-
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jan 2021BELAVY, D. L., J. Van Oosterwijck, M. Clarkson, E. Dhondt, N. L. Mundell, C. Miller and P. J. Owen. NEUROSCI BIOBEHAV REV 21(1) XXX-XXX, 2020. Exercise training is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BELAVY, D. L., J. Van Oosterwijck, M. Clarkson, E. Dhondt, N. L. Mundell, C. Miller and P. J. Owen. NEUROSCI BIOBEHAV REV 21(1) XXX-XXX, 2020. Exercise training is capable of reducing pain in chronic pain syndromes, yet its mechanisms are less well established. One mechanism may be via the impact of exercise on increasing a person's pain threshold. Here we show, via meta-analysis of fifteen exercise training studies in pain syndromes that exercise training leads to increased pressure pain thresholds (low to moderate quality evidence). We also find low to moderate quality evidence exists that exercise training was more effective than non-exercise interventions, such as pain education, massage and stress management for improving pain sensitivity. Further, the effect of exercise was greater locally at the site of pain and less so at remote regions. These finding suggest that adaptations in central inhibition occur over time with exercise training and, more widely, add to the mechanistic understanding of how effective interventions can improve pain in chronic pain syndromes.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Pain Threshold
PubMed: 33253748
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.11.012 -
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies Sep 2022Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a condition with local and referred pain characterized by trigger points (taut bands within the muscle). Ischemic compression is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a condition with local and referred pain characterized by trigger points (taut bands within the muscle). Ischemic compression is a noninvasive manual therapy technique that has been employed for the treatment of MPS in past decades. However, little attention has been devoted to this topic.
OBJECTIVES
The present review was designed to explore the efficacy of ischemic compression for myofascial pain syndrome by performing a descriptive systematic review and a meta-analysis to estimate the effect of ischemic compression on MPS.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis concerning randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with myofascial pain subjects who received ischemic compression versus placebo, sham, or usual interventions. Five databases (PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Ovid) were searched from the earliest data available to 2022.1.2. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for statistics. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk of tool 2 (RoB 2) was used to assess the quality of the included RCTs.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies were included in the systematic review, and 15 studies were included in the meta-analysis. For the pressure pain threshold (PPT) index, 11 studies and 427 subjects demonstrated statistically significant differences compared with the control at posttreatment (SMD = 0.67, 95% CI [0.35, 0.98], P < 0.0001, I = 59%). For visual analog scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS) indices, 7 studies and 251 subjects demonstrated that there was no significant difference between ischemic compression and controls posttreatment (SMD = - 0.22, 95% CI [- 0.53, 0.09], P = 0.16, I = 33%).
CONCLUSION
Ischemic compression, as a conservative and noninvasive therapy, only enhanced tolerance to pain in MPS subjects compared with inactive control. Furthermore, there was no evidence of benefit for self-reported pain. The number of currently included subjects was relatively small, so the conclusion may be changed by future studies. Big scale RCTs with more subjects will be critical in future.
Topics: Humans; Myofascial Pain Syndromes; Pain; Pain Measurement; Pain Threshold
PubMed: 36050701
DOI: 10.1186/s12998-022-00441-5 -
Nutrients Jan 2023Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is recognized for its difficulty to diagnose and its subjective symptomatology. There is neither a known cure nor a recommended therapeutic... (Review)
Review
Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is recognized for its difficulty to diagnose and its subjective symptomatology. There is neither a known cure nor a recommended therapeutic diet to aid in the multidisciplinary treatment. We conducted a systematic review to investigate if diets can improve pain symptoms of fibromyalgia. Through the PubMed search in March 2022, 126 abstracts were identified. We included both intervention and observational studies of diets and pain symptoms among patients with FMS. After screening titles, abstracts, and full-texts, 12 studies, including 11 intervention and one observational study, were selected. These studies included 546 participants and investigated plant-based diets ( = 3), anti-inflammatory diets ( = 1), gluten-free diets ( = 2), and elimination/restrictive diets ( = 6). These studies assessed pain symptoms through visual analogue scale for pain, fibromyalgia impact questionnaire/revised fibromyalgia impact questionnaire, tender point count, pain pressure threshold, and/or total myalgic score. Nine studies, including all three plant-based diet studies, reported statistically significant beneficial effects of their respective diets on pain symptom measurements. Given the small sample size and short intervention duration of the included studies, limited evidence currently exists to recommend any specific diet to patients with FMS. Further research is warranted to clarify specific diets to recommend and explore their potential mechanisms.
