European Spine Journal

, Volume 17, Supplement 1, pp 33–38 | Cite as

Methods for the Best Evidence Synthesis on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders

The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders
  • Linda J. Carroll
  • J. David Cassidy
  • Paul M. Peloso
  • Lori Giles-Smith
  • C. Sam Cheng
  • Stephen W. Greenhalgh
  • Scott Haldeman
  • Gabrielle van der Velde
  • Eric L. Hurwitz
  • Pierre Côté
  • Margareta Nordin
  • Sheilah Hogg-Johnson
  • Lena W. Holm
  • Jaime Guzman
  • Eugene J. Carragee
Methodology

Study Design

Best evidence synthesis.

Objective

To provide a detailed description of the methods undertaken in a systematic search and perform a best evidence synthesis on the frequency, determinants, assessment, interventions, course and prognosis of neck pain, and its associated disorders.

Summary of Background Data

Neck pain is an important cause of health burden; however, the published information is vast, and stakeholders would benefit from a summary of the best evidence.

Methods

The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders conducted a systematic search and critical review of the literature published between 1980 and 2006 to assemble the best evidence on neck pain. Citations were screened for relevance to the Neck Pain Task Force mandate, using a priori criteria, and relevant studies were critically reviewed for their internal scientific validity. Findings from studies meeting criteria for scientific validity were synthesized into a best evidence synthesis.

Results

We found 31,878 citations, of which 1203 were relevant to the mandate of the Neck Pain Task Force. After critical review, 552 studies (46) were judged scientifically admissible and were compiled into the best evidence synthesis.

Conclusion

The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders undertook a best evidence synthesis to establish a baseline of the current best evidence on the epidemiology, assessment and classification of neck pain, as well as interventions and prognosis for this symptom. This article reports the methods used and the outcomes from the review. We found that 46 of the research literature was of acceptable scientific quality to inform clinical practice, policy-making, and future research.

