• Marco Monticone, Emilia Ambrosini, Christine Cedraschi, Barbara Rocca, Roberta Fiorentini, Maddalena Restelli, Silvia Gianola, Simona Ferrante, Gustavo Zanoli, and Lorenzo Moja.
• *Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Unit, Scientific Institute of Lissone (Milan), Institute of Care and Research, Salvatore Maugeri Foundation, IRCCS, Lissone, Italy †Neuroengineering and Medical Robotics Laboratory, Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy ‡Multidisciplinary Pain Centre, Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology & Division of General Medical Rehabilitation, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland §Clinical Epidemiology Unit, IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopaedic Institute, Milan, Italy ¶Neuroengineering and Medical Robotics Laboratory, Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy ∥Casa di Cura SM Maddalena, University of Ferrara, Occhiobello (RO), Ferrara, Italy; and **Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy and Clinical Epidemiology Unit, IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopaedic Institute, Milan, Italy.
• Spine. 2015 Oct 1; 40 (19): 1495-504.

Study DesignSystematic review of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs).ObjectiveTo assess the effects of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) on neck pain (NP).Summary Of Background DataAlthough research on nonpharmacological and nonsurgical treatments for NP is progressing, there remains uncertainty about the efficacy of CBT.MethodsWe searched electronic databases for RCTs. We included RCTs assessing the use of CBT on adults with subacute and chronic NP. 2 independent reviewers extracted data on pain (primary outcome), disability, psychological indicator, and quality of life. We calculated standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. We used the Cochrane Collaboration's tool to assess risk of bias and the GRADE approach to evaluate the quality of evidence and summarize conclusions.ResultsWe included 10 studies (836 participants), 4 at low risk of bias. With regard to chronic NP, there was low quality evidence that CBT was better than no treatment for improving pain, disability, and quality of life, whereas no effect was found on kinesiophobia. The clinical importance of these benefits is uncertain. When comparing both CBT to other interventions and CBT in addition to another intervention to the other intervention alone, no difference was found for pain and disability, whereas a positive effect was achieved for kinesiophobia only when comparing CBT with other interventions. On subacute NP, CBT was found to be better than other interventions for pain, whereas no difference was found for secondary outcomes.ConclusionCBT was shown to induce changes on pain and disability for chronic NP only when compared with no treatment. On subacute NP, benefit was found on pain relief but not on disability when comparing CBT with other interventions. However, none of these effects were clinically meaningful. Due to the low quality of the evidence, our conclusions might change over time whereas new data are available.Level Of Evidence1.

15 keywords...

hide…