Effectiveness and optimal dosage of exercise training for chronic non-specific neck pain: A systematic review with a narrative synthesis

Abstract

Background

Clinical guidelines make vague recommendations as to exercise training (ET) type and dosage to manage chronic non-specific neck pain (CNSNP).

Objective

To synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of different ET programmes to reduce CNSNP and associated disability, and whether dosage affects outcomes.

Methods

A systematic review and data synthesis was conducted according to a published registered protocol (PROSPERO CRD42018096187). A sensitive topic-based search was conducted of CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, grey literature sources and key journals from inception to 6th January 2020 for randomised controlled trials, investigating ET for CNSNP or disability. Two reviewers independently completed eligibility screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment (Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool) and rated the overall strength of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Data was tabulated for narrative synthesis and grouped by intervention, outcome and time point to compare across studies.

Results

Twenty-six trials from 3990 citations (n = 2288 participants) investigated fifteen ET programmes. High RoB and low sample sizes reduced evidence quality. Clinical heterogeneity prevented meta-analyses. A range of ET programmes reduce pain/disability in the short term (low to moderate evidence). Pillar exercises reduce pain/disability in the intermediate term (low level evidence). Moderate to very large pain reduction is found with ET packages that include motor control + segmental exercises (low to moderate evidence). No high-quality trials investigated long term outcomes. Increased frequency of motor control exercises and progressively increased load of pillar exercise may improve effectiveness.

Conclusions

Motor control + segmental exercises are the most effective ET to reduce short term pain/disability, but long-term outcomes have not been investigated. Optimal motor control + segmental exercise variables and dosage is unknown and requires clarification. An adequately powered, low RoB trial is needed to evaluate the effectiveness and optimal dosage of motor control + segmental on long term outcomes.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42018096187

1 introduction

1.1 Rationale

Neck pain is highly prevalent affecting up to 50% of the population annually and now ranked 4^th for global disability [1–3]. Clinical guidelines recommend neck pain and disability is treated using a multimodal package of care with exercise as an integral component [4, 5]. Despite short term benefits of exercise, long term effectiveness is unclear as 70% of individuals will develop recurring or persistent chronic non-specific neck pain (CNSNP) [6–8]. To reduce the recurring symptoms experts agree that the paramount priority for neck pain research should be to better understand the effectiveness of exercise interventions and how different exercise variables, such as dosage can maximise effects [9].

Clinical guidelines and systematic reviews provide recommendations based on moderate evidence that “exercise” or “strengthening and endurance” exercise have small to large effects on pain and disability but provide little detail to the type of exercise to be used in clinical practice [4, 5, 10–12]. The studies cited within these guidelines and systematic reviews describe multiple different exercise training (ET) programmes aimed at improving neuromuscular function or motor capacity of the neck and shoulder musculature. The ET programmes reported consist of various exercises such as cervical isometrics [13], cervical concentric/eccentric training using pulley systems or weights [14], upper limb training using dumbbells [15] or deep neck flexor/extensor rehabilitation [16, 17] all resulting in different changes in spinal function e.g. craniocervical flexion performance, cervical flexion strength [18, 19]. Within practice the intended effect of exercise on spinal function should inform the design of ET programmes [20, 21]. No systematic review has yet investigated the effectiveness of different ET programmes based on the intended effect on spinal function reducing CNSNP or disability.

Moreover exercise dosage, a component of exercise prescription is poorly described in neck pain clinical guidelines is exercise dosage [22]. Manipulating dosage (duration, frequency, intensity) has significant effects on physical outcomes such as strength, power, hypertrophy in a sports and performance setting [23, 24]. Evidence suggests higher dosages improving patient reported outcomes in neck pain of varying durations [25, 26] however neck pain clinical guidelines do not provide dosage recommendations and no evidence synthesis has been undertaken. Therefore the optimal dosage to improve pain and disability in a chronic neck pain population is not known and further investigation is recommended by Cochrane [10], experts [9, 21, 27, 28] and professional bodies [29]. Initially, a systematic review is required to synthesise the current evidence to investigate the effectiveness of different dosages of ET programmes in reducing CNSNP or disability to guide future research.

1.2 Objectives

The primary objective of this systematic review is to synthesise the current evidence to investigate the effectiveness of ET programmes categorised by their intended effect on spinal function in reducing CNSNP and disability. A secondary objective is to investigate whether ET dosage affects outcomes. There are two hypotheses to this systematic review:

1. Exercise training programmes categorised by their intended effect on spinal function have different effects on chronic non-specific neck pain and disability
2. Exercise training programmes of different dosages have different effects on chronic non-specific neck pain and disability

2 methods

2.1 Protocol and registration

This systematic review was conducted according to a pre-defined, registered (PROSPERO CRD42018096187) and published protocol, and reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)(S1 Appendix) [30–32]. PROSPERO was amended 27/2/2019 to include another reviewer. The term resistance training has been changed from the protocol to “exercise training” as suggested by our patient and public involvement group to reflect exercise where the goal is to improve neuromuscular function or motor capacity of the neck and shoulder musculature. This has not changed the inclusion or exclusion criteria for included trials.

2.2 Eligibility criteria

Eligibility criteria were developed by scoping searches and PICOS.

2.2.1 Participants

Aged 18–70 years experiencing ≥3 months non-specific neck pain [33]. Specific pathologies (whiplash associated disorder, headaches, cervical radiculopathy etc) were excluded [30].

2.2.2 Intervention

Interventions considered ET and included in this synthesis were exercises targeted at the neck or shoulders where an individual applies a force against resistance (gravity, their own hands, an external object) to improve neuromuscular function or motor capacity. Motor control exercises were included providing resistance was applied using a biofeedback unit or gravity. Exercises requiring a therapists assistance or exercises for sensorimotor control disturbances (e.g. cervical joint position sense, oculomotor, gaze stability etc exercises) were excluded [34]. Stretching or aerobic training were excluded unless part of a warmup or cool down. Combined ET and another intervention (e.g. manual therapy, education etc) programmes were included if possible, to derive data specifically for the ET component.

2.2.3 Comparator

Any comparator was included e.g. other exercise, other therapies, or no treatment.

2.2.4 Outcome measures

Any patient reported measure of neck pain [e.g. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)) and/or neck functional disability (e.g. Neck Disability Index, (NDI)].

2.2.5 Study design

Randomised controlled clinical trials. Pilot or feasibility studies were excluded.

2.2.6 Report eligibility

Trials not written in English and protocols for trials not yet completed were excluded at full text and reported within the PRISMA flow diagram. There were no publication date restrictions.

2.3 Information sources

Electronic database searches were performed from inception to 06^th January 2020 using CINAHL; EMBASE; MEDLINE; PubMed; PEDro; Index to Chiropractic Literature and TRIP. Unpublished literature was searched using Zetoc and OpenGrey [35]. Conference proceedings and articles in press/published ahead of print were searched in key journals Spine, European Spine Journal, Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, Strength and Conditioning Journal and The Journal of Strength and Conditioning. Key publishers (Elsevier, Springer, Wiley) were searched for articles published but not yet indexed in medical databases. Reference lists of all included citations were reviewed.

2.4 Search

JP (subject expertise) completed all searches. S2 Appendix contains database search strategies, keywords, and MeSH. Citations were stored and de-duplicated in Endnote X9 [36].

2.5 Study selection

Two independent reviewers (JP/IT) (subject expertise) performed title/abstract and full text screening with disagreements resolved through discussion. A third reviewer (NH) (subject and methodological expertise) was available if necessary.

2.6 Data collection process

Two independent reviewers (JP/VT) extracted data using Cochrane’s data extraction form which was adapted and piloted on 5 randomly selected trials (S3 Appendix) [37]. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer (NH) available if necessary. Trial authors were contacted where data was missing or ambiguous.

2.7 Data items

Study and participant characteristics, outcome measures and results were extracted (see protocol for further details) [30, 33]. Follow up periods were recorded as immediate (≤24 hours), short term (>24 hours ≤3 months), intermediate term (>3 months < 12 months) and long term (≥12 months) [10]. Intervention data was recorded using the TIDieR Checklist [38]. Grouping of ET programmes was based on the intended effect on spinal function using an expert derived exercise classification system [20].

2.8 Risk of bias

Two independent reviewers (JP/VT) assessed Risk of Bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB Tool [31, 35]. Piloting agreed interpretation of each domain as “unclear”, “low” or “high” RoB (S4 Appendix). A third reviewer (NH) mediated disagreements and Cohen’s k assessed inter-rater agreement [35]. Results were tabulated to evaluate RoB across studies and used to inform Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation ratings. Further exploration of RoB across studies (selective outcome reporting, publication bias) were planned where a minimum of 10 studies were included for meta-analysis [39, 40].

2.9 Summary measures

Continuous outcomes were analysed using Review Manager 5.3 to calculate mean difference or standardised mean difference (with 95% CIs) where measurement scales varied [35]. Effect sizes were reported using Cohen’s d where ≤0.2 trivial; >0.2 small; >0.5 moderate; >0.8 large; >1.3 very large [41]. Clinically importance differences were established a priori as a mean difference of >1/10 VAS for pain and >5/50 NDI for disability [10, 42].

2.10 Synthesis of results

Overall quality of evidence for each ET programme reducing pain/disability for all follow up periods was rated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) [35, 43, 44]. Quality of evidence was assessed as ‘high’ ‘moderate’ ‘low’ or ‘very low’ by two independent reviewers (JP/VT) following piloting (S5 Appendix).

Post treatment means and standard deviations were extracted owing to multiple trials not reporting change from baseline standard deviations [35]. To ensure lower scores reflect a “better” outcome for all scales, mean scores for any outcome measure using a reverse scale (i.e. where a lower score reflects a “worse” outcome) were multiplied by -1 [35]. The furthest time point from randomisation was extracted where multiple follow ups within 1-time period existed. Imputation methods were used to estimate mean and standard deviation values from minimum and maximum values, first and third quartiles, medians and sample size where authors could not provide clarification [45].

As per the protocol a meta-analysis was planned providing low clinical and statistical heterogeneity existed assessed using the Table of Characteristics and I² < 50% and p > 0.10 respectively [30, 35]. Where meta-analysis was not possible, a narrative synthesis provided summaries of the evidence [30, 46, 47]. Trials were grouped by ET classification and the effect on pain/disability was described narratively with forest plots reporting standardised mean differences plus 95% CI without a pooled estimate. The impact of dosage on effectiveness was investigated between clinically homogenous trials using a narrative description and a potential moderator variable table including standardised mean differences plus 95% CI [46]. Dosage analysis was completed for classifications of ET where the overall quality of evidence was rated moderate or high.

2.11 Additional analyses

Sensitivity analysis was planned by repeating meta-analysis excluding high RoB trials and those with missing data.

2.12 Patient involvement

The study was conceived from the views of patients with spinal complaints from our clinical working. Patients suggested the term exercise training to reflect any exercise where the goal is to improve neuromuscular function. Findings will be disseminated to patients via patient workshops.

3 Results

3.1 Study selection

From 3990 citations, 275 full texts were screened from which 33 citations met eligibility criteria (Fig 1) (S6 Appendix for excluded studies). Agreement between reviewers was 100% at each stage. Multiple reports of the same trial were collated for Waling et al., 2002 [48–50], Bobos et al., 2016 [51, 52], Ylinen et al., 2007 [53–56], and Chiu et al., 2005 [57, 58]. Data extraction was completed for 26 trials [13, 14, 49, 51, 54, 57, 59–78].

Fig 1 PRISMA flow diagram of study selection process.*33 citations. Abbreviations: RCT—Randomised Controlled Trial. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

3.2 Study characteristics

Table of characteristics and detailed intervention data are in S7 Appendix.

3.2.1 Methods

Trials were published between 1998–2019 (14 countries). Data clarification was required for 24/26 trials with nine authors responding [49, 51, 54, 59–63, 67]. Chiu et al reported conflicting results therefore data was extracted from the full trial report [57].

3.2.2 Population

A total of 2288 participants were included. Eligibility in trials varied, including symptom duration 3–12 months, minimum or maximum measures of pain/disability [51, 60–63, 65, 67–75], craniocervical flexion test performance ≤24mmHg [13, 69, 72–74] or scapular dyskinesis [62].

3.2.3 Interventions

Poor intervention reporting limited ET grouping based on the pre-defined classification which was subsequently adapted to motor control, pillar, segmental and upper limb exercises (Table 1). A total of 15 different ET programmes were identified: motor control exercises [13, 59, 60, 63, 67, 70, 72–75]; pillar exercises [13, 65, 69–71]; segmental exercises [59, 60, 63]; upper limb exercises [49, 68]; motor control + pillar exercises [71]; motor control + segmental exercises [63, 64]; motor control + segmental exercises + another intervention [51, 57]; motor control + segmental + pillar exercises [69]; pillar exercises + another intervention [77, 78]; pillar + upper limb exercises [61]; pillar + upper limb exercises + another intervention; segmental + upper limb exercises [76]; segmental + upper limb exercises + another intervention [14, 54]; upper limb exercises + segmental + motor control exercises + another intervention [62] and upper limb exercise + another subgroup of neck exercises that were too poorly described to classify and referred to as “XX + Upper Limb”[66]. Table 2 provides a brief description of exercise training programmes and dosage.

ET was delivered via supervised sessions [13, 49, 54, 57, 60, 65, 68, 70, 73, 75, 76], a home exercise programme [63, 69, 74] or a combination of the two [14, 51, 59, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 71, 72, 77, 78], using a range of equipment including resistance bands [51, 54, 62, 65, 74, 77], biofeedback pressure units [13, 51, 57, 59, 60, 63, 64, 69, 70, 72–75], dumbbells [14, 54, 61, 66], weighted sandbags [59], balls [74] and resistance machines [14, 49, 61]. ET dosage was heterogenous across trials (duration: single session– 12 months; frequency: once per week–three times daily). Supervised treatment session time including non-ET interventions, ranged from 45 to 270 mins per week. Poor intervention reporting limited analysis of time spent completing ET at home or during supervised sessions. Intensity (sets, reps, rest, load) was poorly reported and varied according to ET.

3.2.4 Comparators

Comparator heterogeneity existed across trials (Table 2 and S7 Appendix) and prevented subgrouping.

3.2.5 Outcome measures

Pain and disability was used as a primary outcome measure in 8/26 trials [51, 54, 57, 62, 64–67] and measured with 15 and 8 different measurements tools respectively. Data was reported for immediate (3 trials) [60, 72, 73], short (23 trials) [13, 14, 49, 51, 54, 57, 59, 62–72, 74–78], intermediate (9 trials) [14, 49, 54, 57, 61, 65–67, 76], and long term effects (5 trials) [14, 49, 54, 66, 76].

3.3 Risk of bias

Complete agreement was achieved between reviewers. Only 3 trials had no high RoB domains (Table 3) [13, 59, 60]. Blinding of participants and reporting bias was high/unclear in 100% and 92% of studies respectively (Fig 2). Other sources of bias were baseline imbalances [51, 52, 64, 78], poor treatment fidelity [63, 69, 74], low compliance [66] and poor methodology reporting [68, 70, 71, 77].

Fig 2 Risk of bias graph by domain.Review authors judgements about each risk of bias domain presented as percentages across all included studies. Grey areas represent clinical trials that did not assess long term outcomes preventing assessment of reporting bias at this time point. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

3.4 Results of individual studies and synthesis of results

A narrative synthesis was performed as clinical heterogeneity (outcome measures, comparators) prevented meta-analysis. Comparator heterogeneity prevented the synthesis and analysis of evidence quality by contrasting each ET programme to subgroups of comparator interventions (e.g. Motor Control vs No Treatment). Therefore, the effectiveness of each ET programme has been narratively described against all reported comparators. Evidence quality for each ET programme is in S5 Appendix. Outcome measure heterogeneity limited summary measures to standardised mean differences plus 95% CI’s. Means, standard deviations and standardised mean differences plus 95% CI’s can be found in S8 Appendix.

3.5 Effectiveness of different exercise training programmes

3.5.1 Motor control

Motor control (MC) exercises reducing pain immediately was investigated in 3 trials with inconsistent findings (Fig 3). One trial (high RoB) found a large effect compared to manual therapy (SMD -1.09; 95%CI -1.91 to -0.36) [73] but two trials (1 high RoB, 1 low RoB) demonstrated no effect compared to other exercise [60, 72]. Based on very low-level evidence (GRADE) MC exercises are not effective reducing immediate pain.

Fig 3 Forest plot without a pooled estimate demonstrating the effectiveness of exercise training reducing pain at immediate term follow up.Data is grouped by the exercise training programme considered to be the experimental intervention with comparator interventions identified for each trial. Where trials report multiple treatment arms, each comparator is reported separately. Exercise training programmes compared to other eligible exercise training programmes are presented twice so that both treatment arms can be considered the experimental intervention. All values reported using Numeric Rating Scale/Visual Analogue Scale unless otherwise indicated A–Maximum Visual Analogue Scale (VAS); B–Minimum VAS; C–VAS at Rest; D–VAS on activity. Abbreviations: SD—Standard Deviation; CI—Confidence Interval. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

MC exercises reducing immediate disability was investigated in one trial (high RoB) showing no effect compared to proprioceptive training [72]. Based on moderate level evidence (GRADE) MC exercises are not effective reducing immediate disability.

Short term pain and disability reduction was investigated in 8 trials with inconsistent findings (Fig 4 and Fig 5). Five trials (4 high RoB, 1 low RoB) found a moderate to very large effect on pain and disability compared to no treatment, usual care, general active range of movement (AROM) or pillar exercise [13, 63, 67, 70, 75]. Four trials (3 high RoB, 1 low RoB) found no effect on pain and disability compared to other ET and proprioceptive training [59, 63, 72, 74]. One trial (high RoB) found MC exercise to be less effective reducing pain than combinations of MC and segmental exercise [63]. Another trial (high RoB) found MC exercise to be less effective than pillar exercises performed with therapist’s resistance for pain and disability reductions [67]. Based on moderate level evidence (GRADE) MC exercises are not effective reducing short term pain or disability.

Fig 4 Forest plot without a pooled estimate demonstrating the effectiveness of exercise training reducing pain at short term follow up.Data is grouped by the exercise training programme considered to be the experimental intervention with comparator interventions identified for each trial. Where trials report multiple treatment arms, each comparator is reported separately. Exercise training programmes compared to other eligible exercise training programmes are presented twice so that both treatment arms can be considered the experimental intervention. All values reported using Numeric Rating Scale/Visual Analogue Scale unless otherwise indicated A–Maximum Visual Analogue Scale (VAS); B–Minimum VAS; C–VAS at Rest; D–Progressive load in experimental arm; E–Fixed load in experimental arm; F–VAS at rest; G–VAS on activity; H–VAS in general; I–VAS at present; J–VAS at worst; K–Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at best; L–NRS at worst; M–NRS now. Abbreviations: SD—Standard Deviation; CI—Confidence Interval; AROM—Active Range of Movement. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

Fig 5 Forest plot without a pooled estimate demonstrating the effectiveness of exercise training reducing disability at short term follow up.Data is grouped by the exercise training programme considered to be the experimental intervention with comparator interventions identified for each trial. Where trials report multiple treatment arms, each comparator is reported separately. Exercise training programmes compared to other eligible exercise training programmes are presented twice so that both treatment arms can be considered the experimental intervention. All values reported using Neck Disability Index unless otherwise indicated A–Progressive load in experimental arm; B–Fixed load in experimental arm; C–Patient specific functional scale; D–Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire. Abbreviations: SD—Standard Deviation; CI—Confidence Interval; AROM—Active Range of Movement. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

MC exercises reducing intermediate pain and disability was investigated in one trial (high RoB) with inconsistent findings (Fig 6 and Fig 7). Effectiveness was demonstrated compared to usual care for disability reduction (SMD -4.72; 95%CI -6.04 to 3.39) but not for pain (SMD -0.47; 95%CI -1.15 to 0.18). MC exercise was found to be less effect than pillar exercises performed with therapist’s resistance for pain and disability reduction (SMD 2.47; 95%CI 1.58 to 3.36 & SMD 3.53; 95%CI 2.44 to 4.60) [67]. Based on low level evidence (GRADE) MC exercises are not effective reducing intermediate term pain or disability.

Fig 6 Forest plot without a pooled estimate demonstrating the effectiveness of exercise training reducing pain at intermediate term follow up.Data is grouped by the exercise training programme considered to be the experimental intervention with comparator interventions identified for each trial. Where trials report multiple treatment arms, each comparator is reported separately. Exercise training programmes compared to other eligible exercise training programmes are presented twice so that both treatment arms can be considered the experimental intervention. All values reported using Numeric Rating Scale/Visual Analogue Scale A–Progressive load in experimental arm; B–Fixed load in experimental arm; C–VAS at rest; G–VAS on activity; C–VAS in general; D–VAS at present; E–VAS at worst. Abbreviations: SD—Standard Deviation; CI—Confidence Interval. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

Fig 7 Forest plot without a pooled estimate demonstrating the effectiveness of exercise training reducing disability at intermediate term follow up.Data is grouped by the exercise training programme considered to be the experimental intervention with comparator interventions identified for each trial. Where trials report multiple treatment arms, each comparator is reported separately. Exercise training programmes compared to other eligible exercise training programmes are presented twice so that both treatment arms can be considered the experimental intervention. All values reported using Neck Disability Index unless otherwise indicated A–Progressive load in experimental arm; B–Fixed load in experimental arm; C–Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire. Abbreviations: SD—Standard Deviation; CI—Confidence Interval. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

3.5.2 Pillar

Pillar exercises reducing short term pain and disability was investigated in 5 trials with inconsistent findings (Fig 4 and Fig 5). One trial (high RoB) found very large improvements in pain and disability compared to education regardless of exercise dosage [65]. Four trials (3 high RoB, 1 low RoB) found pillar exercises to be less effective than other ET [13, 69–71]. Based on moderate level evidence (GRADE) pillar exercises are not effective reducing short term pain or disability.

Intermediate term pain and disability reduction was investigated in one trial (high RoB) (Fig 6 and Fig 7) [65]. The trial found a very large effect reducing pain (Fixed dosage: SMD -2.80; 95%CI -3.46 to -2.13; Progressive dosage: SMD -3.40; 95%CI -4.13 to -2.68) and disability (Fixed Dosage: SMD -2.10; 95%CI -2.68 to -1.51; Progressive Dosage: SMD -2.25; 95%CI -2.84 to -1.67) compared to education. Based on low level evidence (GRADE) pillar exercises are effective reducing intermediate term pain and disability.

3.5.3 Segmental

Segmental exercises reducing immediate pain was investigated in 1 trial (low RoB) showing no effect compared to MC exercise (Fig 3) [60]. Based on moderate level evidence (GRADE) segmental exercises are not effective reducing immediate pain.

Short term pain and disability reduction was investigated in 2 trials with inconsistent findings (Fig 4 and Fig 5). One trial (high RoB) found a very large effect reducing pain (SMD -2.14; 95%CI -2.84 to -1.43) and disability (SMD -3.90; 95%CI -4.86 to -2.93) compared to no treatment [63]. Two trials (1 high RoB, 1 low RoB) found no effect on pain or disability compared to other exercise [59, 63]. One trial (high RoB) found segmental exercise to be less effective reducing pain than combinations of MC and segmental exercise (SMD 2.48; 95%CI 1.73 to 3.23) [63]. Based on low level evidence (GRADE) segmental exercises are not effective reducing short term pain or disability.

3.5.4 Upper limb

Upper limb (UL) exercises reducing short, intermediate and long-term pain was investigated in 2 trials (high RoB) with inconsistent findings [49, 68]. In the short term (Fig 4) one trial found a very large effect when compared to no treatment (SMD -2.52; 95%CI -3.09 to -1.96) [68] and another trial found a moderate to large effect compared to education and stress reduction (General Pain: SMD; -0.76; 95%CI -1.35 to -0.17; Present Pain: SMD -1.03; 95%CI -1.64 to -0.42; Worst Pain: SMD -0.82; 95%CI -1.41 to -0.22), other exercise (Present Pain: SMD -0.52; 95%ci -1.05 to 0.00) and body awareness training (Worst Pain: SMD -0.54; 95%CI -1.09 to 0.00; Present Pain: SMD -0.62; 95%CI -1.17 to -0.07) [49]. There was no effect compared to other exercise (general/worst pain) and body awareness training (general pain) when using different measures of pain [49]. One trial found consistent findings of no effect for intermediate term pain reduction but inconsistent findings for long term pain (Fig 6 and Fig 8) [49]. The trial found UL exercise to be less effective than education and stress reduction (present/general pain) but there was no effect compared to other exercise or body awareness training. Based on low level evidence (GRADE) UL exercises are effective reducing pain in the short term but not in the intermediate or long term.

Fig 8 Forest plot without a pooled estimate demonstrating the effectiveness of exercise training reducing pain at long term follow up.Data is grouped by the exercise training programme considered to be the experimental intervention with comparator interventions identified for each trial. Where trials report multiple treatment arms, each comparator is reported separately. All values reported using Numeric Rating Scale/Visual Analogue Scale A–VAS in general; B–VAS at present; C–VAS at worst. Abbreviations: SD—Standard Deviation; CI—Confidence Interval. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

3.5.5 Motor control + pillar

MC + pillar exercises was investigated in one trial (high RoB) showing a moderate effect reducing short term pain (SMD -0.66; 95%CI -1.23 to -0.09) and disability (SMD -1.23; 95%CI -1.84 to -0.63) compared to pillar exercise (Fig 4 and Fig 5) [71]. Based on low level evidence (GRADE) MC + pillar exercises are effective reducing short term pain and disability.

3.5.6 Motor control + segmental

MC + segmental exercises reducing short term pain was investigated in two trials (high RoB) with inconsistent findings (Fig 4). One trial found a very large effect compared to no treatment or other exercise [63]. Another trial found no effect when compared to no treatment [64]. Based on low level evidence (GRADE) MC + segmental exercises are effective reducing short term pain.

The same trials had inconsistent findings for MC + segmental exercises reducing short term disability (Fig 5). One trial found a very large effect compared to no treatment (SMD -4.30; 95%CI -5.34 to -3.26) but no effect when compared to other exercise [63]. The other trial found a large effect compared to no treatment (SMD -0.84; 95%CI -1.48 to -0.21) when measuring disability with Patient Specific Function Scale but no effect using the NDI [64]. Based on low level evidence (GRADE) MC + segmental exercises are not effective reducing short term disability.

3.5.7 Motor control + segmental + pillar

MC + segmental + pillar exercises was investigated in one trial [high RoB] and found a very large effect on pain (on activity SMD -2.71; 95%CI -3.87 to -1.55; at rest SMD -2.98; 95%CI -4.20 to -1.76) and disability (SMD -1.90; 95%CI -2.89 to -0.91) in the short term compared to other exercise (Fig 4 and Fig 5) [69]. Based on low level evidence (GRADE) MC + segmental + pillar exercises are effective reducing short term pain and disability.

3.5.8 Motor control + segmental + another intervention

MC + segmental exercise + another intervention reducing short term pain were investigated in two trials (high RoB) with inconsistent findings (Fig 4). One trial found a small to moderate effect when compared to another intervention or TENS [57]. One trial found a moderate to large effect reducing pain at best when compared to another intervention (pain best/now) or other exercise (pain best) [51]. The same trial found no effect reducing pain at worst. Based on moderate level evidence (GRADE) MC + segmental exercise + another intervention is effective reducing short term pain.

The same trials investigated MC + segmental exercise + another intervention reducing short term disability with inconsistent findings (Fig 5). One trial found a large effect compared to another intervention (SMD -1.12; 95%CI -1.79 to -0.44) or general AROM (SMD -1.03; 95%CI -1.69 to -0.37) [51]. The other trial found an effect compared to TENS (SMD -0.36; 95%CI -0.69 to -0.03) but no effect compared to another intervention [57]. Based on moderate level evidence (GRADE) MC + segmental exercise + another intervention is effective reducing short term disability.

Intermediate term pain and disability reduction was investigated in one trial (high RoB) showing no effect when compared to another intervention or TENS (Fig 6 and Fig 7) [57]. Based on low level evidence (GRADE) MC + segmental exercise + another intervention is not effective reducing intermediate term pain or disability.

3.5.9 Segmental + upper limb

Segmental + UL exercise reducing pain and disability was investigated in one trial (high RoB) showing no difference between two different dosages exercises at any time point (p > 0.05) [76]. Based on low level evidence (GRADE) different dosages of segmental + UL exercises does not change effectiveness of reducing short, intermediate, or long-term pain or disability.

3.5.10 Other exercise training

Based on very low to low level evidence (GRADE) the remaining ET programmes (Pillar + Another Intervention; Pillar + UL; Pillar + UL + Another Intervention; Segmental + UL; Segmental + UL + Another Intervention; UL + Segmental + MC + Another Intervention; XX + Upper Limb) are not effective reducing pain or disability (S8 Appendix).

3.6 Optimal dosage of different exercise training programmes

3.6.1 Motor control

Clinical heterogeneity (comparator/outcome measure) prevented comparison of MC dosage reducing immediate pain. Comparison of MC dosage reducing short term pain and disability was possible in two trials (1 high, 1 low RoB) with sufficient homogeneity and intervention reporting [59, 63]. The trials showed the direction of effect in reducing pain and disability moves in favour of MC exercises as the frequency increases (Table 4). Based on two trials increased dosage of MC exercise (frequency) potentially increases effectiveness.

3.6.2 Pillar

One trial (high RoB) compared two dosages of pillar exercises in reducing short term pain and disability [65]. Starting with low load of exercise that is progressively increased is moderately more effective reducing pain than a fixed load (SMD -0.74; 95%CI: -1.21 to -0.26) but there is no difference in reducing disability (MD -1.15; 95%CI: -3.43 to 1.13)(Table 4). Based on one trial a low dosage (load) that is progressively increased potentially increases effectiveness reducing pain but not disability.

3.6.3 Segmental

Comparison of segmental exercise dosage reducing immediate pain was not possible as only one trial was found using a single dosage exercise [60].

3.6.4 Motor control + segmental + another intervention

Comparison of MC + segmental exercise + another intervention reducing short term pain and disability was not possible due to incomplete frequency and intensity reporting [51].

3.7 Additional analyses

Sensitivity analysis was not feasible due to clinical heterogeneity preventing meta-analysis.

4 Discussion

4.1 Summary of evidence

This the first systematic review to investigate the effectiveness of ET programmes categorised by their intended effect on spinal function on CNSNP and/or disability and whether dosage alters outcomes. Fifteen ET programmes from 26 trials were evaluated. Clinical heterogeneity, poor intervention reporting, low sample sizes and high RoB limits our understanding of ET effectiveness and the influence of dosage.

4.1.1 Effectiveness

No ET programmes were found to be effective at immediate or long term follow up. Pillar exercises were found to be effective at intermediate term compared to no treatment (low level evidence). Most trials investigated short term effectiveness of which multiple ET programmes encompassing exercises for various spinal functions demonstrated benefits. Effectiveness was predominantly found in ET packages containing MC exercises, suggesting retraining co-ordination or sequential control of neck movement is a critical component to exercise for CNSNP. Interestingly, when MC exercises were used alone the effectiveness was unclear, however benefits are maximised when combined with other ET. Based on effect size and overall quality of evidence the best outcomes were achieved when MC exercises were combined with segmental exercises [MC + segmental exercises (low level evidence); MC + segmental exercises + another intervention (moderate level evidence) and MC + segmental + pillar exercises (low level evidence)].

This is the first systematic review identifying combinations of MC + segmental exercises as the most effective ET for patient reported outcomes. One explanation for this is that MC exercises improve neuromuscular function of the deeper cervical muscles and segmental exercises improve strength, endurance and fatiguability of the superficial cervical muscles [18, 19, 79, 80]. Combining exercises results in multiple improvements in neuromuscular and spinal function impairments common in CNSNP [21, 81].

4.1.2 Dosage

There is conflicting evidence whether higher dosages of exercise results in greater reductions in musculoskeletal pain or disability [82–91]. This is largely due to the limited number of trials directly comparing two identical ET programmes at different dosages. A meta-analysis of an existing data set from a Cochrane systematic review on exercise for chronic neck pain found a positive correlation between exercise duration (in weeks) and a reduction in neck pain [91]. It is not clear whether this applies to the ET programmes considered in our review as the analysis was completed on studies using “gymnastics” “qigong” “flexibility” exercises in addition to “strength” exercises. Secondary analysis of neck pain trial data suggests that higher dosages through increased adherence or greater sets and repetitions seems to have greater benefits in neck pain [25, 26, 53]. However, none of these studies used ET programmes that consisted of MC + segmental exercises. MC exercises focus on neuromuscular relearning and quality of movement typically using lighter loads whereas segmental exercises aiming to increase the force production of muscles often require higher loads [20]. Manipulation of exercise variables and dosage are key in classifying exercise as motor control or segmental, meaning precision prescription is required to ensure the desired effect on spinal and neuromuscular function is achieved. This evidence synthesis was unable to provide guidance as to exercise and dosage variables required to maximise the effectiveness of MC + segmental exercise. Although the effectiveness of MC exercises alone potentially improves as frequency increases this was based on limited data and we were unable to investigate segmental exercise dosage. Pillar exercise effectiveness improves if load is progressively increased, but it is unknown whether this also applies to segmental exercise.

4.1.3 Evidence quality

Clinical heterogeneity and intervention reporting limited MC + segmental dosage analysis. Exercise variables (delivery, equipment etc) differed between trials meaning differences in effect could be due to these components rather than dosage differences. If homogeneity existed, intervention reporting limited dosage data extraction further preventing comparison. Reporting checklists TIDieR (published 2014) [38] and CERT (published 2016) aid intervention reporting but only 1 MC + segmental exercise trial was reported after 2014 [51]. As a result, trial authors did not use these tools to provide intervention clarity. Consequently, different MC + segmental exercise variables and poor intervention reporting are problematic for researchers wanting to perform further studies or meta-analysis [92]. More importantly it provides little guidance for clinicians to deliver MC + segmental exercise effectively for CNSNP patients. [38]

Confidence in findings for packages of MC + segmental exercise is reduced due to high RoB (participant blinding/selective outcome reporting) and imprecision meaning the true effect of MC + segmental exercise maybe different to that reported [93–95]. An adequately powered, low risk of bias trial would improve confidence in findings. Furthermore, future trials must evaluate long term effectiveness due to the recurring nature of neck pain [7, 8].

4.2 Comparison with other systematic reviews

Previous systematic reviews demonstrating exercise effectiveness base findings on trials that we assessed as using UL or UL + Pillar exercises [10, 11]. The design of this review provides advantages over other reviews offering evidence previously not synthesised. Firstly, any exercise comparator was eligible resulting in different included trials. Secondly, to improve participant homogeneity, participants were required to have symptoms ≥3 months and therefore excluded trials [cited in previous reviews] using participant eligibility of pain >30 days within the last year [15, 96–100]. Therefore, although we found inconsistent evidence of UL exercise short term effectiveness, we found consistent evidence that UL are not ineffective in the long term and UL + pillar exercises are not effective at any time point. Unlike another review supporting MC exercises, we found inconsistent evidence that MC exercises alone are not effective [101]. The meta-analysed results from Martin-Gomez, Sestelo-Diaz (101) should be treated with caution due to substantial statistical heterogeneity (I² = 66–67%).

4.3 Implications

This systematic review has important implications for clinical practice. CNSNP treatment should include combinations of submaximal effort exercises for the deep cervical muscles to relearn or improve neuromuscular movement patterns (motor control exercises) and exercises to improve the ability of the larger superficial cervical muscles to produce force (segmental exercises). Optimal motor control and segmental exercise dosage is unclear due to the significant clinical heterogeneity between trials. Future research should gain consensus on key exercise and dosage variables that can be explored further within a complex intervention framework. [102] Long-term the effectiveness and optimal dosage of MC + segmental exercise needs evaluation through an adequately powered, low RoB clinical trial.

4.4 Strengths

This is the first systematic review focusing on effectiveness and optimal dosage of subgroups of ET based on the intended effect on spinal function in CNSNP. This review employed a rigorous methodology and was conducted according to a published protocol and reported in line with PRISMA guidance.

4.5 Limitations

Excluding 4 non-English and 16 inaccessible studies could be a limitation; however, the increased studies may have contributed to further clinical heterogeneity. Poor intervention reporting may have led to inaccurate ET classification. Using a different exercise classification tool may lead to different conclusions. The quality of the included studies was reduced due to heterogeneity of outcome measures, low sample sizes and high risk of bias of the included studies reduced evidence quality.

5 Conclusions

Low to moderate evidence supports the effectiveness of ET packages that include MC + segmental exercises reducing patient reported outcomes at short term follow up. This is based on high RoB trials utilising different exercise variables. The long-term effectiveness of MC + segmental exercise has not been evaluated. MC + segmental exercise variables including dosage need to be defined and investigated in an adequately powered low RoB clinical trial with long term follow up.

Supporting information

Acknowledgements

Academic support provided from University of Birmingham and the Centre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain including patient users involved in the interpretation of the results. The authors would like to thank Simon Spencer for his advice in exercise classification.

