Objective: To compare the effectiveness of different physical exercise interventions for chronic non-specific neck pain. Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources: Electronic databases: AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, MEDLINE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, PsycINFO, Scopus and SPORTDiscus. Eligibility criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) describing the effects of any physical exercise intervention in adults with chronic non-specific neck pain. Results: The search returned 6549 records, 40 studies were included. Two networks of pairwise comparisons were constructed, one for pain intensity (n=38 RCTs, n=3151 participants) and one for disability (n=29 RCTs, n=2336 participants), and direct and indirect evidence was obtained. Compared with no treatment, three exercise interventions were found to be effective for pain and disability: motor control (Hedges’ g, pain −1.32, 95% CI: −1.99 to −0.65; disability −0.87, 95% CI: –1.45 o −0.29), yoga/Pilates/Tai Chi/Qigong (pain −1.25, 95% CI: –1.85 to −0.65; disability –1.16, 95% CI: –1.75 to −0.57) and strengthening (pain –1.21, 95% CI: –1.63 to −0.78; disability –0.75, 95% CI: –1.28 to −0.22). Other interventions, including range of motion (pain −0.98 CI: −2.51 to 0.56), balance (pain −0.38, 95% CI: −2.10 to 1.33) and multimodal (three or more exercises types combined) (pain −0.08, 95% CI: −1.70 to 1.53) exercises showed uncertain or negligible effects. The quality of evidence was very low according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. Conclusion: There is not one superior type of physical exercise for people with chronic non-specific neck pain. Rather, there is very low quality evidence that motor control, yoga/Pilates/Tai Chi/Qigong and strengthening exercises are equally effective. These findings may assist clinicians to select exercises for people with chronic non-specific neck pain. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019126523.

(1) To identify reported tests used to assess sensorimotor control in individuals with idiopathic neck pain and (2) to investigate whether these tests can quantify differences between individuals with idiopathic neck pain and healthy individuals. Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, MEDLINE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus. Studies reporting sensorimotor outcomes in individuals with idiopathic neck pain or healthy individuals were identified. There were 1,677 records screened independently by 2 researchers for eligibility: 43 studies were included in the review, with 30 of these studies included in the meta-analysis. Methodologic quality was determined using the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Data were extracted using a standardized extraction table. Sensorimotor control was most commonly assessed by joint position error and postural sway. Pooled means for joint position error after cervical rotation in individuals with neck pain (range, 2.2°-9.8°) differed significantly (P=.04) compared with healthy individuals (range, 1.66°-5.1°). Postural sway with eyes open ranged from 4.85 to 10.5cm2 (neck pain) and 3.5 to 6.6cm2 (healthy) (P=.16), and postural sway with eyes closed ranged from 2.51 to 16.6cm2 (neck pain) and 2.74 to 10.9cm2 (healthy) (P=.30). Individual studies, but not meta-analysis, demonstrated differences between neck pain and healthy groups for postural sway. Other test conditions and other tests were not sufficiently investigated to enable pooling of data. The findings from this review suggest sensorimotor control testing may be clinically useful in individuals with idiopathic neck pain. However, results should be interpreted with caution because clinical differences were small; therefore, further cross-sectional research with larger samples is needed to determine the magnitude of the relation between sensorimotor control and pain and to assess any potential clinical significance.

Objective: To identify and synthesize patient-related barriers to and enablers of the implementation of high-value physiotherapy (HVP) for chronic pain. Furthermore, to review what patient-related interventions have been used to facilitate the implementation of HVP for chronic pain, as well as their efficacy. Methods: We systematically searched the APA PsycInfo, Embase, CINAHL, Medline, Scopus, and PEDro databases for peer-reviewed studies (published in English) of adults with chronic pain. We used the Theoretical Domains Framework of behavior change to synthesize identified themes relating to barriers and enablers. Outcomes from studies reporting on interventions were also qualitatively synthesized. Results: Fourteen studies reported on barriers and enablers, 8 of which related to exercise adherence. Themes common to barriers and enablers included perceived efficacy of treatment, interrelationship with the physiotherapist, exercise burden, and the patient’s understanding of exercise benefits. Other barriers included fear of movement, fragmented care, and cost. Ten studies explored interventions, 9 of which aimed to improve exercise adherence. Of these, evidence from 4 randomized controlled trials of technology-based interventions demonstrated improved exercise adherence among intervention groups compared with controls. Conclusion: Patients with chronic pain experience barriers to HVP, including their beliefs, the nature of their interaction with their physiotherapist, perceived treatment efficacy, and cost. Enablers include rapport with their physiotherapist, achievable exercises, and seamless cost-effective care. Technology-based interventions have demonstrated effectiveness at increasing exercise adherence. Our findings suggest that interventions seeking to enhance implementation of HVP need to consider the multifactorial barriers experienced by patients with chronic pain. Study registration: Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/AYGZV).

Objective Primary objectives: to investigate the central neurobiological effects (using MRI) of physical exercise in individuals with chronic pain. Secondary objectives: (1) to investigate the associations between central changes and clinical outcomes and (2) to investigate whether different types and dosages of physical exercise exert different central changes. Design Systematic review searching four electronic databases up to September 2018: AMED, CINAHL, Embase and MEDLINE. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies-I tool. A standardised extraction table was used for data extraction, which was performed by two reviewers. Interventions Studies reporting any physical exercise intervention in any chronic musculoskeletal pain condition were included. Eligibility of 4011 records was screened independently by two reviewers, and four studies were included in the review. Primary and secondary outcome measures Primary outcome: any brain outcome assessed with any MR technique. Secondary outcomes: any self-reported clinical outcomes, and type and dosage of the exercise intervention. Results All four studies had high risk of bias. There was heterogeneity between the brain areas studied and the types of exercise interventions delivered. All studies reported functional MRI changes in various brain areas following an exercise intervention. Insufficient data were available to conduct a meta-analysis or to answer the secondary aims. Conclusions Only a limited number of studies were available and all were at high risk of bias. None of the studies was randomised or included blinded assessment. Exercise may exert effects on brain neurobiology in people with chronic pain. Due to the high risk of bias, future studies should use a randomised study design. Investigation of morphological brain changes could be included. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018108179.