Education by general practitioners or education and exercises by physiotherapists for patients with whiplash-associated disorders? A randomized clinical trial

Spine

Volumn 31, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 723-731

  Scholten Peeters, Gwendolijne G M ^a,b,c,d,h   Neeleman Van Der Steen, Catharina W M ^a   Van Der Windt, Daniëlle A W M ^e   Hendriks, Erik J M ^a,f   Verhagen, Arianne P ^g   Oostendorp, Rob A B ^a,b,c  

^a Dutch Institute of Allied Health Care NPi   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL   (Belgium)

^d Spine and Rehabilitation Center   (Netherlands)

^e VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^f MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^g ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^h Spine and Rehabilitation Center of Uden   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Education; Effectiveness; General practitioner care; Physiotherapy; Randomized clinical trial; Whiplash

Indexed keywords

ADULT; BIOMECHANICS; CERVICAL SPINE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CONVALESCENCE; COPING BEHAVIOR; DISABILITY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HEADACHE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH STATUS; HOUSEHOLD; HUMAN; KINESIOTHERAPY; LONG TERM CARE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NECK PAIN; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT EDUCATION; PATIENT MOBILITY; PHYSICAL CAPACITY; PHYSIOTHERAPIST; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; SPINE MOBILITY; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WHIPLASH INJURY; WORK CAPACITY;

ADULT; EXERCISE THERAPY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT EDUCATION; PHYSICAL THERAPY (SPECIALTY); PHYSICAL THERAPY MODALITIES; PHYSICIANS, FAMILY; TIME; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WHIPLASH INJURIES;

EID: 33645762744     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000206381.15224.0f     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Spitzer WO, Skovron ML, Salmi LR, et al. Scientific monograph of the Quebec Task Force on Whiplash Associated Disorders: Redefining "whiplash" and it's management. Spine 1995;20(suppl 8):1S-73S.
2. Stovner LJ. The nosologic status of the whiplash syndrome: A critical review based on a methodological approach. Spine 1996;21:2735-46.
3. Barnsley L, Lord S, Bogduk N. Whiplash injury: Clinical review. Pain 1994;58:283-307.
4. Freeman MD, Croft AC, Rossignol AM. "Whiplash associated disorders: redefining whiplash and its management" by the Quebec Task Force. A critical evaluation. Spine 1998;23:1043-9.
5. Peeters GGM, Verhagen AP, Bie de RA, et al. The efficacy of conservative treatment in whiplash patients: A systematic review of clinical trials. Spine 2001;26:E64-73.
6. Scholten-Peeters GGM, Verhagen AP, Neeleman-Steen van der CWM, et al. Randomized Clinical Trial of conservative treatment for patients with whiplash-associated disorders: Considerations for the design and dynamic treatment protocol. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2003;26:412-20.
7. McClune T, Burton AK, Waddell G. Whiplash associated disorders: A review of the literature to guide patient information and advice. Emerg Med J 2002;19:499-506.
8. Ferrari R, Russell AS. Epidemiology of whiplash: An international dilemma. Ann Rheum Dis 1999;58:1-5.
9. Borchgrevink GE, Kaasa A, McDonagh D, et al. Acute treatment of whiplash neck sprain injuries. A randomized trial of treatment during the first 14 days after a car accident. Spine 1998;23:25-31.
10. Rosenfeld M, Gunnarson R, Borenstein P. Early intervention in whiplash-associated disorders. A comparison of two treatment protocols. Spine 2000;25:1782-7.
11. Vlaeyen JW, Linton SJ. Fear-avoidance and its consequences in chronic musculoskeletal pain: A state of the art. Pain 2000;85:317-32.
12. Huskisson EC. Measurement of pain. Lancet 1974;2:1127-31.
13. Waterfield J, Sim J. Clinical assessment of pain by the visual analogue scale. Br J Ther Rehabil 1996;3:94-8.
14. Wewers ME, Lowe NK. A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Res Nurs Health 1990;13:227-36.
15. Miller MD, Ferris DG. Measurement of subjective phenomena in primary care research: The visual analogue scale. Fam Pract Res J 1993;13:15-24.
16. Scholten-Peeters GGM, Verhagen AP, Bekkering GE, et al. Prognostic factors of whiplash-associated disorders: A systematic review of prospective cohort studies. Pain 2003;104:303-22.
17. Côté P, Cassidy D, Carroll L, et al. A systematic review of the prognosis of acute whiplash and a new conceptual framework to synthesize the literature. Spine 2001;26:E445-58.
18. Philadelphia Panel. Philadelphia panel evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on selected rehabilitation interventions for shoulder pain. Phys Ther 2001;81:1719-30.
19. Eck JC, Hodges SD, Humphreys C. Whiplash: A review of a commonly misunderstood injury. Am J Med 2001;110:651-6.
20. Bekkering GE, Hendriks HJM, Lanser K, et al. KNGF-richtlijn Whiplash. Ned T Fysiother 2001;111(suppl):1-25.
21. Scholten-Peeters GGM, Bekkering GE, Verhagen AP, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the physiotherapy of patients with whiplash-associated disorders. Spine 2002;15;27:412-22.
22. Stewart MJ, Maher CG, Refshauge KM, et al. Advice or exercise for chronic whiplash disorders? Design of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2003;4:18-26.
23. Motor Accidents Authority (MAA). Update Quebec Task Force Guidelines for the Management of Whiplash-Associated Disorders. Available at: . Accessed 2001.
24. Hendriks HJM, Scholten-Peeters GGM, Windt van der DAWM, et al. Prognostic factors for poor recovery in acute whiplash patients. Pain 2005;114:408-16.