Topics: Humans; Fibromyalgia; Pain Threshold; Diet, Gluten-Free; Pain Measurement; Myalgia; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36771421
DOI: 10.3390/nu15030716 -
The Journal of Sexual Medicine Jan 2022BDSM is an abbreviation used to reference the concepts of bondage and discipline, dominance and submission, sadism and masochism, enacted by power exchanges between...
INTRODUCTION
BDSM is an abbreviation used to reference the concepts of bondage and discipline, dominance and submission, sadism and masochism, enacted by power exchanges between consensual partners. In recent years, attention has shifted from the idea of BDSM as a pathological and tabooed niche practice towards viewing BDSM as a healthy form of intimacy.
AIM
This systematic review brings together all existing literature on the biology of BDSM and places it in a broader biological context.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science and PsycARTICLES, of which 10 articles are included and discussed in this systematic review.
RESULTS
There is evidence for cortisol changes in submissives as a result of a BDSM interaction, suggesting involvement of the physiological stress system. Endocannabinoid changes implicate the pleasure and reward system. In dominants, this biologically measured pleasure seemed to be dependent on power play rather than pain play. Testosterone and oxytocin are also implicated in BDSM, though their role is less evident. Research into brain region activity patterns related to BDSM interest suggests a role for the parietal operculum and ventral striatum in the context of the pleasure and reward system, the primary and secondary somatosensory cortex in the context of pain perception, empathy-related circuits such as the anterior insula, anterior midcingulate cortex and sensorimotor cortex and the left frontal cortex in the context of social and sexual interactions. Pain thresholds are shown to be higher in submissive individuals and a BDSM interaction may cause pain thresholds to rise in submissives as well.
CONCLUSION
BDSM interactions are complex and influenced by several psychological, social and biological processes. Though research is limited, there is emerging evidence for an interaction between several biological systems involved in these types of interests and activities. This means there is an important role for future research to replicate and supplement current results. Wuyts E, Morrens M. The Biology of BDSM: A Systematic Review. J Sex Med 2022;19:144-157.
Topics: Biology; Humans; Masochism; Pleasure; Sadism; Sexual Behavior
PubMed: 34876387
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.11.002 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Mar 2020Dietary patterns may play an important role in musculoskeletal well-being. However, the link between dietary patterns, the components of patients' diet, and chronic... (Review)
Review
Dietary patterns may play an important role in musculoskeletal well-being. However, the link between dietary patterns, the components of patients' diet, and chronic musculoskeletal pain remains unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to systematically review the literature on the link between dietary patterns, the components of patients' diet and chronic musculoskeletal pain. This review was conducted following the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO with the registration number CRD42018110782. PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase online databases were searched. After screening titles and abstracts of 20,316 articles and full texts of 347 articles, 12 eligible articles were included in this review, consisting of nine experimental and three observational studies. Seven out of nine experimental studies reported a pain-relieving effect of dietary changes. Additionally, protein, fat, and sugar intake were found to be associated with pain intensity and pain threshold. In conclusion, plant-based diets might have pain relieving effects on chronic musculoskeletal pain. Patients with chronic rheumatoid arthritis pain can show inadequate intake of calcium, folate, zinc, magnesium, and vitamin B6, whilst patients with fibromyalgia can show a lower intake of carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, vitamin A-E-K, folate, selenium, and zinc. Chronic pain severity also shows a positive relation with fat and sugar intake in osteoarthritis, and pain threshold shows a positive association with protein intake in fibromyalgia.
PubMed: 32150934
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030702 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2021Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is one of the most common musculoskeletal diseases in the elderly, which has a severe impact on the health of the elderly. However, CLBP...
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is one of the most common musculoskeletal diseases in the elderly, which has a severe impact on the health of the elderly. However, CLBP treatment is very challenging, and more effective treatment methods are needed. Myofascial release may be an effective therapy for the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain. It is widely used clinically to treat CLBP, but its clinical efficacy is still controversial. This study aims to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of myofascial release for patients with CLBP. We selected PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE database, and Web of Science database articles published until April 5, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of myofascial release for CLBP were included. Outcome measures included pain, physical function, quality of life, balance function, pain pressure-threshold, trunk mobility, and mental health. For each outcome, Standardized mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Eight RCTs ( = 375) were included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed that the overall efficacy of myofascial release for CLBP was significant, including two aspects: pain [SMD = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.67, -0.08), = 46%, = 0.01] and physical function [SMD = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.75, -0.12), = 44%, = 0.007]. However, myofascial release did not significantly improve quality of life [SMD = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.38, 0.64), = 53%, = 0.62], balance function [SMD = 0.58, 95% CI (-0.49, 1.64), = 82%, = 0.29], pain pressure-threshold [SMD = 0.03,95% CI (-0.75, 0.69), = 73%, = 0.93], trunk mobility [SMD = 1.02, 95% CI (-0.09, 2.13), = 92%, = 0.07] and mental health [SMD = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.83, 0.71), = 73%, = 0.88]. In this study, we systematically reviewed and quantified the efficacy of myofascial release in treating CLBP. The meta-analysis results showed that myofascial release significantly improved pain and physical function in patients with CLBP but had no significant effects on balance function, pain pressure-threshold, trunk mobility, mental health, and quality of life. However, due to the low quality and a small number of included literature, more and more rigorously designed RCTs should be included in the future to verify these conclusions.
PubMed: 34395477
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.697986 -
Acta Paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) Mar 2023To evaluate breastfeeding symptoms associated with ankyloglossia/tongue-tie. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To evaluate breastfeeding symptoms associated with ankyloglossia/tongue-tie.
METHODS
Databases included PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Eligible studies reported baseline breastfeeding symptoms/severity from tongue-tied infants. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed quality. Low-quality studies were excluded. Main outcomes were weighted mean severity scores for dyads with ankyloglossia relative to reference values for successful breastfeeding. Meta-analyses used inverse-variance-weighted random-effects models.
RESULTS
Of 1328 screened studies, 39 were included (5730 infants with ankyloglossia). The mean LATCH score for patients with untreated ankyloglossia, 7.1 (95% CI: 6.7-7.4), was significantly below the good-breastfeeding threshold. The mean Infant Breastfeeding Assessment Tool score, 10.0 (8.2-11.7), was not significantly below the good-breastfeeding threshold. The mean Infant-Gastroesophageal Reflux Questionnaire-Revised score, 18.2 (10.5-26.0), was consistent with gastroesophageal reflux disease. The mean Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale-Short Form score, 43.7 (39.3-48.1), indicated significant risk of cessation of exclusive breastfeeding within 1-3 months. Mean nipple pain was 4.9 (4.1-5.7) on a 0-10 scale, greater than typical scores for breastfeeding mothers without nipple damage. Total prevalence of breastfeeding difficulties was 49.3% (95% CI: 47.3-51.4%). Early, undesired weaning occurred in 20.3% (18.5-22.2%) of cases before intervention.
CONCLUSION
Ankyloglossia is adversely associated with breastfeeding success and maternal well-being.
Topics: Infant; Female; Humans; Ankyloglossia; Breast Feeding; Lingual Frenum; Prevalence; Weaning; Gastroesophageal Reflux
PubMed: 36437565
DOI: 10.1111/apa.16609 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2015Idiopathic scoliosis is a three-dimensional deformity of the spine. The most common form is diagnosed in adolescence. While adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) can... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Idiopathic scoliosis is a three-dimensional deformity of the spine. The most common form is diagnosed in adolescence. While adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) can progress during growth and cause a surface deformity, it is usually not symptomatic. However, in adulthood, if the final spinal curvature surpasses a certain critical threshold, the risk of health problems and curve progression is increased.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of bracing for adolescents with AIS versus no treatment or other treatments, on quality of life, disability, pulmonary disorders, progression of the curve, and psychological and cosmetic issues.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases, and two trials registers up to February 2015 for relevant clinical trials. We also checked the reference lists of relevant articles and conducted an extensive handsearch of grey literature.