Comparing the Effectiveness of Patient-tailored Treatment Versus Non Patient-tailored Treatment in Patients With Acute and Subacute Idiopathic Neck Pain

Non-specific neck pain (NSNP) is a widespread health problems and a major cause of pain and disability. This condition is complex, disabling and has a heterogeneous presentation, which makes NSNP difficult to treat. Currently, the best evidence supports combining different forms of manual therapy (mobilizations, manipulations and manual muscle techniques), and exercises. Yet, identifying the most effective treatment characteristics and dosages remain challenging. Central in the debate about best practice management of NSNP and NSLBP is the efficacy of tailored versus generic (non-tailored) treatment. To date, sufficient evidence for the application of specific physiotherapy modalities or therapy aiming at specific NSNP subgroups is lacking. Although more research has already been conducted for the lumbar spine, there is an ongoing quest to identify relevant subgroups and provide patients with an assessment-driven targeted intervention to achieve meaningful and long-lasting changes.

Attempts have been made to identify relevant and homogeneous subgroups for patients with NSNP. Several classification systems have been proposed, based on (1) prognosis or (2) the underlying mechanism(s) driving the disorder: (2a) pain mechanisms, (2b) features of movement/posture/muscle activation , and (2c) pathology/diagnosis. The main goal of subgrouping patients is to enhance treatment efficiency. Nevertheless, a profound clinical reasoning process is necessary to identify clinically relevant subgroups. By identifying accurate and useful diagnostic criteria for NSNP and NSLBP, more informed decisions regarding the management of these conditions could be made.

Clinicians and researchers are hopeful that tailoring treatment to subgroups of patients may positively impact on patient outcomes and more efficient usage of health-care resources. For the lumbar spine, tailoring treatment to different subgroups is already present in literature. For example, in patients with pain provoked by postures/movements, tailoring treatment to modify specific features of posture/movement is effective and patients allocated to subgroups respond better to matched rather than unmatched interventions. Yet, other studies showed no additional benefit. Despite the growing interest for tailoring treatment for NSNP, the definition of tailored/stratified care is broadly used and interpretation is diverse. In order to determine best practice for the individual patient, tailoring the treatment should account for the multidimensional nature of non-specific spinal complaints and respect the individual characteristics of the patient within its subgroup. Additionally, it must take into account that patients may present with features of multiple subgroups or evolve through subgroups during treatments.

Previous studies on NSLBP already showed that targeting treatment can reduce costs and may improve outcomes when specific groups are compared. Unfortunately, at this moment, no conclusive high-quality evidence is present for its superiority. In addition to the lumbar spine, research on stratified care for NSNP is scarce compared to NSLBP research. Despite its major prevalence and socioeconomic consequences, no recommended or validated classification systems to stratify care for NSNP and to target specific subgroups are available. This suggests that the treatment decision in this heterogeneous group mostly depends on the clinical reasoning process, which is often incomplete in research on NSNP.

In order to evaluate the best practice for NSNP, a classification system based on a profound clinical reasoning process, identifying clinically relevant subgroups should be implemented to guide treatment tailoring and to allow a holistic and individual approach, instead of oversimplifying non-specific spinal complaints as one condition.