European Spine Journal

, Volume 17, Supplement 1, pp 199–213 | Cite as

Clinical Practice Implications of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders

From Concepts and Findings to Recommendations
  • Jaime Guzman
  • Scott Haldeman
  • Linda J. Carroll
  • Eugene J. Carragee
  • Eric L. Hurwitz
  • Paul Peloso
  • Margareta Nordin
  • J. David Cassidy
  • Lena W. Holm
  • Pierre Côté
  • Gabrielle van der Velde
  • Sheilah Hogg-Johnson
Implications

Study Design

Best evidence synthesis.

Objective

To provide evidence-based guidance to primary care clinicians about how to best assess and treat patients with neck pain.

Summary of Background Data

There is a need to translate the results of clinical and epidemiologic studies into meaningful and practical information for clinicians.

Methods

Based on best evidence syntheses of published studies on the risk, prognosis, assessment, and management of people with neck pain and its associated disorders, plus additional research projects and focused literature reviews reported in this supplement, the 12member multidisciplinary Scientific Secretariat of the Neck Pain Task Force followed a 4-step approach to develop practical guidance for clinicians.

Results

The Neck Pain Task Force recommends that people seeking care for neck pain should be triaged into 4 groups: Grade I neck pain with no signs of major pathology and no or little interference with daily activities; Grade II neck pain with no signs of major pathology, but interference with daily activities; Grade III neck pain with neurologic signs of nerve compression; Grade IV neck pain with signs of major pathology. In the emergency room after blunt trauma to the neck, triage should be based on the NEXUS criteria or the Canadian C-spine rule. Those with a high risk of fracture should be further investigated with plain radiographs and/or CT-scan. In ambulatory primary care, triage should be based on history and physical examination alone, including screening for red flags and neurologic examination for signs of radiculopathy. Exercises and mobilization have been shown to provide some degree of short-term relief of Grade I or Grade II neck pain after a motor vehicle collision. Exercises, mobilization, manipulation, analgesics, acupuncture, and low-level laser have been shown to provide some degree of short-term relief of Grade I or Grade II neck pain without trauma. Those with confirmed Grade III and severe persistent radicular symptoms might benefit from corticosteroid injections or surgery. Those with confirmed Grade IV neck pain require management specific to the diagnosed pathology.

Conclusion

The best available evidence suggests initial assessment for neck pain should focus on triage into 4grades, and those with common neck pain (Grade I and Grade II) might be offered the listed noninvasive treatments if short-term relief is desired.

Keywords

neck pain therapy practice guidelines diagnosis management 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    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
  2. 2.
    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
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    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;33(Suppl):S83–S92.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    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):S153–S169.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Haldeman S, Carroll LJ, Cassidy JD. Introduction/mandate: the empowerment of people with neck pain. The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010. Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine 2008;33(Suppl):S8–S13.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grade Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004;328:1490Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    The AGREE Collaboration. Appraisal of guidelines for research & evaluation (AGREE) Instrument; 2001.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    van der Velde G, Hogg-Johnson S, Bayoumi A, et al. Identifying the best treatment among common non-invasive neck pain treatments: a decision analysis. Spine 2008;33(Suppl):S184–S191.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Slavin RE. (1986). Best evidence synthesis: an alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educ Res 15:5–11Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Slavin RE. (1995). Best evidence synthesis: an intelligent alternative to meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 48:9–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van der Velde G, van Tulder M, Côté P, et al. The sensitivity of review results to methods used to appraise and incorporate trial quality into data synthesis. Spine 2007;32:796–806.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carroll LJ, Cassidy JD, Peloso PM, et al. 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. Spine 2008;33(Suppl):S33–S38.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boyle E, Côté P, Cassidy JD. Examining vertebrobasilar artery stroke in two Canadian provinces. Spine 2008;33(Suppl):S170–S175.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cassidy JD, Boyle E, Côté P, et al. Risk of vertebrobasilar stroke and chiropractic care: results of a population-based case control and case-crossover study. Spine 2008;33(Suppl):S176–S183.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Côté P, Kristman V, Vidmar M, et al. The prevalence and incidence of work absenteeism involving neck pain: a cohort of Ontario lost-time claimants. Spine 2008;33(Suppl):S192–S198.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    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 2007.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hoffman JR, Mower WR, Wolfson AB, et al. Validity of a set of clinical criteria to rule out injury to the cervical spine in patients with blunt trauma. National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study Group. N Engl J Med 2000;343:94–9.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Steill I, Wells GA, Vandemheen K. (2001). The Canadian C-spine rule for radiography in alert and stable trauma patients. JAMA 286:1841–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vernon H, Mior S. (1991). The neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 14:409–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reardon R, Haldeman S. Self-study of values, beliefs, and conflict of interest. The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders. Spine 2008; 33 (Suppl):S24 –S32.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaime Guzman
    • 1
    • 2
    • 19
  • Scott Haldeman
    • 3
    • 4
  • Linda J. Carroll
    • 5
  • Eugene J. Carragee
    • 6
    • 7
  • Eric L. Hurwitz
    • 8
  • Paul Peloso
    • 9
  • Margareta Nordin
    • 10
    • 11
    • 12
  • J. David Cassidy
    • 13
    • 14
    • 15
  • Lena W. Holm
    • 16
  • Pierre Côté
    • 13
    • 15
    • 14
    • 17
  • Gabrielle van der Velde
    • 13
    • 15
    • 14
    • 17
  • Sheilah Hogg-Johnson
    • 17
    • 18
  1. 1.Department of MedicineUniversity of British ColumbiaTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Occupational Health and Safety Agency for HealthcareTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Department of NeurologyUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  4. 4.Department of Epidemiology, School of Public HealthUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  5. 5.Department of Public Health Sciences, and the Alberta Centre for Injury Control and Research, School of Public HealthUniversity of AlbertaAlbertaCanada
  6. 6.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  7. 7.Orthopaedic Spine Center and Spinal Surgery ServiceStanford University Hospital and ClinicsStanfordUSA
  8. 8.Department of Public Health Sciences, John A. Burns School of MedicineUniversity of Hawaii at Ma.noaHonoluluHawaii
  9. 9.Endocrinology, Analgesia and InflammationMerck & CoRahwayUSA
  10. 10.Departments of Orthopedics, School of Medicine and Graduate School of Arts and ScienceNY UniversityNew YorkUSA
  11. 11.Departments of Environmental Medicine and Program of Ergonomics and Biomechanics, School of Medicine and Graduate School of Arts and ScienceNY UniversityNew YorkUSA
  12. 12.Occupational and Industrial Orthopaedic Center (OIOC)NY University Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  13. 13.Centre of Research Expertise in Improved Disability Outcomes(CREIDO)University Health Network Rehabilitation SolutionsTorontoCanada
  14. 14.Division of Health Care and Outcomes ResearchToronto Western Research InstituteTorontoCanada
  15. 15.Departments of Public Health Sciences and Health Policy, Management and EvaluationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  16. 16.Institute of Environmental MedicineKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  17. 17.Institute for Work & HealthTorontoCanada
  18. 18.Department of Public Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  19. 19.VancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations