Fitness Training
IR = Infrared Radiation
ISO = Isometric Neck Exercise
ISOSh = Isometric Shoulder Exercise

ISOShEn = Isometric Shoulder Endurance
ISOShST = Isometric Shoulder Strength
McK = McKenzie
MmPT = Multimodal Phyical Therapy
MND = mechanical neck disorders
Mock = Mock therapy
MT = manual therapy
NDR = neck disorders with radicular findings
NoEG = No Exercise Group
NeuT = Neural Mobilizations
NT = No treatment
Pil = Pillow
REL = Relaxation
ROM = range of motion
SFT = Specific Strength Training
SMP = Self Management Prog
SMT = Manipulation
SMT/ET = Manipulation and exercise
SpvT = supervised training of CSP/Scap
SSng =Self Snag
StEx = Standard exercise
SUS = Sham Ultra Sound
TENS = transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation
US = ultrasound
WAD = whiplash-associated disorders
2.2 Outcome measures
WHYMPI = West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory [sub scale pain severity]
SF-36 = short-form 36 [short-form with 36 questions yielding an 8-scale health profile]
NDI = neck disability index
VAS = visual analogue scale
NRS-101 = numeric rating scale 101 [0 to 100 point scale]
PPT = pain pressure threshold [measured by algometer]
BORG = Borg pain scale
MNQ = Modified Nordic Pain Questionnaire
NPS = Numeric Pain Scale
NPQ = Northwick Park Questionnaire
DASH = Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand
WAI = Work Ability Index
NPDI = Neck Pain Driving Index
SF-36 = Short Form 36
SF-12 = Short Form 12
2.3 Other
vs = versus
w = weeks
m = months
y = years
CI = Confidence Interval
ITT = Intention-To-Treat
NA = Not Applicable
NR = Not Reported
NNTB = Number-Needed-to-Treat-to-Benefit
RCT = Randomized Controlled Trial
Q-RCT - Quasi-randomized Controlled Trial
RR = Risk Ratio
SD = Standard Deviation
SMD = Standardized Mean Difference
Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]
Study Reason for exclusion
Acar 2012 Intervention: exercise in all arms.
Ahlgren 2001 Intervention: exercise in all arms.
Allison 2002 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
treatment techniques contribution
Andersen 2008a Comparison: Comparison group received equal attention by forming groups which should improve
workplace ergonomics, stress management, etc
Andersen 2010 Comparison: Comparison group received equal attention by forming groups which should improve
workplace ergonomics, stress management, etc
Arami 2012 Intervention: exercise in all arms.
Ardic 2002 Intervention: exercise in all arms.
Bernaards 2007 Intervention: Multimodal including exercise and cognitive behavioral training (companion paper to
Bernaards 2008 and Bernaards 2012.
Bernaards 2008 Intervention: Multimodal including cognitive behavioral training (companion paper to Bernaards
2007 and Bernaards 2012).
Bernaards 2012 Intervention: Multimodal including exercise and cognitive behavioral training (companion to
Bernaards 2007 and Bernaards 2008).
Bissett 1985 Intervention: EMG biofeedback mediated muscle relaxation not active exercise
Blangsted 2008 Comparison: Comparison group received equal attention by forming groups which should improve
workplace etc (companion paper to Andersen 2008).
Bonk 2000 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Bosmans 2011 Intervention: Multimodal approach with intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Boyce 2012 Population: cervical dystonia.

(Continued)
Brewerton 1966 Intervention: Instruction on posture is not considered an exercise. There was no exercise group outside
“instruction on posture”
Brodin 1985 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Bronfort 2012 Comparison: No control group.
Burketorp 2006 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Carlsson 1990 Population: Chronic tension headache (either occipital, temporal and/or frontal)
Cleland 2010 Intervention: Both treatment and control received same exercise intervention
Cramer 2013 Intervention: exercise in all arms, no control group.
Cunha 2008 Intervention: Multimodal - manual therapy and exercise.
Cuzdan 2013 Intervention: exercise in all arms.
Dusunceli 2009 Intervention: Multimodal - exercise and PT agents.
Ehrenborg 2010 Intevention: exercise in all arms.
Escortell-Mayor 2008 Intervention: Both treatment and control received same exercise intervention
Escortell-Mayor 2011 Intevention: Both treatment and control received same exercise intervention
Evans 2002 Intervention: manual therapy, medication and education.
Falla 2006 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Fitz-Ritson 1995 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Foley-Nolan 1992 Intervention: Not exercise.
Friedrich 1996 Intervention: Education comparison, exercise is the same in all 3 groups
Gam 1998 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Giebel 1997 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each

(Continued)
Goldie 1970 Design: Q-RCT
Gustavsson 2006 Intervention: The control treatment was individualized care (acupuncture, massage, mobs, hot pack,
TENS, US, exercise) and we were not able to elucidate the exact treatment mix for the treat as usual
group
Guzel 2006 Intervention: Both groups received the same exercise intervention
Hagberg 2000 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Hamberg-van Reenen 2009 Population: Convenience sample of 22 healthy workers.
Hansson 2006 Population: dizziness not neck pain as main complain.
Hanten 1997 Outcome Measures: Did not use any of the identified outcome measures (only pain pressure threshold
as a proxy for pain)
Hanten 2000 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Henning 1997 Population: Preventional trial, although participants rated neck and shoulder discomfort this subpop-
ulation was never identified, nor was discomfort ratings in neck and shoulders reported
Hoving 2002 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Hoving 2006 Intervention: manual therapy versus exercise versus continued care (medication and education)
Huber 2013 Intervention: exercise in all arms, no control group.
Hudson 2010 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Hurwitz 2002 Intervention: No active exercise.
Hurwitz 2005 Intervention: Exercise was same in all groups.
Häkkinen 2008 Intervention: exercise in all arms.
Jay 2013 Outcome: no patient important outcome.
Jensen 2001 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Jensen 2005 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each

(Continued)
Jordan 1998 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Jull 2007 JOR Intervention: All groups received exercise.
Jull 2007 Pain Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Jull 2009 Intervention: All groups received exercise.
Jull 2013 Intervention: multimodal therapy versus usual care.
Kamwendo 1991 Intervention: Exercises not specified.
Karlberg 1996 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Karlsson 2011 Comparison: comparison was another active exercise treatment
Kietrys 2007 Comparison: Comparison was activities.
Koes 1991 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Kogstad 1978 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Lamb 2013 Intervention: multimodal treatment.
Lansinger 2007 Intevention: Both treatment and control received same exercise intervention
Lansinger 2013 Intervention: one exercise vs another exercise type.
Lee 2013 Intervention: Exercise within a multimodal care approach specifically MT + Ex + PT vs that same PT
Levoska 1993 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Linton 2001a Intervention: Unable to separate exercise group within treatment as usual comparison group
Lluch 2014 Comparison: mobilization versus exercise.
Ma 2011 Intervention: No control group, comparison group received education
Madson 2010 Intevention: Both treatment and control received same exercise intervention
Maiers 2013 Intervention: exercise in all arms.

(Continued)
Manca 2006 Intervention: Exercise prescription was not a significant component of the study (less than 10%)
Marangoni 2010 Population: less than 80% of the population have neck pain (72%)
McKinney 1989 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Mealy 1986 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Michalsen 2012 Comparison: exercise in all arms.
Moffet 2006 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Mongini 2012 Population: all types of headaches included.
Murphy 2010 Intervention: Both treatment and control received same exercise intervention
Nielsen 2010 Outcome: no patient important outcome.
Nordemar 1981 Intervention: Passive exercise.
O’Leary 2007 Outcome Measures: The reported outcomes are not outcomes of interest to this review
O’Leary 2007 JoPain Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Pato 2010 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Pedersen 2013 Study design: prospective observational study.
Pennie 1990 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Persson 1994 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Pool 2006 Intervention: Protocol only, multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to dif-
ferentiate each treatment techniques contribution (Ex+graded activity+MT)
Provinciali 1996 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Ragonese 2009 Comparison: Exercise vs. Manual Therapy.

(Continued)
Randlov 1998 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Rosenfeld 2000 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Rosenfeld 2003 Intervention: Both groups received exercise.
Rundcrantz 1991 Design: This was a quasi-RCT, treatment was individualized and unable to specify exercise
Ryan 2001 Intervention: Both groups received exercise (strength vs endurance)
Salmon 2013 Population: participants did not have neck pain prior to start of trial
Schnabel 2004 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Scholten-Peeters 2006 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Sharan 2011 Intervention: multimodal treatment in all arms.
Skargren 1997 Intervention: Unable to separate data for exercise group (unclear if McKenzie treatment mobilization
or exercise)
Skillgate 2007 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Skoglund 2011 Outcome: no baseline data.
Soderlund 2000 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Soderlund 2001 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Song 2012 Abstract Outcome/Publication: Insufficient information. Further data were sought but not found. No full
publication could be source
Taimela 2000 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Telci 2012 Intervention: Multimodal treatment with exercise VS multimodal treatment VS medicines
Tsauo 2004 Population: Prevention trial, between than 14.3 -58.5 % of participants had neck pain at baseline
van den Heuvel 2003 Population: Prevention trial, greater proportion of participants non-symptomatic in past week at
baseline
(Continued)
van Ettekoven 2006 Population: The primary diagnosis was tension type headaches
Vasseljen 1995 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Vikne 2007 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Voerman 2007 Intervention: Relaxation therapy using myofeedback versus ergonomic intervention, no active com-
ponent
von Piekartz 2011 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Waling 2002 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Wani 2013 Comparison: exercise in all arms.
Wei 2007 Outcome Measure: not our primary outcomes of interest in this review
Yang 2013 Intervention: multimodal treatment compared with acupuncture
Ylinen 2003 Comparison: Control group included exercise.
Ylinen 2006b Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Ylinen 2007b Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Ylinen 2010 Intervention: Both treatment and control received same exercise intervention
Yogitha 2012 Intervention: Yoga but deep relaxation only.
Youseff 2013 Intervention: mobs + exercises vs massage + exercises.
Zaproudina 2007 Intervention: Multimodal approach within intervention groups without ability to differentiate each
Zebis 2011 Population: Is for the greater part a prevention trial (2/3 of N without neck pain)
EMG: electromyography
Ex: exercise therapy
MT: manual therapy
PT: physiotherapy

RCT: randomized controlled trial
TENS: transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation
US: ultrasound
Characteristics of studies awaiting assessment [ordered by year of study]
Falla 2013
Methods RCT
Interventions 8-week exercise program
Outcomes NDI, pain, EMG
Notes Awaiting data extraction
EMG: electromyographic
NDI: neck disability index
RCT: randomized controlled trial
Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]
Andersen 2010a (Protocol)
Trial name or title Protocol for work place adjusted intelligent physical exercise reducing musculoskeletal pain in shoulder and
neck (VIMS): a cluster randomized controlled trial
Methods
Participants
Interventions Specific strength training with supervision

vs specific strength training with minimal supervision
vs reference groups without training
Outcomes Pain
Starting date
Contact information National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen O, Denmark
Notes

Andersen 2011a (Protocol)
Trial name or title Protocol for shoulder function training reducing musculoskeletal pain in shoulder and neck: A randomized
controlled trial
Methods
Participants Neck pain
Interventions Shoulder function training with supervision

vs reference group receiving advice to stay physically active
Outcomes Pain intensity, strength, work disability
Starting date
Contact information National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen O, Denmark
Notes Protocol
Guerriero 1997
Trial name or title Comparative effects of manipulation and physical therapy on motion in the cervical spine
Methods
Interventions Cervical spine manipulation

vs sham treatment
vs cervical spine manipulation, ischaemic compression of myofascial trigger points, PNF, interferential therapy
Outcomes Cervical ROM
Starting date
Contact information Palmer Institute of Graduate Studies and Research, Davenport, Iowa
Notes
Gurumoorthy 2000
Trial name or title A prospective study of acute whiplash injury and its clinical management
Methods
Participants Acute neck injury (WAD)
Interventions Early immobilization

vs early active mobilization

Gurumoorthy 2000 (Continued)
Outcomes Pain, cervical ROM, neck muscle strength, time to return to normal duties
Starting date
Contact information Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia
Notes
Hansen 2011 (Protocol)
Trial name or title Neck exercises, physical and cognitive behavioral-graded activity as a treatment for adult whiplash patients
with chronic neck pain: Design of a randomized controlled trial
Methods
Participants Chronic neck pain (WAD)
Interventions Pain management (control) group

vs combined pain management and training (intervention) group
Outcomes Pain, function, disability, quality of life
Starting date
Contact information Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Function and Physiotherapy, Institute of Sports Science and Clinical
Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark
Notes
Michaleff 2009 (Protocol)
Trial name or title A randomized clinical trial of a comprehensive exercise program for chronic whiplash: trial protocol
Methods
Participants Chronic neck pain (WAD I & II)
Interventions Education Booklet + Comprehensive Exercise Program

vs Education Booklet + Advice
Outcomes Pain intensity, disability, health-related quality of life and health service utilization
Starting date
Contact information The George Institute for International Health, The University of Sydney, George Street, Sydney, 2000,
Australia

Michaleff 2009 (Protocol) (Continued)
Notes
Reginiussen 2000
Trial name or title Efficiency of manual therapy on patients with cervicogenic headache. A randomized single-blinded controlled
trial
Methods
Participants Cervicogenic headache
Interventions Manual therapy (soft tissue methods, stretching/massage, mobilizing and thrust techniques)
vs standardized physiotherapy treatment consisting of SWD, exercises and stretching
Outcomes Headache, neck pain, function, use of drugs, patient satisfaction
Starting date
Contact information Institut of Manual Therapy, Alta, Norway
Notes
Stokke 1995
Trial name or title A randomized comparison of chiropractic and physiotherapy treatment for neck pain of functional (mechan-
ical) origins. A controlled clinical trial
Methods
Participants Neck pain, neck and head pain, neck and shoulder pain
Interventions Chiropractic spinal manipulation

vs physiotherapy
vs medication
Outcomes NDI, pain intensity VAS
Starting date
Contact information Institute of Community Medicine, School of Medicine, Uniersity of Tramso, 9037 Tromso, Norway
Notes

Williamson 2009 (Protocol
Trial name or title Development and delivery of a physiotherapy intervention for the early management of whiplash injuries:
The Managing Injuries of Neck Trial (MINT) Intervention
Methods
Participants WAD I, II, & III
Interventions Manual therapy, exercise, and psychological strategies and self-management advice
Outcomes
Starting date
Contact information Clinical Trials Unit, Medical School Building, Gibbet Hill Campus, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4
7AL, UK
Notes
NDI: neck disability index

PNF: Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation
ROM: range of motion
SWD: short-wave diathermy
vs: versus
VAS: visual analogue scale
WAD: whiplash associated disorders

DATA AND ANALYSES
Comparison 1. Chronic MND: Breathing Patterns vs CONTROL
No. of No. of
Outcome or subgroup title studies participants Statistical method Effect size
1 Pain Intensity (Borg 0 to 10): 10 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
weeks of treatment vs Control
1.1 Practice paced breathing 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
vs Control
2 Function (NDI 0 to 100): 10 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
2.1 Practice paced breathing 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
vs Control
3 SF-36 (physical function): 10 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
Comparison 2. Acute to Chronic MND: General Fitness Training vs CONTROL
No. of No. of
1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 10 weeks 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
of treatment
1.1 General Fitness Training v 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Reference Intervention
of treatment + 10 weeks
follow-up
2.1 General Fitness Training v 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Reference Intervention
Comparison 3. Chronic MND: Cervical Stretch/ROM Exercises + ANOTHER INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME
INTERVENTION
No. of No. of
1 Pain Intensity (NRS-101): 4 Other data No numeric data

weeks of treatment
1.1 Stretch before Manip v Other data No numeric data
Manip alone
1.2 Stretch after Manip v Other data No numeric data
Manip alone
2 Function (NDI): 4 weeks of Other data No numeric data
treatment
2.1 Stretch before Manip v Other data No numeric data
Manip alone
2.2 Stretch after Manip v Other data No numeric data
Manip alone
Comparison 4. Chronic MND: Cervical Stretch/ROM Exercises + Dynamic Cervical Stabilization vs SHAM
No. of No. of
1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 8 weeks of 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
treatment
1.1 McKenzie Treatment v 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Control
treatment + 6 month follow-up
Control
of treatment + 12 months
follow-up
Control
4 Function (NDI): 8 weeks of 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
treatment
Control
Control
6 Function (NDI): 8 weeks 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
of treatment + 12 month
follow-up
Control

Comparison 5. Chronic MND: Static Cervical Strengthening + Static Stabilization vs NO INTERVENTION OR
WAIT LIST
No. of No. of
treatment
1.1 Isometric neck exercises +/ 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
- pillow vs control or pillow
2 Pain Intensity (VAS): 6 weeks of 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
treatment + 6 weeks follow-up
2.1 Isometric neck exercises +/ 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
- pillow vs pillow or placebo
3 Function (NPQ): 6 weeks of 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
treatment
4 Function (NPQ): 6 weeks of 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
5 Global Perceived Effect 0 Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
Treatment (patients assessment)
: 3 weeks of treatment
5.1 Isometric exercises vs no 0 Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
intervention
6 Quality of Life (SF-36): 6 weeks 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
of treatment + 6 w follow-up
6.1 Isometric neck exercises +/ 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Comparison 6. Chronic MND: Pattern synchronization (sitting posture) vs CONTROL
No. of No. of
1 Pain intensity (VAS) 2 weeks of 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
treatment
1.1 Postural Exercise vs 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Control
treatment
2.1 Postural Exercise vs 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Control

