Grasser Tatiana, Borges Dario Amabile, Parreira Patricia Carmo Silva, Correia Igor Macedo Tavares, Meziat-Filho Ney
Centro Universitário Augusto Motta, UNISUAM, Rua Dona Isabel 94, Bonsucesso, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 21041-010, Brazil.
Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Tocantins, Palmas, Brazil.
Eur Spine J. 2023 Oct;32(10):3463-3484. doi: 10.1007/s00586-023-07821-2. Epub 2023 Jul 5.
Text neck is regarded as a global epidemic. Yet, there is a lack of consensus concerning the definitions of text neck which challenges researchers and clinicians alike.
To investigate how text neck is defined in peer-reviewed articles.
We conducted a scoping review to identify all articles using the terms "text neck" or "tech neck." Embase, Medline, CINAHL, PubMed and Web of Science were searched from inception to 30 April 2022. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMAScR) guidelines. No limitation was applied for language or study design. Data extraction included study characteristics and the primary outcome relating to text neck definitions.
Forty-one articles were included. Text neck definitions varied across studies. The most frequent components of definitions were grouped into five basis for definition: Posture (n = 38; 92.7%), with qualifying adjectives meaning incorrect posture (n = 23; 56.1%) and posture without a qualifying adjective (n = 15; 36.6%); Overuse (n = 26; 63.4%); Mechanical stress or tensions (n = 17; 41.4%); Musculoskeletal symptoms (n = 15; 36.6%) and; Tissue damage (n = 7; 17.1%).
This study showed that posture is the defining characteristic of text neck in the academic literature. For research purposes, it seems that text neck is a habit of texting on the smartphone in a flexed neck position. Since there is no scientific evidence linking text neck with neck pain regardless of the definition used, adjectives like inappropriate or incorrect should be avoided when intended to qualify posture.
“文本脖”被视为一种全球性的流行病。然而，对于“文本脖”的定义缺乏共识，这给研究人员和临床医生都带来了挑战。
探讨在同行评审文章中“文本脖”是如何定义的。
我们进行了一项范围综述，以识别所有使用“文本脖”或“科技脖”术语的文章。检索了Embase、Medline、CINAHL、PubMed和Web of Science数据库，时间跨度从建库至2022年4月30日。我们遵循系统评价和Meta分析扩展版的范围综述（PRISMA-ScR）指南。对语言或研究设计不设限制。数据提取包括研究特征以及与“文本脖”定义相关的主要结果。
纳入了41篇文章。不同研究中“文本脖”的定义各不相同。定义中最常见的组成部分分为五个定义依据：姿势（n = 38；92.7%），其中带有限定形容词表示不正确姿势的（n = 23；56.1%）以及没有限定形容词的姿势（n = 15；36.6%）；过度使用（n = 26；63.4%）；机械应力或张力（n = 17；41.4%）；肌肉骨骼症状（n = 15；36.6%）；以及组织损伤（n = 7；17.1%）。
本研究表明，姿势是学术文献中“文本脖”的定义特征。出于研究目的，“文本脖”似乎是指在颈部弯曲的姿势下使用智能手机发短信的习惯。由于无论使用何种定义，都没有科学证据将“文本脖”与颈部疼痛联系起来，因此在描述姿势时应避免使用“不适当的”或“不正确的”等形容词。
