-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2014Low back pain (LBP) is responsible for considerable personal suffering worldwide. Those with persistent disabling symptoms also contribute to substantial costs to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Low back pain (LBP) is responsible for considerable personal suffering worldwide. Those with persistent disabling symptoms also contribute to substantial costs to society via healthcare expenditure and reduced work productivity. While there are many treatment options, none are universally endorsed. The idea that chronic LBP is a condition best understood with reference to an interaction of physical, psychological and social influences, the 'biopsychosocial model', has received increasing acceptance. This has led to the development of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) programs that target factors from the different domains, administered by healthcare professionals from different backgrounds.
OBJECTIVES
To review the evidence on the effectiveness of MBR for patients with chronic LBP. The focus was on comparisons with usual care and with physical treatments measuring outcomes of pain, disability and work status, particularly in the long term.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases in January and March 2014 together with carrying out handsearches of the reference lists of included and related studies, forward citation tracking of included studies and screening of studies excluded in the previous version of this review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All studies identified in the searches were screened independently by two review authors; disagreements regarding inclusion were resolved by consensus. The inclusion criteria were published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included adults with non-specific LBP of longer than 12 weeks duration; the index intervention targeted at least two of physical, psychological and social or work-related factors; and the index intervention was delivered by clinicians from at least two different professional backgrounds.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted and checked information to describe the included studies, assessed risk of bias and performed the analyses. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to describe the methodological quality. The primary outcomes were pain, disability and work status, divided into the short, medium and long term. Secondary outcomes were psychological functioning (for example depression, anxiety, catastrophising), healthcare service utilisation, quality of life and adverse events. We categorised the control interventions as usual care, physical treatment, surgery, or wait list for surgery in separate meta-analyses. The first two comparisons formed our primary focus. We performed meta-analyses using random-effects models and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE method. We performed sensitivity analyses to assess the influence of the methodological quality, and subgroup analyses to investigate the influence of baseline symptom severity and intervention intensity.
MAIN RESULTS
From 6168 studies identified in the searches, 41 RCTs with a total of 6858 participants were included. Methodological quality ratings ranged from 1 to 9 out 12, and 13 of the 41 included studies were assessed as low risk of bias. Pooled estimates from 16 RCTs provided moderate to low quality evidence that MBR is more effective than usual care in reducing pain and disability, with standardised mean differences (SMDs) in the long term of 0.21 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.37) and 0.23 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.4) respectively. The range across all time points equated to approximately 0.5 to 1.4 units on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale for pain and 1.4 to 2.5 points on the Roland Morris disability scale (0 to 24). There was moderate to low quality evidence of no difference on work outcomes (odds ratio (OR) at long term 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.47). Pooled estimates from 19 RCTs provided moderate to low quality evidence that MBR was more effective than physical treatment for pain and disability with SMDs in the long term of 0.51 (95% CI -0.01 to 1.04) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.19) respectively. Across all time points this translated to approximately 0.6 to 1.2 units on the pain scale and 1.2 to 4.0 points on the Roland Morris scale. There was moderate to low quality evidence of an effect on work outcomes (OR at long term 1.87, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.53). There was insufficient evidence to assess whether MBR interventions were associated with more adverse events than usual care or physical interventions.Sensitivity analyses did not suggest that the pooled estimates were unduly influenced by the results from low quality studies. Subgroup analyses were inconclusive regarding the influence of baseline symptom severity and intervention intensity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Patients with chronic LBP receiving MBR are likely to experience less pain and disability than those receiving usual care or a physical treatment. MBR also has a positive influence on work status compared to physical treatment. Effects are of a modest magnitude and should be balanced against the time and resource requirements of MBR programs. More intensive interventions were not responsible for effects that were substantially different to those of less intensive interventions. While we were not able to determine if symptom intensity at presentation influenced the likelihood of success, it seems appropriate that only those people with indicators of significant psychosocial impact are referred to MBR.
Topics: Adult; Back Pain; Chronic Pain; Humans; Occupational Therapy; Pain Measurement; Psychotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Social Support; Work
PubMed: 25180773
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000963.pub3 -
PloS One 2019To investigate the role of thoracic spine manipulation (TSM) on pain and disability in the management of mechanical neck pain (MNP). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the role of thoracic spine manipulation (TSM) on pain and disability in the management of mechanical neck pain (MNP).
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, Pedro, Embase, AMED, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched in January 2018.
STUDY SELECTION
Eligible studies were completed RCTs, written in English, had at least 2 groups with one group receiving TSM, had at least one measure of pain or disability, and included patients with MNP of any duration. The search identified 1717 potential articles, with 14 studies meeting inclusion criteria.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
Methodological quality was evaluated independently by two authors using the guidelines published by the Cochrane Collaboration. Pooled analyses were analyzed using a random-effects model with inverse variance methods to calculate mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals for pain (VAS 0-100mm, NPRS 0-10pts; 0 = no pain) and disability (NDI and NPQ 0-100%; 0 = no disability).
RESULTS
Across the included studies, there was increased risk of bias for inadequate provider and participant blinding. The GRADE approach demonstrated an overall level of evidence ranging from very low to moderate. Meta-analysis that compared TSM to thoracic or cervical mobilization revealed a significant effect favoring the TSM group for pain (MD -13.63; 95% CI: -21.79, -5.46) and disability (MD -9.93; 95% CI: -14.38, -5.48). Meta-analysis that compared TSM to standard care revealed a significant effect favoring the TSM group for pain (MD -13.21; 95% CI: -21.87, -4.55) and disability (MD -11.36; 95% CI: -18.93, -3.78) at short-term follow-up, and a significant effect for disability (MD -4.75; 95% CI: -6.54, -2.95) at long-term follow-up. Meta-analysis that compared TSM to cervical spine manipulation revealed a non-significant effect (MD 3.43; 95% CI: -7.26, 14.11) for pain without a distinction between immediate and short-term follow-up.
LIMITATIONS
The greatest limitation in this systematic review was the heterogeneity among the studies making it difficult to assess the true clinical benefit, as well as the overall level of quality of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
TSM has been shown to be more beneficial than thoracic mobilization, cervical mobilization, and standard care in the short-term, but no better than cervical manipulation or placebo thoracic spine manipulation to improve pain and disability.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42017068287.
Topics: Adult; Disabled Persons; Female; Humans; Low Back Pain; Male; Manipulation, Spinal; Middle Aged; Neck; Neck Pain; Spine; Stress, Mechanical
PubMed: 30759118
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211877 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2015Low-back pain (LBP) is responsible for considerable personal suffering due to pain and reduced function, as well as the societal burden due to costs of health care and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Low-back pain (LBP) is responsible for considerable personal suffering due to pain and reduced function, as well as the societal burden due to costs of health care and lost work productivity. For the vast majority of people with LBP, no specific anatomical cause can be reliably identified. For these people with non-specific LBP there are numerous treatment options, few of which have been shown to be effective in reducing pain and disability. The muscle energy technique (MET) is a treatment technique used predominantly by osteopaths, physiotherapists and chiropractors which involves alternating periods of resisted muscle contractions and assisted stretching. To date it is unclear whether MET is effective in reducing pain and improving function in people with LBP.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness of MET in the treatment of people with non-specific LBP compared with control interventions, with particular emphasis on subjective pain and disability outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases and two trials registers were searched from inception to May and June 2014 together with reference checking and citation searching of relevant systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials assessing the effect of MET on pain or disability in patients with non-specific LBP were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted the data. Meta-analysis was performed where clinical homogeneity was sufficient. The quality of the evidence for each comparison was assessed with the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
There were 12 randomised controlled trials with 14 comparisons included in the review, with a total sample of 500 participants across all comparisons. Included studies were typically very small (n = 20 to 72), all except one were assessed as being at high risk of bias, and all reported short-term outcomes. For the purposes of pooling, studies were divided into seven clinically homogenous comparisons according to the patient population (acute or chronic LBP) and the nature of the control intervention. Most of the comparisons (five out of seven) included only one study, one comparison had two studies, and one comparison included seven studies.The meta-analyses provided low-quality evidence that MET provided no additional benefit when added to other therapies on the outcomes of chronic pain and disability in the short-term (weighted mean difference (WMD) for pain 0.00, 95% CI -2.97 to 2.98 on a 100-point scale; standardised mean difference (SMD) for disability -0.18, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.08, 7 studies, 232 participants). There was low-quality evidence that MET produced no clinically relevant differences in pain compared to sham MET (mean difference (MD) 14.20, 95% CI -10.14 to 38.54, 1 study, 20 participants). For the comparison of MET to other conservative therapies for acute non-specific LBP, there was very low-quality evidence of