Objective To systematically evaluate effectiveness and safety of nerve block therapy for neck pain. Methods Databases including CENTRAL, PubMed, Ovid, ISI, EBSCO, CBM and CNKI were searched from the date of their establishment to November 2011, and relevant references were also retrieved manually to collect both domestic and abroad randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about nerve block therapy for neck pain. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two researchers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the included studies. Then the meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.0 software. Results A total of 10 studies involving 625 participants were included. The results of qualitative analysis showed that: a) The short-term effectiveness of the nerve block therapy group was markedly superior to the placebo group, the cognitive therapy group and the transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) group; and b) The short-term effectiveness of the combined nerve block therapy was markedly superior to the single nerve block therapy. The results of meta-analysis demonstrated that: a) There was no significant difference between the greater occipital nerve (GON) block group and the C2/3 nerve block group in neither short-term (SMD=−0.13, 95%CI −0.58 to 0.32, P=0.58) nor medium-term effectiveness (SMD=−0.01, 95%CI −0.46 to 0.44, P=0.98); and b): There was no significant difference between the injection with steroids group and the injection without steroids group in both short-term (SMD=0.16, 95%CI −0.13 to 0.44, P=0.28) and long-term effectiveness (SMD=0.27, 95%CI −0.02 to 0.55, P=0.07). Conclusion Current evidence shows nerve block therapy for neck pain is safe and especially good in short-term effectiveness. The combined nerve block therapy is probably more effective, but the effectiveness is not obviously improved by injection with or without steroids, and by different block methods. Due to the limitation of quality, quantity and total sample size of the included studies, this conclusion still needs to be proved by conducting more high quality and large scale studies.
ObjectivesTo overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of effectiveness and safety of spinal manipulation for low back pain or neck pain. MethodsWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2015), CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP to collect SRs/MAs of spinal manipulation for low back pain or neck pain from inception to January 30th, 2015. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and then AMSTAR tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included SRs/MAs. ResultsA total of 21 SRs/MAs were included. Twenty of them assessed the methodological quality of included original randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with different tools:2 used Jadad scale, 5 used PEDro scale, 6 used Cochrane bias risk assessment tool and 7 used other tools. The assessment results of AMSTAR tool suggested that:among 11 items, the item 1 of "Was an ‘a priori’ design provided" (18 SRs/MAs did not provide) and item 4 of "Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided" (18 SRs/MAs did not provide) appeared to be the most problematic, followed by item 10 of "Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed" (14 SRs/MAs did not assess the publication bias) and item 11 of "Was the conflict of interest stated" (14 SRs/MAs did not provide the conflict of interest and 4 were incomplete). ConclusionThe methodological quality of included SRs/MAs is poor. The limited evidence showed that spinal manipulation is more effective for acute low back pain than chronic low back pain, and the short term effect is better than the long term one. Different spinal manipulation techniques have various effects but are all safe. Chiropractic manipulation may have the best effect. Due to the limitation of quality and quantity of included SRs/MAs, there may be potential bias in the above conclusion that needs more high quality studies to verify.