Comparison 7. Acute to Chronic MND: Scapulothoracic + UE Strengthening vs CONTROL
No. of No. of
1 Pain Intensity (NPS): 4 weeks of 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
treatment
1.1 Muscle strength training 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
vs CONTROL
2 Pain Intensity: 10 to 20 weeks of 3 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
treatment
2.1 Strength Specific Training 3 157 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) -0.71 [-1.33, -0.10]
vs Reference Group
3 Pain Intensity: 20 weeks of 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
treatment
3.1 Strength Specific Training 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
vs Reference Group
follow-up
4.1 Strength Specific Training 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
vs Reference Group
5 Function: 4 weeks of treatment 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
5.1 Intensive muscular 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
strength training vs
CONTROL
6 Function: 20 weeks of treatment 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
6.1 Specific strength training 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
vs Control
7 Function: 12 to 20 weeks of 2 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
treatment/follow-up
7.1 Muscle strength training 2 128 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) -0.28 [-0.63, 0.07]
vs CONTROL
Comparison 8. Chronic MND: Cervical/UE Stretch/ROM Exercise + Cervical/UE Strengthening + Dynamic

Cervical Stabilization vs PLACEBO or SHAM
No. of No. of
treatment
1.1 General Exercise vs Sham 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
US
US
follow-up
US
treatment
US
US
treatment + 12 month
follow-up
US
Comparison 9. Chronic MND: Cervical/UE Stretch/ROM Exercises + Cervical/Scapulothoracic+/-UE Strength-

ening + Dynamic/Static Cervical Stabilization + ANOTHER INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION
No. of No. of
1 Pain Intensity: Immediate Post 4 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
Treatment (<11w of treatment)
1.1 Exercise +/- Infrared 4 317 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) -0.66 [-1.28, -0.03]
+/- SMT +/- Acupuncture
vs Infrared or SMT or
Acupuncture
2 Pain Intensity: 11 w of treatment 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
+ 3 month follow-up
2.1 SMT + Rehab Exercises vs 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
SMT
3 Pain Intensity: Treatment + 3 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
IT follow-up (11 weeks of
3.1 <11w of treatment + 6 3 241 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) -0.67 [-1.32, -0.02]
month follow-up
4 Pain Intensity: Treatment + LT 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
follow-up
4.1 <11w of treatment + 24 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
month follow-up
5 Function: Immediate Post 4 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
treatment
5.1 <11w of treatment 4 317 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) -1.91 [-4.65, 0.83]
6 Function: Treatment + ST 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
follow-up
month follow-up
7 Function: Treatment + IT 3 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
follow-up
7.1 <11w of treatment + 6 3 241 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) -0.45 [-0.72, -0.18]
month follow-up
8 Function: Treatment + LT 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
follow-up
month follow-up
9 Quality of Life: Immediate Post 2 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
Treatment
9.1 <11w of treatment 2 165 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) -0.18 [-0.48, 0.13]
10 Quality of Life: Treatment + 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
ST follow-up
10.1 11w of treatment + 3 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
month follow-up
11 Quality of Life: Treatment + IT 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
follow-up
11.1 11w of treatment + 6 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
month follow-up
12 Quality of Life: Treatment + 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
LT follow-up
month follow-up
13 Patient Satisfaction: Immediate 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
Post Treatment
13.1 11>w of treatment 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
14 Patient Satisfaction: Treatment 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
+ ST follow-up
month follow-up
+ IT follow-up
month follow-up
+ LT follow-up
month follow-up
17 Global Perceived Effect: 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
Immediate Post Treatment
17.1 11w of treatment 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Treatment + ST follow-up
month follow-up
Treatment + IT follow-up
month follow-up
Treatment + LT follow-up
month follow-up
Comparison 10. Chronic MND: Cervical Stretch/ROM Exercises + Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening +

Static/Dynamic Cervical/Shoulder Stabilization vs WAIT LIST
No. of No. of
1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 12 weeks 2 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
of treatment
1.1 Exercise Therapy vs No 2 147 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) -14.90 [-22.40, -7.
Treatment 39]
of treatment
2.1 Exercise Therapy vs No 2 140 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) -10.94 [-18.81, -3.
Treatment 08]
3 Function: 12 weeks of treatment 2 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
3.1 Exercise Therapy vs No 2 147 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) -0.50 [-1.04, 0.03]
Treatment
4.1 Exercise Therapy vs No 2 140 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) -0.40 [-0.74, -0.06]
Treatment
5 Global Perceived Effect (General 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
Health Perception): 12 weeks
of treatment
5.1 Exercise Therapy vs No 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Treatment
follow-up
6.1 Exercise Therapy vs No 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Treatment
7 Quality of Life (SF-36): 12 2 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
weeks of treatment
7.1 Exercise Therapy vs No 2 143 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) -2.22 [-5.17, 0.72]
Treatment
8 Quality of Life (SF-36): 24 2 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
weeks of treatment
8.1 Exercise Therapy vs No 2 144 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.06 [-4.06, 4.17]
Treatment

Comparison 11. Chronic MND: Cervical/Scapulothoracic/UE Stretch + UE Endurance Training vs NO INTER-
VENTION or WAIT LIST
No. of No. of
of treatment
1.1 Dynamic muscle training 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
vs control
follow-up
vs control
follow-up
vs control
4 Function (Neck Disability 0-80): 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
12 weeks of treatment
vs control
5 Function (Neck Disability 0-80): 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) Totals not selected
12 weeks of treatment + 3
month follow-up
5.1 Dynamic muscle training 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
vs control
6 Function (Neck Disability 0-80): 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
12 weeks of treatment + 9
month follow-up
vs control
Comparison 12. Acute to Chronic MND: Pattern synchronization + cervical/scapulothoracic strengthening +

scapulothoracic endurance vs NO INTERVENTION
No. of No. of
1 Pain Intensity (VAS 0 to 10): 24 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
weeks of treatment
1.1 Training group vs control 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Comparison 13. Chronic MND: Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening + Cervical/Scapulothoracic Endurance
Training
No. of No. of
1 Pain Prevelance during previous 1 Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
week: 6 weeks of treatment +
46 weeks follow-up
1.1 Exercise Regimen vs 1 Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
control group
Comparison 14. Acute to Chronic MND: Scapulothoracic/UE Endurance Training vs CONTROL
No. of No. of
treatment
1.1 2 minute training group 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
vs Control
1.2 12 minute training group 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
vs Control
Comparison 15. Chronic MND: Neuromuscular Education (eye neck coordination/proprioception) + ANOTHER
INTERVENTION VS THAT SAME INTERVENTION
No. of No. of
1.1 Rehabilitation Group vs 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Control Group
2 Function (pt’s assessment of 1 Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
functional improvement): 8
weeks treatment + 10 weeks
follow-up
2.1 Rehabilitation Group vs 1 Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Control Group

Comparison 16. Chronic MND:Trunk/Extremity Stretch + Pattern/Synchronization: Balance and Coordination
+ Cardiovascular/Aerobic vs NO TREATMENT
No. of No. of
of treatment
1.1 Group Gymnastics vs 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Control
Comparison 17. Chronic MND:General Endurance Training + Dynamic/Static Lowback/pelvic Stabilization +

General Stretching + Neuromuscular/body Mechanics Movement Training vs NO INTERVENTION OR WAIT
LIST
No. of No. of
1.1 Physiotherapy Group vs 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Control Group
Comparison 18. Chronic MND: Stretch/ROM + Endurance Training + Dynamic Stabilization + Cognitive
(mindfulness & emotional balance) vs WAIT LIST
No. of No. of
of treatment
1.1 Qigong vs No Treatment 2 148 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) -13.28 [-20.98, -5.
58]
of treatment
2.1 Qigong vs No Treatment 2 137 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) -7.82 [-14.57, -1.07]
3.1 Qigong vs No Treatment 2 148 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) -0.36 [-0.68, -0.03]
4.1 Qigong vs No Treatment 2 137 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) -0.28 [-0.68, 0.11]
of treatment
5.1 Qigong vs No Treatment 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Follow-up
6.1 Qigong vs No Treatment 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
7 Quality of Life (SF-36 physical 2 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
component): 12 weeks of
treatment
7.1 Qigong vs No Treatment 2 148 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) -2.72 [-5.42, -0.01]
8 Quality of Life: 24 weeks of 2 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
treatment
8.1 Qigong vs No Treatment 2 137 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) -1.88 [-5.80, 2.04]
Comparison 19. Subacute to chronic WAD: Trunk/Extremity Stretch/ROM + Trunk/Extremity Strengthening +

Trunk/Extremity Endurance Training + Pattern/Synchronization: Coordination + Cardiovascular/Aerobic + Cog-
nitive (CBT) + ANOTHER TREATMENT vs THAT SAME OTHER TREATMENT
No. of No. of
1 Pain Intensity: (0-10 box scale): 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
1.1 Exercise + Advice vs 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Advice
2 Pain Intensity (0-10 box scale): 6 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
weeks treatment + 12 month
follow-up
Advice
treatment
Advice
follow-up
Advice
5 Global Perceived Effect (-5 to 5 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
scale): 6 weeks of treatment
Advice
6 Global Perceived Effect (-5 to 5 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
scale): 6 weeks of treatment +
12 month follow-up
Advice
of treatment
Advice
follow-up
Advice
Comparison 20. Acute to Subacute CGH: Cervical Stretch/ROM vs SHAM
No. of No. of
1 Pain Intensity (Headache 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
Questionnaire): Treatment + 4
weeks follow-up
1.1 C1-C2 Self Snag vs 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Placebo Group
2 Pain Intensity (Headache 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
Questionnaire): Treatment +
12 month follow-up
2.1 C1-C2 Self Snag vs 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Placebo Group
Comparison 21. Chronic CGH: Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance Training + Craniocer-
vical Pressure Biofeedback + Dynamic Cervical Stabilization vs NO INTERVENTION or WAIT LIST
No. of No. of
1 Headache Intensity (VAS 0-10): 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
1.1 Therapeutic Exercise +/ 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
- Manip vs Control Group or
Manip
2 Headache Intensity (VAS 0-10): 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
6 weeks treatment + 12 month
follow-up
Manip
3 Function (NPNPQ 0-36): 6 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
weeks treatment
Manip
4 Function (NPNPQ 0-36): 6 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
follow-up
Manip
5 Global Perceived Effect (VAS): 6 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
weeks treatment
Manip
6 Global Perceived Effect (VAS): 6 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
follow-up
Manip
Comparison 22. Acute Radiculopathy (NDR): Cervical Stretch/ROM + Cervical/Scapulothoracic/UE Strength-

ening + Static/Dynamic Cervical Stabilization vs WAIT LIST
No. of No. of
treatment
1.1 Physiotherapy vs Control 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
treatment
5 Satisfaction (5 point scale): 6 1 Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
weeks treatment
5.1 Physiotherapy vs Control 1 Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Comparison 23. Chronic MND: Patterns synchronization + Feedforward/feedback: vestibular rehabilitation
(balance on unstable surfaces and walking with head movements and eyes closed) vs NO INTERVENTION
No. of No. of
1 Pain Intensity (VAS) 6 weeks vs 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
Control
2 Pain Intensity (VAS) 3 months 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
vs control
Comparison 24. Chronic MND: Patterns synchronization + Feedforward/feedback: exercises for coordinating the
neck, eyes and upper limbs vs NO INTERVENTION
No. of No. of
1 Pain intensity (VAS) 4 weeks vs 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
Control
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Chronic MND: Breathing Patterns vs CONTROL, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity
(Borg 0 to 10): 10 weeks of treatment vs Control.
Review: Exercises for mechanical neck disorders
Comparison: 1 Chronic MND: Breathing Patterns vs CONTROL
Outcome: 1 Pain Intensity (Borg 0 to 10): 10 weeks of treatment vs Control
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
Study or subgroup Experimental Control Difference Difference
N Mean(SD)[0 to 10] N Mean(SD)[0 to 10] IV,Random,95% CI IV,Random,95% CI
1 Practice paced breathing vs Control

Hallman 2011 12 1.7 (1.4) 11 2 (1.7) -0.19 [ -1.01, 0.63 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
Favours treatment Favours control

Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Chronic MND: Breathing Patterns vs CONTROL, Outcome 2 Function (NDI 0
to 100): 10 weeks of treatment vs Control.
Outcome: 2 Function (NDI 0 to 100): 10 weeks of treatment vs Control
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
1 Practice paced breathing vs Control

Hallman 2011 12 14 (10) 11 20.6 (14.4) -0.52 [ -1.35, 0.32 ]
-10 -5 0 5 10
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Chronic MND: Breathing Patterns vs CONTROL, Outcome 3 SF-36 (physical
function): 10 weeks of treatment vs Control.
Outcome: 3 SF-36 (physical function): 10 weeks of treatment vs Control
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) IV,Random,95% CI IV,Random,95% CI
Hallman 2011 12 -92.5 (8) 11 -84.5 (15) -0.65 [ -1.49, 0.19 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Acute to Chronic MND: General Fitness Training vs CONTROL, Outcome 1
Pain Intensity (VAS): 10 weeks of treatment.
Comparison: 2 Acute to Chronic MND: General Fitness Training vs CONTROL
Outcome: 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 10 weeks of treatment
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
Study or subgroup Treatment Control Difference Difference
Mean(SD)[VAS Mean(SD)[VAS
N 0-100] N 0-100] IV,Random,95% CI IV,Random,95% CI
1 General Fitness Training v Reference Intervention

Andersen 2008 (1) 16 33 (12) 8 30 (22) 0.18 [ -0.67, 1.03 ]
-100 -50 0 50 100

(1) GFT v REF
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Acute to Chronic MND: General Fitness Training vs CONTROL, Outcome 2
Pain Intensity (VAS): 10 weeks of treatment + 10 weeks follow-up.
Comparison: 2 Acute to Chronic MND: General Fitness Training vs CONTROL
Outcome: 2 Pain Intensity (VAS): 10 weeks of treatment + 10 weeks follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
1 General Fitness Training v Reference Intervention

Andersen 2008 16 29 (15) 8 30 (18) -0.06 [ -0.91, 0.79 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Chronic MND: Cervical Stretch/ROM Exercises + ANOTHER INTERVENTION
vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (NRS-101): 4 weeks of treatment.
Pain Intensity (NRS-101): 4 weeks of treatment
Study
Stretch before Manip v Manip alone
Allan 2003 Although the stretch before manipulation group had 30% (n = 2) greater decrease in intra-group pain by the end of the
study than those who received maniplation alone, inter-group analysis using the Kruskal-Wallis test found no statistical
signifance between the groups (X2 = 2.447, d.f. = 2, P = 0.294)
There was no statistically significant difference in pain between the stretch before manipulation group and the control
group of manipulation alone
There was no statistically significant difference between the stretch before manipulation vs stretch after manipulation
Stretch after Manip v Manip alone
Allan 2003 Although the manipulation then stretch group had 26% (n = 2) greater decrease in intra-group pain by the end of the
study than those who received maniplation alone, inter-group analysis using the Kruskal-Wallis test found no statistical
signifance between the groups (X2 = 2.447, d.f. = 2, P = 0.294)
There was no statistically significant difference in pain between the stretch after manipulation group from the control
There was no statistically significant difference between the stretch before manipulation vs stretch after manipulation
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Chronic MND: Cervical Stretch/ROM Exercises + ANOTHER INTERVENTION
vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 2 Function (NDI): 4 weeks of treatment.
Function (NDI): 4 weeks of treatment
Study
Stretch before Manip v Manip alone
Allan 2003 There was no statistically significant difference in function between the stretch before manipulation and the control
There was no statistically significant difference in function between stretch before manipulation vs stretch after manip-
ulation
Stretch after Manip v Manip alone
Allan 2003 no statistically significant difference in function between stretch after manipulation groups from control group of
manipulation alone
no statistically significant difference in function between stretch before manipulation vs stretch after manipulation

Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Chronic MND: Cervical Stretch/ROM Exercises + Dynamic Cervical
Stabilization vs SHAM, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 8 weeks of treatment.

Comparison: 4 Chronic MND: Cervical Stretch/ROM Exercises + Dynamic Cervical Stabilization vs SHAM
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
1 McKenzie Treatment v Control

Kjellman 2002 (1) 25 19 (18) 25 21 (20) -0.10 [ -0.66, 0.45 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) MCKENZIE treatment vs Sham US
Stabilization vs SHAM, Outcome 2 Pain Intensity (VAS): 8 weeks of treatment + 6 month follow-up.

Outcome: 2 Pain Intensity (VAS): 8 weeks of treatment + 6 month follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Kjellman 2002 (1) 25 21 (17) 25 27 (23) -0.29 [ -0.85, 0.27 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) MCKENZIE Treatment vs Sham US

Stabilization vs SHAM, Outcome 3 Pain Intensity (VAS): 8 weeks of treatment + 12 months follow-up.

Outcome: 3 Pain Intensity (VAS): 8 weeks of treatment + 12 months follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Kjellman 2002 (1) 25 26 (23) 25 25 (24) 0.04 [ -0.51, 0.60 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
Stabilization vs SHAM, Outcome 4 Function (NDI): 8 weeks of treatment.

Outcome: 4 Function (NDI): 8 weeks of treatment
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Kjellman 2002 (1) 25 16 (12) 25 19 (13) -0.24 [ -0.79, 0.32 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
Favours experimental Favours control

Stabilization vs SHAM, Outcome 5 Function (NDI): 8 weeks of treatment + 6 month follow-up.

Outcome: 5 Function (NDI): 8 weeks of treatment + 6 month follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Kjellman 2002 (1) 23 15 (12) 24 18 (15) -0.22 [ -0.79, 0.36 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
Stabilization vs SHAM, Outcome 6 Function (NDI): 8 weeks of treatment + 12 month follow-up.

Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Kjellman 2002 (1) 23 18 (14) 24 16 (15) 0.14 [ -0.44, 0.71 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Chronic MND: Static Cervical Strengthening + Static Stabilization vs NO
INTERVENTION OR WAIT LIST, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 6 weeks of treatment.