no clinically relevant difference for the outcomes of pain (MD -10.72, 95% CI -32.57 to 11.13, 2 studies, 88 participants) and functional status (MD 0.87, 95% CI -6.31 to 8.05, 1 study, 60 participants). For the comparison of MET to other conservative therapies for chronic non-specific LBP, there was low-quality evidence of no clinically relevant difference for the outcomes of pain (MD -9.70, 95% CI -20.20 to 0.80, 1 study, 30 participants) and functional status (MD -4.10, 95% CI -9.53 to 1.33, 1 study, 30 participants). There was low-quality evidence of no clinically relevant difference for the addition of MET to other interventions for acute non-specific LBP for the outcome of pain (MD -3, 95% CI -11.37 to 5.37, 1 study, 40 participants) and low-quality evidence of an effect in favour of MET for functional status (MD -17.6, 95% CI -27.05 to -8.15, 1 study, 40 participants). For chronic non-specific LBP, there was low-quality evidence of an effect in favour of MET for the addition of MET to other interventions for the outcomes of pain (MD -34.1, 95% CI -38.43 to -29.77, 1 study, 30 participants) and functional status (MD -22, 95% CI -27.41 to -16.59, 1 study, 30 participants). Lastly, there was low-quality evidence of no difference for the addition of MET to another manual intervention compared to the same intervention with other conservative therapies for the outcomes of pain (MD 5.20, 95% CI -3.03 to 13.43, 1 study, 20 participants) and functional status (MD 6.0, 95% CI -0.49 to 12.49, 1 study, 20 participants).No study reported on our other primary outcome of general well-being. Seven studies reported that no adverse events were observed, whereas the other five studies did not report any information on adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The quality of research related to testing the effectiveness of MET is poor. Studies are generally small and at high risk of bias due to methodological deficiencies. Studies conducted to date generally provide low-quality evidence that MET is not effective for patients with LBP. There is not sufficient evidence to reliably determine whether MET is likely to be effective in practice. Large, methodologically-sound studies are necessary to investigate this question.
Topics: Acute Pain; Chronic Pain; Humans; Low Back Pain; Manipulation, Osteopathic; Muscle Contraction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selection Bias
PubMed: 25723574
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009852.pub2 -
Current Oncology Reports Jan 2020This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize the evidence on the effects of psychosocial interventions on pain in advanced cancer patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize the evidence on the effects of psychosocial interventions on pain in advanced cancer patients.
RECENT FINDINGS
The included studies investigated the effects of relaxation techniques, cognitive-behavioral therapy, music therapy, mindfulness- and acceptance-based interventions, and supportive-expressive group therapy. Overall, we found a small, but significant effect on pain intensity (d = - 0.29, CI = - 0.54 to - 0.05). Effect sizes were highly heterogeneous between studies. We did not find evidence for the superiority of any of the intervention types. However, psychosocial interventions may be more effective if they specifically targeted pain distress as the primary outcome. Although findings were mixed, psychosocial interventions can be recommended to complement comprehensive care to alleviate pain in patients facing an advanced or terminal stage of the disease. Future research should develop innovative interventions tailored specifically for pain relief.
Topics: Cancer Pain; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Neoplasms; Pain Management; Psychosocial Intervention; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31965361
DOI: 10.1007/s11912-020-0870-7 -
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research Aug 2022The heel fat pad is an important structure of the foot as it functions as a cushion to absorb shock and distribute plantar force during ambulation. Clinical practice... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The heel fat pad is an important structure of the foot as it functions as a cushion to absorb shock and distribute plantar force during ambulation. Clinical practice guidelines or decision support platforms emphasize that heel fat pad syndrome (HFPS) is a distinct pathology contributing to plantar heel pain. We aimed to identify and synthesize the prevalence, etiology and diagnostic criteria, and conservative management of HFPS.
METHODS
A comprehensive search was conducted in May 2021 and updated in April 2022, using MEDLINE, Scopus, Cinahl, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, SPORTDiscus, and PEDro and ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for pertinent registrations. We included all study types and designs describing the prevalence; etiology and diagnostic criteria; and non-pharmacological, non-surgical interventions for HFPS.
RESULTS
We found a small body of original research for HFPS (n = 7). Many excluded full-text articles were expert-opinion articles or studies of heel fat pad in participants with plantar fasciitis/fasciopathy or unspecified heel pain. HFPS may be the second leading cause of plantar heel pain, based on two studies. A number of differentiating pain characteristics and behaviors may aid in diagnosing HFPS vs. plantar fasciopathy. Thinning heel fat pad confirmed by ultrasonography may provide imaging corroboration. Randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of viscoelastic heel cups or arch taping for managing HFPS do not exist.
