A description of the methodology used in an overview of reviews to evaluate evidence on the treatment, harms, diagnosis/ classification, prognosis and outcomes used in the management of neck pain

Simple item page
aut.relation.endpage472
aut.relation.issueSuppl 4: M2
aut.relation.pages11
aut.relation.startpage461
aut.relation.volume7
aut.researcherReid, Duncan Arthur
dc.contributor.authorSantaguida, L
dc.contributor.authorKeshavarz, H
dc.contributor.authorCarlesso, L
dc.contributor.authorLomoton, M
dc.contributor.authorGross, A
dc.contributor.authorMacDermid, J
dc.contributor.authorWalton, D
dc.contributor.authorReid, Duncan Arthur
dc.date.accessioned2013-12-01T19:36:22Z
dc.date.available2013-12-01T19:36:22Z
dc.date.copyright2013
dc.date.issued2013
dc.description.abstractBackground: Neck Pain (NP) is a common musculoskeletal disorder and the literature provides conflicting evidence about its management. Objective: To describe the methodology used to conduct an overview of reviews (OvR) and to characterize the distribution and risk of bias profiles across the evidence for all areas of NP management. Methods: Standard systematic review (SR) methodology was employed. MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ILC, Cochrane CENTRAL, and LILACS were searched from 2000 to March 2012; Narrative and SR and clinical practice guidelines (CPG) evaluating the efficacy of treatment (benefits and harms), diagnosis/classification, prognosis, and outcomes were eligible. For treatment, articles were limited to SRs from 2005 forward. Risk of bias of SR was assessed with the AMSTAR; the AGREE II was used to critically appraise the CPGs. Results: From 2476 articles, 508 were eligible for full text screening. A total of 341 articles were included. Treatment (n=117) had the greatest yield. Other clinical areas had less literature (diagnosis=54, prognosis=16, outcomes=27, harms=16). There were no SR for classification and narrative reviews were problematic for this topic. There was great overlap across different databases within each clinical area except for those for outcome measures. Risk of bias assessment using the AMSTAR of eligible SRs showed a similar trend across different clinical areas. Conclusion: A summary of methods used to review the literature in five clinical areas of NP management have been described. The challenges of selecting and synthesizing eligible articles in an OvR required customized solutions across different areas of clinical focus.
dc.identifier.citationOpen Orthopaedics, vol.7(Suppl 4: M2), pp.461 - 472 (11)
dc.identifier.doi10.2174/1874325001307010461
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10292/6043
dc.publisherBentham Open
dc.rightsFor authors of Bentham Open there is no restriction to authors for self-archiving of pre-refereeing preprints nor refereed postprints. The same applies for all authors who opt to publish their articles as open access for Bentham Science Publishers journals, in which case the publisher's version/PDF of the published article can be used for self-archiving.
dc.rights.accessrightsOpenAccess
dc.subjectEvidence syntheses
dc.subjectOverview of reviews
dc.subjectNeck pain
dc.titleA description of the methodology used in an overview of reviews to evaluate evidence on the treatment, harms, diagnosis/ classification, prognosis and outcomes used in the management of neck pain
dc.typeJournal Article
pubs.elements-id157622
pubs.organisational-data/AUT
pubs.organisational-data/AUT/Health & Environmental Science
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Reid-Methodology.pdf
Size:
1.03 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
licence.htm
Size:
30.34 KB
Format:
Unknown data format
Description:
Download
Collections
School of Clinical Sciences - Te Kura Mātai Haumanu