The predictive model for disability at 3 months accounted for just 19% of the variance

suggesting that other factors not considered in this study, might influence prognosis. Future investigation of a broader range of biological, psychological and social variables is needed to better understand factors influencing prognosis for neck pain. The difference between mean pain scores recorded in the participant’s diaries at day 84 and those collected by telephone interview at 3 months is intriguing (Figure 2). Due to participant availability there Afatinib purchase was, on some occasions, delay in conducting the 3-month exit interview. However the stability of the recorded mean pain scores in the preceding 2 months suggests that this would not account for the observed difference. Single-dimension pain scales are probably used by patients to communicate aspects of their pain experience that are more complex than simple pain severity. Recent investigation of commonly used outcome measures for back pain indicates that patients’ perceptions of recovery are complex and not necessarily captured by measures such as numerical pain scales (Hush et al 2006). It is also possible that the different modes of

data collection, ie, diary entry versus telephone interview, might elicit different responses on a single-item pain scale. There are some limitations to the generalisability Selleck Entinostat of our study. First, Adenosine by limiting the setting of this study to manual therapy providers and not including other primary care providers, the results might not generalise to a broader primary care population. In particular, the setting of the study might have introduced a socioeconomic bias. In Australia, consultation with a primary care physiotherapist, chiropractor, or osteopath is not publicly funded, unlike consultation with a medical practitioner. Also, descriptive studies of the profile

of chiropractic patients describe a group that is generally healthy and well-educated, with higher than average income (MacLennan et al 2002, Xue et al 2007). Other sociodemographic groups might well be underrepresented in our study. Second, by using data from a randomised trial there is potential for selection bias. All participants in the study received manual therapy treatment, and were excluded if the treating clinician believed that manipulative therapy was not indicated. Conversely, the fact that all participants received pragmatic care based on Australian practice guidelines strengthens the application of these findings to this particular setting. The results of this study demonstrate rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in neck pain in patients treated with a combination of manual therapy and pragmatic guideline-based care. A randomised trial with a convincing sham control would be needed to establish whether this improvement was due to the treatment provided or to natural recovery.