The annual incidence and course of neck pain in the general population: a population-based cohort study.

Institute for Work and Health, 481 University Avenue, Toronto, Ont., Canada M5G 2E9.
Pain (Impact Factor: 5.64). 01/2005; 112(3):267-73. DOI:10.1016/j.pain.2004.09.004
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although neck pain is a common source of disability, little is known about its incidence and course. We conducted a population-based cohort study of 1100 randomly selected Saskatchewan adults to determine the annual incidence of neck pain and describe its course. Subjects were initially surveyed by mail in September 1995 and followed-up 6 and 12 months later. The age and gender standardized annual incidence of neck pain is 14.6% (95% confidence interval: 11.3, 17.9). Each year, 0.6% (95% confidence interval: 0.0-1.1) of the population develops disabling neck pain. The annual rate of resolution of neck pain is 36.6% (95% confidence interval: 32.7, 40.5) and another 32.7% (95% confidence interval: 25.5, 39.9) report improvement. Among subjects with prevalent neck pain at baseline, 37.3% (95% confidence interval: 33.4, 41.2) report persistent problems and 9.9% (95% confidence interval: 7.4, 12.5) experience an aggravation during follow-up. Finally, 22.8% (95% confidence interval: 16.4, 29.3) of those with prevalent neck pain at baseline report a recurrent episode. Women are more likely than men to develop neck pain (incidence rate ratio=1.67, 95% confidence interval 1.08-2.60); more likely to suffer from persistent neck problems (incidence rate ratio=1.19, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.38) and less likely to experience resolution (incidence rate ratio=0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.63-0.88). Neck pain is a disabling condition with a course marked by periods of remission and exacerbation. Contrary to prior belief, most individuals with neck pain do not experience complete resolution of their symptoms and disability.

0 0
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since oxidative stress plays a pathogenetic role in chronic neck pain (CNP), we investigated whether a combination of α-lipoic acid (ALA) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) might improve pain control and the efficacy of physiotherapy ("multimodal therapy") in patients with CNP. This study was conducted in the Rehabilitation Unit of the Department of Surgical and Oncological Sciences at the University Policlinic in Palermo, Italy. This was a prospective, randomized, open study in outpatients. Patients randomly received either physiotherapy alone (group 2; n = 45) or a combination of ALA 600 mg and SOD 140 IU daily in addition to physiotherapy (group 1; n = 51), for 60 days. Pain was assessed by a visual analogue scale (VAS) and a modified Neck Pain Questionnaire (mNPQ). Treatment compliance and safety were also evaluated. Both groups experienced a significant reduction in the VAS and mNPQ scores after 1 month; however, while no further improvement was observed in group 2 at 60 days, group 1 showed a further VAS reduction (p < 0.001). In addition, in the mNPQ at 60 days, more patients in group 1 than in group 2 reported that their neck pain was improved (p < 0.01), and they showed greater compliance with prescribed physiotherapy (p = 0.048). No drug reaction was observed. Use of ALA/SOD in combination with physiotherapy may be a useful approach to CNP, being antioxidants that act on nerve inflammation and disease progression. These preliminary observations suggest that some interesting goals (better pain control and physical wellbeing) can be achieved by multimodal therapy in CNP patients.
    Drugs in R&D. 01/2014;
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Our purpose was to compare the effectiveness of three manual therapy techniques: high velocity, low amplitude (HVLA), mobilization (Mob) and sustained natural apophyseal glide (SNAG) in patients with chronic neck pain (CNP). The randomized controlled trial included patients with mechanically reproducible CNP, who were randomized to the treatment group. Outcome measures were the Visual Analogue scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), Global Rating of Change (GROC) and Cervical Range of Motion (CROM). Two-way repeated measures analysis of variance compared outcomes at baseline, at the end of treatment and 1, 2 and 3 months after treatment. A total of 51 subjects completed the trial. No significant differences were found between HVLA, Mob and SNAG at the end of treatment and during the follow-up in any of the analysed outcomes. There were no differences in satisfaction for all techniques. The results lead to the conclusion that there is no long-term difference between the application of HVLA, Mob and SNAG in pain, disability and cervical range of motion for patients with CNP.
    Manual therapy 01/2014; Available online. · 2.32 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Cervical functional capacity outcome measures that are simple and reliable are urgently needed in order permit accurate assessment/reassessment during treatments and rehabilitation. Induced neck muscle fatigue has been shown to alter functional capacities such as balance and kinaesthetic sense in the standing posture. The Rod and Frame Test has also shown promise as a method of assessing the effects of chronic neck pain and injury, but currently only in the sitting position. The objectives of this project were therefore 1) to validate the computerised rod and frame test in the standing posture, and 2) to measure the effects that different cervical muscle fatigue protocol would have on the assessment of the subjective visual vertical and horizontal. METHOD:The validation of the standing computerised rod and frame test in the standing posture was obtained by comparing results (n = 74) between the sitting and standing positions with the Spearman's correlation coefficient. In addition, agreement between the two methods was analysed with the Bland-Altman method.Participants (n = 56) resisted with their neck muscles approximately 35% maximum isometric voluntary contraction force for 15 minutes on a purpose built apparatus in eight different directions. Wilcoxon signed rank tests analysed changes in horizontal and vertical rod and frame test between the neutral and all different directions of contraction. The changes of recorded unsigned vertical and horizontal errors for the combined frame condition in all situations of isometric contraction were analysed with two respective one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). DISCUSSION:The Spearman's rho and Bland-Altman plots show that the Rod and Frame Test works equally well in sitting and standing positions.After muscle contraction, there were significant increases in error in all participants for both horizontal and vertical rod and frame tests, except after flexion. These errors were predominantly present after fatigue of muscles in the coronal plane of contraction. Proprioception alone cannot explain the difference in the rod and frame results between different muscle groups. It is suggested that an evolutionary advantage of developing improved subjective verticality awareness in the same direction as the main visual field could explain these findings.
    SpringerPlus 02/2014; 3(1):78.


Available from
May 15, 2012