From the publishers of The New England Journal of Medicine

Save time and stay informed. Our physician-editors offer you clinical perspectives on key research and news.

  1. Home>
  2. Specialties>
  3. Emergency Medicine>
  4. Summary and Comment

Hot Packs and Cold Packs Are Equally Effective for Treating Neck or Back Strain

But whether these therapies provide any benefit over ibuprofen alone is unclear.

Pain management is the primary concern when treating patients with acute neck or back strain. Hot packs or cold packs are often recommended — despite little evidence that either is effective — particularly when used with standard therapy, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In a prospective study, 60 adult patients who presented to an academic emergency department with acute neck or back strain received single 400-mg doses of oral ibuprofen and were then randomized to application of hot packs or cold packs to the strained area for 30 minutes. Patients rated pain on a 100-mm visual analog scale and a verbal rating scale before receiving ibuprofen and immediately after hot pack or cold pack treatment.

The mean decrease in pain scores after treatment was statistically significant in both groups (9 and 8 mm) but did not meet the authors' predefined threshold for clinical significance (15 mm). Pain scores did not differ significantly between the two groups before and after treatment. Use of rescue analgesia also did not differ significantly between the two groups. About 80% of patients in each group expressed a desire to use their respective packs in the future.

Comment: Let's admit it — we've all recommended hot or cold local therapy for acute neck or back strain. This small study suggests that, at least in terms of measurable short-term relief of pain, neither therapy provides clinical benefit when ibuprofen is prescribed in analgesic doses.

Diane M. Birnbaumer, MD, FACEP

Published in Journal Watch Emergency Medicine June 4, 2010

Citation(s):

Garra G et al. Heat or cold packs for neck and back strain: A randomized controlled trial of efficacy. Acad Emerg Med 2010 May; 17:484.

Reader Remarks:

Review and add to remarks on this article

Your Remark:

Reader Remarks are intended to encourage lively discussion of clinical topics with your peers in the medical community. We ask that you keep your remarks to a reasonable length, and we reserve the right to withhold publication of remarks that do not meet this standard.

The editors of Journal Watch may respond to Reader Remarks, but we cannot promise to respond to a particular remark.

Fields marked with an * are required.

Name as you'd like it to appear:

Submitting a comment indicates you have read and agreed to the remark guidelines and declare:*

PRIVACY: We will not use your email address, submitted for a comment, for any other purpose nor sell, rent, or share your e-mail address with any third parties. Please see our Privacy Policy.

 

CLEAR erases anything you've added in any part of the form. CONTINUE allows you to check your entire post (and edit it if necessary) before submitting.

To ensure that your Reader Remark is not formatted as one long paragraph, precede new paragraphs with either a blank line or an indentation.

Search

Advanced

Sign-In

Forgot your password? Login via Athens
or your institution

New to Journal Watch?

E-mail Alerts

Delivered to your inbox.
Tailored to your interests. Free.

Sign Up Now!

Journal Watch Newsletters

Available in 13 specialties with convenient delivery and 10 free online CME exams.

Subscribe Now!

Copyright © 2010. Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.