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective controlled cohort studies comparing braces with no treatment, other treatment, surgery, and different types of braces for adolescent with AIS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven studies (662 participants). Five were planned as RCTs and two as prospective controlled trials. One RCT failed completely, another was continued as an observational study, reporting also the results of the participants that had been randomized.There was very low quality evidence from one small RCT (111 participants) that quality of life (QoL) during treatment did not differ significantly between rigid bracing and observation (mean difference (MD) -2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.69 to 3.49). There was very low quality evidence from a subgroup of 77 adolescents from one prospective cohort study showing that QoL, back pain, psychological, and cosmetic issues did not differ significantly between rigid bracing and observation in the long term (16 years).Results of the secondary outcomes showed that there was low quality evidence that rigid bracing compared with observation significantly increased the success rate in 20° to 40° curves at two years' follow-up (one RCT, 116 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.79, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.50). There was low quality evidence that elastic bracing increased the success rate in 15° to 30° curves at three years' follow-up (one RCT, 47 participants; RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.11 to 3.20).There is very low quality evidence from two prospective cohort studies with a control group that rigid bracing increases the success rate (curves not evolving to 50° or above) at two years' follow-up (one study, 242 participants; RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.89) and at three years' follow-up (one study, 240 participants; RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.16). There was very low quality evidence from a prospective cohort study (57 participants) that very rigid bracing increased the success rate (no progression of 5° or more, fusion, or waiting list for fusion) in adolescents with high degree curves (above 45°) (one study, 57 adolescents; RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.07 in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis).There was low quality evidence from one RCT that a rigid brace was more successful than an elastic brace at curbing curve progression when measured in Cobb degrees in low degree curves (20° to 30°), with no significant differences between the two groups in the subjective perception of daily difficulties associated with wearing the brace (43 girls; risk of success at four years' follow-up: RR 1.40, 1.03 to 1.89). Finally, there was very low quality evidence from one RCT (12 participants) that a rigid brace with a pad pressure control system is no better than a standard brace in reducing the risk of progression.Only one prospective cohort study (236 participants) assessed adverse events: neither the percentage of adolescents with any adverse event (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.67) nor the percentage of adolescents reporting back pain, the most common adverse event, were different between the groups (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.10).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Due to the important clinical differences among the studies, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis. Two studies showed that bracing did not change QoL during treatment (low quality), and QoL, back pain, and psychological and cosmetic issues in the long term (16 years) (very low quality). All included papers consistently showed that bracing prevented curve progression (secondary outcome). However, due to the strength of evidence (from low to very low quality), further research is very likely to have an impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect. The high rate of failure of RCTs demonstrates the huge difficulties in performing RCTs in a field where parents reject randomization of their children. This challenge may prevent us from seeing increases in the quality of the evidence over time. Other designs need to be implemented and included in future reviews, including 'expertise-based' trials, prospective controlled cohort studies, prospective studies conducted according to pre-defined criteria such as the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) and the international Society on Scoliosis Orthopedic and Rehabilitation Treatment (SOSORT) criteria. Future studies should increase their focus on participant outcomes, adverse effects, methods to increase compliance, and usefulness of physiotherapeutic scoliosis specific exercises added to bracing.
Topics: Adolescent; Braces; Child; Cohort Studies; Disease Progression; Female; Humans; Male; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Scoliosis
PubMed: 26086959
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006850.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2022Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is common, and defined as a sudden decrease in sensorineural hearing sensitivity of unknown aetiology. Systemic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is common, and defined as a sudden decrease in sensorineural hearing sensitivity of unknown aetiology. Systemic corticosteroids are widely used, however their value remains unclear. Intratympanic injections of corticosteroids have become increasingly common in the treatment of ISSNHL.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of intratympanic corticosteroids in people with ISSNHL.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; CENTRAL (2021, Issue 9); PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials (search date 23 September 2021).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people with ISSNHL and follow-up of over a week. Intratympanic corticosteroids were given as primary or secondary treatment (after failure of systemic therapy).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods, including GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcome was change in hearing threshold with pure tone audiometry. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people whose hearing improved, final hearing threshold, speech audiometry, frequency-specific hearing changes and adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 30 studies, comprising 2133 analysed participants. Some studies had more than two treatment arms and were therefore relevant to several comparisons. Studies investigated intratympanic corticosteroids as either primary (initial) therapy or secondary (rescue) therapy after failure of initial treatment. 