References

1. CarrollLJ, Hogg-JohnsonS, van der VeldeG, HaldemanS, HolmLW, CarrageeEJ, 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 (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(4 Suppl):S75–82. Epub 2008/02/07. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816445be .18204403 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816445be PubMed
2. FejerR, KyvikKO, HartvigsenJ. The prevalence of neck pain in the world population: a systematic critical review of the literature. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(6):834–48. Epub 2005/07/07. 10.1007/s00586-004-0864-4 15999284PMC3489448 doi:10.1007/s00586-004-0864-4 PubMed
3. MurrayCJ, AtkinsonC, BhallaK, BirbeckG, BursteinR, ChouD, et al The state of US health, 1990–2010: burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors. JAMA. 2013;310(6):591–608. Epub 2013/07/12. 10.1001/jama.2013.13805 23842577PMC5436627 doi:10.1001/jama.2013.13805 PubMed
4. BierJD, Scholten-PeetersWGM, StaalJB, PoolJ, van TulderMW, BeekmanE, et al Clinical Practice Guideline for Physical Therapy Assessment and Treatment in Patients With Nonspecific Neck Pain. Phys Ther. 2018;98(3):162–71. Epub 2017/12/12. 10.1093/ptj/pzx118 .29228289 doi:10.1093/ptj/pzx118 PubMed
5. BlanpiedPR, GrossAR, ElliottJM, DevaneyLL, ClewleyD, WaltonDM, et al Neck Pain: Revision 2017. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy. 2017;47(7):A1–A83. Epub 2017/07/02. 10.2519/jospt.2017.0302 .28666405 doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.0302 PubMed
6. LuimeJJ, KoesBW, MiedemHS, VerhaarJA, BurdorfA. High incidence and recurrence of shoulder and neck pain in nursing home employees was demonstrated during a 2-year follow-up. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(4):407–13. Epub 2005/05/03. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.01.022 .15862727 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.01.022 PubMed
7. HushJM, LinCC, MichaleffZA, VerhagenA, RefshaugeKM. Prognosis of acute idiopathic neck pain is poor: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(5):824–9. Epub 2011/04/05. 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.12.025 .21458776 doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2010.12.025 PubMed
8. HaldemanS, CarrollL, CassidyJD. Findings from the bone and joint decade 2000 to 2010 task force on neck pain and its associated disorders. J Occup Environ Med. 2010;52(4):424–7. Epub 2010/04/02. 10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181d44f3b .20357682 doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181d44f3b PubMed
9. SilvaPV, CostaLOP, MaherCG, KamperSJ, CostaL. The New Agenda for Neck Pain Research: A Modified Delphi Study. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy. 2019;49(9):666–74. Epub 2019/07/11. 10.2519/jospt.2019.8704 .31291558 doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8704 PubMed
10. GrossA, KayTM, PaquinJP, BlanchetteS, LalondeP, ChristieT, et al Exercises for mechanical neck disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;1:CD004250 Epub 2015/01/30. 10.1002/14651858.CD004250.pub5 .25629215PMC9508492 doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004250.pub5 PubMed
11. ChenX, CoombesBK, SjogaardG, JunD, O'LearyS, JohnstonV. Workplace-Based Interventions for Neck Pain in Office Workers: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Phys Ther. 2018;98(1):40–62. Epub 2017/11/01. 10.1093/ptj/pzx101 .29088401 doi:10.1093/ptj/pzx101 PubMed
12. LouwS, MakwelaS, ManasL, MeyerL, TerblancheD, BrinkY. Effectiveness of exercise in office workers with neck pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. S Afr J Physiother. 2017;73(1):392 Epub 2018/08/24. 10.4102/sajp.v73i1.392 30135909PMC6093121 doi:10.4102/sajp.v73i1.392 PubMed
13. ChungS, JeongYG. Effects of the craniocervical flexion and isometric neck exercise compared in patients with chronic neck pain: A randomized controlled trial. Physiother Theory Pract. 2018;34(12):916–25. Epub 2018/01/25. 10.1080/09593985.2018.1430876 .29364754 doi:10.1080/09593985.2018.1430876 PubMed
14. JordanA, BendixT, NielsenH, HansenFR, HostD, WinkelA. Intensive training, physiotherapy, or manipulation for patients with chronic neck pain. A prospective, single-blinded, randomized clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998;23(3):311–8; discussion 9. Epub 1998/03/21. 10.1097/00007632-199802010-00005 .9507618 doi:10.1097/00007632-199802010-00005 PubMed
15. AndersenLL, KjaerM, SogaardK, HansenL, KrygerAI, SjogaardG. Effect of two contrasting types of physical exercise on chronic neck muscle pain. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(1):84–91. Epub 2008/01/01. 10.1002/art.23256 .18163419 doi:10.1002/art.23256 PubMed
16. SchomacherJ, FallaD. Function and structure of the deep cervical extensor muscles in patients with neck pain. Man Ther. 2013;18(5):360–6. Epub 2013/07/16. 10.1016/j.math.2013.05.009 .23849933 doi:10.1016/j.math.2013.05.009 PubMed
17. JullGA, FallaD, VicenzinoB, HodgesPW. The effect of therapeutic exercise on activation of the deep cervical flexor muscles in people with chronic neck pain. Man Ther. 2009;14(6):696–701. Epub 2009/07/28. 10.1016/j.math.2009.05.004 .19632880 doi:10.1016/j.math.2009.05.004 PubMed
18. O'LearyS, FallaD, ElliottJM, JullG. Muscle dysfunction in cervical spine pain: implications for assessment and management. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy. 2009;39(5):324–33. Epub 2009/05/05. 10.2519/jospt.2009.2872 .19411767 doi:10.2519/jospt.2009.2872 PubMed
19. BlomgrenJ, StrandellE, JullG, VikmanI, RoijezonU. Effects of deep cervical flexor training on impaired physiological functions associated with chronic neck pain: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19(1):415 Epub 2018/11/30. 10.1186/s12891-018-2324-z 30486819PMC6263552 doi:10.1186/s12891-018-2324-z PubMed
20. SpencerS, WolfA, RushtonA. Spinal-Exercise Prescription in Sport: Classifying Physical Training and Rehabilitation by Intention and Outcome. Journal of athletic training. 2016;51(8):613–28. Epub 2016/11/04. 10.4085/1062-6050-51.10.03 27661792PMC5094840 doi:10.4085/1062-6050-51.10.03 PubMed
21. FallaD, HodgesPW. Individualized Exercise Interventions for Spinal Pain. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2017;45(2):105–15. Epub 2017/01/17. 10.1249/JES.0000000000000103 .28092298 doi:10.1249/JES.0000000000000103 PubMed
22. BoothJ, MoseleyGL, SchiltenwolfM, CashinA, DaviesM, HubscherM. Exercise for chronic musculoskeletal pain: A biopsychosocial approach. Musculoskeletal Care. 2017;15(4):413–21. Epub 2017/04/04. 10.1002/msc.1191 .28371175 doi:10.1002/msc.1191 PubMed
23. BirdSP, TarpenningKM, MarinoFE. Designing resistance training programmes to enhance muscular fitness: a review of the acute programme variables. Sports medicine (Auckland, NZ). 2005;35(10):841–51. Epub 2005/09/27. 10.2165/00007256-200535100-00002 .16180944 doi:10.2165/00007256-200535100-00002 PubMed
24. American College of Sports M. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(3):687–708. Epub 2009/02/11. 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181915670 .19204579 doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181915670 PubMed
25. AndersenCH, AndersenLL, PedersenMT, MortensenP, KarstadK, MortensenOS, et al Dose-response of strengthening exercise for treatment of severe neck pain in women. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(12):3322–8. Epub 2013/03/13. 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31828f12c6 .23478473 doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31828f12c6 PubMed
26. PedersenMT, AndersenLL, JorgensenMB, SogaardK, SjogaardG. Effect of specific resistance training on musculoskeletal pain symptoms: dose-response relationship. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(1):229–35. Epub 2012/12/21. 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182541ceb .23254492 doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182541ceb PubMed
27. JetteAM. The Importance of Dose of a Rehabilitation Intervention. Phys Ther. 2017;97(11):1043 Epub 2017/11/04. 10.1093/ptj/pzx085 .29099967 doi:10.1093/ptj/pzx085 PubMed
28. CallaghanMJ. Exercise is effective for patellofemoral pain, but what type, who benefits most and by how much remain unknown. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(10):625–6. Epub 2017/09/25. 10.1136/bjsports-2017-098296 .28942421 doi:10.1136/bjsports-2017-098296 PubMed
29. Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. James Lind Alliance Physiotherapy Priority Setting Partnership 2018 [cited 2018 7th March]. Available from: http://www.csp.org.uk/professional-union/research/james-lind-alliance-physiotherapy-priority-setting-partnership.
30. PriceJ, RushtonA, TyrosI, HeneghanNR. Effectiveness and optimal dosage of resistance training for chronic non-specific neck pain: a protocol for a systematic review with a qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2019;9(2):e025158 Epub 2019/02/21. 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025158 30782926PMC6398773 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025158 PubMed
31. MoherD, LiberatiA, TetzlaffJ, AltmanDG, GroupP. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535 Epub 2009/07/23. 10.1136/bmj.b2535 19622551PMC2714657 doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 PubMed
32. LiberatiA, AltmanDG, TetzlaffJ, MulrowC, GotzschePC, IoannidisJP, et al The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100 Epub 2009/07/22. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 19621070PMC2707010 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 PubMed
33. FurlanAD, MalmivaaraA, ChouR, MaherCG, DeyoRA, SchoeneM, et al 2015 Updated Method Guideline for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back and Neck Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(21):1660–73. Epub 2015/07/25. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001061 .26208232 doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000001061 PubMed