Comparison: 5 Chronic MND: Static Cervical Strengthening + Static Stabilization vs NO INTERVENTION OR WAIT LIST
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
1 Isometric neck exercises +/- pillow vs control or pillow

Helewa 2007 (1) 31 1.3 (1.2) 31 2.3 (1.7) -0.67 [ -1.18, -0.16 ]
Helewa 2007 (2) 28 1.9 (1.8) 33 1.7 (1.7) 0.11 [ -0.39, 0.62 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) Exercise + Pillow vs Pillow

(2) Exercise vs Control
INTERVENTION OR WAIT LIST, Outcome 2 Pain Intensity (VAS): 6 weeks of treatment + 6 weeks follow-up.

Mean Mean
1 Isometric neck exercises +/- pillow vs pillow or placebo

Helewa 2007 (1) 25 1.7 (1.4) 33 1.7 (1.6) 0.0 [ -0.77, 0.77 ]
Helewa 2007 (2) 32 1 (1.3) 32 1.9 (1.7) -0.90 [ -1.64, -0.16 ]
-100 -50 0 50 100



INTERVENTION OR WAIT LIST, Outcome 3 Function (NPQ): 6 weeks of treatment.

Outcome: 3 Function (NPQ): 6 weeks of treatment
Mean Mean

Helewa 2007 (1) 28 21.1 (13.3) 33 18.8 (9.4) 2.30 [ -3.58, 8.18 ]
Helewa 2007 (2) 31 17.7 (11.6) 31 26.1 (13.5) -8.40 [ -14.67, -2.13 ]
-100 -50 0 50 100


INTERVENTION OR WAIT LIST, Outcome 4 Function (NPQ): 6 weeks of treatment + 6 weeks follow-up.

Outcome: 4 Function (NPQ): 6 weeks of treatment + 6 weeks follow-up
Mean Mean

Helewa 2007 (1) 33 14.1 (10.6) 32 21.5 (13.1) -7.40 [ -13.20, -1.60 ]
Helewa 2007 (2) 29 20.1 (11.6) 34 18.6 (10) 1.50 [ -3.90, 6.90 ]
-100 -50 0 50 100



INTERVENTION OR WAIT LIST, Outcome 6 Quality of Life (SF-36): 6 weeks of treatment + 6 w follow-up.

Outcome: 6 Quality of Life (SF-36): 6 weeks of treatment + 6 w follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Helewa 2007 (1) 29 -48.7 (9.6) 34 -50 (7) 0.15 [ -0.34, 0.65 ]
Helewa 2007 (2) 33 -52.1 (6.5) 32 -48.5 (8.9) -0.46 [ -0.95, 0.04 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 Chronic MND: Pattern synchronization (sitting posture) vs CONTROL,
Outcome 1 Pain intensity (VAS) 2 weeks of treatment.

Comparison: 6 Chronic MND: Pattern synchronization (sitting posture) vs CONTROL
Outcome: 1 Pain intensity (VAS) 2 weeks of treatment
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
1 Postural Exercise vs Control

Beer 2012 10 3 (2.8) 10 2.6 (2.9) 0.13 [ -0.74, 1.01 ]
-10 -5 0 5 10

Analysis 6.2. Comparison 6 Chronic MND: Pattern synchronization (sitting posture) vs CONTROL,
Outcome 2 Function (NDI): 2 weeks of treatment.

Comparison: 6 Chronic MND: Pattern synchronization (sitting posture) vs CONTROL
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
1 Postural Exercise vs Control

Beer 2012 10 17.8 (11.9) 10 21.8 (11.8) -0.32 [ -1.21, 0.56 ]
-10 -5 0 5 10
Analysis 7.1. Comparison 7 Acute to Chronic MND: Scapulothoracic + UE Strengthening vs CONTROL,

Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (NPS): 4 weeks of treatment.

Comparison: 7 Acute to Chronic MND: Scapulothoracic + UE Strengthening vs CONTROL
Outcome: 1 Pain Intensity (NPS): 4 weeks of treatment
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
1 Muscle strength training vs CONTROL

Dellve 2011 (1) 20 -0.1 (1.7) 20 0.5 (1.6) -0.36 [ -0.98, 0.27 ]
-10 -5 0 5 10
(1) Delve 2001: Intensive muscular strength training vs Control: Duration: 4 weeks of treatment: follow-up: Instrument: NPS 0 to 10.

Outcome 2 Pain Intensity: 10 to 20 weeks of treatment.

Outcome: 2 Pain Intensity: 10 to 20 weeks of treatment
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
Study or subgroup Treatment Control Difference Weight Difference
1 Strength Specific Training vs Reference Group

Andersen 2008 (1) 18 8 (9) 8 30 (22) 23.5 % -1.51 [ -2.46, -0.57 ]
Andersen Ch 2012 (2) 43 3.19 (2.18) 48 3.86 (2.2) 42.9 % -0.30 [ -0.72, 0.11 ]
Dellve 2011 (3) 20 -0.3 (1.8) 20 1.1 (2.2) 33.7 % -0.68 [ -1.32, -0.04 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 81 76 100.0 % -0.71 [ -1.33, -0.10 ]

Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.18; Chi2 = 5.51, df = 2 (P = 0.06); I2 =64%
Test for overall effect: Z = 2.29 (P = 0.022)
-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) Andersen 2008: Specific strength training vs Health councelling group: Duration: 10 weeks of treatment: follow-up: none: Instrument: VAS 0 to 100
(2) Andersen Ch 2012: Training group (3 weekly sessions of 20 minutes) vs Reference group: Duration: 20 weeks of treatment: follow-up: none: Instrument: modified
nordic questionnaire 0 to 9.
(3) Delve 2011: Intensive muscular strength training vs Control: Duration: 4 weeks of treatment: follow-up: 2 months: Instrument: NPS 0 to 10.

Outcome 3 Pain Intensity: 20 weeks of treatment.

Outcome: 3 Pain Intensity: 20 weeks of treatment
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Andersen Ch 2012 (1) 40 3.42 (2.05) 48 3.86 (2.2) -0.20 [ -0.63, 0.22 ]
Andersen Ch 2012 (2) 27 3.56 (2.26) 48 3.86 (2.2) -0.13 [ -0.61, 0.34 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

Outcome 4 Pain Intensity (VAS): 10 weeks of treatment + 10 weeks follow-up.

Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Andersen 2008 (1) 18 16 (14) 8 30 (18) -0.89 [ -1.76, -0.01 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) Andersen 2008: Specific strength training vs Health counselling group: Duration: 10 weeks of treatment: follow-up: 10 weeks: Instrument: VAS 0 to 100

Outcome 5 Function: 4 weeks of treatment.
Outcome: 5 Function: 4 weeks of treatment
Mean Mean
1 Intensive muscular strength training vs CONTROL

Dellve 2011 (1) 20 -1.5 (3.4) 20 -2.4 (6.1) 0.90 [ -2.16, 3.96 ]
-10 -5 0 5 10
(1) Delve 2011: Intensive muscular strength training vs Control: Duration: 4 weeks of treatment: follow-up: none: Instrument: Work Ability Index.

Outcome 6 Function: 20 weeks of treatment.
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
1 Specific strength training vs Control

Andersen Ch 2012 (1) 43 14 (19) 48 17 (16) -0.17 [ -0.58, 0.24 ]
Andersen Ch 2012 (2) 27 16 (19) 48 17 (16) -0.06 [ -0.53, 0.41 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) Andersen Ch 2012: Training group (1 weekly sessions of 60 minutes) vs Reference group: Duration: 20 weeks of treatment: follow-up: none: Instrument: DASH.

Outcome 7 Function: 12 to 20 weeks of treatment/follow-up.

Outcome: 7 Function: 12 to 20 weeks of treatment/follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
Study or subgroup Experimental Control Difference Weight Difference
1 Muscle strength training vs CONTROL

Dellve 2011 (1) 20 -3.9 (4.8) 20 -2 (5) 31.2 % -0.38 [ -1.01, 0.25 ]
Andersen Ch 2012 (2) 40 13 (18) 48 17 (16) 68.8 % -0.23 [ -0.66, 0.19 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 60 68 100.0 % -0.28 [ -0.63, 0.07 ]

Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.0; Chi2 = 0.14, df = 1 (P = 0.70); I2 =0.0%
-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) Delve 2011: Intensive muscular strength training vs Control: Duration: 4 weeks of treatment: follow-up: 2 months (with home program): Instrument: Work ability
index.
Analysis 8.1. Comparison 8 Chronic MND: Cervical/UE Stretch/ROM Exercise + Cervical/UE Strengthening
+ Dynamic Cervical Stabilization vs PLACEBO or SHAM, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 8 weeks of
treatment.
Comparison: 8 Chronic MND: Cervical/UE Stretch/ROM Exercise + Cervical/UE Strengthening + Dynamic Cervical Stabilization vs PLACEBO or SHAM
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
1 General Exercise vs Sham US

Kjellman 2002 (1) 20 27 (26) 25 21 (20) 0.26 [ -0.33, 0.85 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) GENERAL EXERCISE vs Sham US

treatment + 6 month follow-up.

Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Kjellman 2002 (1) 20 23 (26) 25 27 (23) -0.16 [ -0.75, 0.43 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) GENERAL EX vs Sham US

Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Kjellman 2002 (1) 20 30 (27) 25 25 (24) 0.19 [ -0.40, 0.78 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

+ Dynamic Cervical Stabilization vs PLACEBO or SHAM, Outcome 4 Function (NDI): 8 weeks of treatment.

Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Kjellman 2002 (1) 20 21 (16) 25 19 (13) 0.14 [ -0.45, 0.73 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
+ Dynamic Cervical Stabilization vs PLACEBO or SHAM, Outcome 5 Function (NDI): 8 weeks of treatment +
6 month follow-up.

Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Kjellman 2002 (1) 20 17 (17) 24 18 (15) -0.06 [ -0.66, 0.53 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) General EX vs Sham US

+ Dynamic Cervical Stabilization vs PLACEBO or SHAM, Outcome 6 Function (NDI): 8 weeks treatment + 12
month follow-up.

Outcome: 6 Function (NDI): 8 weeks treatment + 12 month follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Kjellman 2002 (1) 20 18 (17) 24 16 (15) 0.12 [ -0.47, 0.72 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) General EX vs Sham US
Analysis 9.1. Comparison 9 Chronic MND: Cervical/UE Stretch/ROM Exercises +

INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity: Immediate Post Treatment
(<11w of treatment).

Comparison: 9 Chronic MND: Cervical/UE Stretch/ROM Exercises + Cervical/Scapulothoracic+/-UE Strengthening + Dynamic/Static Cervical Stabilization + ANOTHER
INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION
Outcome: 1 Pain Intensity: Immediate Post Treatment (<11w of treatment)
Mean Mean
1 Exercise +/- Infrared +/- SMT +/- Acupuncture vs Infrared or SMT or Acupuncture
Bronfort 2001 (1) 51 2.4 (1.8) 50 2.9 (2.1) 39.7 % -0.50 [ -1.26, 0.26 ]
Chiu 2005 59 3 (2.3) 62 3.8 (2.3) 36.4 % -0.80 [ -1.62, 0.02 ]
Franca 2008 16 6.8 (9.4) 15 15.3 (13) 0.6 % -8.50 [ -16.53, -0.47 ]
Martel 2011 32 1.6 (2.3) 32 2.1 (2.3) 23.3 % -0.50 [ -1.63, 0.63 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 158 159 100.0 % -0.66 [ -1.28, -0.03 ]

-4 -2 0 2 4

(1) G2: low technology exercise

INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 2 Pain Intensity: 11 w of treatment + 3 month
follow-up.

Outcome: 2 Pain Intensity: 11 w of treatment + 3 month follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
1 SMT + Rehab Exercises vs SMT

Bronfort 2001 (1) 51 2.9 (2.1) 50 3.7 (2.3) -0.36 [ -0.75, 0.03 ]
-100 -50 0 50 100


INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 3 Pain Intensity: Treatment + IT follow-up (11
weeks of treatment + 6 month follow-up.

Outcome: 3 Pain Intensity: Treatment + IT follow-up (11 weeks of treatment + 6 month follow-up
Mean Mean
1 <11w of treatment + 6 month follow-up

Bronfort 2001 (1) 51 3 (2.1) 50 3.5 (2.5) 50.2 % -0.50 [ -1.40, 0.40 ]
Chiu 2005 48 3.1 (2.4) 61 3.9 (2.4) 49.5 % -0.80 [ -1.71, 0.11 ]
Franca 2008 16 10.06 (12.3) 15 19.3 (21.5) 0.3 % -9.24 [ -21.68, 3.20 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 115 126 100.0 % -0.67 [ -1.32, -0.02 ]

-100 -50 0 50 100

(1) G2: low technology excercise (SMT/Ex vs SMT)

INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 4 Pain Intensity: Treatment + LT follow-up.

Outcome: 4 Pain Intensity: Treatment + LT follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Bronfort 2001 (1) 51 3.4 (2.4) 50 3.9 (2.3) -0.21 [ -0.60, 0.18 ]
-100 -50 0 50 100

(1) G2: low technology exercise (SMT/Ex vs SMT)

INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 5 Function: Immediate Post treatment.

Outcome: 5 Function: Immediate Post treatment
Mean Mean
1 <11w of treatment
Bronfort 2001 (1) 51 13.8 (8.6) 50 15.4 (11.7) 23.0 % -1.60 [ -5.61, 2.41 ]
Chiu 2005 59 1 (0.5) 62 1.1 (0.6) 45.2 % -0.10 [ -0.30, 0.10 ]
Franca 2008 16 7.3 (3.7) 15 14 (9.7) 17.1 % -6.70 [ -11.93, -1.47 ]
Martel 2011 32 11.3 (11.8) 32 13.7 (12.1) 14.7 % -2.40 [ -8.26, 3.46 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 158 159 100.0 % -1.91 [ -4.65, 0.83 ]

-100 -50 0 50 100


(1) SMT/Ex vs SMT

INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 6 Function: Treatment + ST follow-up.

Outcome: 6 Function: Treatment + ST follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Bronfort 2001 (1) 51 13.6 (10.2) 50 18.7 (13) -0.43 [ -0.83, -0.04 ]
-100 -50 0 50 100


INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 7 Function: Treatment + IT follow-up.

Outcome: 7 Function: Treatment + IT follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Franca 2008 16 10.2 (6.4) 15 17.6 (8.7) 12.7 % -0.95 [ -1.70, -0.20 ]
Bronfort 2001 (1) 51 14.3 (10.2) 50 17.5 (2.1) 42.2 % -0.43 [ -0.82, -0.03 ]
Chiu 2005 48 1 (0.5) 61 1.2 (0.7) 45.1 % -0.32 [ -0.70, 0.06 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 115 126 100.0 % -0.45 [ -0.72, -0.18 ]

-4 -2 0 2 4

INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 8 Function: Treatment + LT follow-up.

Outcome: 8 Function: Treatment + LT follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Bronfort 2001 (1) 51 15.6 (11.8) 50 20.5 (13.5) -0.38 [ -0.78, 0.01 ]
-100 -50 0 50 100


(1) SMT/Ex vs SMT

INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 9 Quality of Life: Immediate Post Treatment.

Outcome: 9 Quality of Life: Immediate Post Treatment
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
1 <11w of treatment
Bronfort 2001 (1) 51 -81.7 (12) 50 -78.8 (16.1) 61.1 % -0.20 [ -0.59, 0.19 ]
Martel 2011 32 -54.1 (7.2) 32 -53.1 (6.9) 38.9 % -0.14 [ -0.63, 0.35 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 83 82 100.0 % -0.18 [ -0.48, 0.13 ]

Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
-100 -50 0 50 100


INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 10 Quality of Life: Treatment + ST follow-up.

Outcome: 10 Quality of Life: Treatment + ST follow-up
Mean Mean
1 11w of treatment + 3 month follow-up

Bronfort 2001 (1) 51 -78.4 (14.2) 50 -74.9 (17.8) -3.50 [ -9.79, 2.79 ]
-100 -50 0 50 100


INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 11 Quality of Life: Treatment + IT follow-up.

Outcome: 11 Quality of Life: Treatment + IT follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Bronfort 2001 (1) 51 -79.8 (12.4) 50 -74.9 (17.8) -0.32 [ -0.71, 0.08 ]
-100 -50 0 50 100


INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 12 Quality of Life: Treatment + LT follow-up.

Outcome: 12 Quality of Life: Treatment + LT follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Bronfort 2001 (1) 51 -76.2 (15.3) 50 -70.8 (20.4) -0.30 [ -0.69, 0.09 ]
-100 -50 0 50 100


INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 13 Patient Satisfaction: Immediate Post
Treatment.
Outcome: 13 Patient Satisfaction: Immediate Post Treatment
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
1 11>w of treatment
Bronfort 2001 (1) 51 76.9 (41.8) 50 95.2 (48.6) -0.40 [ -0.80, -0.01 ]
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 14 Patient Satisfaction: Treatment + ST follow-
up.

Outcome: 14 Patient Satisfaction: Treatment + ST follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Bronfort 2001 (1) 51 70.8 (41) 50 91.7 (44.9) -0.48 [ -0.88, -0.09 ]
-2 -1 0 1 2

INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 15 Patient Satisfaction: Treatment + IT follow-
up.

Outcome: 15 Patient Satisfaction: Treatment + IT follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Bronfort 2001 (1) 51 67.7 (39.6) 50 91.9 (48.5) -0.54 [ -0.94, -0.15 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 16 Patient Satisfaction: Treatment + LT follow-
up.