1. Intratympanic corticosteroids versus systemic corticosteroids as primary therapy We identified 16 studies (1108 participants). Intratympanic therapy may result in little to no improvement in the change in hearing threshold (mean difference (MD) -5.93 dB better, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.61 to -4.26; 10 studies; 701 participants; low-certainty). We found little to no difference in the proportion of participants whose hearing was improved (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.12; 14 studies; 972 participants; moderate-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may result in little to no difference in the final hearing threshold (MD -3.31 dB, 95% CI -6.16 to -0.47; 7 studies; 516 participants; low-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may increase the number of people who experience vertigo or dizziness (RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.41 to 4.54; 1 study; 250 participants; low-certainty) and probably increases the number of people with ear pain (RR 15.68, 95% CI 6.22 to 39.49; 2 studies; 289 participants; moderate-certainty). It also resulted in persistent tympanic membrane perforation (range 0% to 3.9%; 3 studies; 359 participants; very low-certainty), vertigo/dizziness at the time of injection (1% to 21%, 3 studies; 197 participants; very low-certainty) and ear pain at the time of injection (10.5% to 27.1%; 2 studies; 289 participants; low-certainty). 2. Intratympanic plus systemic corticosteroids (combined therapy) versus systemic corticosteroids alone as primary therapy We identified 10 studies (788 participants). Combined therapy may have a small effect on the change in hearing threshold (MD -8.55 dB better, 95% CI -12.48 to -4.61; 6 studies; 435 participants; low-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain as to whether combined therapy changes the proportion of participants whose hearing is improved (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.41; 10 studies; 788 participants; very low-certainty). Combined therapy may result in slightly lower (more favourable) final hearing thresholds but the evidence is very uncertain, and it is not clear whether the change would be important to patients (MD -9.11 dB, 95% CI -16.56 to -1.67; 3 studies; 194 participants; very low-certainty). Some adverse effects only occurred in those who received combined therapy. These included persistent tympanic membrane perforation (range 0% to 5.5%; 5 studies; 474 participants; very low-certainty), vertigo or dizziness at the time of injection (range 0% to 8.1%; 4 studies; 341 participants; very low-certainty) and ear pain at the time of injection (13.5%; 1 study; 73 participants; very low-certainty). 3. Intratympanic corticosteroids versus no treatment or placebo as secondary therapy We identified seven studies (279 participants). Intratympanic therapy may have a small effect on the change in hearing threshold (MD -9.07 dB better, 95% CI -11.47 to -6.66; 7 studies; 280 participants; low-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may result in a much higher proportion of participants whose hearing is improved (RR 5.55, 95% CI 2.89 to 10.68; 6 studies; 232 participants; low-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may result in lower (more favourable) final hearing thresholds (MD -11.09 dB, 95% CI -17.46 to -4.72; 5 studies; 203 participants; low-certainty). Some adverse effects only occurred in those who received intratympanic injection. These included persistent tympanic membrane perforation (range 0% to 4.2%; 5 studies; 185 participants; very low-certainty), vertigo or dizziness at the time of injection (range 6.7% to 33%; 3 studies; 128 participants; very low-certainty) and ear pain at the time of injection (0%; 1 study; 44 participants; very low-certainty). 4. Intratympanic plus systemic corticosteroids (combined therapy) versus systemic corticosteroids alone as secondary therapy We identified one study with 76 participants. Change in hearing threshold was not reported. Combined therapy may result in a higher proportion with hearing improvement, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.24, 95% CI 1.10 to 4.55; very low-certainty). Adverse effects were poorly reported with only data for persistent tympanic membrane perforation (rate 8.1%, very low-certainty).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Most of the evidence in this review is low- or very low-certainty, therefore it is likely that further studies may change our conclusions. For primary therapy, intratympanic corticosteroids may have little or no effect compared with systemic corticosteroids. There may be a slight benefit from combined treatment when compared with systemic treatment alone, but the evidence is uncertain. For secondary therapy, there is low-certainty evidence that intratympanic corticosteroids, when compared to no treatment or placebo, may result in a much higher proportion of participants whose hearing is improved, but may only have a small effect on the change in hearing threshold. It is very uncertain whether there is additional benefit from combined treatment over systemic steroids alone. Although adverse effects were poorly reported, the different risk profiles of intratympanic treatment (including tympanic membrane perforation, pain and dizziness/vertigo) and systemic treatment (for example, blood glucose problems) should be considered when selecting appropriate treatment.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Dizziness; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural; Humans; Pain; Tympanic Membrane Perforation; Vertigo
PubMed: 35867413
