Dueñas L1,2, Bover-Ramos J1, Lluch E1,2,3,4
1University of Valencia, Department of Physical Therapy, Valencia, Spain, 2PT in Motion Research Group, Valencia, Spain, 3Pain in Motion International Research Group, Brussels, Belgium, 4Faculty of Physical Education & Physiotherapy, Vrije University Brussels, Department of Human Physiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, Brussels, Belgium
Background: Neck pain is a common and costly condition. In most cases, the exact origin of neck pain remains unknown. Due to the heterogeneous nature of neck pain, different classification systems have been proposed in order to select the most appropriate treatment for each patient.
Purpose: The objective of this systematic review was to review the scientific literature related to cervical pain classification systems.
Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA) statement. The electronic databases PubMed, Medline, EmBase and Web of Science were searched. The systematic search was supplemented by hand searching. Articles were included till October 2017. The CASP scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies included in this review. The search strategy and data collection were performed by two independent researchers.
Results: After the selection process, eight publications were included and analyzed. According to this review, five neck pain classification systems were found: classification based on prognosis, treatment objective, pain mechanisms and dysfunction patterns, aggravating pain activities and severity of the symptoms. Most of the results of the studies analyzed suggests that classifying patients with neck pain in subgroups offers better therapeutic results than treating patients heterogeneously. The methodological quality of the studies was moderate.
Conclusion(s): Nowadays, it does not exist a universal classification system for neck pain. Higher quality studies are needed to develop a classification system whose applicability could be viable in all the patients with neck pain and with procedures available in daily clinical practice.
Implications: This systematic review results shows the lack of strong evidence studies focusing in neck pain classification. Even so, most of the studies included in this review had better therapeutic results when patients were classified into subgroups. This review has to motivate future investigations to achieve a universal classification system for neck pain.
Keywords: Neck pain, classification, systematic review
Funding acknowledgements: No funding has been received for the conduct of this study.
Purpose: The objective of this systematic review was to review the scientific literature related to cervical pain classification systems.
Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA) statement. The electronic databases PubMed, Medline, EmBase and Web of Science were searched. The systematic search was supplemented by hand searching. Articles were included till October 2017. The CASP scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies included in this review. The search strategy and data collection were performed by two independent researchers.
Results: After the selection process, eight publications were included and analyzed. According to this review, five neck pain classification systems were found: classification based on prognosis, treatment objective, pain mechanisms and dysfunction patterns, aggravating pain activities and severity of the symptoms. Most of the results of the studies analyzed suggests that classifying patients with neck pain in subgroups offers better therapeutic results than treating patients heterogeneously. The methodological quality of the studies was moderate.
Conclusion(s): Nowadays, it does not exist a universal classification system for neck pain. Higher quality studies are needed to develop a classification system whose applicability could be viable in all the patients with neck pain and with procedures available in daily clinical practice.
Implications: This systematic review results shows the lack of strong evidence studies focusing in neck pain classification. Even so, most of the studies included in this review had better therapeutic results when patients were classified into subgroups. This review has to motivate future investigations to achieve a universal classification system for neck pain.
Keywords: Neck pain, classification, systematic review
Funding acknowledgements: No funding has been received for the conduct of this study.
Topic: Musculoskeletal: spine; Musculoskeletal: spine
Ethics approval required: No
Institution: University of Valencia
Ethics committee: Ethics Committee from the University of Valencia
Reason not required: Systematic review does not need for an ethics approval
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
