Presentation from the International Whiplash Trauma Conference 2006 (Portland, USA).

1. The Importance of an Early Positive
Change in Neck Function in Predicting
Improvement Following a Tailored
Cervical Strengthening Program for
Chronic Neck Pain.
Dr Lauren Harding
Osteopath
M.H.Sc. (Osteo) B.Sc.(Clin.Sc.) B.App.Sc.(H.Mvt.)

2. Background
 There is increasing research that supports the efficacy of
muscular strengthening in neck rehabilitation programs.
 The role of strengthening for chronic neck pain is still
not clear from systematic reviews.
 Clinically, neck strengthening is often prescribed by
manual therapists for chronic neck pain
 However is appears only 50% of patients respond to
cervical strengthening (Keating et al 2005).
 Useful to be able to predict those that will respond to
the intervention.
 Just as important to be able to select out those unlikely
to respond.

3. Neck Pain and Neck Weakness – An
Association?
 Several studies have reported an association
between neck pain and neck muscle weakness.
 Ylinen et al (2004) demonstrated that pain and
maximal strength were inversely related
– Pain prevents full effort during strength tests and
hence prevents the production of maximal force.
 Prushansky et al (2004) report that male and
female whiplash victims suffered cervical
strength reductions of about 80% and 90%
respectively.
– Fear avoidance behaviour in these patients resulting
in a reduction of maximal force.

4. Fear Avoidance
 Vlaeyen et al (2000) postulate that
‘confrontation’ and ‘avoidance’ are the two
extremes.
 ‘Confrontation’ = reduction of fear over time.
 ‘Avoidance’ = maintenance or exacerbation of
fear.
 Fear Avoidance may play a role in:
– poor muscular performance
– de-conditioning

5. Exercise Interventions for Chronic
Neck Pain
 Verhagen et al (2004) concluded that active
interventions tended to be more effective than
passive interventions.
 Gross et al (2004) concluded that mobilization
and manipulation techniques are only effective
when combined with exercise.

6. How Many People Respond to
Exercise Therapy?
 Keating et al (2005) investigated three RCTs to
determine the percentage of people that
changed on the NDI by more than the MCID in
response to exercise therapy.
 Three RCTs were Brontfort et al (2001),
Korthals-de Bos et al (2003) and Ylinen et al
(2003).
 Stratford et al (1999) propose MCID for NDI of
7/50 points (14%).
 Authors argue that approximately 50% of people
benefit from exercise therapy.

7. Where to from here?
 Prescribing neck strengthening for everyone
presenting with neck pain is likely to prove
ineffective for 50% of those seeking care.
 Clinicians often see patients achieve significant
functional improvements in response to neck
strengthening programs.
 Challenge is in identifying those people likely
and unlikely to benefit from any treatment
intervention.
 How long should a person persist with an
exercise routine before the probability of
response is unacceptably low?

8. Aim
 To determine the efficacy of early change
in NDI scores for predicting people who
are likely to respond or not respond to an
exercise program.
 Hypothesis: The probability of responding
to a course of neck strengthening
treatment is greater in those that respond
in the first 3 weeks.

9. Methods
 Between 2000 and 2003, three hundred and nine (309)
patients were referred to a Clinic in Australia for
treatment of chronic neck pain.
 Two hundred and forty one started treatment (241).
 Reasons for not starting treatment included:
 Personal reasons (n = 53) – time, funds, location
 Aggravated symptoms after initial evaluation (n = 6)
 Did not meet inclusion criteria (n = 4)
 Not approved for treatment from third party payer (n = 2)
 Waiting on legal proceedings (n = 1)
 Referred to interstate Centers (n = 1)
 Advised against the program by a doctor (n = 1)

10. Methods
 Twenty seven (27) patients dropped out
before first re-evaluation:
– Personal reasons (n = 12)
– Flared symptoms (n = 5)
– Dissatisfaction with results (n = 8)
– Unknown (n = 2)
 Two hundred and fourteen (214)
completed > than a 3 week strengthening
program.

11. Equipment
 Multi-Cervical Unit (BTE
Technologies Inc.) “MCU”
 Used to measure maximal
isometric strength of
flexors, extensors and
lateral flexors in:
– in neutral
– 25° rotation left and right
– 45° rotation left and right
 Excellent reliability in
isometric strength
measurement with ICCs
ranging from 0.92 – 0.99
(Chui et al 2002).

