دورية أكاديمية
Cognitive-behavioural treatment for subacute and chronic neck pain
| العنوان: | Cognitive-behavioural treatment for subacute and chronic neck pain |
|---|---|
| المؤلفون: | MONTICONE, MARCO, Cedraschi, C, Ambrosini, E, Rocca, B, Fiorentini, R, Restelli, M, Gianola, S, Ferrante, S, Zanoli, G, Moja, L. |
| المساهمون: | Monticone, Marco, Cedraschi, C, Ambrosini, E, Rocca, B, Fiorentini, R, Restelli, M, Gianola, S, Ferrante, S, Zanoli, G, Moja, L. |
| سنة النشر: | 2015 |
| المجموعة: | Università degli Studi di Cagliari: UNICA IRIS |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: | Acute pain, Chronic pain, Cognitive therapy, Humans, Neck pain, Pain management, Randomized controlled trials as topic, Selection bias, Medicine (all) |
| الوصف: | BACKGROUND: Although research on non-surgical treatments for neck pain (NP) is progressing, there remains uncertainty about the efficacy of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for this population. Addressing cognitive and behavioural factors might reduce the clinical burden and the costs of NP in society.OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of CBT among individuals with subacute and chronic NP. Specifically, the following comparisons were investigated: (1) cognitive-behavioural therapy versus placebo, no treatment, or waiting list controls; (2) cognitive-behavioural therapy versus other types of interventions; (3) cognitive-behavioural therapy in addition to another intervention (e.g. physiotherapy) versus the other intervention alone.SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to November 2014. Reference lists and citations of identified trials and relevant systematic reviews were screened.SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the use of CBT in adults with subacute and chronic NP.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in each study and extracted the data. If sufficient homogeneity existed among studies in the pre-defined comparisons, a meta-analysis was performed. We determined the quality of the evidence for each comparison with the GRADE approach.MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 randomised trials (836 participants) in this review. Four trials (40%) had low risk of bias, the remaining 60% of trials had a high risk of bias.The quality of the evidence for the effects of CBT on patients with chronic NP was from very low to moderate. There was low quality evidence that CBT was better than no treatment for improving pain (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to -0.16), disability (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.01), and ... |
| نوع الوثيقة: | article in journal/newspaper |
| اللغة: | English |
| العلاقة: | info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pmid/26006174; info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/wos/WOS:000355993600050; volume:5; firstpage:CD010664; numberofpages:92; journal:COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS; http://hdl.handle.net/11584/163903Test; info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/scopus/2-s2.0-84941930279 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/14651858.CD010664.pub2 |
| الإتاحة: | https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010664.pub2Test http://hdl.handle.net/11584/163903Test |
| حقوق: | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| رقم الانضمام: | edsbas.CBA1C78 |
| قاعدة البيانات: | BASE |
| DOI: | 10.1002/14651858.CD010664.pub2 |
|---|