-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Many women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour, and this may contribute towards the popularity of complementary methods... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour, and this may contribute towards the popularity of complementary methods of pain management. This review examined the evidence currently available on manual methods, including massage and reflexology, for pain management in labour. This review is an update of the review first published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect, safety and acceptability of massage, reflexology and other manual methods to manage pain in labour.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (30 June 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1966 to 30 June 2017, CINAHL (1980 to 30 June 2017), the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (4 August 2017), Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (4 August 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, (4 August 2017), the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (4 August 2017), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (4 August 2017) and reference lists of retrieved trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing manual methods with standard care, other non-pharmacological forms of pain management in labour, no treatment or placebo. We searched for trials of the following modalities: massage, warm packs, thermal manual methods, reflexology, chiropractic, osteopathy, musculo-skeletal manipulation, deep tissue massage, neuro-muscular therapy, shiatsu, tuina, trigger point therapy, myotherapy and zero balancing. We excluded trials for pain management relating to hypnosis, aromatherapy, acupuncture and acupressure; these are included in other Cochrane reviews.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality, extracted data and checked data for accuracy. We contacted trial authors for additional information. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 14 trials; 10 of these (1055 women) contributed data to meta-analysis. Four trials, involving 274 women, met our inclusion criteria but did not contribute data to the review. Over half the trials had a low risk of bias for random sequence generation and attrition bias. The majority of trials had a high risk of performance bias and detection bias, and an unclear risk of reporting bias. We found no trials examining the effectiveness of reflexology.MassageWe found low-quality evidence that massage provided a greater reduction in pain intensity (measured using self-reported pain scales) than usual care during the first stage of labour (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.06 to -0.56, six trials, 362 women). Two trials reported on pain intensity during the second and third stages of labour, and there was evidence of a reduction in pain scores in favour of massage (SMD -0.98, 95% CI -2.23 to 0.26, 124 women; and SMD -1.03, 95% CI -2.17 to 0.11, 122 women). There was very low-quality evidence showing no clear benefit of massage over usual care for the length of labour (in minutes) (mean difference (MD) 20.64, 95% CI -58.24 to 99.52, six trials, 514 women), and pharmacological pain relief (average risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.74, four trials, 105 women). There was very low-quality evidence showing no clear benefit of massage for assisted vaginal birth (average RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.13, four trials, 368 women) and caesarean section (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.09, six trials, 514 women). One trial reported less anxiety during the first stage of labour for women receiving massage (MD -16.27, 95% CI -27.03 to -5.51, 60 women). One trial found an increased sense of control from massage (MD 14.05, 95% CI 3.77 to 24.33, 124 women, low-quality evidence). Two trials examining satisfaction with the childbirth experience reported data on different scales; both found more satisfaction with massage, although the evidence was low quality in one study and very low in the other.Warm packsWe found very low-quality evidence for reduced pain (Visual Analogue Scale/VAS) in the first stage of labour (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.00, three trials, 191 women), and the second stage of labour (SMD -1.49, 95% CI -2.85 to -0.13, two trials, 128 women). Very low-quality evidence showed reduced length of labour (minutes) in the warm-pack group (MD -66.15, 95% CI -91.83 to -40.47; two trials; 128 women).Thermal manual methodsOne trial evaluated thermal manual methods versus usual care and found very low-quality evidence of reduced pain intensity during the first phase of labour for women receiving thermal methods (MD -1.44, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.65, one trial, 96 women). There was a reduction in the length of labour (minutes) (MD -78.24, 95% CI -118.75 to -37.73, one trial, 96 women, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference for assisted vaginal birth (very low-quality evidence). Results were similar for cold packs versus usual care, and intermittent hot and cold packs versus usual care, for pain intensity, length of labour and assisted vaginal birth.Music One trial that compared manual methods with music found very low-quality evidence of reduced pain intensity during labour in the massage group (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.89, 101 women). There was no evidence of benefit for reduced use of pharmacological pain relief (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.08, very low-quality evidence).Of the seven outcomes we assessed using GRADE, only pain intensity was reported in all comparisons. Satisfaction with the childbirth experience, sense of control, and caesarean section were rarely reported in any of the comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Massage, warm pack and thermal manual methods may have a role in reducing pain, reducing length of labour and improving women's sense of control and emotional experience of labour, although the quality of evidence varies from low to very low and few trials reported on the key GRADE outcomes. Few trials reported on safety as an outcome. There is a need for further research to address these outcomes and to examine the effectiveness and efficacy of these manual methods for pain management.
