Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 335

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Conservative management of mechanical neck pain: systematic overview and meta-analysis

Open access
Aker, Peter D, Gross, Anita R, Goldsmith, Charles H, Peloso, Paul·1996·BMJ

Abstract

Objective : To review the efficacy of conservative management of mechanical neck disorders. Methods : Published and unpublished reports were identified through computerised and manual searches of bibliographical databases, reference lists from primary articles, and letters to authors, agencies, foundations, and content experts. Selection criteria were applied to blinded articles, and selected articles were scored for methodological quality. Effect sizes were calculated from raw pain scores and combined by using meta-analytic techniques when appropriate. Results : Twenty four randomised clinical trials met the selection criteria and were categorised by type of intervention: nine used manual treatments; 12 physical medicine methods; four drug treatment; and three education of patients (four trials investigated more than one form of intervention). The intervention strategies were summarised separately. Pooling of studies was considered only within each category. Five of the nine trials that used manual treatment in combination with other treatments were combined. One to four weeks after treatment the pooled effect size was −0.6 (95% confidence interval −0.9 to −0.4), equivalent to an improvement of 16 (6.9 to 23.1) points on a 100 point scale. Sensitivity analyses on study quality, chronicity, and data imputation did not alter this estimate. For other interventions, studies could not be combined to arrive at pooled estimates of effect. Conclusions : There is little information available from clinical trials to support many of the treatments for mechanical neck pain. In general, conservative interventions have not been studied in enough detail to assess efficacy or effectiveness adequately. Key messages: Many treatments are available and accepted as standard forms of practice Systematic literature searching finds a limited number of clinical trials There is early evidence to support the use of manual treatments in combination with other treatments for short term pain relief, but in general, conservative interventions have not been studied in enough detail to assess efficacy or effec- tiveness adequately Further clinical trials are needed to determine optimal treatment approaches

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 · 10.1136/bmj.313.7068.1291

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

See all 335

Metadata

Authors
Aker, P. D., Gross, A. R., Goldsmith, C. H., & Peloso, P.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1996-11-23
Volume
313
Issue
7068
Pages
1291-1296
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2087312159
Cited by
335
References
0
FWCI
4.80
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conservative management of mechanical neck pain: systematic overview and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.313.7068.1291
The paper
Aker, P. D., Gross, A. R., Goldsmith, C. H., & Peloso, P. (1996). Conservative management of mechanical neck pain: systematic overview and meta-analysis. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7068.1291

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.