CONCLUSIONS
The research literature for HFPS is sparse and sometimes lacking scientific rigor. We have identified a substantial knowledge gap for this condition, frequent inattention to distinguishing HFPS from plantar fasciopathy when describing plantar heel pain, and an absence of robust clinical trials to support the commonly recommended conservative management of HFPS.
Topics: Adipose Tissue; Fasciitis, Plantar; Heel; Humans; Pain; Pain Measurement
PubMed: 35974398
DOI: 10.1186/s13047-022-00568-x -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Oct 2023To date, no consensus exists as to whether one exercise type is more effective than another in chronic neck pain. This systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To date, no consensus exists as to whether one exercise type is more effective than another in chronic neck pain. This systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews aimed to summarize the literature on the effect of various exercise types used in chronic neck pain and to assess the certainty of the evidence.
METHODS
We searched the databases Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, SportDiscus, and Web of Science (Core Collection) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on adults between 18 and 70 years with chronic neck pain lasting ≥ 12 weeks which investigated the effects of exercises on pain and disability. The included reviews were grouped into motor control exercise (MCE), Pilates exercises, resistance training, traditional Chinese exercise (TCE), and yoga. Study quality was assessed with AMSTAR-2 and the level of certainty for the effects of the exercise through GRADE. A narrative analysis of the results was performed and in addition, meta-analyses when feasible.
RESULTS
Our database search resulted in 1,794 systematic reviews. We included 25 systematic reviews and meta-analyses including 17,321 participants (overlap not accounted for). The quality of the included reviews ranged from critically low to low (n = 13) to moderate to high (n = 12). We found low to high certainty of evidence that MCE, Pilates exercises, resistance training, TCE, and yoga have short-term positive effects on pain and that all exercise types except resistance training, show positive effects on disability compared to non-exercise controls. We found low to moderate certainty of evidence for conflicting results on pain and disability when the exercise types were compared to other exercise interventions in the short-term as well as in intermediate/long-term apart for yoga, as no long-term results were available.
CONCLUSION
Overall, our findings show low to high certainty of evidence for positive effects on pain and disability of the various exercise types used in chronic neck pain compared to non-exercise interventions, at least in the short-term. Based on our results, no optimal exercise intervention for patients with chronic neck pain can be recommended, since no large differences between the exercise types were shown here. Because the quality of the included systematic reviews varied greatly, future systematic reviews need to increase their methodological quality.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Prospero CRD42022336014.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Chronic Pain; Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Neck Pain; Quality of Life; Yoga; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 37828488
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06930-9 -
Disability and Rehabilitation Mar 2019Walking is commonly recommended to relieve pain and improve function in chronic low back pain. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Walking is commonly recommended to relieve pain and improve function in chronic low back pain. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials concerning the effectiveness of walking interventions compared to other physical exercise on pain, disability, quality of life and fear-avoidance, in chronic low back pain.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of walking alone compared to exercise and to exercise with added walking on adults with chronic low back pain were identified using the MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsychINFO, and SPORT Discus databases. Two reviewers independently selected the studies and extracted the results. Study quality was assessed using the PEDro scale and the clinical relevance of each outcome measure was evaluated.
RESULTS
Meta-analysis of five randomized controlled trials meeting inclusion criteria was performed. The effectiveness of walking and exercise at short-, mid-, and long-term follow-ups appeared statistically similar. Adding walking to exercise did not induce any further statistical improvement, at short-term.