12. Exclusion Criteria
 Unable to initiate 3 lbs (1.36kgs) of force
for isometric testing.
 Flare-up post-evaluation that lasted for
longer than 36 hours.
 Significant exacerbation of peripheral
symptoms.

13. The Initial Evaluation
 History and duration of complaint
 Age
 Gender
 Compensation status (Private or Compensable)
 Neck Disability Index
 VBI screening
 Evaluated on the MCU for Maximal Isometric
Strength

14. Maximal isometric strength testing
 Participants were allowed familiarization
 “Push as hard and as fast as you can”
 Hold maximal isometric contraction for 3
seconds.
 3 trials with 10 second rest period between trials
 Trials were averaged to obtain maximal
isometric strength in lbs.
 Trials were repeated if an effort was not within
COV of 15%.

15. Treatment Program
 The exercise program was designed to achieve strength
scores comparable to isometric strength measurements
of 100 healthy subjects (Jordan et al 1995).
 Initial resistance = 25-40% of the maximum isometric
score achieved during testing
 2-3 times per week
 30 minute supervised session
 3 sets of 10 repetitions for each of 6-8 exercises
 Participants were re-evaluated for strength and NDI
scores after every 9 sessions until discharge.

16. Length of Program
 Time period between initial and final
evaluation dependent upon:
– How quickly a person responded to therapy
– How long the person took to complete each 9
sessions

17. Responders
 The MCID (minimum clinically important
difference) for the NDI is 7 points (Stratford 1999).
 Participants were considered responders if
their NDI scores had changed by 7 points
or more, or as non-responders if the NDI
score did not change by 7 points or more.

18. Analysis of Data
 Linear Regression analysis was used to study the
relationship between final NDI scores and 3
week NDI change scores.
 Odd ratios were used to describe the
relationship between 3 week and discharge NDI
scores.
 Other analyses included positive and negative
predictive scores, and sensitivity and specificity.
Unable to report all due to time restraints.

19. Demographics
 80/115 were female (70%)
 Average age - 41 years (SD 12)
 67 private (58%); 48 compensable (42%)
 Median duration of symptoms – 60 months
(inter-quartile range 19 – 120)
 Median initial NDI scores – 18 points (36%)
(inter-quartile range 14 – 25 points)
 Median length of treatment – 10 weeks (inter-
quartile range 7 – 14 weeks)

20. Results of Regression Analysis
 A positive change in the 3 week NDI score
explained 47% of the variance in the final
NDI positive change (F = 97.36; p = 0.00).
 Significant association between 3 week and
discharge NDI scores (r = 0.69; p = 0.00)

21. Regression Line of Best Fit

22. Contingency Table
Improved Not Total
at Final Improved
at Final
Improved 41 3 44
at 3 weeks
Not 25 46 71
Improved
at 3 Weeks
Total 66 (57%) 49 115

23. Results of Odds Ratio Analysis
 Odds ratio = 25.15 (95% confidence
interval 7.07 – 89.49)
 If a patient demonstrated a positive
improvement after 3 weeks of therapy,
then the patient has a 25 x greater
(25.15) odds of responding overall to the
course of neck strengthening therapy.

24. Possible Mechanisms of Effect
 Fear Avoidance Model
– Fear avoidance has been proposed to play a role in
“de-conditioning” (Vlaeyen 2000).
– Neck strengthening pushes these patients into the
confrontation extreme of the fear avoidance model
which can result in a reduction in fear and therefore a
reduction in self perceived disability.
 Increase in muscle fibre size (hypertrophy)
 Motor Skill Acquisition
– CNS harnesses existing resources to perform activities
more efficiently.
 Changes in co-activation of antagonists

25. Early Change to Strengthening
 Hypertrophy does not occur until after 3
weeks
 Sub-group of patients (35.7%) who
respond favorably in the first 3 weeks
 Change is likely motor skill acquisition

26. Later Change to Strengthening
 Combination of motor skill acquisition and
muscle hypertrophy?
 Additionally there may have been changes
in the co-activation of the antagonists
 Hakkinen et al (1998) demonstrated that
progressive strength training leads to
significant decreases in the co-activation
of the antagonists recorded during
maximal isometric action.

27. Role of Further Strengthening in
Early Responders
 Why continue with strengthening in the early
responders?
 Average additional improvement is only 2 NDI
points.
 Still a role for continued strengthening in early
responders for protective/maintenance effects
rather than discharging patients after 3 weeks.
 Six month or two year follow up would be useful
to compare outcome differences between early
responders discharged at 3 weeks and early
responders discharged at 6 or 9 weeks.
 Collected but not yet analyzed.

