-
International Orthopaedics Feb 2022Systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of manual therapy in improving carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) symptoms, physical function, and nerve... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM OF THE STUDY
Systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of manual therapy in improving carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) symptoms, physical function, and nerve conduction studies.
METHOD
MEDLINE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, TRIP database, and PEDro databases were searched from the inception to September 2021. PICO search strategy was used to identify randomized controlled trials applying manual therapy on patients with CTS. Eligible studies and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. Methodology quality and risk of bias were assessed by PEDro scale. Outcomes assessed were pain intensity, physical function, and nerve conduction studies.
RESULTS
Eighty-one potential studies were identified and six studies involving 401 patients were finally included. Pain intensity immediately after treatment showed a pooled standard mean difference (SMD) of - 2.13 with 95% confidence interval (CI) (- 2.39, - 1.86). Physical function with Boston Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Questionnaire (BCTS-Q) showed a pooled SMD of - 1.67 with 95% CI (- 1.92, - 1.43) on symptoms severity, and a SMD of - 0.89 with 95% CI (- 1.08, - 0.70) on functional status. Nerve conduction studies showed a SMD of - 0.19 with 95% CI (- 0.40, - 0.02) on motor conduction and a SMD of - 1.15 with 95% CI (- 1.36, - 0.93) on sensory conduction.
CONCLUSIONS
This study highlights the effectiveness of manual therapy techniques based on soft tissue and neurodynamic mobilizations, in isolation, on pain, physical function, and nerve conduction studies in patients with CTS.
Topics: Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; Humans; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Neural Conduction; Pain; Pain Measurement; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34862562
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-021-05272-2 -
Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal... 2022Lateral epicondylitis is a tendinopathy with a prevalence of between 1-3% of the population aged 35-54 years. It is a pathology with a favorable evolution, but with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Lateral epicondylitis is a tendinopathy with a prevalence of between 1-3% of the population aged 35-54 years. It is a pathology with a favorable evolution, but with frequent recurrences (which imply an economic extra cost).
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this review was to determine the efficacy of physiotherapy treatment for the treatment of epicondylitis and, if any, to identify the most appropriate techniques.
METHODS
A systematic search was carried out in October 2020 in the databases of PubMed, Cinahl, Scopus, Medline and Web of Science using the search terms: Physical therapy modalities, Physical and rehabilitation medicine, Rehabilitation, Tennis elbow and Elbow tendinopathy.
RESULTS
Nineteen articles were found, of which seven applied shock waves, three applied orthoses, three applied different manual therapy techniques, two applied some kind of bandage, one applied therapeutic exercise, one applied diacutaneous fibrolysis, one applied high intensity laser, and one applied vibration.
CONCLUSIONS
Manual therapy and eccentric strength training are the two physiotherapeutic treatment methods that have the greatest beneficial effects, and, furthermore, their cost-benefit ratio is very favorable. Its complementation with other techniques, such as shock waves, bandages or Kinesio® taping, among others, facilitates the achievement of therapeutic objectives, but entails an added cost.
Topics: Exercise Therapy; Humans; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Physical Therapy Modalities; Tennis Elbow; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34397403
DOI: 10.3233/BMR-210053 -
Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) Aug 2022The treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) usually involves surgical decompression of the nerve or splinting and additional medication. Physiotherapy and sports... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) usually involves surgical decompression of the nerve or splinting and additional medication. Physiotherapy and sports therapy could be non-invasive and alternative treatment approaches with a simultaneous low risk of side effects.
OBJECTIVE
The review systematically summarizes the current studies on the effectiveness of physiotherapy and sports therapeutic interventions for treatment of CTS and focuses on the reduction of symptoms and, as a secondary outcome, improvement of hand function.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The systematic review includes randomized controlled trials reporting on physiotherapy or sports therapy interventions published prior to February 2021 in the electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL and Web of Science. Following the guidelines of preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) and the Cochrane Collaboration, a systematic search of the literature, data extraction and evaluation of the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool were conducted by two independent researchers.