Outcome: 16 Patient Satisfaction: Treatment + LT follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Bronfort 2001 (1) 51 54.4 (34.6) 50 88.3 (37.4) -0.93 [ -1.35, -0.52 ]
-2 -1 0 1 2

INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 17 Global Perceived Effect: Immediate Post
Treatment.
Outcome: 17 Global Perceived Effect: Immediate Post Treatment
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
1 11w of treatment
Bronfort 2001 (1) 51 76.6 (43.3) 50 95.6 (46.8) -0.42 [ -0.81, -0.02 ]
-100 -50 0 50 100


INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 18 Global Perceived Effect: Treatment + ST
follow-up.

Outcome: 18 Global Perceived Effect: Treatment + ST follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Bronfort 2001 (1) 51 77.5 (41.9) 50 91.3 (44.6) -0.32 [ -0.71, 0.08 ]
-0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5


INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 19 Global Perceived Effect: Treatment + IT
follow-up.

Outcome: 19 Global Perceived Effect: Treatment + IT follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Bronfort 2001 (1) 51 75.7 (43.5) 50 90.9 (45.7) -0.34 [ -0.73, 0.05 ]
-2 -1 0 1 2

INTERVENTION vs THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 20 Global Perceived Effect: Treatment + LT
follow-up.

Outcome: 20 Global Perceived Effect: Treatment + LT follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Bronfort 2001 (1) 51 65.7 (40.6) 50 83.1 (41.7) -0.42 [ -0.81, -0.03 ]
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Analysis 10.1. Comparison 10 Chronic MND: Cervical Stretch/ROM Exercises + Cervical/Scapulothoracic

Strengthening + Static/Dynamic Cervical/Shoulder Stabilization vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity
(VAS): 12 weeks of treatment.

Comparison: 10 Chronic MND: Cervical Stretch/ROM Exercises + Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening + Static/Dynamic Cervical/Shoulder Stabilization vs WAIT
LIST
Mean Mean
1 Exercise Therapy vs No Treatment

Rendant 2011 (1) 36 28.2 (21.9) 41 45.5 (19.4) 65.2 % -17.30 [ -26.60, -8.00 ]
von Trott 2009 (2) 35 44.5 (25.7) 35 54.9 (28.5) 34.8 % -10.40 [ -23.11, 2.31 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 71 76 100.0 % -14.90 [ -22.40, -7.39 ]

-100 -50 0 50 100


(1) Rendant 2011: Exercise therapy vs Wait list control; duration: 3 months; follow-up: none; instrument: VAS:
(2) von Trott 2009: Exercise therapy vs Wait list control; duration: 24 sessions over 3 months; follow-up: 3 months with home program; instrument: VAS:

Strengthening + Static/Dynamic Cervical/Shoulder Stabilization vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 2 Pain Intensity
(VAS): 24 weeks of treatment.

LIST
Mean Mean

Rendant 2011 (1) 35 28.5 (20.8) 39 38.8 (21.6) 66.2 % -10.30 [ -19.97, -0.63 ]
von Trott 2009 (2) 34 47.7 (30.5) 32 59.9 (25.5) 33.8 % -12.20 [ -25.73, 1.33 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 69 71 100.0 % -10.94 [ -18.81, -3.08 ]

-50 -25 0 25 50
(1) Rendant 2011: Exercise therapy vs Wait list control; duration: 18 sessions over 6 months; follow-up: none; instrument: VAS:
(2) von Trott 2009: Exercise therapy vs Wait list control; duration: 24 sessions over 3 months; follow-up: 3 months with home program; instrument: VAS:

Strengthening + Static/Dynamic Cervical/Shoulder Stabilization vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 3 Function: 12 weeks
of treatment.
LIST
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Rendant 2011 (1) 36 29.2 (17.5) 41 42 (15.2) 50.2 % -0.78 [ -1.24, -0.31 ]
von Trott 2009 (2) 35 33.6 (25.5) 35 39.1 (21.7) 49.8 % -0.23 [ -0.70, 0.24 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 71 76 100.0 % -0.50 [ -1.04, 0.03 ]

-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) Rendant 2011: Exercise therapy vs Wait list control; duration: 3 months; follow-up: none; instrument: NPDI 0 - 100
(2) von Trott 2009 Exercise therapy vs Wait list control; duration: 24 sessions over 3 months; follow-up: 3 months with home program; instrument: NDI 0 - 100

Strengthening + Static/Dynamic Cervical/Shoulder Stabilization vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 4 Function: 24 weeks
of treatment.
LIST
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Rendant 2011 (1) 35 29.7 (18.1) 39 38.9 (18.1) 52.3 % -0.50 [ -0.97, -0.04 ]
von Trott 2009 (2) 34 34.3 (24.8) 32 41.3 (23.4) 47.7 % -0.29 [ -0.77, 0.20 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 69 71 100.0 % -0.40 [ -0.74, -0.06 ]

-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) Rendant 2011: Exercise therapy vs Wait list control; duration: 18 sessions over 6 months; follow-up: none; instrument: NPDI 0 - 100
(2) von Trott 2009: Exercise therapy vs Wait list control; duration: 24 sessions over 3 months; follow-up: 3 months with home program; instrument: NDI 0 -100:

Strengthening + Static/Dynamic Cervical/Shoulder Stabilization vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 5 Global Perceived
Effect (General Health Perception): 12 weeks of treatment.

LIST
Outcome: 5 Global Perceived Effect (General Health Perception): 12 weeks of treatment
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

von Trott 2009 (1) 35 37.2 (7.2) 35 36.4 (9.8) 0.09 [ -0.38, 0.56 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

(1) von Trott 2009 Exercise therapy vs Wait list control; duration: 24 sessions over 3 months; follow-up: 3 months with home program; instrument: GPE:

Strengthening + Static/Dynamic Cervical/Shoulder Stabilization vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 6 Global Perceived
Effect (General Health Perception): 12 weeks of treatment + 12 weeks follow-up.

LIST
Outcome: 6 Global Perceived Effect (General Health Perception): 12 weeks of treatment + 12 weeks follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

von Trott 2009 (1) 34 34.8 (10.6) 32 36.9 (9.2) -0.21 [ -0.69, 0.28 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) von Trott 2009: Exercise therapy vs Wait list control; duration: 24 sessions over 3 months; follow-up: 3 months with home program; instrument: GPE:

Strengthening + Static/Dynamic Cervical/Shoulder Stabilization vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 7 Quality of Life (SF-
36): 12 weeks of treatment.

LIST
Outcome: 7 Quality of Life (SF-36): 12 weeks of treatment
Mean Mean

Rendant 2011 (1) 36 -45.7 (9.4) 41 -43 (8.7) 52.4 % -2.70 [ -6.76, 1.36 ]
von Trott 2009 (2) 34 -30.3 (7.8) 32 -28.6 (9.7) 47.6 % -1.70 [ -5.96, 2.56 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 70 73 100.0 % -2.22 [ -5.17, 0.72 ]

-100 -50 0 50 100

(1) Rendant 2011: Exercise therapy vs Wait list control; duration: 3 months; follow-up: none; instrument: SF-36:
(2) von Trott 2009: Exercise therapy vs Wait list control; duration: 24 sessions over 3 months; follow-up: 3 months with home program; instrument: SF-36:

Strengthening + Static/Dynamic Cervical/Shoulder Stabilization vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 8 Quality of Life (SF-
36): 24 weeks of treatment.

LIST
Mean Mean
Study or subgroup Treatement Control Difference Weight Difference

Rendant 2011 (1) 35 -45 (8.3) 39 -43 (8.5) 51.0 % -2.00 [ -5.83, 1.83 ]
von Trott 2009 (2) 35 -29.3 (8.8) 35 -31.5 (8.3) 49.0 % 2.20 [ -1.81, 6.21 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 70 74 100.0 % 0.06 [ -4.06, 4.17 ]

-100 -50 0 50 100


(1) Rendant 2011: Exercise therapy vs Wait list control; duration: 18 sessions over 6 months; follow-up: none; instrument: SF-36:
(2) von Trott 2009: Exercise therapy vs Wait list control; duration: 24 sessions over 3 months; follow-up: 3 months with home program; instrument: SF-36:
Analysis 11.1. Comparison 11 Chronic MND: Cervical/Scapulothoracic/UE Stretch + UE Endurance

Training vs NO INTERVENTION or WAIT LIST, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 12 weeks of treatment.

Comparison: 11 Chronic MND: Cervical/Scapulothoracic/UE Stretch + UE Endurance Training vs NO INTERVENTION or WAIT LIST
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
1 Dynamic muscle training vs control

Viljanen 2003 135 2.9 (2.6) 130 2.7 (2.5) 0.08 [ -0.16, 0.32 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

Training vs NO INTERVENTION or WAIT LIST, Outcome 2 Pain Intensity (VAS): 12 weeks of treatment + 3
month follow-up.

Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Viljanen 2003 135 2.9 (2.8) 130 2.9 (2.8) 0.0 [ -0.24, 0.24 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

Training vs NO INTERVENTION or WAIT LIST, Outcome 3 Pain Intensity (VAS): 12 weeks of treatment + 9
month follow-up.

Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Viljanen 2003 135 3.1 (2.5) 130 3.2 (2.5) -0.04 [ -0.28, 0.20 ]
-10 -5 0 5 10

Analysis 11.4. Comparison 11 Chronic MND: Cervical/Scapulothoracic/UE Stretch + UE Endurance Training
vs NO INTERVENTION or WAIT LIST, Outcome 4 Function (Neck Disability 0-80): 12 weeks of treatment.

Outcome: 4 Function (Neck Disability 0-80): 12 weeks of treatment
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Viljanen 2003 135 15 (14.6) 130 14 (13.8) 0.07 [ -0.17, 0.31 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

Training vs NO INTERVENTION or WAIT LIST, Outcome 5 Function (Neck Disability 0-80): 12 weeks of

Outcome: 5 Function (Neck Disability 0-80): 12 weeks of treatment + 3 month follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) IV,Fixed,95% CI IV,Fixed,95% CI

Viljanen 2003 135 15 (15.4) 130 14 (13.8) 0.07 [ -0.17, 0.31 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

Training vs NO INTERVENTION or WAIT LIST, Outcome 6 Function (Neck Disability 0-80): 12 weeks of

Outcome: 6 Function (Neck Disability 0-80): 12 weeks of treatment + 9 month follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Viljanen 2003 135 19 (15.5) 128 17 (13.7) 0.14 [ -0.11, 0.38 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
Analysis 12.1. Comparison 12 Acute to Chronic MND: Pattern synchronization + cervical/scapulothoracic

strengthening + scapulothoracic endurance vs NO INTERVENTION, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (VAS 0 to 10):
24 weeks of treatment.
Comparison: 12 Acute to Chronic MND: Pattern synchronization + cervical/scapulothoracic strengthening + scapulothoracic endurance vs NO INTERVENTION
Outcome: 1 Pain Intensity (VAS 0 to 10): 24 weeks of treatment
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
1 Training group vs control

Lange 2013 27 0.3 (0.52) 28 1 (1.59) -0.58 [ -1.12, -0.04 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

Analysis 13.1. Comparison 13 Chronic MND: Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening +
Cervical/Scapulothoracic Endurance Training, Outcome 1 Pain Prevelance during previous week: 6 weeks of
treatment + 46 weeks follow-up.

Comparison: 13 Chronic MND: Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening + Cervical/Scapulothoracic Endurance Training
Outcome: 1 Pain Prevelance during previous week: 6 weeks of treatment + 46 weeks follow-up
Study or subgroup Exercise Control Risk Ratio Risk Ratio

M- M-
H,Random,95% H,Random,95%
n/N n/N CI CI
1 Exercise Regimen vs control group

Ang 2009 5/28 11/28 0.45 [ 0.18, 1.14 ]
0.005 0.1 1 10 200

Analysis 14.1. Comparison 14 Acute to Chronic MND: Scapulothoracic/UE Endurance Training vs

CONTROL, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 10 weeks treatment.

Comparison: 14 Acute to Chronic MND: Scapulothoracic/UE Endurance Training vs CONTROL
Outcome: 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 10 weeks treatment
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
1 2 minute training group vs Control

Andersen 2011 (1) 63 2.2 (1.8) 64 3.5 (2.1) -0.66 [ -1.02, -0.30 ]
2 12 minute training group vs Control

Andersen 2011 (2) 65 2.2 (2.3) 64 3.5 (2.1) -0.59 [ -0.94, -0.23 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) 2 min vs Control

(2) 12 min vs Control

Analysis 15.1. Comparison 15 Chronic MND: Neuromuscular Education (eye neck
coordination/proprioception) + ANOTHER INTERVENTION VS THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 1
Pain Intensity (VAS): 8 weeks treatment + 10 weeks follow-up.

Comparison: 15 Chronic MND: Neuromuscular Education (eye neck coordination/proprioception) + ANOTHER INTERVENTION VS THAT SAME INTERVENTION
Outcome: 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 8 weeks treatment + 10 weeks follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
1 Rehabilitation Group vs Control Group

Revel 1994 30 -21.8 (25.2) 30 -4.3 (19.6) -0.77 [ -1.29, -0.24 ]
-10 -5 0 5 10
Analysis 15.2. Comparison 15 Chronic MND: Neuromuscular Education (eye neck

coordination/proprioception) + ANOTHER INTERVENTION VS THAT SAME INTERVENTION, Outcome 2
Function (pt’s assessment of functional improvement): 8 weeks treatment + 10 weeks follow-up.

Comparison: 15 Chronic MND: Neuromuscular Education (eye neck coordination/proprioception) + ANOTHER INTERVENTION VS THAT SAME INTERVENTION
Outcome: 2 Function (pt’s assessment of functional improvement): 8 weeks treatment + 10 weeks follow-up
Study or subgroup Treatment Control Risk Ratio Risk Ratio

M- M-
n/N n/N CI CI
1 Rehabilitation Group vs Control Group

Revel 1994 12/30 22/30 0.55 [ 0.33, 0.89 ]
0.01 0.1 1 10 100


Analysis 16.1. Comparison 16 Chronic MND:Trunk/Extremity Stretch + Pattern/Synchronization: Balance
and Coordination + Cardiovascular/Aerobic vs NO TREATMENT, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 10 weeks
of treatment.
Comparison: 16 Chronic MND:Trunk/Extremity Stretch + Pattern/Synchronization: Balance and Coordination + Cardiovascular/Aerobic vs NO TREATMENT
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
1 Group Gymnastics vs Control

Takala 1994 22 -9 (12) 22 -8 (18.5) -0.06 [ -0.65, 0.53 ]
-10 -5 0 5 10
Analysis 17.1. Comparison 17 Chronic MND:General Endurance Training + Dynamic/Static Lowback/pelvic

Stabilization + General Stretching + Neuromuscular/body Mechanics Movement Training vs NO
INTERVENTION OR WAIT LIST, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 16 weeks treatment + 6 weeks follow-up.

Comparison: 17 Chronic MND:General Endurance Training + Dynamic/Static Lowback/pelvic Stabilization + General Stretching + Neuromuscular/body Mechanics
Movement Training vs NO INTERVENTION OR WAIT LIST
Outcome: 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 16 weeks treatment + 6 weeks follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
1 Physiotherapy Group vs Control Group

Lundblad 1999 (1) 15 0.9 (1.3) 23 1.1 (1.4) -0.14 [ -0.80, 0.51 ]
-10 -5 0 5 10
(1) PT vs no treatment

Analysis 18.1. Comparison 18 Chronic MND: Stretch/ROM + Endurance Training + Dynamic Stabilization +
Cognitive (mindfulness & emotional balance) vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 12 weeks of
treatment.
Comparison: 18 Chronic MND: Stretch/ROM + Endurance Training + Dynamic Stabilization + Cognitive (mindfulness % emotional balance) vs WAIT LIST
Mean Mean
1 Qigong vs No Treatment
Rendant 2011 (1) 41 29.9 (22.6) 41 45.5 (19.4) 71.3 % -15.60 [ -24.72, -6.48 ]
von Trott 2009 (2) 31 47.4 (30.8) 35 54.9 (28.5) 28.7 % -7.50 [ -21.88, 6.88 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 72 76 100.0 % -13.28 [ -20.98, -5.58 ]

-100 -50 0 50 100

(1) Rendant 2011: Qigong vs Wait list control; duration: 3 months; follow-up: none; instrument: VAS:
(2) von Trott 2009: Qigong vs Wait list control; duration: 24 sessions over 3 months; follow-up: 3 months with home program; instrument: VAS:

Cognitive (mindfulness & emotional balance) vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 2 Pain Intensity (VAS): 24 weeks of
treatment.
Mean Mean
Rendant 2011 (1) 39 30.8 (16.2) 39 38.9 (18.1) 78.4 % -8.10 [ -15.72, -0.48 ]
von Trott 2009 (2) 27 53.1 (30.6) 32 59.9 (25.5) 21.6 % -6.80 [ -21.34, 7.74 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 66 71 100.0 % -7.82 [ -14.57, -1.07 ]

-50 -25 0 25 50
(1) Rendant 2011: Qigong vs Wait list control; duration: 18 sessions over 6 months; follow-up: none; instrument: VAS:
(2) von Trott 2009: Qigong vs Wait list control; duration: 24 sessions over 3 months; follow-up: 3 months with home program; instrument: VAS:

Cognitive (mindfulness & emotional balance) vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 3 Function: 12 weeks of treatment.

Std. Std.
Mean Mean
Rendant 2011 (1) 41 34.2 (16.9) 41 42 (15.2) 54.9 % -0.48 [ -0.92, -0.04 ]
von Trott 2009 (2) 31 34.3 (23.6) 35 39.1 (21.7) 45.1 % -0.21 [ -0.69, 0.28 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 72 76 100.0 % -0.36 [ -0.68, -0.03 ]

-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) Rendant 2011: Qigong vs Wait list control; duration: 3 months; follow-up: none; instrument: NPDI :
(2) von Trott 2009: Qigong vs Wait list control; duration: 24 sessions over 3 months; follow-up: 3 months with home program; instrument: NDI:

Cognitive (mindfulness & emotional balance) vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 4 Function: 24 weeks of treatment.