28. Future Research Directions
 Use of EMG and MVC to further study the
mechanism of effect for early and late
responders
 Could more specifically define the contributions
of motor skill acquisition and muscle
hypertrophy
 Investigate other factors that may have
contributed to a reduction in self perceived
disability
– Fear avoidance questionnaires
– Joint ROM
– Measure both agonists and antagonists via EMG

29. Future Research Directions
 Six month follow up comparing the outcomes of
early responders discharged after 3 weeks and
early responders who continued for further
therapy
 Predictor variables for late responders (n = 25)
 Correlate increase in strength with a decrease in
self perceived disability (functional questionnaire
such as NDI)

30. Implications for Clinicians, Patients
and Third Party Payers
 Neck strengthening programs do not provide
hypertrophy benefits alone.
 Clinicians can provide a probability for response
based on early change (as early as 3 weeks).
– For responders, this can aid in further third party
approval or encourage patients to continue for the
protective or maintenance effects (based on the
clinical premise that further rehabilitation will improve
longer term outcome).
– For non-responders at 3 weeks, clinicians can provide
patients with a probability for longer term change and
the patient, clinician or third party can decide if the
odds warrant continued investment in the program.

31. Acknowledgements
 BTE Technologies, Colorado
www.btetech.com
 Melbourne Whiplash Centre
www.whiplashcentre.com
 Professor Jenny Keating, Monash
University, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA.

32. References
 Fejer R, Ohm Kyvik K, Hartvigsen J. The prevalence of neck pain in the world
population: a systematic critical review of the literature. Eur Spine J. 2005; Jul 6;
[Epub ahead of print]
 Cote P, Cassidy D, Carroll L. The Saskatchewan health and back pain survey.
Spine. 1998;23:1689-98.
 Gordon SJ, Trott P, Grimmer KA. Waking cervical pain and stiffness, headache,
scapular or arm pain: gender and age effects. Aust J Physiother 2002; 48 (1), pp.
9-15.
 Borghouts JA, Koes BW, Vondeling H, Bouter LM. Cost-of-illness of neck pain in the
Netherlands in 1996. Pain. 1999;80:629-36.
 Barnsley L, Lord S, Bogduk N. Whiplash injury – clinical review. Pain 1994;
58:283-307.
 Australian Acute Musculoskeletal Pain Guidelines Group. Evidence-based
Management of Acute Musculoskeletal Pain: A Guide for Clinicians. Australian
Academic Press. 2004:35-43.
 Suissa S. Risk factors of poor prognosis after whiplash injury. Pain and research
management: the journal of the Canadian Pain Society. 2003:8(2):69-75.
 Prushansky T Gepstein, R., Gordon, C., &. Dvir, Z., Cervical muscle weakness in
chronic whiplash people. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005 Oct;20(8):794-8.
 Jull, G, Kristjansson E, Dall’Alba P. Impairment in the cervical flexors: a
comparison of whiplash and insidious onset neck pain people. Man Ther. 2004
May;9(2):89-94.

33. References
 Ylinen J, Salo P, Nykanen M, Kautiainen H, Hakkinen A. Decreased isometric neck
strength in women with chronic neck pain and the repeatability of neck strength
measurements. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Aug;85(8):1303-8.
 Ylinen J, Takala EP, Kautiainen H, Nykanen M, Hakkinen A, Pohjolainen T, Karppi
SL, Airaksinen O. Association of neck pain, disability and neck pain during maximal
effort with neck muscle strength and range of movement in women with chronic
non-specific neck pain. Eur J Pain. 2004 Oct;8(5):473-8.
 Vlaeyen J.W.S. & Linton S.J. Fear-avoidance and its consequences in chronic
musculoskeletal pain: a state of the art. Pain. 2000:85:317-332.
 Jordan A, Mehlsen J, Ostergaard K.A comparison of physical characteristics
between people seeking treatment for neck pain and age-matched healthy people.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1997;20(7):468-75.
 Silverman JL, Rodriquez AA, Agre JC. Quantitative cervical flexor strength in
healthy subjects and in subjects with mechanical neck pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
1991;72:679-81.
 Verhagen AP, Scholten-Peeters GG, de Bie RA, Bierma-Zeinstra SM. Conservative
treatments for whiplash. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(1):CD003338.
 Gross AR, Hoving JL, Haines TA, Goldsmith CH, Kay T, Aker P, Brontfort G. A
Cochrane Review of manipulation and mobilization for mechanical neck disorders.
Spine. 2004; 29(14):1541-1548.
 Stratford PW, Riddle DL, Binkley JM, Spudoni G, Westaway MD & Padfield B. Using
the Neck Disability Index to Make Decisions Concerning Individual People.
Physiotherapy Canada 1999:107-113

34. References
 Keating JL, Kent, P, Davidson M, Duke R, McKinnon, L, De Nardis, R Predicting
short term response and non-response to neck strengthening exercise for chronic
neck pain. Journal of Whiplash and related disorders. 2005;4(1):43-55.
 Ylinen J, Takala E, Nykanen M, Hakkinen A, Malkia E, Pohjolainen T, Karppi S,
Kautiainen H, Airaksinen O. Active neck muscle training in the treatment of chronic
neck pain in women. JAMA 2003;289:2509-16
 Korthals-de Bos IB, Hoving JL, van Tulder MW, Rutten-van Molken MP, Ader HJ, de
Vet HC, Koes BW, Vondeling H, Bouter LM. Cost effectiveness of physiotherapy,
manual therapy and general practitioner care for neck pain: economic evaluation
alongside a randomized controlled trial. BMJ 2003; 326:911-6
 Bronfort G, Evans R, Nelson B, Aker PD, Goldsmith CH & Vernon H. A Randomized
Clinical Trial of Exercise and Spinal Manipulation for People with Chronic Neck Pain.
Spine. 2001;26(7):788-799.
 The Melbourne Protocol. TMP Technologies 2004:48-49.
 Jordan A, Mehlsen J, Bulow PM, Ostergaard K, Danneskiold-Samsoe B. Maximal
isometric strength of the cervical musculature in 100 healthy volunteers. Spine
1999;24:1343-812.
 Cocchiarella L, Andersson G. Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.
5th ed. American Medial Association Press 2000

35. References
 Vernon H, Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: A study of Reliability and Validity.
Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991;14:409-15
 Chiu T.T.W., Lo S.K. Evaluation of cervical range of motion and isometric neck
muscle strength: reliability and validity. Clinical Rehabilitation 2002; 1 6: 851–858
 Merskey H, Bogduk N. Classification of Chronic Pain. Descriptions of Chronic Pain
Syndromes and Definitions of Pain Terms (2nd edition). Seattle: IASP Press, 1994.
Conley MS, Stone MH, Nimmons M, Dudley GA. Specificity of resistance training
responses in neck muscle size and strength. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol.
1997;75(5):443-8.
 Doherty TJ. Effects of short-term training on physiologic properties of human
motor units. Can J Appl Physiol. 2000;25(3):194-203.
 Moritani T, deVries HA. Neural factors versus hypertrophy in the time course of
muscle strength gain. Am J Phys Med. 1979;58(3):115-30.
 Patten, C., Kamen, G., Rowland, D., & Du, C. C. Rapid adaptations of motor unit
firing rate during the initial phase of strength development. Medicine and Science
in Sports and Exercise. 1995;27(5), Supplement abstract 34.
 Phillips SM. Short-term training: when do repeated bouts of resistance exercise
become training? Can J Appl Physiol. 2000;25(3):185-93.
 Bosco, C., Rusko, H., & Hirvonen, J. The effect of extra-load conditioning on
muscle performance in athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise.
1984;18:415-419.

36. References
 Lieber RL. Skeletal Muscle Structure, Function and Plasticity: The Physiological Basis
of Rehabilitation. 2nd ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2002.
 Bickel CS, Slade J, Mahoney E, Haddad F, Dudley GA, Adams GR. Time course of
molecular responses of human skeletal muscle to acute bouts of resistance exercise. J
Appl Physiol. 2004 Oct 1 [Epub ahead of print]
 K. Häkkinen, M. Kallinen, M. Izquierdo, K. Jokelainen, H. Lassila, E. Mälkiä, W. J.
Kraemer, R. U. Newton, and M. Alen. Changes in agonist-antagonist EMG, muscle
CSA, and force during strength training in middle-aged and older people. J Appl
Physiol. Vol. 84, Issue 4, 1341-1349, April 1998
 Enoka R. Muscle strength and its development: new perspectives. Sports Med.
6:146-168, 1988.
 Sale D.G. Neural adaptation to strength training. In: Strength and Power in Sports.
The Encyclopedia of Sports Medicine, edited by P.V. Komi. Oxford, UK: Blackwell,
1991, p 249 – 265.