CONCLUSIONS
Pain, disability, quality of life and fear-avoidance similarly improve by walking or exercise in chronic low back pain. Walking may be considered as an alternative to other physical activity. Further studies with larger samples, different walking dosages, and different walking types should be conducted. Implications for Rehabilitation Walking is commonly recommended as an activity in chronic low back pain. Pain, disability, and fear-avoidance similarly improve by walking or exercise. Adding walking to exercise does not induce greater improvement in the short-term. Walking may be a less-expensive alternative to physical exercise in chronic low back pain.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Disabled Persons; Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Low Back Pain; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Walking
PubMed: 29207885
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2017.1410730 -
Pain Jan 2019In 2006, PAIN published a systematic review of the measurement properties of self-report pain intensity measures in children and adolescents (Stinson JN, Kavanagh T,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
In 2006, PAIN published a systematic review of the measurement properties of self-report pain intensity measures in children and adolescents (Stinson JN, Kavanagh T, Yamada J, Gill N, Stevens B. Systematic review of the psychometric properties, interpretability and feasibility of self-report pain intensity measures for use in clinical trials in children and adolescents. PAIN 2006;125:143-57). Key developments in pediatric pain necessitate an update of this work, most notably growing use of the 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS-11). Our aim was to review the measurement properties of single-item self-report pain intensity measures in children 3 to 18 years old. A secondary aim was to develop evidence-based recommendations for measurement of child and adolescent self-report of acute, postoperative, and chronic pain. Methodological quality and sufficiency of measurement properties for reliability, validity, responsiveness, and interpretability was assessed by at least 2 investigators using COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). Searches identified 60 unique self-report measures, of which 8 (reported in 80 papers) met inclusion criteria. Well-established measures included the NRS-11, Color Analogue Scale (CAS), Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R; and original FPS), Pieces of Hurt, Oucher-Photographic and Numeric scales, Visual Analogue Scale, and Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale (FACES). Quality of studies ranged from poor to excellent and generally reported sufficient criterion and construct validity, and responsiveness, with variable reliability. Content and cross-cultural validity were minimally assessed. Based on available evidence, the NRS-11, FPS-R, and CAS were strongly recommended for self-report of acute pain. Only weak recommendations could be made for self-report measures for postoperative and chronic pain. No measures were recommended for children younger than 6 years, identifying a need for further measurement refinement in this age range. Clinical practice and future research implications are discussed.
Topics: Adolescent; Humans; Pain; Pain Measurement; Self Report
PubMed: 30180088
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001377 -
The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports... Jan 2024We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of clinical tests that are used to diagnose greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) in clinical practice. Diagnostic test accuracy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of clinical tests that are used to diagnose greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) in clinical practice. Diagnostic test accuracy systematic review with meta-analysis. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, and SPORTDiscus were searched using key words mapped to diagnostic test accuracy for GTPS. Studies with published or derivable diagnostic accuracy data were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool, and certainty of evidence, via the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework. MetaDTA "R" random-effects models were used to summarize individual and pooled data including sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and pretest/posttest probabilities. From a database yield of 858 studies, 23 full texts were assessed. We included 6 studies for review, involving 15 tests and 272 participants (314 hips). Overall certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Meta-analysis of 6 tests revealed sequenced test clusters able to significantly shift pretest-posttest probability for or against a GTPS diagnosis. In people reporting lateral hip pain, a negative gluteal tendon (GT) palpation test followed by a negative resisted hip abduction test significantly reduced the posttest probability of GTPS from 59% to 14%. In those with a positive GT palpation test followed by a positive resisted hip abduction test, the posttest probability of GTPS significantly shifted from 59% to 96%. The value of magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing GTPS is debated. We have identified a straightforward, clinically useful diagnostic test cluster to help confirm or refute the presence of GTPS in people reporting lateral hip pain. .
Topics: Humans; Hip; Hip Joint; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Arthralgia; Pain; Bursitis
PubMed: 37561820
DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2023.11890 -
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies 2019Muscle energy techniques are applied to reduce pain and increase range of motion. These are applied to a variety of pathological conditions and on asymptomatic subjects.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Muscle energy techniques are applied to reduce pain and increase range of motion. These are applied to a variety of pathological conditions and on asymptomatic subjects. There is however limited knowledge on their effectiveness and which protocol may be the most beneficial.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this review is to determine the efficacy of muscle energy techniques (MET) in symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects.
DESIGN
Systematic Review.
METHODS
A literature search was performed using the following database: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, NLM Pubmed and ScienceDirect. Studies regarding MET in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients were considered for investigation. The main outcomes took into account range of motion, chronic and acute pain and trigger points. Two trained investigators independently screened eligible studies according to the eligibility criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Randomized control trials (RCT's) were analyzed for quality using the PEDro scale.
RESULTS
A total of 26 studies were considered eligible and included in the quantitative synthesis: 14 regarding symptomatic patients and 12 regarding asymptomatic subjects. Quality assessment of the studies through the PEDro scale observed a "moderate to high" quality of the included records.
CONCLUSIONS
MET are an effective treatment for reducing chronic and acute pain of the lower back. MET are also effective in treating chronic neck pain and chronic lateral epicondylitis. MET can be applied to increase range of motion of a joint when a functional limitation is present. Other techniques seem to be more appropriate compared to MET for trigger points.
Topics: Acute Pain; Asymptomatic Diseases; Chronic Pain; Humans; Manipulation, Osteopathic; Muscles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Range of Motion, Articular; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31462989
DOI: 10.1186/s12998-019-0258-7