0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Association between psychosocial factors and mental health symptoms to cervical spine pain with or without radiculopathy on health outcomes: systematic review protocol

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Systematic review protocol assessing associations between psychosocial factors and/or mental health symptoms and health outcomes in adults with cervical spine pain with or without radiculopathy.

          Abstract

          Introduction:

          Cervical spine pain with or without radiculopathy (CSp ± R) has significant negative impacts to a person's quality of life. Psychosocial factors and/or mental health symptoms are associated with spinal pain with or without radiculopathy and negatively impact health outcomes. This area of research is not yet established for CSp ± R. Our objective is to conduct a systematic review assessing the association between psychosocial factors and/or mental health symptoms and health outcomes in adults with CSp ± R.

          Methods:

          A systematic electronic search of 3 online databases will retrieve studies in which adults (older than 18 years) with CSp ± R, assessing how psychosocial factors or mental health symptoms impact outcomes related to disability, pain, and/or healthcare utilisation. Data extracted will include study design, CSp ± R definition, psychosocial and/or mental health symptoms, and health outcomes. Reporting study quality through the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Scale Assessment and certainty through Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations will be completed. Studies will be assessed from a clinical perspective, methodology design, and statistical testing to determine whether studies can be pooled for meta-analysis. If there is significant clinical heterogeneity, narrative description will be undertaken.

          Perspective:

          This will be a comprehensive synthesis review to enhance understanding of the association of psychosocial factors and/or mental health symptoms and CSp ± R on health outcomes. The findings will support the formulation of prognosis, collaborative management decisions, and guide healthcare resources to improve outcomes for this patient group. The review will identify gaps in research, thereby informing future experimental and observational study design.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

          Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

            David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Pain Rep
                Pain Rep
                PAIREP
                Painreports
                Pain Reports
                Wolters Kluwer (Philadelphia, PA )
                2471-2531
                2021
                02 February 2021
                : 6
                : 1
                : e870
                Affiliations
                [a ]School of Health and Social Care, Division of Allied Health Sciences, London South Bank University, London, United Kingdom
                [b ]Guy's and St Thomas Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Physiotherapy Department, St Thomas Hospital, London, United Kingdom
                [c ]Pain Section, Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom
                [d ]Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Botnar Research Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom
                [e ]Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom
                [f ]Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
                [g ]South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
                [h ]AECC University College, Parkwood Campus, Bournemouth, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. Address: Division of Allied Health Sciences, School of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University, London, SE1 0AA, United Kingdom. Tel.:+44 00 7815 7815. E-mail address: Michael.Mansfield@ 123456lsbu.ac.uk (M. Mansfield).
                Article
                PAINREPORTS-D-20-0031 00017
                10.1097/PR9.0000000000000870
                8108582
                33981923
                3d7e51ef-dc21-48c7-8d39-b8e03a31498e
                Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The International Association for the Study of Pain.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

                History
                : 18 March 2020
                : 29 September 2020
                : 30 September 2020
                Categories
                5
                Musculoskeletal
                Research Protocol
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                cervical spine pain,cervical spine radiculopathy,systematic review,psychosocial,mental health

                Comments

                Comment on this article