Std. Std.
Mean Mean
Rendant 2011 (1) 39 30.8 (16.2) 39 38.9 (18.1) 54.7 % -0.47 [ -0.92, -0.02 ]
von Trott 2009 (2) 27 39.8 (25.8) 32 41.3 (23.4) 45.3 % -0.06 [ -0.57, 0.45 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 66 71 100.0 % -0.28 [ -0.68, 0.11 ]

-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) Rendant 2011: Qigong vs Wait list control; duration: 18 sessions over 6 months; follow-up: none; instrument: NPDI:
(2) von Trott 2009: Qigong vs Wait list control; duration: 24 sessions over 3 months; follow-up: 3 months with home program; instrument: NDI 0-100:
Cognitive (mindfulness & emotional balance) vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 5 Global Perceived Effect (General
Health Perception): 12 weeks of treatment.

Outcome: 5 Global Perceived Effect (General Health Perception): 12 weeks of treatment
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
von Trott 2009 (1) 31 36.3 (9.1) 35 36.4 (9.8) -0.01 [ -0.49, 0.47 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) von Trott 2009: Qigong vs Wait list control; duration: 24 sessions over 3 months; follow-up: 3 months with home program; instrument: general health perception:

Cognitive (mindfulness & emotional balance) vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 6 Global Perceived Effect (General
Health Perception): 12 weeks of treatment + 12 weeks Follow-up.

Outcome: 6 Global Perceived Effect (General Health Perception): 12 weeks of treatment + 12 weeks Follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
von Trott 2009 (1) 27 36.1 (8.4) 32 36.9 (9.2) -0.09 [ -0.60, 0.42 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) von Trott 2009: Qigong vs Wait list control; duration: 24 sessions over 3 months; follow-up: 3 months with home program; instrument: general health perception:
Cognitive (mindfulness & emotional balance) vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 7 Quality of Life (SF-36 physical
component): 12 weeks of treatment.

Outcome: 7 Quality of Life (SF-36 physical component): 12 weeks of treatment
Mean Mean
Rendant 2011 (1) 41 -46.6 (8.3) 41 -43.2 (8.2) 57.3 % -3.40 [ -6.97, 0.17 ]
von Trott 2009 (2) 31 -30.4 (7.4) 35 -28.6 (9.7) 42.7 % -1.80 [ -5.94, 2.34 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 72 76 100.0 % -2.72 [ -5.42, -0.01 ]

-100 -50 0 50 100


(1) Rendant 2011: Qigong vs Wait list control; duration: 3 months; follow-up: none; instrument: SF-36:
(2) von Trott 2009: Qigong vs Wait list control; duration: 24 sessions over 3 months; follow-up: 3 months with home program; instrument: SF-36:
Cognitive (mindfulness & emotional balance) vs WAIT LIST, Outcome 8 Quality of Life: 24 weeks of treatment.

Outcome: 8 Quality of Life: 24 weeks of treatment
Mean Mean
Rendant 2011 (1) 39 -47 (10.2) 39 -43.1 (8.5) 49.5 % -3.90 [ -8.07, 0.27 ]
von Trott 2009 (2) 27 -31.4 (7.7) 32 -31.5 (8.3) 50.5 % 0.10 [ -3.99, 4.19 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 66 71 100.0 % -1.88 [ -5.80, 2.04 ]

-20 -10 0 10 20
(1) Rendant 2011: Qigong vs Wait list control; duration: 18 sessions over 6 months; follow-up: none; instrument: SF-36:
(2) von Trott 2009: Qigong vs Wait list control; duration: 24 sessions over 3 months; follow-up: 3 months with home program; instrument: SF-36:

Analysis 19.1. Comparison 19 Subacute to chronic WAD: Trunk/Extremity Stretch/ROM + Trunk/Extremity
Strengthening + Trunk/Extremity Endurance Training + Pattern/Synchronization: Coordination +
Cardiovascular/Aerobic + Cognitive (CBT) + ANOTHER TREATMENT vs THAT SAME OTHER TREATMENT,
Outcome 1 Pain Intensity: (0-10 box scale): 6 weeks of treatment.

Comparison: 19 Subacute to chronic WAD: Trunk/Extremity Stretch/ROM + Trunk/Extremity Strengthening + Trunk/Extremity Endurance Training + Pat-
tern/Synchronization: Coordination + Cardiovascular/Aerobic + Cognitive (CBT) + ANOTHER TREATMENT vs THAT SAME OTHER TREATMENT
Outcome: 1 Pain Intensity: (0-10 box scale): 6 weeks of treatment
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
1 Exercise + Advice vs Advice

Stewart 2007 66 3.2 (2.2) 66 4.3 (2.5) -0.46 [ -0.81, -0.12 ]
-2 -1 0 1 2

Outcome 2 Pain Intensity (0-10 box scale): 6 weeks treatment + 12 month follow-up.

Outcome: 2 Pain Intensity (0-10 box scale): 6 weeks treatment + 12 month follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Stewart 2007 63 3.5 (2.3) 62 3.8 (2.7) -0.12 [ -0.47, 0.23 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

Outcome 3 Function (NDI): 6 weeks of treatment.

Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Stewart 2007 66 12 (6.8) 66 15.7 (7.9) -0.50 [ -0.85, -0.15 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

Outcome 4 Function (NDI): 6 weeks of treatment + 12 month follow-up.

Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Stewart 2007 63 12.1 (7.5) 62 15.5 (9.9) -0.39 [ -0.74, -0.03 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

Outcome 5 Global Perceived Effect (-5 to 5 scale): 6 weeks of treatment.

Outcome: 5 Global Perceived Effect (-5 to 5 scale): 6 weeks of treatment
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Stewart 2007 66 -2.5 (1.8) 66 -1.5 (2.5) -0.46 [ -0.80, -0.11 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

Outcome 6 Global Perceived Effect (-5 to 5 scale): 6 weeks of treatment + 12 month follow-up.

Outcome: 6 Global Perceived Effect (-5 to 5 scale): 6 weeks of treatment + 12 month follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Stewart 2007 63 -2.3 (2) 62 -1.9 (2.3) -0.18 [ -0.54, 0.17 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

Outcome 7 Quality of Life (SF-36): 6 weeks of treatment.

Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Stewart 2007 66 -42.1 (8.9) 66 -38.9 (9.3) -0.35 [ -0.69, -0.01 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

Outcome 8 Quality of Life (SF-36): 6 weeks of treatment + 12 month follow-up.

Outcome: 8 Quality of Life (SF-36): 6 weeks of treatment + 12 month follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Stewart 2007 63 -42.3 (9.8) 62 -40.7 (11.3) -0.15 [ -0.50, 0.20 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

Analysis 20.1. Comparison 20 Acute to Subacute CGH: Cervical Stretch/ROM vs SHAM, Outcome 1 Pain
Intensity (Headache Questionnaire): Treatment + 4 weeks follow-up.

Comparison: 20 Acute to Subacute CGH: Cervical Stretch/ROM vs SHAM
Outcome: 1 Pain Intensity (Headache Questionnaire): Treatment + 4 weeks follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
1 C1-C2 Self Snag vs Placebo Group

Hall 2007 16 31 (9) 16 51 (15) -1.58 [ -2.38, -0.77 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
Analysis 20.2. Comparison 20 Acute to Subacute CGH: Cervical Stretch/ROM vs SHAM, Outcome 2 Pain
Intensity (Headache Questionnaire): Treatment + 12 month follow-up.

Comparison: 20 Acute to Subacute CGH: Cervical Stretch/ROM vs SHAM
Outcome: 2 Pain Intensity (Headache Questionnaire): Treatment + 12 month follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
1 C1-C2 Self Snag vs Placebo Group

Hall 2007 16 24 (9) 16 44 (13) -1.74 [ -2.57, -0.91 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

Analysis 21.1. Comparison 21 Chronic CGH: Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance
Training + Craniocervical Pressure Biofeedback + Dynamic Cervical Stabilization vs NO INTERVENTION or
WAIT LIST, Outcome 1 Headache Intensity (VAS 0-10): 6 weeks of treatment.

Comparison: 21 Chronic CGH: Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance Training + Craniocervical Pressure Biofeedback + Dynamic Cervical Stabilization
vs NO INTERVENTION or WAIT LIST
Outcome: 1 Headache Intensity (VAS 0-10): 6 weeks of treatment
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
Study or subgroup Favours treatment Control Difference Difference
1 Therapeutic Exercise +/- Manip vs Control Group or Manip

Jull 2002 (1) 49 -3.37 (2.73) 49 -3.1 (2.24) -0.11 [ -0.50, 0.29 ]
Jull 2002 (2) 51 -3.26 (2.71) 46 -1.43 (2.04) -0.75 [ -1.16, -0.34 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) Ex + Manip vs Manip


WAIT LIST, Outcome 2 Headache Intensity (VAS 0-10): 6 weeks treatment + 12 month follow-up.

Outcome: 2 Headache Intensity (VAS 0-10): 6 weeks treatment + 12 month follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Jull 2002 (1) 51 -2.83 (2.64) 46 -1.32 (2.44) -0.59 [ -1.00, -0.18 ]
Jull 2002 (2) 48 -2.69 (2.22) 48 -2.27 (2.63) -0.17 [ -0.57, 0.23 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

(2) Exercise + Manip vs Manip

WAIT LIST, Outcome 3 Function (NPNPQ 0-36): 6 weeks treatment.

Outcome: 3 Function (NPNPQ 0-36): 6 weeks treatment
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Jull 2002 (1) 49 -12.13 (12.6) 49 -10.69 (12.53) -0.11 [ -0.51, 0.28 ]
Jull 2002 (2) 51 -11.03 (15.43) 46 -3.72 (9.77) -0.56 [ -0.96, -0.15 ]
-2 -1 0 1 2
(1) Exercise + MT vs MT

WAIT LIST, Outcome 4 Function (NPNPQ 0-36): 6 weeks treatment + 12 month follow-up.

Outcome: 4 Function (NPNPQ 0-36): 6 weeks treatment + 12 month follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Jull 2002 (1) 51 -15.66 (14.35) 46 -6.44 (11.39) -0.70 [ -1.11, -0.29 ]
Jull 2002 (2) 48 -14.21 (12.61) 48 -11.21 (13.03) -0.23 [ -0.63, 0.17 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) Ex vs Control

WAIT LIST, Outcome 5 Global Perceived Effect (VAS): 6 weeks treatment.

Outcome: 5 Global Perceived Effect (VAS): 6 weeks treatment
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Jull 2002 (1) 51 -7.1 (2.5) 46 -0.73 (1.63) -2.96 [ -3.55, -2.38 ]
Jull 2002 (2) 49 -7.72 (1.96) 49 -7.09 (2.38) -0.29 [ -0.68, 0.11 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

(1) Exercise vs control

WAIT LIST, Outcome 6 Global Perceived Effect (VAS): 6 weeks treatment + 12 month follow-up.

Outcome: 6 Global Perceived Effect (VAS): 6 weeks treatment + 12 month follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean

Jull 2002 (1) 51 -6.92 (3.21) 46 -0.43 (1.56) -2.51 [ -3.05, -1.97 ]
Jull 2002 (2) 51 -6.92 (3.21) 46 -0.43 (1.56) -2.51 [ -3.05, -1.97 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4


Analysis 22.1. Comparison 22 Acute Radiculopathy (NDR): Cervical Stretch/ROM +
Cervical/Scapulothoracic/UE Strengthening + Static/Dynamic Cervical Stabilization vs WAIT LIST, Outcome
1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 6 weeks treatment.

Comparison: 22 Acute Radiculopathy (NDR): Cervical Stretch/ROM + Cervical/Scapulothoracic/UE Strengthening + Static/Dynamic Cervical Stabilization vs WAIT LIST
Outcome: 1 Pain Intensity (VAS): 6 weeks treatment
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
1 Physiotherapy vs Control
Kuijper 2009 (1) 68 36.2 (31) 65 51.1 (32.7) -0.47 [ -0.81, -0.12 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) PT vs wait list

2 Pain Intensity (VAS): 6 weeks treatment + 6 month follow-up.

Outcome: 2 Pain Intensity (VAS): 6 weeks treatment + 6 month follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
Kuijper 2009 68 20 (58.4) 61 10 (66.7) 0.16 [ -0.19, 0.51 ]
-2 -1 0 1 2

3 Function (NDI): 6 weeks treatment.

Outcome: 3 Function (NDI): 6 weeks treatment
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
Kuijper 2009 (1) 68 27.8 (17.7) 65 29.9 (20) -0.11 [ -0.45, 0.23 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) PT vs wait list

4 Function (NDI): 6 weeks treatment + 6 month follow-up.

Outcome: 4 Function (NDI): 6 weeks treatment + 6 month follow-up
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
Kuijper 2009 68 10 (36.3) 61 8 (34.6) 0.06 [ -0.29, 0.40 ]
-0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5


5 Satisfaction (5 point scale): 6 weeks treatment.

Outcome: 5 Satisfaction (5 point scale): 6 weeks treatment
Study or subgroup Experimental Control Risk Ratio Risk Ratio

M- M-
n/N n/N CI CI
Kuijper 2009 (1) 27/66 28/63 0.92 [ 0.62, 1.37 ]
0.5 0.7 1 1.5 2

(1) PT vs wait list
Analysis 23.1. Comparison 23 Chronic MND: Patterns synchronization + Feedforward/feedback: vestibular

rehabilitation (balance on unstable surfaces and walking with head movements and eyes closed) vs NO
INTERVENTION, Outcome 1 Pain Intensity (VAS) 6 weeks vs Control.

Comparison: 23 Chronic MND: Patterns synchronization + Feedforward/feedback: vestibular rehabilitation (balance on unstable surfaces and walking with head move-
ments and eyes closed) vs NO INTERVENTION
Outcome: 1 Pain Intensity (VAS) 6 weeks vs Control
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
Hansson 2013 (1) 16 64 (29.63) 12 62 (27.4) 0.07 [ -0.68, 0.82 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) used median values, not mean scores.

Analysis 23.2. Comparison 23 Chronic MND: Patterns synchronization + Feedforward/feedback: vestibular
rehabilitation (balance on unstable surfaces and walking with head movements and eyes closed) vs NO
INTERVENTION, Outcome 2 Pain Intensity (VAS) 3 months vs control.

Comparison: 23 Chronic MND: Patterns synchronization + Feedforward/feedback: vestibular rehabilitation (balance on unstable surfaces and walking with head move-
ments and eyes closed) vs NO INTERVENTION
Outcome: 2 Pain Intensity (VAS) 3 months vs control
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
Hansson 2013 (1) 16 42 (35.63) 13 61 (22.9) -0.60 [ -1.35, 0.15 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4
(1) used median values, not mean scores
Analysis 24.1. Comparison 24 Chronic MND: Patterns synchronization + Feedforward/feedback: exercises

for coordinating the neck, eyes and upper limbs vs NO INTERVENTION, Outcome 1 Pain intensity (VAS) 4
weeks vs Control.
Comparison: 24 Chronic MND: Patterns synchronization + Feedforward/feedback: exercises for coordinating the neck, eyes and upper limbs vs NO INTERVENTION
Outcome: 1 Pain intensity (VAS) 4 weeks vs Control
Std. Std.
Mean Mean
N Mean(SD)[mm] N Mean(SD)[mm] IV,Random,95% CI IV,Random,95% CI
Humphreys 2002 14 48 (11) 14 48 (14) 0.0 [ -0.74, 0.74 ]
-4 -2 0 2 4

APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Computerised search strategies
MEDLINE- OVID
1. Neck Pain/
2. exp Brachial Plexus Neuropathies/
3. exp neck injuries/ or exp whiplash injuries/
4. cervical pain.mp.
5. neckache.mp.
6. whiplash.mp.
7. cervicodynia.mp.
8. cervicalgia.mp.
9. brachialgia.mp.
10. brachial neuritis.mp.
11. brachial neuralgia.mp.
12. neck pain.mp.
13. neck injur*.mp.
14. brachial plexus neuropath*.mp.
15. brachial plexus neuritis.mp.
16. thoracic outlet syndrome/ or cervical rib syndrome/
17. Torticollis/
18. exp brachial plexus neuropathies/ or exp brachial plexus neuritis/
19. cervico brachial neuralgia.ti,ab.
20. cervicobrachial neuralgia.ti,ab.
21. (monoradicul* or monoradicl*).tw.
22. or/1-21
23. exp headache/ and cervic*.tw.
24. exp genital diseases, female/
25. genital disease*.mp.
26. or/24-25
27. 23 not 26
28. 22 or 27
29. neck/
30. neck muscles/
31. exp cervical plexus/
32. exp cervical vertebrae/
33. atlanto-axial joint/
34. atlanto-occipital joint/
35. Cervical Atlas/
36. spinal nerve roots/
37. exp brachial plexus/
38. (odontoid* or cervical or occip* or atlant*).tw.
39. axis/ or odontoid process/
40. Thoracic Vertebrae/
41. cervical vertebrae.mp.
42. cervical plexus.mp.
43. cervical spine.mp.
44. (neck adj3 muscles).mp.
45. (brachial adj3 plexus).mp.
46. (thoracic adj3 vertebrae).mp.
47. neck.mp.
48. (thoracic adj3 spine).mp.
49. (thoracic adj3 outlet).mp.
50. trapezius.mp.
51. cervical.mp.
52. cervico*.mp.
53. 51 or 52
56. exp *Uterus/
57. 54 or 55 or 56
58. 53 not 57
59. 29 or 30 or 31 or 32 or 33 or 34 or 35 or 36 or 37 or 38 or 39 or 40 or 41 or 42 or 43 or 44 or 45 or 46 or 47 or 48 or 49 or 50
or 58
60. exp pain/
61. exp injuries/
62. pain.mp.
63. ache.mp.
64. sore.mp.
65. stiff.mp.
66. discomfort.mp.
67. injur*.mp.
68. neuropath*.mp.
69. or/60-68
70. 59 and 69
71. Radiculopathy/
72. exp temporomandibular joint disorders/ or exp temporomandibular joint dysfunction syndrome/
73. myofascial pain syndromes/
74. exp “Sprains and Strains”/
75. exp Spinal Osteophytosis/
76. exp Neuritis/
77. Polyradiculopathy/
78. exp Arthritis/
79. Fibromyalgia/
80. spondylitis/ or discitis/
81. spondylosis/ or spondylolysis/ or spondylolisthesis/
82. radiculopathy.mp.
83. radiculitis.mp.
84. temporomandibular.mp.
85. myofascial pain syndrome*.mp.
86. thoracic outlet syndrome*.mp.
87. spinal osteophytosis.mp.
88. neuritis.mp.
89. spondylosis.mp.
90. spondylitis.mp.
91. spondylolisthesis.mp.
92. or/71-91
93. 59 and 92
94. exp neck/
97. neck.mp.
99. cervical.mp.
100. cervico*.mp.
101. 99 or 100
104. exp *Uterus/
105. or/102-104
106. 101 not 105
109. 94 or 95 or 96 or 97 or 98 or 106 or 107 or 108
110. Intervertebral Disk/
111. (disc or discs).mp.
112. (disk or disks).mp.
113. 110 or 111 or 112
114. 109 and 113
115. herniat*.mp.
116. slipped.mp.
117. prolapse*.mp.
118. displace*.mp.
119. degenerat*.mp.
120. (bulge or bulged or bulging).mp.
121. 115 or 116 or 117 or 118 or 119 or 120
122. 114 and 121
123. intervertebral disk degeneration/ or intervertebral disk displacement/
124. intervertebral disk displacement.mp.
125. intervertebral disc displacement.mp.
126. intervertebral disk degeneration.mp.
127. intervertebral disc degeneration.mp.
128. 123 or 124 or 125 or 126 or 127
129. 109 and 128
130. 28 or 70 or 93 or 122 or 129
131. animals/ not (animals/ and humans/)
132. 130 not 131
133. exp *neoplasms/
134. exp *wounds, penetrating/
135. 133 or 134
136. 132 not 135
137. Neck Pain/rh [Rehabilitation]
138. exp Brachial Plexus Neuropathies/rh
139. exp neck injuries/rh or exp whiplash injuries/rh
140. thoracic outlet syndrome/rh or cervical rib syndrome/rh
141. Torticollis/rh
142. exp brachial plexus neuropathies/rh or exp brachial plexus neuritis/rh
143. 137 or 138 or 139 or 140 or 141 or 142
144. Radiculopathy/rh
145. exp temporomandibular joint disorders/rh or exp temporomandibular joint dysfunction syndrome/rh
146. myofascial pain syndromes/rh
147. exp “Sprains and Strains”/rh
148. exp Spinal Osteophytosis/rh
149. exp Neuritis/rh
150. Polyradiculopathy/rh
151. exp Arthritis/rh
152. Fibromyalgia/rh
153. spondylitis/rh or discitis/rh
154. spondylosis/rh or spondylolysis/rh or spondylolisthesis/rh
155. or/144-154
156. 59 and 155
157. exp Combined Modality Therapy/
158. Exercise/
159. Physical Exertion/
160. exp Exercise Therapy/
161. exp Electric Stimulation Therapy/
162. exp Rehabilitation/
163. exp Physical Therapy Modalities/
164. Hydrotherapy/
165. postur* correction.mp.
166. Feldenkrais.mp.
167. (alexander adj (technique or method)).tw.
168. Relaxation Therapy/
169. Biofeedback, Psychology/
170. or/157-169
171. 136 and 170
172. 143 or 156 or 171
174. 172 not 173
175. exp randomised controlled trials as topic/
176. randomised controlled trial.pt.
177. controlled clinical trial.pt.
178. (random* or sham or placebo*).tw.
179. placebos/
180. random allocation/
181. single blind method/
182. double blind method/
183. ((singl* or doubl* or trebl* or tripl*) adj25 (blind* or dumm* or mask*)).ti,ab.
184. (rct or rcts).tw.
185. (control* adj2 (study or studies or trial*)).tw.
186. or/175-185
187. 174 and 186
188. limit 187 to yr=“2006 -Current”
189. limit 187 to yr=“1902 - 2005”
190. guidelines as topic/
191. practice guidelines as topic/
192. guideline.pt.
193. practice guideline.pt.
194. (guideline? or guidance or recommendations).ti.
195. consensus.ti.
196. or/190-195
197. 174 and 196
198. 136 and 196
199. 197 or 198
201. limit 199 to yr=“1902 - 2005”
202. meta-analysis/
203. exp meta-analysis as topic/
204. (meta analy* or metaanaly* or met analy* or metanaly*).tw.
205. review literature as topic/
206. (collaborative research or collaborative review* or collaborative overview*).tw.
207. (integrative research or integrative review* or intergrative overview*).tw.
208. (quantitative adj3 (research or review* or overview*)).tw.
209. (research integration or research overview*).tw.
210. (systematic* adj3 (review* or overview*)).tw.
211. (methodologic* adj3 (review* or overview*)).tw.
212. exp technology assessment biomedical/
213. (hta or thas or technology assessment*).tw.
214. ((hand adj2 search*) or (manual* adj search*)).tw.
215. ((electronic adj database*) or (bibliographic* adj database*)).tw.
216. ((data adj2 abstract*) or (data adj2 extract*)).tw.
217. (analys* adj3 (pool or pooled or pooling)).tw.
218. mantel haenszel.tw.
219. (cohrane or pubmed or pub med or medline or embase or psycinfo or psyclit or psychinfo or psychlit or cinahl or science citation
index).ab.
220. or/202-219
221. 174 and 220
223. limit 221 to yr=“1902 - 2005”
224. (ae or to or po or co).fs.
225. (safe or safety or unsafe).tw.
226. (side effect* or side event*).tw.
227. ((adverse or undesirable or harm* or injurious or serious or toxic) adj3 (effect* or event* or reaction* or incident* or outcome*)).tw.
228. (abnormalit* or toxicit* or complication* or consequence* or noxious or tolerabilit*).tw.
229. or/224-228
230. 174 and 229
232. limit 230 to yr=“1902 - 2005”
233. limit 187 to ed=20100701-20120313
234. limit 199 to ed=20100701-20120313
235. limit 221 to ed=20100701-20120313
236. limit 230 to ed=20100701-20120313
237. limit 189 to ed=20120313-20131108
Embase-OVID
1. neck pain/
2. brachial plexus neuropathy/
3. neck injury/ or whiplash injury/
5. neckache.mp.
6. whiplash.mp.
7. cervicodynia.mp.
8. cervicalgia.mp.
9. brachialgia/
10. brachialgia.mp.
13. neck pain.mp.
14. neck injur*.mp.
17. thorax outlet syndrome/
18. torticollis/
22. or/1-21
24. exp gynecologic disease/
26. exp *uterine cervix/
27. or/24-26
28. 23 not 27
29. 22 or 28
30. neck/ or neck muscle/
31. cervical plexus/
32. cervical spine/
33. atlantoaxial joint/
34. atlantooccipital joint/
35. atlas/
36. “spinal root”/
37. brachial plexus/
39. odontoid process/
40. cervical vertebra.mp.
46. (thoracic adj3 vertebra?).mp.
47. neck.mp.
50. trapezius.mp.
51. cervical.mp.
52. cervico*.mp.
53. 51 or 52
57. 54 or 55 or 56
58. 53 not 57
60. exp pain/
61. exp injury/
62. pain.mp.
63. ache.mp.
64. sore.mp.
65. stiff.mp.
66. discomfort.mp.
67. injur*.mp.
68. neuropath*.mp.
69. or/60-68
70. radiculopathy/
71. temporomandibular joint disorder/
72. myofascial pain/
73. spondylosis/ or cervical spondylosis/
74. neuritis/
75. exp arthritis/
76. fibromyalgia/
77. exp spondylitis/
78. diskitis/
79. spondylolisthesis/
81. radiculitis.mp.
85. neuritis.mp.
86. spondylosis.mp.
87. spondylitis.mp.
89. or/70-88
90. 59 and 89
91. neck/
92. cervical spine/
93. neck.mp.
94. (thoracic adj3 vertebra?).mp.
95. cervical.mp.
96. cervico*.mp.
100. or/97-99
101. 95 or 96
102. 101 not 100
105. 91 or 92 or 93 or 94 or 102 or 103 or 104
106. intervertebral disk/
109. 106 or 107 or 108
110. 105 and 109
111. herniat*.mp.
112. slipped.mp.
113. prolapse*.mp.
114. displace*.mp.
115. degenerat*.mp.
117. 110 or 111 or 112 or 113 or 114 or 115 or 116
118. 110 and 117
119. intervertebral disk hernia/
120. intervertebral disk degeneration/
125. 119 or 120 or 121 or 122 or 123 or 124
126. 105 and 125
127. 59 and 69
128. 29 or 90 or 118 or 126 or 127
129. exp *neoplasm/
130. exp *penetrating trauma/
131. 129 or 130
132. 128 not 131
133. neck pain/rh [Rehabilitation]
134. brachial plexus neuropathy/rh
135. neck injury/rh or whiplash injury/rh
136. brachialgia/rh
137. thorax outlet syndrome/rh
138. Torticollis/rh
139. 133 or 134 or 135 or 136 or 137 or 138
140. radiculopathy/rh
141. temporomandibular joint disorder/rh
142. myofascial pain/rh
143. spondylosis/rh or cervical spondylosis/rh
144. neuritis/rh
145. exp arthritis/rh
146. fibromyalgia/rh
147. exp spondylitis/rh
148. diskitis/rh
149. spondylolisthesis/rh
150. or/140-149
151. 59 and 150
152. exp exercise/
153. exp kinesiotherapy/
154. physical medicine/
155. feedback system/
156. biofeedback.tw.
157. relaxation training/
158. bodywork/ or alexander technique/ or feldenkrais method/
160. or/152-159
161. 132 and 160
162. 139 or 151 or 161
163. human/
164. nonhuman/
165. animal/
166. animal experiment/
167. or/164-166
168. 167 not (163 and 167)
169. 162 not 169
170. randomized controlled trial/
171. controlled clinical trial/
172. (random* or sham or placebo*).tw.
173. placebo/
174. randomization/
175. single blind procedure/
176. double blind procedure/
177. ((singl* or doubl* or trebl* or tripl*) adj5 (blind* or dumm*or mask*)).ti,ab.
178. (rct or rcts).tw.
179. (control* adj2 (study or studies or tiral*)).tw.
180. or/170-179
181. human/
182. nonhuman/
183. animal/
184. animal experiment/
185. or/182-184
186. 185 not (185 and 181)
187. 180 not 186
188. 169 and 187
190. limit 219 to yr=“1928 - 2005”
191. guidelines as topic/
192. practice guidelines as topic/
193. (guideline? or guidance or recommendations).ti.
194. consensus.ti.
195. or/191-194
196. 169 and 195
198. limit 196 to yr=“1928 - 2005”
199. meta analysis/
200. systematic review/
201. (meta analy* or metaanaly* or met analy* or metanaly*).tw.
202. (collaborative research or collaborative review* or collaborative overview*).tw.
203. (integrative research or integrative review* or intergrative overview*).tw.
204. (quantitative adj3 (research or review* or overview*)).tw.
205. (research integration or research overview*).tw.
206. (systematic* adj3 (review* or overview*)).tw.
207. (methodologic* adj3 (review* or overview*)).tw.
208. biomedical technology assessment/
209. (hta or thas or technology assessment*).tw.
210. ((hand adj2 search*) or (manual* adj search*)).tw.
211. ((electronic adj database*) or (bibliographic* adj database*)).tw.
212. ((data adj2 abstract*) or (data adj2 extract*)).tw.
213. (data adj3 (pooled or pool or pooling)).tw.
214. (analys* adj3 (pool or pooled or pooling)).tw.
215. mantel haenszel.tw.
216. (cochrane or Pubmed or pub med or medline or embase or psycinfo or psyclit or psychinfo or psychlit or cinahl or science citation
index).ab.
217. or/199-216
218. 169 and 217
220. limit 218 to yr=“1928 - 2005”
221. (ae or co or si or to).fs.
222. (safe or safety or unsafe).tw.
223. (side effect* or side event*).tw.
224. ((adverse or undesirable or harm* or injurious or serious or toxic) adj3 (effect* or event* or reaction* or incident* or outcome*)).tw.
225. (abnormalit* or toxicit* or complication* or consequence* or noxious or tolerabilit*).tw.
226. or/221-225
227. 169 and 226
229. limit 227 to yr=“1928 - 2005”
230. limit 188 to em=201027-201210
231. limit 196 to em=201027-201210
232. limit 218 to em=201027-201210
233. limit 227 to em=201027-201210
CENTRAL-OVID
1. Neck Pain/
2. exp Brachial Plexus Neuropathies/
3. exp neck injuries/ or exp whiplash injuries/
5. neckache.mp.
6. whiplash.mp.
7. cervicodynia.mp.
8. cervicalgia.mp.
9. brachialgia.mp.
12. neck pain.mp.
13. neck injur*.mp.
16. thoracic outlet syndrome/ or cervical rib syndrome/
17. Torticollis/
18. exp brachial plexus neuropathies/ or exp brachial plexus neuritis/
22. or/1-21
26. or/24-25
27. 23 not 26
28. 22 or 27
29. neck/
30. neck muscles/
31. exp cervical plexus/
33. atlanto-axial joint/
34. atlanto-occipital joint/
35. Cervical Atlas/
36. spinal nerve roots/
37. exp brachial plexus/
39. axis/ or odontoid process/
47. neck.mp.
50. trapezius.mp.
51. cervical.mp.
52. cervico*.mp.
53. 51 or 52
56. exp *Uterus/
57. 54 or 55 or 56
58. 53 not 57
or 58
60. exp pain/
61. exp injuries/
62. pain.mp.
63. ache.mp.
64. sore.mp.
65. stiff.mp.
66. discomfort.mp.
67. injur*.mp.
68. neuropath*.mp.
69. or/60-68
70. 59 and 69
71. Radiculopathy/
72. exp temporomandibular joint disorders/ or exp temporomandibular joint dysfunction syndrome/
73. myofascial pain syndromes/
74. exp “Sprains and Strains”/
75. exp Spinal Osteophytosis/
76. exp Neuritis/
77. Polyradiculopathy/
78. exp Arthritis/
79. Fibromyalgia/
80. spondylitis/ or discitis/
81. spondylosis/ or spondylolysis/ or spondylolisthesis/
83. radiculitis.mp.
86. thoracic outlet syndrome*.mp.
88. neuritis.mp.
89. spondylosis.mp.
90. spondylitis.mp.
92. or/71-91
93. 59 and 92
94. exp neck/
97. neck.mp.
99. cervical.mp.
100. cervico*.mp.
101. 99 or 100
104. exp *Uterus/
105. or/102-104
106. 101 not 105
109. 94 or 95 or 96 or 97 or 98 or 106 or 107 or 108
110. Intervertebral Disk/
113. 110 or 111 or 112
114. 109 and 113
115. herniat*.mp.
116. slipped.mp.
117. prolapse*.mp.
118. displace*.mp.
119. degenerat*.mp.
121. 115 or 116 or 117 or 118 or 119 or 120
122. 114 and 121
123. intervertebral disk degeneration/ or intervertebral disk displacement/
128. 123 or 124 or 125 or 126 or 127
129. 109 and 128
130. 28 or 70 or 93 or 122 or 129
132. 130 not 131
133. exp *neoplasms/
134. exp *wounds, penetrating/
135. 133 or 134
136. 132 not 135
137. Neck Pain/rh [Rehabilitation]
138. exp Brachial Plexus Neuropathies/rh
139. exp neck injuries/rh or exp whiplash injuries/rh
140. thoracic outlet syndrome/rh or cervical rib syndrome/rh
141. Torticollis/rh
142. exp brachial plexus neuropathies/rh or exp brachial plexus neuritis/rh
143. 137 or 138 or 139 or 140 or 141 or 142
144. Radiculopathy/rh
145. exp temporomandibular joint disorders/rh or exp temporomandibular joint dysfunction syndrome/rh
146. myofascial pain syndromes/rh
147. exp “Sprains and Strains”/rh
148. exp Spinal Osteophytosis/rh
149. exp Neuritis/rh
150. Polyradiculopathy/rh
151. exp Arthritis/rh
152. Fibromyalgia/rh
153. spondylitis/rh or discitis/rh
154. spondylosis/rh or spondylolysis/rh or spondylolisthesis/rh
155. or/144-154
156. 59 and 155
157. exp Combined Modality Therapy/
158. Exercise/
159. Physical Exertion/
160. exp Exercise Therapy/
161. exp Rehabilitation/
162. exp Physical Therapy Modalities/
162. Hydrotherapy/
164. Feldenkrais.mp.
165. (alexander adj (technique or method)).tw.
166. Relaxation Therapy/
167. Biofeedback, Psychology/
168. or/157-167
169. 136 and 168
170. 143 or 156 or 169
172. limit 170 to yr=“1888 - 2005”
CINAHL-EBSCO for Physical Medicine

