Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 533

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The clinical course and prognostic factors of non-specific neck pain: a systematic review

Open access
Borghouts, Jeroen A.J, Koes, Bart W, Bouter, Lex M·1998·Pain
DOI 10.1016/s0304-3959(98)00058-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Neck pain occurs frequently in western societies. In the majority of cases, no specific cause can be identified. In order to gain insight into the clinical course and prognostic factors of non-specific neck pain, a systematic review was conducted. A computerized literature search was carried out to identify observational studies on non-specific neck pain and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on conservative treatment of non-specific neck pain. Two reviewers scored independently, the methodological quality of all identified publications, using a standardized set of 13 criteria which were divided into five categories according to: study population, study design, follow-up, outcome measures and analysis/data presentation. To determine prognosis per study, an overall percentage of recovery for the most important outcome measures (pain, general improvement, functional status, health care utilization and lost days of work) was calculated. In total 23 eligible publications were identified (six observational studies and 17 RCTs). Only seven of 23 studies scored 50% or more of the 13 items, indicating a generally poor quality of methods. The most prevalent methodological shortcomings appeared to be selection of the study population, the sample size and analysis techniques. Most information regarding the clinical course is available for the group of patients with complaints for more than 6 months, who are treated in a secondary care or an occupational setting. In this group of patients, 46% (median) had less pain, with a range of 22-79% and a general improvement that ranged between 37 and 95% (47% median). The reduction in the use of analgesics ranged between 32 and 80% (37% median). Six studies reported on prognostic factors. Bearing in mind the limited number of studies and the low methodological quality, there are some indications that the localization (radiation to the arms/neurologic signs) and radiologic findings (degenerative changes in the discs and joints) are not associated with a worse prognosis. A higher severity of pain and a history of previous attacks however, seems to be associated with a worse prognosis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0304-3959(98)00058-x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Borghouts, J. A. J., Koes, B. W., & Bouter, L. M.
Venue
Pain
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1998-07
Volume
77
Issue
1
Pages
1-13
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0304-3959(98)00058-x
OpenAlex
W2126795164
Cited by
533
References
0
FWCI
1.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.