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008080.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Exercise training is commonly recommended for individuals with fibromyalgia. This review examined the effects of supervised group aquatic training programs (led by an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Exercise training is commonly recommended for individuals with fibromyalgia. This review examined the effects of supervised group aquatic training programs (led by an instructor). We defined aquatic training as exercising in a pool while standing at waist, chest, or shoulder depth. This review is part of the update of the 'Exercise for treating fibromyalgia syndrome' review first published in 2002, and previously updated in 2007.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the benefits and harms of aquatic exercise training in adults with fibromyalgia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2 (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment Database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, Dissertation Abstracts, WHO international Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and AMED, as well as other sources (i.e., reference lists from key journals, identified articles, meta-analyses, and reviews of all types of treatment for fibromyalgia) from inception to October 2013. Using Cochrane methods, we screened citations, abstracts, and full-text articles. Subsequently, we identified aquatic exercise training studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Selection criteria were: a) full-text publication of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in adults diagnosed with fibromyalgia based on published criteria, and b) between-group data for an aquatic intervention and a control or other intervention. We excluded studies if exercise in water was less than 50% of the full intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data (24 outcomes), of which we designated seven as major outcomes: multidimensional function, self reported physical function, pain, stiffness, muscle strength, submaximal cardiorespiratory function, withdrawal rates and adverse effects. We resolved discordance through discussion. We evaluated interventions using mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Where two or more studies provided data for an outcome, we carried out meta-analysis. In addition, we set and used a 15% threshold for calculation of clinically relevant differences.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 aquatic exercise training studies (N = 881; 866 women and 15 men). Nine studies compared aquatic exercise to control, five studies compared aquatic to land-based exercise, and two compared aquatic exercise to a different aquatic exercise program.We rated the risk of bias related to random sequence generation (selection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), selective reporting (reporting bias), blinding of outcome assessors (detection bias), and other bias as low. We rated blinding of participants and personnel (selection and performance bias) and allocation concealment (selection bias) as low risk and unclear. The assessment of the evidence showed limitations related to imprecision, high statistical heterogeneity, and wide confidence intervals. Aquatic versus controlWe found statistically significant improvements (P value < 0.05) in all of the major outcomes. Based on a 100-point scale, multidimensional function improved by six units (MD -5.97, 95% CI -9.06 to -2.88; number needed to treat (NNT) 5, 95% CI 3 to 9), self reported physical function by four units (MD -4.35, 95% CI -7.77 to -0.94; NNT 6, 95% CI 3 to 22), pain by seven units (MD -6.59, 95% CI -10.71 to -2.48; NNT 5, 95% CI 3 to 8), and stiffness by 18 units (MD -18.34, 95% CI -35.75 to -0.93; NNT 3, 95% CI 2 to 24) more in the aquatic than the control groups. The SMD for muscle strength as measured by knee extension and hand grip was 0.63 standard deviations higher compared to the control group (SMD 0.63, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; NNT 4, 95% CI 3 to 12) and cardiovascular submaximal function improved by 37 meters on six-minute walk test (95% CI 4.14 to 69.92). Only two major outcomes, stiffness and muscle strength, met the 15% threshold for clinical relevance (improved by 27% and 37% respectively). Withdrawals were similar in the aquatic and control groups and adverse effects were poorly reported, with no serious adverse effects reported. Aquatic versus land-basedThere were no statistically significant differences between interventions for multidimensional function, self reported physical function, pain or stiffness: 0.91 units (95% CI -4.01 to 5.83), -5.85 units (95% CI -12.33 to 0.63), -0.75 units (95% CI -10.72 to 9.23), and two units (95% CI -8.88 to 1.28) respectively (all based on a 100-point scale), or in submaximal cardiorespiratory function (three seconds on a 100-meter walk test, 95% CI -1.77 to 7.77). We found a statistically significant difference between interventions for strength, favoring land-based training (2.40 kilo pascals grip strength, 95% CI 4.52 to 0.28). None of the outcomes in the aquatic versus land comparison reached clinically relevant differences of 15%. Withdrawals were similar in the aquatic and land groups and adverse effects were poorly reported, with no serious adverse effects in either group. Aquatic versus aquatic (Ai Chi versus stretching in the water, exercise in pool water versus exercise in sea water)Among the major outcomes the only statistically significant difference between interventions was for stiffness, favoring Ai Chi (1.00 on a 100-point scale, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.69).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low to moderate quality evidence relative to control suggests that aquatic training is beneficial for improving wellness, symptoms, and fitness in adults with fibromyalgia. Very low to low quality evidence suggests that there are benefits of aquatic and land-based exercise, except in muscle strength (very low quality evidence favoring land). No serious adverse effects were reported.
Topics: Adult; Exercise Therapy; Female; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Hydrotherapy; Male; Muscle Strength; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25350761
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011336