Clinical assessment of cervical movement sense in those with neck pain compared to asymptomatic individuals

Ernst, Markus; Williams, Lauren; Werner, Isabelle M; Crawford, Rebecca; Treleaven, Julia

doi:10.1016/j.msksp.2019.06.006

Cited by 14 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(42 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Another source of confounding was an insufficient control of further movement task specifications, such as speed, or displacement. Only five studies gave sufficient information for these RoB items [60,75,76,78,79]. One study [70] mentioned that the statistician was not blinded, none of the other studies reported on blinding of outcome assessors or statisticians.…”

Section: Methodological Quality Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All 27 included studies were cross-sectional studies, with sample sizes ranging from 20 to 167. Nine studies reported on INP exclusively [58,59,63,66,67,71,72,78,79], eight studies on WAD only [57, 61, 64, 68-70, 77, 80], six studies assessed outcomes for WAD and INP separately [60,62,65,75,76,81], while another four studies reported on unclassified NP [73,74,82,83]. Eight studies, that included patients after WAD [60,69,70,[73][74][75][76][77] did not report on a specific grade according to the Quebec Task classification [84], while another eight studies included patients after WAD grade I [61,62,64,65,68,81], grade II [57,61,62,64,65,68,80,81], or grade III [57,61].…”

Section: Publications and Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During head-aiming tasks, participants wore a headmounted device that projected a visible point on a screen or wall in front of them. They controlled the position of that signal by moving their head either accurately along a trajectory (tracking) [59,60,64,65,67,68,70,[73][74][75]81], or towards a target point (pointing) [58,61,63,[73][74][75]. Three studies examined head kinematics while participants performed functional tasks, such as driving in a simulator, catching a ball, or lifting a weight [62,77,79].…”

Section: Movement Tasks Examined In Included Studies (Table 5)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Head kinematics in patients with neck pain compared to asymptomatic controls: a systematic review

Franov

Straub

Bauer

et al. 2022

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Neck pain is one of the most common musculoskeletal disorders encountered by healthcare providers. A precise assessment of functional deficits, including sensorimotor control impairment, is regarded necessary for tailored exercise programmes. Sensorimotor control can be measured by kinematic characteristics, such as velocity, acceleration, smoothness, and temporal measures, or by assessing movement accuracy. This systematic review aims to identify movement tasks and distinct outcome variables used to measure kinematics and movement accuracy in patients with neck pain and present their results in comparison to asymptomatic controls. Methods Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, PEDro, Cochrane Library and CINAHL databases from inception to August 2020. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed. Movement tasks and specific outcome parameters used were collated. The level of evidence for potential group differences in each outcome variable between patients with neck pain and controls was evaluated. Results Twenty-seven studies examining head kinematics and movement accuracy during head-aiming, functional and unconstrained movement tasks of the head were included. Average Risk of Bias of included studies was moderate. In total, 23 different outcome variables were assessed. A strong level of evidence for an increased movement time and for an increased number of errors during head aiming tasks was found. Moderate evidence was found in traumatic neck pain for a decreased mean velocity, peak acceleration, and reaction time, and for point deviation and time on target during head aiming tasks. Moderate evidence was found for decreased acceleration during unconstrained movements, too. Results on the remaining movement task and outcome variables showed only limited, very limited or even conflicting level of evidence for patients with neck pain to differ from controls. Conclusions Sensorimotor control in NP in the way of kinematic and movement accuracy characteristics of head motion was examined in head aiming, functional or unconstrained movement tasks. The results from this review indicate that for some characteristics that describe sensorimotor control, patients with NP differ from healthy controls. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020139083.

show abstract

Section: Methodological Quality Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Publications and Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Movement Tasks Examined In Included Studies (Table 5)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Head kinematics in patients with neck pain compared to asymptomatic controls: a systematic review

Franov

Straub

Bauer

et al. 2022

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In terms of stiffness for example, it has been suggested that any increased variability observed in this group would be the result of a decrease in proprioceptive input 39 . Other studies agree, having shown that neck pain patients appear to have an increase in irregular and uncoordinated global movements 40 – 43 which are theorised to result from alterations to the sensory motor processing in the neck, but may also be influenced by discomfort avoidance. Such findings have been shown to persist even at long term follow up, suggesting a persisting adaptive MC strategy 42 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Novel assessment of the variation in cervical inter-vertebral motor control in a healthy pain-free population

Lindstrøm

Breen

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spinal control at intervertebral levels is dependent on interactions between the active, passive and neural control elements. However, this has never been quantifiable, and has therefore been outside the reach of clinical assessments and research. This study used fluoroscopy during repeated unconstrained flexion and return neck movements to calculate intersegmental motor control (MC), defined as the difference and variation in repeated continuous angular motion from its average path. The study aimed to determine control values for MC at individual levels and its variability. Twenty male volunteers aged 19–29 received fluoroscopic screening of their cervical spines during 4 repetitions of neutral to full flexion and return motion. Moving vertebral images from C0–C1 to C6–C7 were tracked using cross-correlation codes written in Matlab. MC for each level was defined as the mean of the absolute differences between each repetition’s angular path and their mean and its variability as represented by the SD. 1-way ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparisons were used to identify significant contrasts between levels. The mean MC differences and SDs were highest at C1-2, suggesting that this level has the least control and the most variability. Results at this level alone were highly significant (F-ratio 10.88 and 9.79 P < 0.0001). Significant contrasts were only found between C1-C2 and all other levels. The mean MC difference for summed C1-6 levels was 3.4° (0.7–6.1). This study is the first to quantify intervertebral MC in the cervical spine in asymptomatic people. Studies of neck pain patients are now merited.

show abstract

“…acceptance for the assessment of cervical proprioception as they are affordable, easily applicable and non-invasive measurement tools for assessing cervical proprioception. Laser beam devices have been used in a number of different methods for the assessment of cervical proprioception including zig-zag (Ernst et al, 2019), figure of eight (Ernst et al, 2019;Gonçalves & Silva, 2019) and head repositioning tests (Revel et al, 1991). Head repositioning tests remain the most popular and can be divided into head-toneutral tests where the patients are asked to reposition their head to neutral and head-to-target tests where the patients are asked to reposition their head in a predetermined nonneutral head position (Alahmari et al, 2017;Cheng et al, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of a laser beam device for the assessment of head repositioning accuracy in patients with chronic neck pain

Makrogkikas¹,

Ntenezakos²,

Koumantakis³

et al. 2021

Acta Gymnica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical assessment of cervical movement sense in those with neck pain compared to asymptomatic individuals

Cited by 14 publications

References 34 publications

Head kinematics in patients with neck pain compared to asymptomatic controls: a systematic review

Head kinematics in patients with neck pain compared to asymptomatic controls: a systematic review

Novel assessment of the variation in cervical inter-vertebral motor control in a healthy pain-free population

Reliability of a laser beam device for the assessment of head repositioning accuracy in patients with chronic neck pain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About