Key words

neck pain systematic review epidemiology assessment treatment prognosis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Spitzer WO, Skovron ML, Salmi LR, et al. Scientific monograph of the Quebec Task Force on Whiplash-Associated Disorders: redefining “whiplash” and its management. Spine 1995;20:1S–73S.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lowe HJ, Barnett GO. (1994) Understanding and using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Vocabulary to perform literature searchers. JAMA 271: 1103–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cummings P, Weiss NS. (1998) Case series and exposure series: the role of studies without controls in providing information about the etiology of injury or disease. Inj Prev 4:34–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Best evidence synthesis on mild traumatic brain injury: results of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Neurotrauma, Prevention, Management and Rehabilitation Task Force on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. J Rehabil Med 2004:144.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Altman DG, Schultz KF, Moher D, et al. (2001) The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. JAMA 134:663–94Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. (1996) Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 276: 637–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N, et al. (2004) Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health 94:361–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. (2003) Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ 326:41–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Slavin RE. (1986) Best evidence synthesis: an alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educ Res 15:5–11Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Slavin RE. (1995) Best evidence synthesis: an intelligent alternative to meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 48:9–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van der Velde G, van Tulder M, Côté P, et al. (2007) The sensitivity of review results to methods used to appraise and incorporate trial quality into data synthesis. Spine 32:796–806PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hogg-Johnson S, van der Velde G, Carroll LJ, et al. The burden and determinants of neck pain in the general population: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine 2008;33(Suppl):S39 –S51.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Côté P, van der Velde G, Cassidy JD, et al. The burden and determinants of neck pain in workers. Results of the Bone and Joint 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine 2008;33(Suppl):S60 –S74.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Holm LW, Carroll LJ, Cassidy JD, et al. The burden and determinants of neck pain in whiplash-associated disorders after traffic collisions: Results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine 2008;33(Suppl):S52–S59.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carroll LJ, Holm LW, Hogg-Johnson S, et al. Course and prognostic factors for neck pain in whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). Results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine 2008;33Suppl):S83–S92.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carroll LJ, Hogg-Johnson S, Côté P, et al. Course and prognostic factors for neck pain in workers. Results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine 2008;33(Suppl):S93–S100.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carroll LJ, Hogg-Johnson S, van der Velde G, et al. Course and prognostic factors for neck pain in the general population. Results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine 2008;33(Suppl):S75–S82.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nordin M, Carragee EJ, Hogg-Johnson S, et al. Assessment of neck pain and its associated disorders. Results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine 2008;33(Suppl):S101–S122.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hurwitz EL, Carragee EJ, van der Velde G, et al. Treatment of neck pain: Non-invasive interventions. Results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000– 2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders. Spine 2008;33(Suppl):S123–S152.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carragee EJ, Hurwitz EL, Cheng I, et al. Treatment of neck pain: Injections and surgical interventions. Results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders. Spine 2008;33(Suppl):S153–S169.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guzman J, Hurwitz EL, Carroll LJ, et al. A conceptual model for the course and care of neck pain. Results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine 2008;33(Suppl):S14–S23.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guzman J, Haldeman S, Carroll LJ, et al. Practice implications of the results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders: From concepts and findings to recommendations. Spine 2008;33(Suppl):S199–S212.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Carroll LJ, Cassidy JD, Peloso PM, et al. (2004) Prognosis for mild traumatic brain injury: results of the WHO Collaborating Centre Task Force on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. J Rehabil Med 43:84–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Juni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, et al. (2002) Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. Int J Epidemiol 31: 115–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Egger M, Ebrahim S, Smith DG. (2002) Where now for meta-analysis?. Int J Epidemiol 31:1–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schultz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al. (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273:408–12Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Greenland S. (1994) Invited commentary: a critical look at some population metaanalytic methods. Am J Epidemiol 140:290–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Herbison P, Hay-Smith J, Gillespie WJ. (2006) Adjustment of meta-analyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandoned. J Clin Epidemiol 59: 1249–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, et al. (1999) The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 282:1054–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Deleted in proof.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Carroll LJ, Hurwitz EL, Côté P, et al. Research priorities and methodological implications. Results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine 2008;33(Suppl):S213–S219.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda J. Carroll
    • 1
    • 25
  • J. David Cassidy
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Paul M. Peloso
    • 5
  • Lori Giles-Smith
    • 6
  • C. Sam Cheng
    • 7
  • Stephen W. Greenhalgh
    • 8
  • Scott Haldeman
    • 9
    • 10
  • Gabrielle van der Velde
    • 11
    • 12
    • 13
    • 14
  • Eric L. Hurwitz
    • 15
  • Pierre Côté
    • 2
    • 13
    • 12
    • 14
  • Margareta Nordin
    • 16
    • 17
    • 18
  • Sheilah Hogg-Johnson
    • 12
    • 19
  • Lena W. Holm
    • 20
  • Jaime Guzman
    • 21
    • 22
  • Eugene J. Carragee
    • 23
    • 24
  1. 1.Department of Public Health Sciences, and the Alberta Centre for Injury Control and Research, School of Public HealthUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Public Health Sciences and Health Policy, Management and EvaluationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Centre of Research Expertise in Improved Disability Outcomes (CREIDO)University Health Network Rehabilitation SolutionsTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Division of Health Care and Outcomes ResearchToronto Western Research InstituteTorontoCanada
  5. 5.EndocrinologyAnalgesia and Inflammation, Merck & CoRahwayUSA
  6. 6.Neil John Maclean Health Sciences LibraryUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  7. 7.Douglas College LibraryNew WestminsterCanada
  8. 8.Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Public HealthUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  9. 9.Department of NeurologyUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  10. 10.Department of Epidemiology, School of Public HealthUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  11. 11.Department of Health Policy, Management and EvaluationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  12. 12.Institute for Work & HealthTorontoCanada
  13. 13.Centre of Research Excellence in Improved Disability Outcomes (CREIDO)University Health Network Rehabilitation SolutionsTorontoCanada
  14. 14.Division of health Care Outcomes and ResearchToronto Western Research InstituteTorontoCanada
  15. 15.Department of Public Health Sciences, John A. Burns School of MedicineUniversity of Hawaii at MānoaHonoluluUSA
  16. 16.Department of Orthopaedics, School of Medicine and Graduate School of Arts and ScienceNY UniversityNew YorkUSA
  17. 17.Department of Environmental medicine and Program of Ergonomics and Biomechanics, School of Medicine and Graduate School of Arts and ScienceNY UniversityNew YorkUSA
  18. 18.Occupational and Industrial Orthopaedic Center (OIOC)NY University Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  19. 19.Department of Public Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  20. 20.Institute of Environmental MedicineKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  21. 21.Department of MedicineUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  22. 22.Occupational Health and Safety Agency for Healthcare in BCVancouverCanada
  23. 23.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  24. 24.Orthopaedic Spine Center and Spinal Surgery ServiceStanford University Hospital and ClinicsStanfordUSA
  25. 25.4075 RTFUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations