Complementary and Alternative Medicine for the Management of Cervical Radiculopathy: An Overview of Systematic Reviews
Background. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is widely applied in the clinical practice of neck pain owing to cervical radiculopathy (CR). While many systematic reviews exist in CAM to improve CR, research is distributed across population, intervention, comparison, and setting. Objective...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Hindawi Limited
2015-01-01
|
| Series: | Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/793649 |
| Summary: | Background. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is widely applied in the clinical practice of neck pain owing to cervical radiculopathy (CR). While many systematic reviews exist in CAM to improve CR, research is distributed across population, intervention, comparison, and setting. Objective. This overview aims to summarize the characteristics and evaluate critically the evidence from systematic reviews. Methods. A comprehensive literature search was performed in the six databases without language restrictions on February 24, 2015. We had identified relevant systematic reviews that examined the subjects with neck pain due to cervical radiculopathy undergoing CAM. Two authors independently appraised the methodological quality using the revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews instrument. Results. We had included eight systematic reviews. The effectiveness and safety of acupotomy, acupuncture, Jingfukang granule, manual therapies, and cervical spine manipulation were investigated. Based on available evidence, the systematic reviews supported various forms of CAM for CR. Nevertheless, the methodological quality for most of systematic reviews was low or moderate. In addition, adverse reactions of primary studies were infrequent. Conclusions. Current systematic reviews showed potential advantages to CAM for CR. Due to the frequently poor methodological quality of primary studies, the conclusions should be treated with caution for clinical practice. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1741-427X 1741-4288 |