Incomplete reporting of manual therapy interventions and a lack of clinician and setting diversity in clinical trials for neck pain limits replication and real-world translation. A scoping review.

Autor:	Leech JB; Doctor of Science in Physical Therapy, Bellin College, Green Bay, WI, USA.; Doctor of Physical Therapy Program, College of Rehabilitative Sciences, the University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences, Austin, TX, USA., Owen WE; Doctor of Science in Physical Therapy, Bellin College, Green Bay, WI, USA., Young JL; Doctor of Science in Physical Therapy, Bellin College, Green Bay, WI, USA., Rhon DI; Doctor of Science in Physical Therapy, Bellin College, Green Bay, WI, USA.; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, TX, USA.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy [J Man Manip Ther] 2023 Jun; Vol. 31 (3), pp. 153-161. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Sep 01.
DOI:	10.1080/10669817.2022.2113295
Abstrakt:	Introduction: Neck pain is a leading cause of disability, and manual therapy (MT) is a common intervention used across disciplines and settings to treat it. While there is consistent support for MT in managing neck pain, questions remain about the feasibility of incorporating MT from research into clinical practice. The purpose of this scoping review was to assess the adequacy of MT intervention descriptions and the variability in clinician and setting for MT delivery in trials for neck pain. Methods: Medline (via PubMed), CINAHL, PEDRo, and the Cochrane Central Registry for Controlled Trials were searched for clinical trials published from January 2010 to November 2021. A 11-item tool modified from the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template was used to assess appropriateness of intervention reporting. Clinicians, subclassifications of neck pain, and clinical settings were also extracted. Results: 113 trials were included. A low percentage of studies provided the recommended level of detail in the description of how MT was delivered (4.4%), while 39.0% included no description at all. Just over half of trials included clinician's qualifications (58.4%), dose of MT (59.3%), and occurrence of adverse events (55.8%). The proportion of trials with clinicians delivering MT were physical therapists (77.9%), chiropractors (10.6%), and osteopaths (2.7%). Discussion/conclusion: These results reveal incomplete reporting of essential treatment parameters, and a lack of clinician diversity. To foster reproducibility, researchers should report detailed descriptions of MT interventions. Future research should incorporate a variety of MT practitioners to improve generalizability.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu