Study Design Systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Background General exercise, defined as purposeful physical activity involving repetitive exercises and incorporating multiple muscle groups, is frequently used in the management of whiplash-associated disorders (WADs). Evidence supporting its efficacy is not well established. Objectives To determine whether general exercise is effective in reducing pain and disability in people with WAD. Methods Studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals between January 1990 and May 2015 were eligible if they evaluated a general exercise intervention compared with a different intervention or control. Studies were required to evaluate pain and disability at medium-term (6-14 weeks) and long-term (52 weeks) follow-ups. The mean ± SD and sample size were recorded for follow-up scores and for change scores from baseline to follow-up. Results Of the 3 high-quality studies that were eligible for inclusion, none investigated general exercise alone. There were no clinically meaningful differences between comprehensive exercise programs, which included general exercise, and minimal intervention controls in the medium and long term. No studies directly compared general exercise with a no-treatment control. All included studies used different control interventions, preventing meta-analysis. Conclusion A lack of significant long-term improvements from general exercise interventions in individuals with WAD was identified. This finding differs from the positive benefits of general exercise for other musculoskeletal conditions. This may, in part, relate to the complexity of whiplash conditions. This may also reflect the challenge of exercise prescription in this population, where the need for sufficient intensity is balanced against the impact that exercise has on pain. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1a. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(7):472-480. Epub 16 Jun 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7081.

No abstract

BackgroundStudies aimed at improving the provision of evidence-based care (EBC) for the management of acute whiplash injuries have been largely successful. However, whether EBC is broadly provided and whether delivery of EBC varies based on risk of non-recovery, is uncertain. Receiving EBC should improve recovery, though this relationship has yet to be established. Further, mitigating the effect of EBC is the relationship with the practitioner, a phenomenon poorly understood in WAD. This study aimed to determine the proportion of individuals with whiplash, at differing baseline risk levels, receiving EBC. This study also aimed to determine whether receiving EBC and the therapeutic relationship were associated with recovery at 3 months post injury.MethodsParticipants with acute whiplash were recruited from public hospital emergency departments, private physiotherapy practices, and State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) databases. Participants completed questionnaires at baseline (demographics, risk of non-recovery) and 3-months (treatment received, risk identification, therapeutic relationship) post injury. Primary health care providers (HCPs) treating these participants also completed questionnaires at 3-months. Recovery was defined as neck disability index ≤4/50 and global perceived effect of ≥4/5.ResultsTwo-hundred and twenty-eight people with acute whiplash, and 53 primary care practitioners were recruited. The majority of the cohort reported receiving EBC, with correct application of the Canadian C-spine rule (74%), and provision of active treatments (e.g. 89% receiving advice) high. Non-recommended (passive) treatments were also received by a large proportion of the cohort (e.g. 50% receiving massage). The therapeutic relationship was associated with higher odds of recovery, which was potentially clinically significant (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.18–1.62). EBC was not significantly associated with recovery.ConclusionsGuideline-based knowledge and practice has largely been retained from previous implementation strategies. However, recommendations for routine risk identification and tailored management, and reduction in the provision of passive treatment have not. The therapeutic relationship was identified as one of several important predictors of recovery, suggesting that clinicians must develop rapport and understanding with their patients to improve the likelihood of recovery.

Objectives: A core outcomes set (COS) for whiplash-associated disorders (WADs) has been proposed to improve consistency of outcome reporting in clinical trials. Patient-reported disability was one outcome of interest within this COS. The aim of this review was to identify the most suitable tools for measuring self-reported disability in WAD based on clinimetric performance.Methods: Database searches took place in 2 stages. The first identified outcome measures used to assess self-reported disability in WAD, and the second identified studies assessing the clinimetric properties of these outcome measures in WAD. Data on the study, population and outcome measure characteristics were extracted, along with clinimetric data. Quality and clinimetric performance were assessed in accordance with the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN).Results: Of 19,663 records identified in stage 1 searches, 32 were retained following stage 2 searches and screening. Both the Whiplash Disability Questionnaire and Neck Disability Index performed well in reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.84 to 0.98), construct validity (74% to 82% of hypotheses accepted), and responsiveness (majority of correlations in accordance with hypotheses). Both received Category B recommendations due to a lack of evidence for content validity.Discussion: This review identified the Neck Disability Index and Whiplash Disability Questionnaire as the most appropriate patientreported outcome measures (PROMs) for assessing self-reported disability in WAD based on moderate to high-quality evidence for sufficient reliability, construct validity and responsiveness. However, the content validity of these PROMs has yet to be established in WAD, and until this is undertaken, it is not possible to recommend 1 PROM over the other for inclusion in the WAD COS.