34. JullG, FallaD, TreleavenJ, LewisJS, O'LearyS. Management of Neck Pain Disorders: A Research Informed Approach: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2018.
35. HigginsJ, GreenS. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011 Available from: www.handbook.cochrane.org.
36. Clarivate Analytics. EndNote X9. X9.1 ed2018.
37. Cochrane Training. Data collection form for intervention reviews: RCTs and non-RCTs 2014 [cited 2018 31st May]. Available from: http://training.cochrane.org/resource/data-collection-forms-intervention-reviews.
38. HoffmannTC, GlasziouPP, BoutronI, MilneR, PereraR, MoherD, et al Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687 Epub 2014/03/13. 10.1136/bmj.g1687 .24609605 doi:10.1136/bmj.g1687 PubMed
39. EggerM, Davey SmithG, SchneiderM, MinderC. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34. Epub 1997/10/06. 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 9310563PMC2127453 doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 PubMed
40. DwanK, GambleC, Kolamunnage-DonaR, MohammedS, PowellC, WilliamsonPR. Assessing the potential for outcome reporting bias in a review: a tutorial. Trials. 2010;11:52 Epub 2010/05/14. 10.1186/1745-6215-11-52 20462436PMC2888817 doi:10.1186/1745-6215-11-52 PubMed
41. CohenJ. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences: Taylor & Francis; 2013.
42. MacDermidJC, WaltonDM, AveryS, BlanchardA, EtruwE, McAlpineC, et al Measurement properties of the neck disability index: a systematic review. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy. 2009;39(5):400–17. Epub 2009/06/13. 10.2519/jospt.2009.2930 PubMed PMID: 19521015. 19521015 doi:10.2519/jospt.2009.2930 PubMed
43. GuyattG, OxmanAD, AklEA, KunzR, VistG, BrozekJ, et al GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94. Epub 2011/01/05. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026 .21195583 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026 PubMed
44. Evidence Prime I. GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool. In: Evidence Prime I, editor.: McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.); 2015.
45. WanX, WangW, LiuJ, TongT. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):135 Epub 2014/12/20. 10.1186/1471-2288-14-135 25524443PMC4383202 doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-135 PubMed
46. PopayJ, RobertsH, SowdenA, PetticrewM, AraiL, RodgersM, et al Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews: A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University; 2006. 1–91 p.
47. RyanR. Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group: data synthesis and analysis: Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group; 2013 [cited 2018 14th May]. Available from: http://cccrg.cochrane.org.
48. AhlgrenC, WalingK, KadiF, DjupsjobackaM, ThornellLE, SundelinG. Effects on physical performance and pain from three dynamic training programs for women with work-related trapezius myalgia. J Rehabil Med. 2001;33(4):162–9. Epub 2001/08/17. .11506214 PubMed
49. WalingK, JarvholmB, SundelinG. Effects of training on female trapezius Myalgia: An intervention study with a 3-year follow-up period. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(8):789–96. Epub 2002/04/06. 10.1097/00007632-200204150-00002 .11935098 doi:10.1097/00007632-200204150-00002 PubMed
50. WalingK, SundelinG, AhlgrenC, JärvholmB. Perceived pain before and after three exercise programs–a controlled clinical trial of women with work-related trapezius myalgia. Pain. 2000;85(1):201–7. Epub 2000/03/01. 10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00265-1 WOS:000085652900024.10692619 doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00265-1 PubMed
51. BobosP, BillisE, PapanikolaouDT, KoutsojannisC, MacDermidJC. Does Deep Cervical Flexor Muscle Training Affect Pain Pressure Thresholds of Myofascial Trigger Points in Patients with Chronic Neck Pain? A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial. Rehabil Res Pract. 2016;2016:6480826 Epub 2016/12/19. 10.1155/2016/6480826 27990302PMC5136630 doi:10.1155/2016/6480826 PubMed
52. BobosP, PapanikolaouT, KoutsojannisC, MacDermidJ, BillisE. Is deep cervical neck flexors' training more effective than general neck exercises or advice in patients with chronic neck pain? A prospective randomized controlled trial. Manual Therapy. 2016;25:e145–e6. Epub 2016/07/13. 10.1016/j.math.2016.05.280 Some(116761394). doi:10.1016/j.math.2016.05.280
53. NikanderR, MalkiaE, ParkkariJ, HeinonenA, StarckH, YlinenJ. Dose-response relationship of specific training to reduce chronic neck pain and disability. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(12):2068–74. Epub 2006/12/06. 10.1249/01.mss.0000229105.16274.4b .17146312 doi:10.1249/01.mss.0000229105.16274.4b PubMed
54. YlinenJ, HakkinenA, NykanenM, KautiainenH, TakalaEP. Neck muscle training in the treatment of chronic neck pain: a three-year follow-up study. Eura Medicophys. 2007;43(2):161–9. Epub 2007/05/26. .17525699 PubMed
55. YlinenJJ, HakkinenAH, TakalaEP, NykanenMJ, KautiainenHJ, MalkiaEA, et al Effects of neck muscle training in women with chronic neck pain: one-year follow-up study. J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20(1):6–13. Epub 2006/03/01. 10.1519/R-17274.1 .16503693 doi:10.1519/R-17274.1 PubMed
56. YlinenJ, TakalaEP, NykanenM, HakkinenA, MalkiaE, PohjolainenT, et al Active neck muscle training in the treatment of chronic neck pain in women: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;289(19):2509–16. Epub 2003/05/22. 10.1001/jama.289.19.2509 .12759322 doi:10.1001/jama.289.19.2509 PubMed
57. ChiuTT, Hui-ChanCW, CheinG. A randomized clinical trial of TENS and exercise for patients with chronic neck pain. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19(8):850–60. Epub 2005/12/06. 10.1191/0269215505cr920oa .16323384 doi:10.1191/0269215505cr920oa PubMed
58. ChiuTT, LamTH, HedleyAJ. A randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of exercise for patients with chronic neck pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(1):E1–7. Epub 2005/01/01. .15626966 PubMed
59. JavanshirK, AmiriM, Mohseni BandpeiMA, De las PenasCF, RezasoltaniA. The effect of different exercise programs on cervical flexor muscles dimensions in patients with chronic neck pain. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2015;28(4):833–40. Epub 2015/03/31. 10.3233/BMR-150593 .25812548 doi:10.3233/BMR-150593 PubMed
60. O'LearyS, FallaD, HodgesPW, JullG, VicenzinoB. Specific therapeutic exercise of the neck induces immediate local hypoalgesia. J Pain. 2007;8(11):832–9. Epub 2007/07/24. 10.1016/j.jpain.2007.05.014 .17644487 doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2007.05.014 PubMed
61. RudolfssonT, DjupsjobackaM, HagerC, BjorklundM. Effects of neck coordination exercise on sensorimotor function in chronic neck pain: a randomized controlled trial. J Rehabil Med. 2014;46(9):908–14. Epub 2014/09/04. 10.2340/16501977-1869 .25182501 doi:10.2340/16501977-1869 PubMed
62. YildizTI, TurgutE, DuzgunI. Neck and Scapula-Focused Exercise Training on Patients With Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Sport Rehabil. 2018;27(5):403–12. Epub 2017/06/13. 10.1123/jsr.2017-0024 .28605288 doi:10.1123/jsr.2017-0024 PubMed
63. BorisutS, VongsirinavaratM, VachalathitiR, SakulsriprasertP. Effects of strength and endurance training of superficial and deep neck muscles on muscle activities and pain levels of females with chronic neck pain. J Phys Ther Sci. 2013;25(9):1157–62. Epub 2013/11/22. 10.1589/jpts.25.1157 24259936PMC3818764 doi:10.1589/jpts.25.1157 PubMed
64. FallaD, LindstromR, RechterL, BoudreauS, PetzkeF. Effectiveness of an 8-week exercise programme on pain and specificity of neck muscle activity in patients with chronic neck pain: a randomized controlled study. European journal of pain (London, England). 2013;17(10):1517–28. Epub 2013/05/08. 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2013.00321.x .23649799 doi:10.1002/j.1532-2149.2013.00321.x PubMed
65. LiX, LinC, LiuC, KeS, WanQ, LuoH, et al Comparison of the effectiveness of resistance training in women with chronic computer-related neck pain: a randomized controlled study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2017;90(7):673–83. Epub 2017/05/22. 10.1007/s00420-017-1230-2 .28528354 doi:10.1007/s00420-017-1230-2 PubMed
66. ViljanenM, MalmivaaraA, UittiJ, RinneM, PalmroosP, LaippalaP. Effectiveness of dynamic muscle training, relaxation training, or ordinary activity for chronic neck pain: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2003;327(7413):475 Epub 2003/08/30. 10.1136/bmj.327.7413.475 12946968PMC188429 doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7413.475 PubMed
67. SuvarnnatoT, PuntumetakulR, UthaikhupS, BoucautR. Effect of specific deep cervical muscle exercises on functional disability, pain intensity, craniovertebral angle, and neck-muscle strength in chronic mechanical neck pain: a randomized controlled trial. J Pain Res. 2019;12:915–25. Epub 2019/03/19. 10.2147/JPR.S190125 30881101PMC6411318 doi:10.2147/JPR.S190125 PubMed
68. ShiraviS, LetafatkarA, BertozziL, PillastriniP, Khaleghi TazjiM. Efficacy of Abdominal Control Feedback and Scapula Stabilization Exercises in Participants With Forward Head, Round Shoulder Postures and Neck Movement Impairment. Sports Health. 2019;11(3):272–9. Epub 2019/04/24. 10.1177/1941738119835223 31013190PMC6537319 doi:10.1177/1941738119835223 PubMed
69. GuptaS, SharmaS, KatariaC. Craniocervical Flexors Endurance Training: Treatment Approach for Cervical Spondylosis. Indian Journal of Physiotherapy & Occupational Therapy. 2010;4(2):76–81.
70. GuptaBD, AggarwalS, GuptaB, GuptaM, GuptaN. Effect of Deep Cervical Flexor Training vs. Conventional Isometric Training on Forward Head Posture, Pain, Neck Disability Index In Dentists Suffering from Chronic Neck Pain. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;7(10):2261–4. Epub 2013/12/04. 10.7860/JCDR/2013/6072.3487 24298492PMC3843403 doi:10.7860/JCDR/2013/6072.3487 PubMed
