Many studies have investigated the prevalence of neck pain (NP) and its risk factors in the general population. However, the prevalence of NP among athletes has not yet been systematically investigated. We aimed to systematically review the prevalence of NP in athletes. A comprehensive search was conducted in September 2015 using PubMed, Ovid SP Medline, ISI, and Google Scholar. We included studies in English that reported the prevalence of NP in an athletic population during a defined period of time. We assessed the risk of bias in studies due to various definitions of NP, response rates, and reliability of the study instruments. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies' quality and performed data extraction. Of 1,675 titles identified, eight articles were assessed for risk of bias, and six with low or moderate risk were included. NP was shown to be prevalent in athletes, with a 1-week prevalence ranging from 8% to 45%, a 1-year prevalence ranging from 38% to 73%, and a lifetime prevalence of about 48%. The prevalence of NP in athletes is high. More studies regarding the prevalence and risk factors of NP may be useful for planning educational programs and developing appropriate rehabilitation protocols and preventive guidelines. Researchers are encouraged to perform epidemiologic studies in athletes with a low risk of bias.
Athletes ; Bias (Epidemiology) ; Epidemiologic Studies ; Humans ; Neck Pain ; Neck ; Prevalence ; Rehabilitation ; Risk Factors ; Sports

Methods: Patients who underwent PCLF and received postoperative cervical collars from 2018 to 2020 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Their data were compared with an age- and sex-matched group of subjects who did not receive collars after PCLF during the same period. Pain intensity (using the Visual Analog Scale), Neck Disability Index, and quality of life (using 36-item Short Form Health Survey) of the patients were compared at baseline, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Results: A total of 36 patients who received cervical collars after surgery and 40 controls were included. At baseline and 1-month follow-up, there were no differences in pain intensity, functional status, and quality of life between the groups. However, at 3 months postoperatively, the quality of life of the subjects with no orthosis was higher than those who received cervical collars (p =0.01). At 6- and 12-month follow-up, there were no differences between the groups in pain intensity, functional status, and quality of life. Conclusions No difference in the pain intensity and functional status of patients who used cervical collars and controls was shown in our study. Patients who did not wear cervical collars had a higher quality of life during the 3-month postoperative evaluation. Future prospective, well-controlled studies with longer follow-ups are needed to further investigate the effects of cervical orthosis on the clinical outcome of patients after PCLF.