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

ABSTRACT

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.

KEYWORDS:

• Neck pain
• manual therapy
• mobilization
• manipulation

View correction statement:

Correction

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2022.2113295

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.