European Spine Journal

, Volume 17, Supplement 1, pp 214–220 | Cite as

Research Priorities and Methodological Implications

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

Study Design

Best evidence synthesis.

Objective

To report on gaps in the literature and make methodologic recommendations based on our review of the literature on frequency and risk factors, assessment, intervention, and course and prognostic factors for neck pain and its associated disorders.

Summary of Background Data

The scientific literature on neck pain is large and of variable quality. We reviewed 1203 studies and judged 46 to be of sufficient scientific validity to be included in the best evidence synthesis. Scientific quality varied across study topics, and fundamental questions remain about important issues.

Methods

The Bone and Joint Decade 2000 –2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) conducted a critical review of the literature published between 1980 and 2006 to assemble the best evidence on neck pain and its associated disorders. Studies meeting criteria for scientific validity were included in a best evidence synthesis.

Results

We outline a large number of gaps in the current literature. For example,we found important gaps in our knowledge about neck pain in children (risk factors, screening criteria to rule out serious injury, management, course and prognosis); and in the prevention of neck pain-related activity limitations. Few studies addressed the impact of culture or social policies (such as governmental health policies or insurance compensation policies) on neck pain. A number of important questions remain about the effectiveness of commonly used interventions for neck pain.

Conclusion

The Neck Pain Task Force undertook a best evidence synthesis to establish a baseline of the current best evidence on the course and prognosis for whiplash-associated disorders. We identify a number of gaps in the current knowledge, and provide recommendations for the conduct of future studies.

Keywords

neck pain systematic review epidemiology research recommendations 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    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
  2. 2.
    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
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    Carroll LJ,Hogg-Johnson S, Cô té 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
  5. 5.
    Cô té 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
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Buchbinder R, Jolley D,WyattM. 2001 Volvo AwardWinner in Clinical Studies: Effects of a media campaign on back pain beliefs and its potential influence on management of low back pain in general practice. Spine 2001;26:2535–42.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buchbinder R, Jolley D,Wyatt M. (2001). Population based intervention to change back pain beliefs and disability: three part evaluation. BMJ 322:1516–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Buchbinder R, Jolley D. (2004). Population based intervention to change back pain beliefs: three year follow up population survey. BMJ 328:321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Buchbinder R, Jolley D. Effects of a media campaign on back beliefs is sustained 3 years after its cessation. Spine 2005;30:1323–30.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    Feinstein AR. (1996). Multivariable Analysis: An Introduction. New Haven, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Katz M H. (1999). Multivariable Analysis. A Practical Guide for Clinicians. Cambridge U.K., Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rothman KJ. Epidemiology. An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2002.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sackett DL, Haynes RB. (2002). The architecture of diagnostic research. BMJ 324:539–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda J. Carroll
    • 1
  • Eric L. Hurwitz
    • 2
  • Pierre Côté
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  • Sheilah Hogg-Johnson
    • 7
  • Eugene J. Carragee
    • 8
    • 9
  • Margareta Nordin
    • 10
    • 11
  • Lena W. Holm
    • 12
  • Gabrielle van der Velde
    • 13
    • 14
    • 15
  • J. David Cassidy
    • 16
    • 17
    • 18
  • Jaime Guzman
    • 19
  • paul M. Peloso
    • 20
  • Scott Haldeman
    • 21
    • 22
  1. 1.Department of PublicHealth Sciences, and the Alberta Centre for Injury Control and Research,School of PublicHealthUniversity of AlbertaAlbertaCanada
  2. 2.Department of Public Health Sciences, John A. Burns School of MedicineUniversity of Hawaii at MānoaHonoluluHawaii
  3. 3.Centre of Research Expertise in Improved Disability Outcomes(CREIDO)University Health Network Rehabilitation SolutionsTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Departments of Public Health Sciences and Health Policy, Management and EvaluationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  5. 5.Division of Health Care and Outcomes ResearchToronto Western Research InstituteTorontoCanada
  6. 6.Institute for Work & HealthTorontoCanada
  7. 7.Institute for Work and Health, Department of Public Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  8. 8.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  9. 9.Orthopaedic Spine Center and Spinal Surgery ServiceStanford University Hospital and ClinicsStanfordUSA
  10. 10.Departments of Orthopedics and Environmental Medicine and Program of Ergonomics and Biomechanics, School of Medicine and Graduate School of Artsand ScienceNewYork UniversityNewYorkUSA
  11. 11.Occupational and Industrial Orthopaedic Center (OIOC), New YorkUniversity Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  12. 12.Institute of Environmental MedicineKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  13. 13.Department of Health Policy, Management and EvaluationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  14. 14.Institute for Work & Health, Toronto Centre of Research Excellence in Improved Disability Outcomes(CREIDO)University Health Network Rehabilitation SolutionsTorontaCanada
  15. 15.Division of Health Care Outcomes and ResearchToronto Western Research InstituteTorontoCanada
  16. 16.Centre of Research Expertise in Improved Disability Outcomes(CREIDO)University Health Network Rehabilitation SolutionsTorontoCanada
  17. 17.Division of Health Care and Outcomes ResearchToronto Western Research InstituteTorontoCanada
  18. 18.Departments of Public Health Sciences and Health Policy, Management and EvaluationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  19. 19.Department of MedicineUniversity of British Columbia, Occupational Health and Safety Agency for HealthcareTorontoCanada
  20. 20.Endocrinology, Analgesia and InflammationMerck & CoRahwayUSA
  21. 21.Department of NeurologyUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  22. 22.Department of Epidemiology, School of Public HealthUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations