3.8 Review

Motor control exercise for persistent nonspecific neck pain

Journal

PHYSICAL THERAPY REVIEWS
Volume 15, Issue 2, Pages 84-91

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1179/174328810X12719009060308

Keywords

Neck pain; Motor control; Therapeutic exercise

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Neck pain is common and results in considerable economic burden. Deficits in motor control of the deep neck muscles are well documented in those with neck pain. The efficacy of strengthening exercises for individuals with neck pain has been established; however, it is unclear if motor control exercises offer a similar benefit. Objectives: The purpose of this manuscript is to systematically review the literature for randomized controlled trials that evaluate the outcomes for motor control exercise interventions in those with persistent neck pain. Methods: A computerized electronic search was performed to locate articles. Inclusion criteria consisted of studies that were randomized controlled trials, appeared in a peer reviewed journal, published in the English language, identified neck pain as the primary treatment focus, identified motor control exercise of the neck as the primary treatment in at least one group and included subjects who had had neck pain for 6 weeks. Two reviewers independently reviewed the articles for eligibility and results were crossreferenced. Results: The initial search of the electronic database revealed a total of 684 articles and hand searching of the reference lists revealed an additional two. Of those, 30 were selected as potentially meeting the inclusion criteria. Ultimately four articles were retained for final inclusion. Conclusions: The addition of motor control exercise to an exercise programme does not appear to be more effective than a standard exercise programme. Motor control exercise however was demonstrated to be superior to passive treatments alone.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available