71. HingarajiaDD, Sushant; Tejwani, Nishant. Effect of Deep Cranio-cervical Flexors Training Over Isometric Neck Exercises in Chronic Neck Pain and Disability. Indian Journal of Physiotherapy & Occupational Therapy. 2012;6(4):48–53. Some(104202540).
72. Gallego IzquierdoT, Pecos-MartinD, Lluch GirbesE, Plaza-ManzanoG, Rodriguez CaldenteyR, Mayor MelusR, et al Comparison of cranio-cervical flexion training versus cervical proprioception training in patients with chronic neck pain: A randomized controlled clinical trial. J Rehabil Med. 2016;48(1):48–55. Epub 2015/12/15. 10.2340/16501977-2034 .26659920 doi:10.2340/16501977-2034 PubMed
73. KaurA, MaliK, MitraM. To Compare the Immediate Effects of Active Cranio Cervical Flexion Exercise Versus Passive Mobilization of Upper Cervical Spine on Pain, Range of Motion and Cranio Cervical Flexion Test in Patients with Chronic Neck Pain. Indian Journal of Physiotherapy & Occupational Therapy. 2018;12(3):22–7.
74. KimJY, KwagKI. Clinical effects of deep cervical flexor muscle activation in patients with chronic neck pain. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28(1):269–73. Epub 2016/03/10. 10.1589/jpts.28.269 26957772PMC4756018 doi:10.1589/jpts.28.269 PubMed
75. LeeKW, KimWH. Effect of thoracic manipulation and deep craniocervical flexor training on pain, mobility, strength, and disability of the neck of patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain: a randomized clinical trial. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28(1):175–80. Epub 2016/03/10. 10.1589/jpts.28.175 26957752PMC4755998 doi:10.1589/jpts.28.175 PubMed
76. RandlovA, OstergaardM, MannicheC, KrygerP, JordanA, HeegaardS, et al Intensive dynamic training for females with chronic neck/shoulder pain. A randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 1998;12(3):200–10. Epub 1998/08/04. 10.1191/026921598666881319 .9688035 doi:10.1191/026921598666881319 PubMed
77. KhanM, SoomroRR, AliSS. The effectiveness of isometric exercises as compared to general exercises in the management of chronic non-specific neck pain. Pak J Pharm Sci. 2014;27(5 Suppl):1719–22. Epub 2014/09/30. .25262525 PubMed
78. UlugN, YilmazOT, KaraM, OzcakarL. Effects of Pilates and yoga in patients with chronic neck pain: A sonographic study. J Rehabil Med. 2018;50(1):80–5. Epub 2017/11/22. 10.2340/16501977-2288 .29160551 doi:10.2340/16501977-2288 PubMed
79. FallaD, FarinaD. Neuromuscular adaptation in experimental and clinical neck pain. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2008;18(2):255–61. Epub 2007/01/02. 10.1016/j.jelekin.2006.11.001 .17196826 doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2006.11.001 PubMed
80. FallaD, FarinaD. Neural and muscular factors associated with motor impairment in neck pain. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2007;9(6):497–502. Epub 2008/01/08. 10.1007/s11926-007-0080-4 .18177604 doi:10.1007/s11926-007-0080-4 PubMed
81. JullG, FallaD, TreleavenJ, O'LearyS, LewisJS. 5. Neuromuscular disturbances in neck pain disorders Management of Neck Pain Disorders: a research informed approach: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2018.
82. HaydenJA, van TulderMW, TomlinsonG. Systematic review: strategies for using exercise therapy to improve outcomes in chronic low back pain. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2005;142(9):776–86. Some(106475653). 10.7326/0003-4819-142-9-200505030-00014 15867410 doi:10.7326/0003-4819-142-9-200505030-00014 PubMed
83. IngwersenKG, ChristensenR, SorensenL, JorgensenHR, JensenSL, RasmussenS, et al Progressive high-load strength training compared with general low-load exercises in patients with rotator cuff tendinopathy: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial Trials. 2015;16(1):27 Epub 2015/01/28. 10.1186/s13063-014-0544-6 25622594PMC4318133 doi:10.1186/s13063-014-0544-6 PubMed
84. JanMH, LinJJ, LiauJJ, LinYF, LinDH. Investigation of clinical effects of high- and low-resistance training for patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2008;88(4):427–36. Epub 2008/01/26. 10.2522/ptj.20060300 .18218827 doi:10.2522/ptj.20060300 PubMed
85. LimkeJC, RainvilleJ, PenaE, ChildsL. Randomized trial comparing the effects of one set vs two sets of resistance exercises for outpatients with chronic low back pain and leg pain. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2008;44(4):399–405. Epub 2008/11/13. .19002089 PubMed
86. MosengT, DagfinrudH, SmedslundG, OsterasN. The importance of dose in land-based supervised exercise for people with hip osteoarthritis. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2017;25(10):1563–76. Epub 2017/06/27. 10.1016/j.joca.2017.06.004 .28648741 doi:10.1016/j.joca.2017.06.004 PubMed
87. OsterasB, OsterasH, TorstensenTA. Long-term effects of medical exercise therapy in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome: results from a single-blinded randomized controlled trial with 12 months follow-up. Physiotherapy. 2013;99(4):311–6. Epub 2013/06/15. 10.1016/j.physio.2013.04.001 .23764516 doi:10.1016/j.physio.2013.04.001 PubMed
88. OsterasH, PaulsbergF, OlsenSE, OsterasB, TorstensenTA. Effects of medical exercise therapy in patients with hip osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial with six months follow-up. A pilot study. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2017;21(2):284–9. Epub 2017/05/24. 10.1016/j.jbmt.2016.06.016 .28532870 doi:10.1016/j.jbmt.2016.06.016 PubMed
89. ØsteråsH, TorstensenTA, HaugerudL, ØsteråsBS. Dose–response effects of graded therapeutic exercises in patients with long-standing subacromial pain. Advances in Physiotherapy. 2009;11(4):199–209. 10.3109/14038190802239729 Some(105264007). doi:10.3109/14038190802239729
90. RainvilleJ, JouveCA, HartiganC, MartinezE, HiponaM. Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes for aggressive spine rehabilitation delivered two versus three times per week. Spine J. 2002;2(6):402–7. Epub 2003/11/01. 10.1016/s1529-9430(02)00462-x .14589260 doi:10.1016/s1529-9430(02)00462-x PubMed
91. PolaskiAM, PhelpsAL, KostekMC, SzucsKA, KolberBJ. Exercise-induced hypoalgesia: A meta-analysis of exercise dosing for the treatment of chronic pain. PLOS ONE. 2019;14(1):e0210418 10.1371/journal.pone.0210418 30625201PMC6326521 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0210418 PubMed
92. YamatoTP, MaherCG, SaragiottoBT, HoffmannTC, MoseleyAM. How completely are physiotherapy interventions described in reports of randomised trials? Physiotherapy. 2016;102(2):121–6. Epub 2016/04/02. 10.1016/j.physio.2016.03.001 .27033780 doi:10.1016/j.physio.2016.03.001 PubMed
93. WoodL, EggerM, GluudLL, SchulzKF, JuniP, AltmanDG, et al Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336(7644):601–5. Epub 2008/03/05. 10.1136/bmj.39465.451748.AD 18316340PMC2267990 doi:10.1136/bmj.39465.451748.AD PubMed
94. HrobjartssonA, EmanuelssonF, Skou ThomsenAS, HildenJ, BrorsonS. Bias due to lack of patient blinding in clinical trials. A systematic review of trials randomizing patients to blind and nonblind sub-studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(4):1272–83. Epub 2014/06/02. 10.1093/ije/dyu115 24881045PMC4258786 doi:10.1093/ije/dyu115 PubMed
95. DwanK, GambleC, WilliamsonPR, KirkhamJJ, Reporting BiasG. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias—an updated review. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e66844 Epub 2013/07/19. 10.1371/journal.pone.0066844 23861749PMC3702538 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066844 PubMed
96. AndersenCH, AndersenLL, GramB, PedersenMT, MortensenOS, ZebisMK, et al Influence of frequency and duration of strength training for effective management of neck and shoulder pain: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46(14):1004–10. Epub 2012/07/04. 10.1136/bjsports-2011-090813 22753863PMC3596862 doi:10.1136/bjsports-2011-090813 PubMed
97. DellveL, AhlstromL, JonssonA, SandsjoL, ForsmanM, LindegardA, et al Myofeedback training and intensive muscular strength training to decrease pain and improve work ability among female workers on long-term sick leave with neck pain: a randomized controlled trial. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2011;84(3):335–46. Epub 2010/08/31. 10.1007/s00420-010-0568-5 20803028PMC3037486 doi:10.1007/s00420-010-0568-5 PubMed
98. BlangstedAK, SogaardK, HansenEA, HannerzH, SjogaardG. One-year randomized controlled trial with different physical-activity programs to reduce musculoskeletal symptoms in the neck and shoulders among office workers. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2008;34(1):55–65. Epub 2008/04/23. 10.5271/sjweh.1192 .18427699 doi:10.5271/sjweh.1192 PubMed
99. AndersenLL, SaervollCA, MortensenOS, PoulsenOM, HannerzH, ZebisMK. Effectiveness of small daily amounts of progressive resistance training for frequent neck/shoulder pain: randomised controlled trial. Pain. 2011;152(2):440–6. Epub 2010/12/24. 10.1016/j.pain.2010.11.016 .21177034 doi:10.1016/j.pain.2010.11.016 PubMed
100. AndersenCH, AndersenLL, ZebisMK, SjogaardG. Effect of scapular function training on chronic pain in the neck/shoulder region: a randomized controlled trial. J Occup Rehabil. 2014;24(2):316–24. Epub 2013/07/09. 10.1007/s10926-013-9441-1 23832167PMC4000422 doi:10.1007/s10926-013-9441-1 PubMed
101. Martin-GomezC, Sestelo-DiazR, Carrillo-SanjuanV, Navarro-SantanaMJ, Bardon-RomeroJ, Plaza-ManzanoG. Motor control using cranio-cervical flexion exercises versus other treatments for non-specific chronic neck pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2019;42:52–9. Epub 2019/04/29. 10.1016/j.msksp.2019.04.010 .31030111 doi:10.1016/j.msksp.2019.04.010 PubMed
102. CraigP, DieppeP, MacintyreS, MichieS, NazarethI, PetticrewM. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance. London: Medical Research Council; 2019.