S151 S90 or S104 or S150
S150 S82 and S149
S149 S105 or S106 or S107 or S108 or S109 or S110 or S111 or S112 or S113 or S114 or S115 or S116 or S117 or S118 or S119 or
S120 or S121 or S122 or S123 or S124 or S125 or S126 or S127 or S128 or S129 or S130 or S131 or S132 or S133 or S134 or S135
or S136 or S137 or S138 or S139 or S140 or S141 or S142 or S143 or S144 or S145 or S146 or S147 or S148
S148 TX faradic
S147 MH biofeedback
S146 TX Relaxation Therapy
S145 MH Relaxation Therapy
S144 TX alexander N3 technique OR TX alexander N3 method
S143 TX Feldenkrais
S142 TX postur* correction
S141 MH ice
S140 TX Cryoanesthesia
S139 MH Cryoanesthesia
S138 TX vapocoolant spray
S137 (MH “Hyperthermia, Induced”)
S136 MH Hydrotherapy
S135 MH cryotherapy
S134 TX repetitive magnetic stimulation
S133 (MH “Physical Therapy+”)
S132 (MH “Physical Therapy Modalities+”)
S131 MH lasers
S130 (MH “Phototherapy+”)
S129 MH Ultrasonic Therapy
S128 (MH “Rehabilitation+”)
S127 TX Laser Therapy
S126 (MH “Laser Therapy”)
S125 TX traction
S124 MH traction
S123 TX pillow* OR TX collar*
S122 “Occlusal Splints”
S121 TX oral splints
S120 (MH “Periodontal Splints”)
S119 TX taping
S118 TX kinesiotaping
S117 (MH “Orthoses”)
S116 (MH “Electric Stimulation”)
S115 (MH “Magnet Therapy”)
S114 MH electromagnetics
S113 (MH “Electromagnetic Fields”)
S112 “pulsed electromagnetic field”
S111 TX pulsed electro magnetic field
S110 (MH “Electrical Stimulation, Functional”) OR (MH “Electrical Stimulation, Neuromuscular”)
S109 (MH “Therapeutic Exercise+”)
S108 (MH “Exertion”)
S107 (MH “Exercise+”)
S106 (MH “Exercise+”)
S105 (MH “Combined Modality Therapy+”)
S104 S34 and S103
S103 S91 or S92 or S93 or S94 or S95 or S96 or S97 or S98 or S99 or S100 or S101 or S102
S102 (MH “Spondylolisthesis/RH”)
S101 (MH “Spondylolysis/RH”) OR (MH “Spondylosis/RH”)
S100 (MH “Spondylitis, Ankylosing/RH”)
S99 (MH “Fibromyalgia/RH”)
S98 (MH “Arthritis+/RH”)
S97 (MH “Polyradiculopathy/RH”)
S96 (MH “Neuritis/RH”)
S95 (MH “Spinal Osteophytosis/RH”)
S94 (MH “Sprains and Strains/RH”)
S93 (MH “Myofascial Pain Syndromes/RH”)
S92 (MH “Temporomandibular Joint Syndrome/RH”) OR (MH “Temporomandibular Joint Diseases/RH”)
S91 (MH “Radiculopathy/RH”)
S90 S83 or S84 or S85 or S86 or S87 or S88 or S89
S89 (MH “Brachial Plexus Neuritis/RH”)
S88 (MH “Torticollis/RH”)
S87 (MH “Thoracic Outlet Syndrome/RH”)
S86 (MH “Whiplash Injuries/RH”)
S85 (MH “Neck Injuries/RH”)
S84 (MH “Brachial Plexus Neuropathies/RH”)
S83 (MH “Neck Pain/RH”)
S82 S78 NOT S81
S81 S79 or S80
S80 (MM “Pregnancy+”)
S79 (MM “Abortion, Induced+”)
S78 S74 NOT S77
S77 S75 or S76
S76 (MM “Wounds, Penetrating+”)
S75 (MM “Neoplasms+”)
S74 S16 or S41 or S56 or S69 or S73
S73 S63 and S72
S72 S70 or S71
S71 TX intervertebral disk displacement or TX intervertebral disc displacement or TX intervertebral disk degeneration or TX inter-
vertebral disc degeneration
S70 (MH “Intervertebral Disk Displacement”)
S69 S67 and S68
S68 TX herniat* or TX slipped or TX prolapse* or TX displace* or TX degenerat* or TX ( bulged OR bulge OR bulging )
S67 S63 and S66
S66 S64 or S65
S65 TX disc or TX discs or TX disk or TX disks
S64 (MH “Intervertebral Disk”)
S63 S61 NOT S62
S62 (MM “Genital Diseases, Female+”) or ( (MM “Cervix”) or (MM “Cervix Diseases”) )
S61 S57 or S58 or S59 or S60
S60 TX thoracic N3 spine or TX cervical spine or TX cervico*
S59 TX neck or TX thoracic N3 vertebr*
S58 (MH “Thoracic Vertebrae”)
S57 (MH “Neck”)
S56 S34 and S55
S55 S42 or S43 or S44 or S45 or S46 or S47 or S48 or S49 or S50 or S51 or S52 or S53 or S54
S54 TX neuritis or TX spondylosis or TX spondylitis or TX spondylolisthesis
S53 TX myofascial pain syndome* or TX thoracic outlet syndrome* or TX spinalosteophytosis
S52 TX radiculopathy or TX radiculitis or TX temporomandibular
S51 (MH “Spondylolysis”) or (MH “Spondylolisthesis+”)
S50 (MH “Fibromyalgia”)
S49 (MH “Arthritis+”)
S48 (MH “Polyradiculopathy”)
S47 (MH “Neuritis+”)
S46 (MH “Spinal Osteophytosis”)
S45 (MH “Sprains and Strains+”)
S44 (MH “Myofascial Pain Syndromes+”)
S43 (MH “Temporomandibular Joint Diseases+”) or (MH “Temporomandibular Joint Syndrome”)
S42 (MH “Radiculopathy”)
S41 S34 and S40
S40 S35 or S36 or S37 or S38 or S39
S39 (MH “Neuralgia”)
S38 TX stiff or TX discomfort or TX injur* or TX neuropath*
S37 TX pain or TX ache* or TX sore
S36 (MH “Wounds and Injuries+”)
S35 (MH “Pain+”)
S34 S33 NOT S32
S33 S17 or S18 or S19 or S20 or S21 or S22 or S23 or S24 or S25 or S26 or S27 or S28 or S29 or S30 or S31
S32 (MM “Genital Diseases, Female+”) or ( (MM “Cervix”) or (MM “Cervix Diseases”) )
S31 TX trapezius or TX cervico*
S30 TX thoracic N3 spine or TX thoracic N3 outlet
S29 TX neck
S28 TX thoracic N3 verteb*
S27 TX brachial N3 plexus
S26 TX neck n3 muscles
S25 (MH “Thoracic Vertebrae”)
S24 TX ondontoid* or TX cervical or TX occip* or TX atlant*
S23 (MH “Brachial Plexus+”)
S22 (MH “Spinal Nerve Roots+”)
S21 (MH “Atlanto-Axial Joint”) or (MH “Atlanto-Occipital Joint”)
S20 (MH “Cervical Vertebrae+”) or (MH “Cervical Atlas”)
S19 (MH “Cervical Plexus+”)
S18 (MH “Neck”)
S17 (MH “Neck Muscles+”)
S16 S10 or S15
S15 S11 NOT S14
S14 S12 or S13
S13 (MM “Cervix”) or (MM “Cervix Diseases”)
S12 (MM “Genital Diseases, Female+”)
S11 (MH “Headache+”) and TX cervic*
S10 S1 or S2 or S3 or S4 or S5 or S6 or S7 or S8 or S9
S9 (MH “Brachial Plexus Neuritis”)
S8 TX cervical brachial neuralgia
S7 TX cervical rib sydrome* or TX cervico brachial neuralgia or TX cervicobrachial neuralgia or TX monoradicul* or TX monoradicl*
S6 (MH “Thoracic Outlet Syndrome”) or (MH “Torticollis”)
S5 TX brachial neuralgia or TX neck pain or TX neck injur* or TX brachial plexus neuropath* or TX brachial plexus neuralgia or TX
brachial plexus neuritis
S4 TX cervicalgia or TX brachialgia or TX brachial neuritis
S3 TX cervical pain or TX neckache or TX neck ache or TX whiplash or TX cervicodynia
S2 (MH “Neck Injuries+”)
S1 (MH “Neck Pain”) or (MH “Brachial Plexus Neuropathies”) or (MH “Brachial Plexus Neuritis”)
ICL Search
S1 Subject:“Neck Pain” OR Subject:“Brachial Plexus Neuritis” OR All Fields:“brachial plexus neuropathies”
S2 All Fields:brachial plexus neuropathy
S4 Subject:“Neck Injuries” OR Subject:“Whiplash Injuries” OR Subject:“Cervical Vertebrae / abnormalities
S5 All Fields:”cervical pain“ OR All Fields:neckache OR All Fields:whiplash
S6 All Fields:cervicodynia OR All Fields:cervicalgia OR All Fields:brachialgia
S7 All Fields:”brachial neuritis“ OR All Fields:”brachial neuralgia“ OR All Fields:”neck pain“
S8 Subject:”Thoracic Outlet Syndrome“ OR Subject:”Torticollis“ OR All Fields:cervical rib syndrom*
S11 All Fields:cerv* AND All Fields:headache*
S12 All Fields:monoradicul* OR All Fields:monoradicl*
S13 S1 OR S2 OR S4 OR S5 OR S6 OR S7 OR S8 OR S11 OR S12
S14 Subject:”Neck“ OR Subject:”Neck Muscles“ OR Subject:”Cervical Vertebrae“
S16 Subject:”Cervical Atlas“ OR Subject:”Atlanto-Axial Joint“ OR Subject:”Atlanto-Occipital Joint“ S17 Subject:”Atlas“ OR Subject:
”Spinal Nerve Roots“ OR All Fields:”brachial plexus“
S18 All Fields:ondontoid* OR All Fields:occip* OR All Fields:atlant*
S20 Subject:”Odontoid Process“ OR Subject:”Thoracic Vertebrae“ OR All Fields:”cervical vertebrae“
S21 All Fields:”cervical spine“ OR All Fields:trapezius OR All Fields:cervico*
S22 S14 OR S16 OR S17 OR S18 OR S20 OR S21
S23 Subject:”Pain“ OR All Fields:sore OR All Fields:stiff
S24 All Fields:ache OR All Fields:pain OR All Fields:discomfort
S25 All Fields:injur* OR All Fields:neuropath*
S26 S23 OR S24 OR S25
S27 S22 AND S26
S28 Subject:”Radiculopathy“ OR Subject:”Temporomandibular Joint Disorders“ OR Subject:”Temporomandibular Joint Dysfunction
Syndrome“
S30 Subject:”Myofascial Pain Syndromes“ OR Subject:”Sprains and Strains“ OR Subject:”Spinal Osteophytosis“
S31 Subject:”Neuritis“ OR Subject:”Polyradiculoneuritis“ OR Subject:”Arthritis“
S32 Subject:”Fibromyalgia“ OR Subject:”Discitis“ OR Subject:”Spondylitis“
S33 Subject:”Spondylolisthesis“ OR Subject:”Spondylolysis“ OR Subject:”Spondylosis“
S34 S28 OR S30 OR S31 OR S32 OR S33
S35 S22 AND S34
S36 Subject:”Neck“ OR Subject:”Cervical Vertebrae“ OR Subject:”Thoracic Vertebrae“
S37 All Fields:”thoracic spine“ OR All Fields:”cervical spine“ OR All Fields:cervico*
S38 S36 OR S37
S39 All Fields:herniat* OR All Fields:slipped OR All Fields:prolapse*
S40 All Fields:displace* OR All Fields:degenerat*
S41 All Fields:bulge OR All Fields:bulged OR All Fields:bulging
S42 S39 OR S40 OR S41
S43 S38 AND S42
S44 Subject:”Intervertebral Disk Displacement“ OR All Fields:”intervertebral disk degeneration“ OR All Fields:”intervertebral disc
degeneration“
S45 All Fields:”Intervertebral Disk Displacement“ OR All Fields:”intervertebral disc displacement“
S46 S44 OR S45
S47 S38 AND S46
S49 Subject:”Exercise“ OR Subject:”Exercise Therapy“ OR Subject:”Electric Stimulation therapy“
S50 Subject:”Physical Medicine“ OR Subject:”Physical Therapy“ OR Subject:”Physical Stimulation“
S51 Subject:”Physical Therapy Techniques“ OR Subject:”Cryotherapy“ OR Subject:”Hydrotherapy“
S52 Subject:”Hyperthermia, Induced“ OR Subject:”Ice“ OR Subject:”Biofeedback (Psychology)“
S53 Subject:”Relaxation Techniques“ OR Subject:”Postural Balance“ OR All Fields:feldenkrais
S55 S48 AND S54
S56 Subject:”Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic“ OR Subject:”Controlled Clinical Trials“ OR Subject:”Placebos“
S57 All Fields:random* OR All Fields:sham OR All Fields:placebo*
S58 All Fields:clinical trial* OR All Fields:”controlled study“ OR All Fields:”controlled studies“
S59 All Fields:RCT OR All Fields:RCTs
S60 S56 OR S57 OR S58 OR S59
S61 S55 AND S60
S62 Year: from 2006 to 2014
S63 S61 AND S62
MANTIS-OVID
1 neck pain.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (2538)
2 brachial plexus neuropathies.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors]
(58)
3 neck injuries.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (201)
4 cervical pain.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (196)
5 neckache.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (3)
6 whiplash.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (1165)
7 cervicodynia.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (1)
8 cervicalgia.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (20)
9 brachialgia.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (25)
10 brachial neuritis.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (15)
11 brachial neuralgia.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (64)
12 brachial plexus neuropath*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors]
(70)
13 brachial plexus neuritis.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors]
(65)
14 (thoracic outlet syndrome or cervical rib syndrome).mp.
[mp=title,
abstract, descriptors] (245)
15 torticollis.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (227)
16 cervico brachial neuralgia.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors]
(64)
17 (monoradicul* or monoradicl*).tw. (26)
18 or/1-17 (4232)
19 headache.mp. and cervic*.tw. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors]
(796)
20 genital diseases, female.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors]
(9)
21 genital disease*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (12)
22 or/20-21 (12)
23 19 not 22 (796)
24 18 or 23 (4759)
25 neck.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (8069)
26 neck muscles.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (260)
27 cervical plexus.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (15)
28 cervical vertebrae.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (3569)
29 atlanto-axial joint.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (217)
30 atlanto-occipital joint.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors]
(132)
31 cervical atlas.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (2)
32 spinal nerve roots.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (754)
33 brachial plexus.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (744)
34 (odontoid* or cervical or occip* or atlant*).tw. (11621)
35 (axis or odontoid process).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors]
(3007)
36 thoracic vertebrae.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (920)
38 cervical plexus.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (15)
39 cervical spine.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (4032)
40 (neck adj3 muscles).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (590)
41 (brachial adj3 plexus).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors]
(749)
42 (thoracic adj3 vertebrae).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors]
(974)
43 (thoracic adj3 spine).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors]
(1422)
44 (thoracic adj3 outlet).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors]
(266)
45 trapezius.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (696)
46 cervical.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (11164)
47 cervico*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (915)
48 46 or 47 (11552)
(9)
51 uterus.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (484)
52 49 or 50 or 51 (495)
53 48 not 52 (11533)
54 25 or 26 or 27 or 28 or 29 or 30 or 31 or 32 or 33 or 34 or 35 or
36
or 37 or 38 or 39 or 40 or 41 or 42 or 43 or 44 or 45 or 53 (23259)
55 pain.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (52530)
56 injuries.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (29006)
57 ache.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (303)
58 sore.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (239)
59 stiff.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (480)
60 discomfort.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (1911)
61 injur*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (39409)
62 neuropath*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (5362)
63 or/55-62 (88035)
64 54 and 63 (10588)
65 radiculopathy.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (1323)
66 (temporomandibular joint disorders or temporomandibular joint
dysfunction syndrome).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (409)
67 myofascial pain syndromes.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors]
(692)
68 ”sprains and strains“.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors]
(3593)
69 spinal osteophytosis.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (492)
70 neuritis.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (273)
71 polyradiculopathy.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (76)
72 arthritis.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (8230)
73 fibromyalgia.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (1439)
74 (spondylitis or discitis).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors]
(1048)
75 (spondylosis or spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis).mp.
[mp=title,
76 radiculitis.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (246)
77 tempomandibular.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (2)
78 myofascial pain syndrome*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors]
(755)
79 thoracic outlet syndrome*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors]
(247)
80 spinal osteophytosis.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (492)
81 neuritis.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (273)
82 spondylosis.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (472)
83 spondylitis.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (881)
84 spondylolisthesis.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (1068)
85 or/65-84 (18580)
86 54 and 85 (2910)
87 neck.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (8069)
89 thoracic vertebrae.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (920)
90 (thoracic adj3 vertebrae).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors]
(974)
91 cervical.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (11164)
92 cervico*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (915)
93 91 or 92 (11552)
(9)
96 uterus.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (484)
97 or/94-96 (495)
98 93 not 97 (11533)
99 (thoracic adj3 spine).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors]
(1422)
100 cervical spine.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (4032)
101 87 or 88 or 89 or 90 or 98 or 99 or 100 (18115)
102 intervertebral disk.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (2894)
103 (disc or discs).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (6484)
104 (disk or disks).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (3754)
105 102 or 103 or 104 (8015)
106 101 and 105 (1423)
107 herniat*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (2358)
108 slipped.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (205)
109 prolapse*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (434)
110 displace*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (6285)
111 degenerat*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (6917)
112 (bulge or bulged or bulging).mp. [mp=title, abstract,
descriptors]
(323)
113 107 or 108 or 109 or 110 or 111 or 112 (14641)
114 106 and 113 (881)
115 intervertebral disk displacement.mp. [mp=title, abstract,
descriptors] (1455)
116 intervertebral disc displacement.mp. [mp=title, abstract,
descriptors] (9)
117 intervertebral disk degeneration.mp. [mp=title, abstract,
descriptors] (12)
118 intervertebral disc degeneration.mp. [mp=title, abstract,
descriptors] (179)
119 115 or 116 or 117 or 118 (1632)
120 101 and 119 (279)
121 24 or 64 or 86 or 106 or 114 or 120 (13027)
122 (animals not (animals and humans)).mp. [mp=title, abstract,
descriptors] (8422)
123 121 not 122 (12814)
124 neoplasms.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (12262)
125 wounds, penetrating.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (12)
126 124 or 125 (12274)
127 123 not 126 (12532)
128 rehabilitation.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (14485)
129 therapy.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (44097)
130 128 or 129 (55359)
131 (neck pain or brachial plexus neuropathies or neck injuries or
whiplash or thoracic outlet syndrome or cervical rib syndrome or torticollis or brachial plexus neuritis).mp. [mp=title, abstract,
descriptors]
(4034)
132 (temporomandibular joint disorder or temporomandibular joint
dysfunction syndrome).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (181)
133 (myofascial pain syndromes or ”sprains and strains“).mp.
[mp=title,
134 (radiculopathy or osteophytosis or neuritis or polyradiculopathy
or
arthritis or fibromyalgia or spondylitis or spondylosis or spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (13607)
135 131 or 132 or 133 or 134 (21290)
136 130 and 135 (4916)
137 54 and 136 (1655)
138 (acupuncture or chiropractic).mp. [mp=title, abstract,
descriptors]
(29544)
139 musculoskeletal manipulation*.mp. [mp=title, abstract,
descriptors]
(179)
140 massage.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (1649)
141 mobili?ation.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (1966)
142 acupuncture therapy.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (936)
143 (acupuncture or acu-puncture or needling or acupressure or
mox?bustion).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (8413)
144 ((neck or spine or spinal or cervical or chiropractic* or
musculoskeletal*) adj3 (adjust* or manipulat* or mobiliz* or mobilis*)).mp.
[mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (6218)
145 (manual adj therap*).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (824)
146 (manipulati* adj (therap* or medicine)).mp. [mp=title, abstract,
descriptors] (998)
147 (massag* or reflexolog* or rolfing or zone therap*).mp.
[mp=title,
148 Nimmo.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (14)
149 vibration therapy.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (11)
150 (vibration adj5 (therap* or treatment*)).mp. [mp=title,
abstract,
descriptors] (61)
151 (ChihYa or Shiatsu or Shiatzu or ZhiYa).mp. [mp=title, abstract,
descriptors] (65)
152 (flexion adj2 distraction*).mp. [mp=title, abstract,
descriptors]
(157)
153 (myofascial adj3 (release or therap*)).mp. [mp=title, abstract,
descriptors] (221)
154 muscle energy technique*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors]
(59)
155 trigger point.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (359)
156 proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation*.mp. [mp=title,
abstract,
descriptors] (94)
157 cyriax friction.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (0)
158 (lomilomi or lomi-lomi or trager).mp. [mp=title, abstract,
descriptors] (13)
159 aston patterning.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (1)
160 (strain adj counterstrain).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors]
(22)
161 (craniosacraltherap* or cranio-sacral therap* or craniosacral
therap*).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (45)
162 (amma or ammo or effleuurage or effleurage or petrissage or
hacking
or tapotment).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (30)
163 complementary therapies.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors]
(4070)
164 ((complement* or alternat* or osteopathic*) adj (therap* or
medicine)).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (13440)
165 (Tui Na or Tuina).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (56)
166 or/138-165 (45999)
167 127 and 166 (3028)
168 136 or 137 or 167 (6966)
169 (animals not (animals and humans)).mp. [mp=title, abstract,
descriptors] (8422)
170 168 not 169 (6925)
171 randomized controlled trial*.mp. [mp=title, abstract,
descriptors]
(4411)
172 controlled clinical trial*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors]
(1187)
173 (random* or sham or placebo*).mp. [mp=title, abstract,
descriptors]
(31492)
174 placebos.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (447)
175 random allocation.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (103)
176 single blind method.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (30)
177 double blind method.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (339)
178 ((singl* or doubl* or trebl* or tripl*) adj25 (blind* or dumm*
or
mask*)).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (5989)
179 (rct or rcts).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (844)
180 (control* adj2 (study or studies or trial*)).mp. [mp=title,
181 or/171-180 (37245)
182 170 and 181 (1292)
183 (guideline* or practice guideline*).mp. [mp=title, abstract,
descriptors] (7859)
184 (guideline* or guidance* or recommendation*).ti. (2163)
185 consensus.ti. (308)
186 183 or 184 or 185 (8394)
187 170 and 186 (196)
188 meta-analysis.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (1159)
189 (metaanaly* or meta analy* or met analy* or metanaly*).mp.
190 (collaborative research or collaborative review* or
collaborative
overview*).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (61)
191 (integrative research or integrative review* or integrative
overview*).mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (42)
192 (quantitative adj3 (research or review* or overview*)).mp.
193 (research integration or research overview*).mp. [mp=title,
194 (systematic* adj3 (review* or overview*)).mp. [mp=title,
abstract,
descriptors] (2712)
195 (methodologic* adj3 (review* or overview*)).mp. [mp=title,
abstract,
descriptors] (234)
196 technology assessment biomedical.mp. [mp=title, abstract,
descriptors] (33)
197 (hta or thas or technology assessment*).mp. [mp=title, abstract,
descriptors] (212)
198 ((hand adj2 search*) or (manual* adj search*)).mp. [mp=title,
199 ((electronic adj database*) or (bibliographic* adj
database*)).mp.
200 ((data adj2 abstract*) or (data adj2 extract*)).mp. [mp=title,
201 (analys* adj3 (pool or pooled or pooling)).mp. [mp=title,
abstract,
descriptors] (199)
202 mantel haenszel.mp. [mp=title, abstract, descriptors] (62)
203 (cochrane or pubmed or pub med or medline or embase or psycinfo
or
psyclit or psychinfo or psychlit or cinahl or science citation index).ab.
(2730)
204 or/188-203 (6435)
205 170 and 204 (273)
206 182 or 187 or 205 (1529)
207 limit 206 to yr=”2009 -Current“ (190)
Appendix 2. Criteria for ’Risk of Bias’ Assessment
Random sequence generation (selection bias)
Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate generation of a randomized sequence
There is a low risk of selection bias if the investigators describe a random component in the sequence generation process such as: referring
to a random number table, using a computer random number generator, coin tossing, shuffling cards or envelopes, throwing dice,
drawing of lots, minimization (minimization may be implemented without a random element, and this is considered to be equivalent
to being random).
There is a high risk of selection bias if the investigators describe a non-random component in the sequence generation process, such
as: sequence generated by odd or even date of birth, date (or day) of admission, hospital or clinic record number; or allocation by
judgement of the clinician, preference of the participant, results of a laboratory test or a series of tests, or availability of the intervention.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)
Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate concealment of allocations prior to assignment
There is a low risk of selection bias if the participants and investigators enrolling participants could not foresee assignment because
one of the following, or an equivalent method, was used to conceal allocation: central allocation (including telephone, web-based
and pharmacy-controlled randomization); sequentially numbered drug containers of identical appearance; or sequentially numbered,
opaque, sealed envelopes.
There is a high risk of bias if participants or investigators enrolling participants could possibly foresee assignments and thus introduce
selection bias, such as allocation based on: using an open random allocation schedule (e.g. a list of random numbers); assignment
envelopes were used without appropriate safeguards (e.g. if envelopes were unsealed or non-opaque or not sequentially numbered);
alternation or rotation; date of birth; case record number; or other explicitly unconcealed procedures.
Blinding of participants
Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by participants during the study
There is a low risk of performance bias if blinding of participants was ensured and it was unlikely that the blinding could have been
broken; or if there was no blinding or incomplete blinding, but the review authors judge that the outcome is not likely to be influenced
by lack of blinding.
Blinding of personnel/ care providers (performance bias)
Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by personnel/care providers during the study
There is a low risk of performance bias if blinding of personnel was ensured and it was unlikely that the blinding could have been
broken; or if there was no blinding or incomplete blinding, but the review authors judge that the outcome is not likely to be influenced
by lack of blinding.
Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias)
Detection bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by outcome assessors

