The effectiveness of conservative treatment for patients with cervical radiculopathy:a systematic review

Objectives:The aim of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of conservative treatments for patients with cervical radiculopathy, a term used to describe neck pain associated with pain radiating into the arm. Little is known about the effectiveness of conservative treatment for patients with cervical radiculopathy.Methods:We electronically searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL for randomized clinical trials. Conservative therapies consisted of physiotherapy, collar, traction etc. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group and extracted the data. If studies were clinically homogenous, a meta-analysis was performed. The overall quality of the body of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE method.Results:Fifteen articles were included that corresponded to 11 studies. Two studies scored low risk of bias. There is low-level evidence that a collar is no more effective than physiotherapy at short-term follow-up and very low-level evidence that a collar is no more effective than traction. There is low-level evidence that traction is no more effective than placebo traction and very low level-evidence that intermittent traction is no more effective than continuous traction.Discussion:On the basis of low-level to very low-level evidence, no 1 intervention seems to be superior or consistently more effective than other interventions. Regardless of the intervention assignment, patients seem to improve over time, indicating a favorable natural course. Use of a collar and physiotherapy show promising results at short-term follow-up

Carrier Wave Signals Interfering with Loran-C

Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Scienc

Lack of uniform diagnostic criteria for cervical radiculopathy in conservative intervention studies: a systematic review

PURPOSE: Cervical radiculopathy (CR) is a common diagnosis. It is unclear if intervention studies use uniform definitions and criteria for patient selection. Our objective was to assess the uniformity of diagnostic criteria and definitions used in intervention studies to select patients with CR. METHODS: We electronically searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Studies were included when evaluating conservative interventions in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in patients with CR. Selection criteria and definitions for patients with CR were extracted and evaluated on their uniformity. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs were included. Pain was used as an inclusion criterion in 11 studies. Inclusion based on the duration and location of pain varied between studies. Five studies used sensory symptoms in the arm as inclusion criterion. Four studies used cervical range of motion and motor disturbances as inclusion criteria, while reflex changes were used in two studies. Three studies included patients with a positive Spurling's test and two studies used it within a cluster of provocation tests. CONCLUSIONS: Criteria used to select patients with CR vary widely between different intervention studies. Selection criteria and test methods used are poorly described. There is consensus on the presence of pain, but not on the exact location of pain