RESULTS
Out of 461 identified studies 26 were included in the qualitative analysis. The risk of bias in the individual studies was graded as moderate to low. Potential bias might arise due to inadequate blinding of patients and study personnel in some cases as well as due to selective reporting of study results and procedures. Manual therapy proved to be faster and equally effective in reducing pain and improving function in the long term compared to surgery. Mobilization techniques, massage techniques, kinesiotaping and yoga as therapeutic interventions also showed positive effects on symptoms.
CONCLUSION
For the management of mild to moderate CTS, physiotherapy and sports therapeutic interventions are characterized primarily by success after as little as 2 weeks of treatment as well as comparable success to surgery and 3 months of postoperative treatment. In addition, patients are not exposed to surgical risks. The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with the number 42017073839.
Topics: Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; Humans; Medicine; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Physical Therapy Modalities
PubMed: 35286465
DOI: 10.1007/s00482-022-00637-x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Low-back pain (LBP) is one of the most common and costly musculoskeletal problems in modern society. It is experienced by 70% to 80% of adults at some time in their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Low-back pain (LBP) is one of the most common and costly musculoskeletal problems in modern society. It is experienced by 70% to 80% of adults at some time in their lives. Massage therapy has the potential to minimize pain and speed return to normal function.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of massage therapy for people with non-specific LBP.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched PubMed to August 2014, and the following databases to July 2014: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and Proquest Dissertation Abstracts. We also checked reference lists. There were no language restrictions used.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included only randomized controlled trials of adults with non-specific LBP classified as acute, sub-acute or chronic. Massage was defined as soft-tissue manipulation using the hands or a mechanical device. We grouped the comparison groups into two types: inactive controls (sham therapy, waiting list, or no treatment), and active controls (manipulation, mobilization, TENS, acupuncture, traction, relaxation, physical therapy, exercises or self-care education).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures and followed CBN guidelines. Two independent authors performed article selection, data extraction and critical appraisal.
MAIN RESULTS
In total we included 25 trials (3096 participants) in this review update. The majority was funded by not-for-profit organizations. One trial included participants with acute LBP, and the remaining trials included people with sub-acute or chronic LBP (CLBP). In three trials massage was done with a mechanical device, and the remaining trials used only the hands. The most common type of bias in these studies was performance and measurement bias because it is difficult to blind participants, massage therapists and the measuring outcomes. We judged the quality of the evidence to be "low" to "very low", and the main reasons for downgrading the evidence were risk of bias and imprecision. There was no suggestion of publication bias. For acute LBP, massage was found to be better than inactive controls for pain ((SMD -1.24, 95% CI -1.85 to -0.64; participants = 51; studies = 1)) in the short-term, but not for function ((SMD -0.50, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.06; participants = 51; studies = 1)). For sub-acute and chronic LBP, massage was better than inactive controls for pain ((SMD -0.75, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.60; participants = 761; studies = 7)) and function (SMD -0.72, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.39; 725 participants; 6 studies; ) in the short-term, but not in the long-term; however, when compared to active controls, massage was better for pain, both in the short ((SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.13; participants = 964; studies = 12)) and long-term follow-up ((SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.01; participants = 757; studies = 5)), but no differences were found for function (both in the short and long-term). There were no reports of serious adverse events in any of these trials. Increased pain intensity was the most common adverse event reported in 1.5% to 25% of the participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We have very little confidence that massage is an effective treatment for LBP. Acute, sub-acute and chronic LBP had improvements in pain outcomes with massage only in the short-term follow-up. Functional improvement was observed in participants with sub-acute and chronic LBP when compared with inactive controls, but only for the short-term follow-up. There were only minor adverse effects with massage.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Bias; Chronic Pain; Humans; Low Back Pain; Manipulation, Spinal; Massage; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26329399
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001929.pub3 -
Physical Therapy Jan 2016Manual therapy (MT) and exercise have been extensively used to treat people with musculoskeletal conditions such as temporomandibular disorders (TMD). The evidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Manual therapy (MT) and exercise have been extensively used to treat people with musculoskeletal conditions such as temporomandibular disorders (TMD). The evidence regarding their effectiveness provided by early systematic reviews is outdated.
PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to summarize evidence from and evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials that examined the effectiveness of MT and therapeutic exercise interventions compared with other active interventions or standard care for treatment of TMD.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic data searches of 6 databases were performed, in addition to a manual search.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized controlled trials involving adults with TMD that compared any type of MT intervention (eg, mobilization, manipulation) or exercise therapy with a placebo intervention, controlled comparison intervention, or standard care were included. The main outcomes of this systematic review were pain, range of motion, and oral function. Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data were extracted in duplicate on specific study characteristics.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The overall evidence for this systematic review was considered low. The trials included in this review had unclear or high risk of bias. Thus, the evidence was generally downgraded based on assessments of risk of bias. Most of the effect sizes were low to moderate, with no clear indication of superiority of exercises versus other conservative treatments for TMD. However, MT alone or in combination with exercises at the jaw or cervical level showed promising effects.
LIMITATIONS
Quality of the evidence and heterogeneity of the studies were limitations of the study.
CONCLUSIONS
No high-quality evidence was found, indicating that there is great uncertainty about the effectiveness of exercise and MT for treatment of TMD.
Topics: Exercise Therapy; Humans; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Pain Measurement; Range of Motion, Articular; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
PubMed: 26294683
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20140548 -
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies Nov 2022Cervicogenic headache is a secondary headache, and manual therapy is one of the most common treatment choices for this and other types of headache. Nonetheless, recent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cervicogenic headache is a secondary headache, and manual therapy is one of the most common treatment choices for this and other types of headache. Nonetheless, recent guidelines on the management of cervicogenic headache underlined the lack of trials comparing manual and exercise therapy to sham or no-treatment controls. The main objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness of different forms of manual and exercise therapy in people living with cervicogenic headache, when compared to other treatments, sham, or no treatment controls.
METHODS
Following the PRISMA guidelines, the literature search was conducted until January 2022 on MEDLINE, CENTRAL, DOAJ, and PEDro. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of manual or exercise therapy on patients with cervicogenic headache with headache intensity or frequency as primary outcome measures were included. Study selection, data extraction and Risk of Bias (RoB) assessment were done in duplicate. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence.
RESULTS
Twenty studies were included in the review, with a total of 1439 patients. Common interventions were spinal manipulation, trigger point therapy, spinal mobilization, scapulo-thoracic and cranio-cervical exercises. Meta-analysis was only possible for six manual therapy trials with sham comparators. Data pooling showed moderate-to-large effects in favour of manual therapy for headache frequency and intensity at short-term, small-to-moderate for disability at short-term, small-to-moderate for headache intensity and small for headache frequency at long-term. A sensitivity meta-analysis of low-RoB trials showed small effects in favor of manual therapy in reducing headache intensity, frequency and disability at short and long-term. Both trials included in the sensitivity meta-analysis studied spinal manipulation as the intervention of interest. GRADE assessment showed moderate quality of evidence.
CONCLUSION
The evidence suggests that manual and exercise therapy may reduce headache intensity, frequency and disability at short and long-term in people living with cervicogenic headache, but the overall RoB in most included trials was high. However, a sensitivity meta-analysis on low-RoB trials showed moderate-quality evidence supporting the use of spinal manipulation compared to sham interventions. More high-quality trials are necessary to make stronger recommendations, ideally based on methodological recommendations that enhance comparability between studies. Trial registration The protocol for this meta-analysis was pre-registered on PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42021249277.
Topics: Humans; Post-Traumatic Headache; Headache; Exercise Therapy; Manipulation, Spinal; Exercise
PubMed: 36419164
DOI: 10.1186/s12998-022-00459-9 -
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine &... Apr 2019Isometric training is used in the rehabilitation and physical preparation of athletes, special populations, and the general public. However, little consensus exists...
Isometric training is used in the rehabilitation and physical preparation of athletes, special populations, and the general public. However, little consensus exists regarding training guidelines for a variety of desired outcomes. Understanding the adaptive response to specific loading parameters would be of benefit to practitioners. The objective of this systematic review, therefore, was to detail the medium- to long-term adaptations of different types of isometric training on morphological, neurological, and performance variables. Exploration of the relevant subject matter was performed through MEDLINE, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL databases. English, full-text, peer-reviewed journal articles and unpublished doctoral dissertations investigating medium- to long-term (≥3 weeks) adaptations to isometric training in humans were identified. These studies were evaluated further for methodological quality. Twenty-six research outputs were reviewed. Isometric training at longer muscle lengths (0.86%-1.69%/week, ES = 0.03-0.09/week) produced greater muscular hypertrophy when compared to equal volumes of shorter muscle length training (0.08%-0.83%/week, ES = -0.003 to 0.07/week). Ballistic intent resulted in greater neuromuscular activation (1.04%-10.5%/week, ES = 0.02-0.31/week vs 1.64%-5.53%/week, ES = 0.03-0.20/week) and rapid force production (1.2%-13.4%/week, ES = 0.05-0.61/week vs 1.01%-8.13%/week, ES = 0.06-0.22/week). Substantial improvements in muscular hypertrophy and maximal force production were reported regardless of training intensity. High-intensity (≥70%) contractions are required for improving tendon structure and function. Additionally, long muscle length training results in greater transference to dynamic performance. Despite relatively few studies meeting the inclusion criteria, this review provides practitioners with insight into which isometric training variables (eg, joint angle, intensity, intent) to manipulate to achieve desired morphological and neuromuscular adaptations.
Topics: Adaptation, Physiological; Humans; Isometric Contraction; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training; Tendons
PubMed: 30580468
DOI: 10.1111/sms.13375 -
The Spine Journal : Official Journal of... May 2018Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used to benefit patients with chronic low back pain. However, questions remain about their efficacy, dosing, safety,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND CONTEXT
Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used to benefit patients with chronic low back pain. However, questions remain about their efficacy, dosing, safety, and how these approaches compare with other therapies.
PURPOSE
The present study aims to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic low back pain.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING
This is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
OUTCOME MEASURES
The present study measures self-reported pain, function, health-related quality of life, and adverse events.
METHODS
We identified studies by searching multiple electronic databases from January 2000 to March 2017, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation or mobilization therapies with sham, no treatment, other active therapies, and multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Where possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project is funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under Award Number U19AT007912.
RESULTS
Fifty-one trials were included in the systematic review. Nine trials (1,176 patients) provided sufficient data and were judged similar enough to be pooled for meta-analysis. The standardized mean difference for a reduction of pain was SMD=-0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.09, p=.004; I=57% after treatment; within seven trials (923 patients), the reduction in disability was SMD=-0.33, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.03, p=.03; I=78% for manipulation or mobilization compared with other active therapies. Subgroup analyses showed that manipulation significantly reduced pain and disability, compared with other active comparators including exercise and physical therapy (SMD=-0.43, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.00; p=.05, I=79%; SMD=-0.86, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.45; p<.0001, I=46%). Mobilization interventions, compared with other active comparators including exercise regimens, significantly reduced pain (SMD=-0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.04; p=.01; I=0%) but not disability (SMD=-0.10, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.07; p=.25; I=21%). Studies comparing manipulation or mobilization with sham or no treatment were too few or too heterogeneous to allow for pooling as were studies examining relationships between dose and outcomes. Few studies assessed health-related quality of life. Twenty-six of 51 trials were multimodal studies and narratively described.