There is low risk of detection bias if the blinding of the outcome assessment was ensured and it was unlikely that the blinding could
have been broken; or if there was no blinding or incomplete blinding, but the review authors judge that the outcome is not likely to
be influenced by lack of blinding, or:
• for patient-reported outcomes in which the patient was the outcome assessor (e.g. pain, disability): there is a low risk of bias for
outcome assessors if there is a low risk of bias for participant blinding (Boutron 2005)
• for outcome criteria that are clinical or therapeutic events that will be determined by the interaction between patients and care
providers (e.g. co-interventions, length of hospitalization, treatment failure), in which the care provider is the outcome assessor: there
is a low risk of bias for outcome assessors if there is a low risk of bias for care providers (Boutron 2005)
• for outcome criteria that are assessed from data from medical forms: there is a low risk of bias if the treatment or adverse effects
of the treatment could not be noticed in the extracted data (Boutron 2005)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data

There is a low risk of attrition bias if there were no missing outcome data; reasons for missing outcome data were unlikely to be related
to the true outcome (for survival data, censoring unlikely to be introducing bias); missing outcome data were balanced in numbers,
with similar reasons for missing data across groups; for dichotomous outcome data, the proportion of missing outcomes compared with
the observed event risk was not enough to have a clinically relevant impact on the intervention effect estimate; for continuous outcome
data, the plausible effect size (difference in means or standardized difference in means) among missing outcomes was not enough to
have a clinically relevant impact on observed effect size, or missing data were imputed using appropriate methods (if drop-outs are
very large, imputation using even ”acceptable“ methods may still suggest a high risk of bias) (Van Tulder 2003). The percentage of
withdrawals and drop-outs should not exceed 20% for short-term follow-up and 30% for long-term follow-up and should not lead to
substantial bias (these percentages are commonly used but arbitrary, not supported by literature) (Van Tulder 2003.

Selective Reporting (reporting bias)
Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting

There is low risk of reporting bias if the study protocol is available and all of the study’s pre-specified (primary and secondary) outcomes
that are of interest in the review have been reported in the pre-specified way, or if the study protocol is not available but it is clear that
the published reports include all expected outcomes, including those that were pre-specified (convincing text of this nature may be
uncommon).
There is a high risk of reporting bias if not all of the study’s pre-specified primary outcomes have been reported; one or more primary
outcomes is reported using measurements, analysis methods or subsets of the data (e.g. subscales) that were not pre-specified; one or
more reported primary outcomes were not pre-specified (unless clear justification for their reporting is provided, such as an unexpected
adverse effect); one or more outcomes of interest in the review are reported incompletely so that they cannot be entered in a meta-
analysis; the study report fails to include results for a key outcome that would be expected to have been reported for such a study.
Group similarity at baseline (selection bias)

Bias due to dissimilarity at baseline for the most important prognostic indicators
There is low risk of bias if groups are similar at baseline for demographic factors, value of main outcome measure(s), and important
prognostic factors (examples in the field of back and neck pain are duration and severity of complaints, vocational status, percentage
of patients with neurological symptoms) (Van Tulder 2003).
Co-interventions (performance bias)
Bias because co-interventions were different across groups

There is low risk of bias if there were no co-interventions or they were similar between the index and control groups (Van Tulder 2003).
Compliance (performance bias)
Bias due to inappropriate compliance with interventions across groups

There is low risk of bias if compliance with the interventions was acceptable, based on the reported intensity/dosage, duration, number
and frequency for both the index and control intervention(s). For single-session interventions (e.g. surgery), this item is irrelevant (Van
Tulder 2003).
Intention-to-treat-analysis
There is low risk of bias if all randomized patients were reported/analyzed in the group to which they were allocated by randomization.
Timing of outcome assessments (detection bias)
Bias because important outcomes were not measured at the same time across groups
There is low risk of bias if all important outcome assessments for all intervention groups were measured at the same time (Van Tulder
2003).
Other bias
Bias due to problems not covered elsewhere in the table

There is a low risk of bias if the study appears to be free of other sources of bias not addressed elsewhere (e.g. study funding).
WHAT’S NEW
Last assessed as up-to-date: 21 May 2014.
Date Event Description
27 June 2014 New citation required and conclusions have changed Based on 28 trials, five subclasses of exercise were identified
to show moderate quality evidence of be beneficial versus
two in our 2012 update. Four subclasses of exercise were
identified showing low quality evidence of no benefit in this
update compared to three in our 2012 update
22 May 2014 New search has been performed Eligible trials were added that compared exercise with a con-
trol group. Twenty-eight trials have been incorporated re-
sulting in a report of 25 evidence-based findings
HISTORY
Protocol first published: Issue 2, 2003
Review first published: Issue 3, 2005
Date Event Description
8 November 2013 New citation required but conclusions have not Eligible trials were limited to those with single inter-
changed ventions that compared exercise with a control or com-
parative group. Conclusions similar
8 November 2013 New search has been performed Updated literature search November 08 2013
18 June 2008 Amended Converted to new review format.
4 May 2008 New citation required and conclusions have changed Substantive amendment
1 June 2005 Amended June 2005 -- we reduced the length of the abstract;
made some edits to the text for clarification; corrected
the format in some of the references

CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS
This is one review of a series conducted by the Cervical Overview Group: Gross A, Goldsmith C, Graham N, Santaguida PL, Burnie
S, 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,
Gelley G Empey B, Lalonde P
Primary review authors - Kay T, Gross A , Goldsmith C, Graham N, Blanchette S, Paquin JP, Dupont G, Christie T, Lalonde P, Hoving
J, Bronfort G, Burnie S, Forget M, Empey B
Statistician - Goldsmith C
Methodological Quality Assessment - Burnie S, Forget M, Goldsmith C, LeBlanc F, Empey B, Szeto G, Gelley G, Lalonde P
Study Identification and Selection - Graham N, Brunarski D, Haines T, Gross A
Research Librarian - Rice M
Data Abstraction, Synthesis, Manuscript Preparation, Public Responsibility, Grants, Administration - Dupont G, Christie T, Lalonde
P, Paquin JP, Blanchette S, MacDermid J
Final Synthesis - Dupont G, Paquin JP, Blanchette S, Lalonde P, Christie T, Gross A
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Dr. Gert Bronfort is the first author of one of the trials included in this systematic review. He was not involved in the selection of
studies, quality assessment, or data extraction for the study for which he was author.
SOURCES OF SUPPORT
Internal sources
• Centric and LifeMark Health, Canada.
• McMaster University, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Rehabilitation Science, Occupational
Health Program, Canada.
• University of Toronto, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Canada.
External sources
• CIHR Knowledge Synthesis Grant 2010, Canada.
• National Institutes of Health, Consortial Center for Chiropractic Research, Bethesda, MD (2002), USA.
• Hamilton Hospital Assessment Centre (2002), Canada.
• Hamilton District Research Grant (2000), Canada.
• Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation, Chedoke-McMaster Foundation (1997), Canada.
• University of Saskatchewan, Clinical Teaching and Research Award (1997), Canada.

INDEX TERMS
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)

∗ Physical Therapy Modalities; Acute Pain [therapy]; Chronic Pain [therapy]; Headache [etiology; therapy]; Manipulation, Chiropractic
[∗ methods]; Neck; Neck Pain [etiology; ∗ therapy]; Pain Management [methods]; Radiculopathy [∗ therapy]; Randomized Controlled
Trials as Topic
MeSH check words

Adult; Female; Humans; Male


Cochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsExercises For Mechanical Neck Disorders (Review)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsExercises For Mechanical Neck Disorders (Review)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review)

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review)

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) iii

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) vi

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders

Editorial group: Cochrane Back and Neck Group.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) 3

Patient or population: patients with m echanical neck disorders

Outcomes Effects No of Participants Quality of the evidence

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence

How the intervention might work

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) 6

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) 7

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) 8

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies Dealing with missing data

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) 9

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) 10

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) 11

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) 12

Figure 3. Funnel plot of comparison: 7 Acute to Chronic MND: Scapulothoracic + UE Strengthening vs

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) 13

Effects of interventions 1. Support Element

See: Summary of findings for the main comparison

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) 14

No difference in function between all groups immediately post

Cervical Stretch/ROM Exercises + Dynamic Cervical

Postural Exercise versus Control

Figure 7. Forest plot of comparison for (sub)Acute/Chronic MND: Scapulothoracic + UE Strengthening vs

• Physical Function Outcomes

No statistical difference in physical function between groups im-

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) 18

• Global Perceived Effect and Quality of Life

d) Stretching and Endurance Training

Cervical/Scapulothoracic/UE Stretch + UE Endurance

e) Strengthening and Endurance Training 3. Modulator Elements

Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening + Endurance

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) 20

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) 21

1. Base Element Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) 22

Exercises for mechanical neck disorders (Review) 23

Patient or population: patients with chronic m echanical neck disorders

Outcomes Effects No of Participants Quality of the evidence

Adverse Effects Reported by 18 patients in exercise group:

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence

Patient or population: patients with chronic m echanical neck disorders

Outcomes Effects No of Participants Quality of the evidence

Adverse Effects Reported by 23 patients in qigong group

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence

Patient or population: patients with acute radiculopathy

Outcomes Relative effect No of Participants Quality of the evidence

Adverse Effects Not reported

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence

Patient or population: patients with subAcute cervicogenic headache (CGH)

Outcomes Relative effect No of Participants Quality of the evidence

Adverse effects Not reported

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence

Patient or population: patients with chronic CGH

Outcomes Relative effect No of Participants Quality of the evidence

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence

Patient or population: patients with Chronic CGH