CONCLUSION
There is moderate-quality evidence that manipulation and mobilization are likely to reduce pain and improve function for patients with chronic low back pain; manipulation appears to produce a larger effect than mobilization. Both therapies appear safe. Multimodal programs may be a promising option.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Low Back Pain; Manipulation, Chiropractic
PubMed: 29371112
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.01.013 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2015Neck pain is common, disabling and costly. Exercise is one treatment approach. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Neck pain is common, disabling and costly. Exercise is one treatment approach.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of exercises to improve pain, disability, function, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults with neck pain.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, MANTIS, ClinicalTrials.gov and three other computerized databases up to between January and May 2014 plus additional sources (reference checking, citation searching, contact with authors).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing single therapeutic exercise with a control for adults suffering from neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radiculopathy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently conducted trial selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment and clinical relevance. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. Meta-analyses were performed for relative risk and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) after judging clinical and statistical heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-seven trials (2485 analyzed /3005 randomized participants) met our inclusion criteria.For acute neck pain only, no evidence was found.For chronic neck pain, moderate quality evidence supports 1) cervico-scapulothoracic and upper extremity strength training to improve pain of a moderate to large amount immediately post treatment [pooled SMD (SMDp) -0.71 (95% CI: -1.33 to -0.10)] and at short-term follow-up; 2) scapulothoracic and upper extremity endurance training for slight beneficial effect on pain at immediate post treatment and short-term follow-up; 3) combined cervical, shoulder and scapulothoracic strengthening and stretching exercises varied from a small to large magnitude of beneficial effect on pain at immediate post treatment [SMDp -0.33 (95% CI: -0.55 to -0.10)] and up to long-term follow-up and a medium magnitude of effect improving function at both immediate post treatment and at short-term follow-up [SMDp -0.45 (95%CI: -0.72 to -0.18)]; 4) cervico-scapulothoracic strengthening/stabilization exercises to improve pain and function at intermediate term [SMDp -14.90 (95% CI:-22.40 to -7.39)]; 5) Mindfulness exercises (Qigong) minimally improved function but not global perceived effect at short term. Low evidence suggests 1) breathing exercises; 2) general fitness training; 3) stretching alone; and 4) feedback exercises combined with pattern synchronization may not change pain or function at immediate post treatment to short-term follow-up. Very low evidence suggests neuromuscular eye-neck co-ordination/proprioceptive exercises may improve pain and function at short-term follow-up.For chronic cervicogenic headache, moderate quality evidence supports static-dynamic cervico-scapulothoracic strengthening/endurance exercises including pressure biofeedback immediate post treatment and probably improves pain, function and global perceived effect at long-term follow-up. Low grade evidence supports sustained natural apophyseal glides (SNAG) exercises.For acute radiculopathy, low quality evidence suggests a small benefit for pain reduction at immediate post treatment with cervical stretch/strengthening/stabilization exercises.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No high quality evidence was found, indicating that there is still uncertainty about the effectiveness of exercise for neck pain. Using specific strengthening exercises as a part of routine practice for chronic neck pain, cervicogenic headache and radiculopathy may be beneficial. Research showed the use of strengthening and endurance exercises for the cervico-scapulothoracic and shoulder may be beneficial in reducing pain and improving function. However, when only stretching exercises were used no beneficial effects may be expected. Future research should explore optimal dosage.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Chronic Pain; Female; Headache; Humans; Male; Manipulation, Chiropractic; Neck; Neck Pain; Pain Management; Physical Therapy Modalities; Radiculopathy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25629215
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004250.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2014Adhesive capsulitis (also termed frozen shoulder) is commonly treated by manual therapy and exercise, usually delivered together as components of a physical therapy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Adhesive capsulitis (also termed frozen shoulder) is commonly treated by manual therapy and exercise, usually delivered together as components of a physical therapy intervention. This review is one of a series of reviews that form an update of the Cochrane review, 'Physiotherapy interventions for shoulder pain.'
OBJECTIVES
To synthesise available evidence regarding the benefits and harms of manual therapy and exercise, alone or in combination, for the treatment of patients with adhesive capsulitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP clinical trials registries up to May 2013, unrestricted by language, and reviewed the reference lists of review articles and retrieved trials, to identify potentially relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials, including adults with adhesive capsulitis, and comparing any manual therapy or exercise intervention versus placebo, no intervention, a different type of manual therapy or exercise or any other intervention. Interventions included mobilisation, manipulation and supervised or home exercise, delivered alone or in combination. Trials investigating the primary or adjunct effect of a combination of manual therapy and exercise were the main comparisons of interest. Main outcomes of interest were participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater, overall pain (mean or mean change), function, global assessment of treatment success, active shoulder abduction, quality of life and the number of participants experiencing adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted the data, performed a risk of bias assessment and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 trials (1836 participants). No trial compared a combination of manual therapy and exercise versus placebo or no intervention. Seven trials compared a combination of manual therapy and exercise versus other interventions but were clinically heterogeneous, so opportunities for meta-analysis were limited. The overall impression gained from these trials is that the few outcome differences between interventions that were clinically important were detected only up to seven weeks. Evidence of moderate quality shows that a combination of manual therapy and exercise for six weeks probably results in less improvement at seven weeks but a similar number of adverse events compared with glucocorticoid injection. The mean change in pain with glucocorticoid injection was 58 points on a 100-point scale, and 32 points with manual therapy and exercise (mean difference (MD) 26 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 15 points to 37 points; one RCT, 107 participants), for an absolute difference of 26% (15% to 37%). Mean change in function with glucocorticoid injection was 39 points on a 100-point scale, and 14 points with manual therapy and exercise (MD 25 points, 95% CI 35 points to 15 points; one RCT, 107 participants), for an absolute difference of 25% (15% to 35%). Forty-six per cent (26/56) of participants reported treatment success with manual therapy and exercise compared with 77% (40/52) of participants receiving glucocorticoid injection (risk ratio (RR) 0.6, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.83; one RCT, 108 participants), with an absolute risk difference of 30% (13% to 48%). The number reporting adverse events did not differ between groups: 56% (32/57) reported events with manual therapy and exercise, and 53% (30/57) with glucocorticoid injection (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.49; one RCT, 114 participants), with an absolute risk difference of 4% (-15% to 22%). Group differences in improvement in overall pain and function at six months and 12 months were not clinically important.We are uncertain of the effect of other combinations of manual therapy and exercise, as most evidence is of low quality. Meta-analysis of two trials (86 participants) suggested no clinically important differences between a combination of manual therapy, exercise, and electrotherapy for four weeks and placebo injection compared with glucocorticoid injection alone or placebo injection alone in terms of overall pain, function, active range of motion and quality of life at six weeks, six months and 12 months (though the 95% CI suggested function may be better with glucocorticoid injection at six weeks). The same two trials found that adding a combination of manual therapy, exercise and electrotherapy for four weeks to glucocorticoid injection did not confer clinically important benefits over glucocorticoid injection alone at each time point. Based on one high quality trial (148 participants), following arthrographic joint distension with glucocorticoid and saline, a combination of manual therapy and supervised exercise for six weeks conferred similar effects to those of sham ultrasound in terms of overall pain, function and quality of life at six weeks and at six months, but provided greater patient-reported treatment success and active shoulder abduction at six weeks. One trial (119 participants) found that a combination of manual therapy, exercise, electrotherapy and oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) for three weeks did not confer clinically important benefits over oral NSAID alone in terms of function and patient-reported treatment success at three weeks.On the basis of 25 clinically heterogeneous trials, we are uncertain of the effect of manual therapy or exercise when not delivered together, or one type of manual therapy or exercise versus another, as most reported differences between groups were not clinically or statistically significant, and the evidence is mostly of low quality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The best available data show that a combination of manual therapy and exercise may not be as effective as glucocorticoid injection in the short-term. It is unclear whether a combination of manual therapy, exercise and electrotherapy is an effective adjunct to glucocorticoid injection or oral NSAID. Following arthrographic joint distension with glucocorticoid and saline, manual therapy and exercise may confer effects similar to those of sham ultrasound in terms of overall pain, function and quality of life, but may provide greater patient-reported treatment success and active range of motion. High-quality RCTs are needed to establish the benefits and harms of manual therapy and exercise interventions that reflect actual practice, compared with placebo, no intervention and active interventions with evidence of benefit (e.g. glucocorticoid injection).
Topics: Adult; Bursitis; Exercise Therapy; Female; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Injections, Intra-Articular; Male; Middle Aged; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Shoulder Pain
PubMed: 25157702
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011275