Topics: Analgesics; Cryotherapy; Female; Humans; Hyperthermia, Induced; Labor Onset; Labor Pain; Massage; Music Therapy; Pain Management; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29589380
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009290.pub3 -
Advances in Clinical and Experimental... Sep 2023Transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) is an emerging therapeutic approach that combines the effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)... (Review)
Review
Transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) is an emerging therapeutic approach that combines the effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) with acupuncture point stimulation. Due to its noninvasive nature, it possesses relative advantages over traditional acupuncture and needle-based electrostimulation. Despite the large number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) describing the effectiveness of TEAS in different applications, its role and mechanism are still not fully understood. The aim of this study was to systematically compare and summarize the latest studies examining a variety of TEAS applications in clinical practice. Databases, including Medline (PubMed), Cochrane Library and Google Scholar were searched without any time restrictions (as of March 2021). The analysis was performed according to the Cochrane Collaboration criteria. Out of 637 studies, only 22 RCTs were selected. Nine studies evaluated the impact of TEAS on nausea and vomiting (NV), showing beneficial effects compared to standard therapy. Eight RCTs examined the effectiveness of TEAS in pain management, reporting pain alleviation described using the visual analog scale (VAS) and lowering of total opioid doses. Improvement of postoperative recovery, in vitro fertilization and pregnancy outcomes, as well as display of cardioprotective properties were found to positively correlate with TEAS. As a noninvasive modality with advantages over classical acupuncture and needle-based electrostimulation, TEAS may be a valuable tool in clinical practice, particularly for pain and NV management. However, considering the methodological quality of the RCTs, rigorous large-scale clinical trials are required to evaluate the clinical utility of this method.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Acupuncture Points; Pain Management; Vomiting; Nausea; Pain
PubMed: 37026972
DOI: 10.17219/acem/159703 -
Global Spine Journal Oct 2022(1) To evaluate the effects of surgery and conservative treatments for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy and (2) provide reference for choosing the time and method of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
(1) To evaluate the effects of surgery and conservative treatments for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy and (2) provide reference for choosing the time and method of treatment.
METHODS
A literature search was performed using PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials from inception to September 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of surgery or conservative Treatments in Cervical Spondylotic Radiculopathy (CSR) were selected. The primary outcomes were the neck and arm visual analog scale (VAS) and Neck Disability Index (NDI). Secondary outcomes included active range of cervical motion (ROM) and Mental Health. Two reviewers proceeded study selection and quality assessment.
RESULTS
A total of 6 studies, which comprised a total of 464 participants were included in the final meta-analysis. Compared with conservative treatment, surgical treatment was more effective in lowering Neck-VAS (<3 m: MD = -29.44, 95% CI = (-41.62,-17.27), P < .00001; 3-6 M: MD = -20.97, 95% CI = (-26.36,-15.57), P < .00001; 6 M: MD = -13.40, 95% CI = (-19.39, -7.41), P<.0001; 12 M: MD=-15.53, 95% CI=(-28.38, -2.68), P=.02), Arm-VAS(<3 m: MD = -33.52, 95% CI = (-39.89, -27.16), P < .00001; 3-6 M: MD = -20.97, 95% CI = (-26.36, -15.57), P < .00001; 6 M: MD = -17.52, 95% CI=(-23.94, -11.11), P < .0001; 12 M: MD = -21.91, 95% CI=(-27.09, -16.72), P < .00001) and NDI (<3 m: MD = -8.89, 95% CI = (-11.17, -6.61), P < .00001; 6 M: MD = -5.14, 95% CI = (-7.60, -2.69), P < .0001). No significant difference was observed in NDI at 12-month time point (MD = -5.17, 95% CI = (-12.33, 2.00), P = .16), ROM(MD = 2.91, 95% CI = (-4.51, 10.33), P = .77) and Mental Health (MD = .05, 95% CI=(-.24, .33), P = .74).
CONCLUSION
The 6 included studies that had low risk of bias, providing high-quality evidence for the surgical efficacy of CSR. The evidence indicates that surgical treatment is better than conservative treatment in terms of VAS score and NDI score, and superior to conservative treatment in less than one year. There was no evidence of a difference between surgical and conservative care in ROM and mental health. A small sample study with a follow-up of 5 to 8 years showed that surgical treatment was still better than conservative treatment, but the sample size was small and the results should be carefully interpreted.Compared with conservative treatment, surgical treatment had a faster onset of response, especially in pain relief, but did not have a significant advantage in range of motion or NDI. This seems to mean that for patients with severe or even unbearable pain, the benefits of surgery as soon as possible will be significant. Although it is not clear whether the short-term risks of surgery are outweighed by the long-term benefits, rapid pain relief is necessary. Conservative treatment (including medical exercise therapy, mechanical cervical tractions, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, pain management education, and cervical collar) once or twice a week for 3 months is beneficial in the long term and avoids the risks of surgery. In consideration of the good natural history of CSR and the relatively good outcome of conservative treatment (although symptom relief is slow), we think that surgery is not necessary for patients who do not need rapid pain relief.
PubMed: 35324370
DOI: 10.1177/21925682221075290 -
JAMA Network Open Sep 2023When sham acupuncture is set as a control in evaluating acupuncture, the sham needling technique is usually different from acupuncture. However, the sham procedure is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
When sham acupuncture is set as a control in evaluating acupuncture, the sham needling technique is usually different from acupuncture. However, the sham procedure is conducted either at the same points that are used for the acupuncture group or at nonindicated points.
OBJECTIVE
To assess whether the outcome of sham acupuncture varies according to the needling points in sham-controlled trials of acupuncture for chronic nonspecific low back pain (CLBP) as an example.
DATA SOURCES
Searches of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database were conducted on February 12, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the outcomes of acupuncture in sham acupuncture-controlled or waiting list-controlled trials on CLBP were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two researchers independently extracted data on study characteristics and outcomes and assessed quality. Sham acupuncture was classified according to whether it was conducted at the same acupuncture points used in the acupuncture group, referred to as sham acupuncture therapy (verum) (SATV) or at different points, referred to as sham acupuncture therapy (sham) (SATS). Clinical similarity, transitivity, and consistency tests were conducted, followed by a random-effects frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was pain, and the secondary outcome was back-specific function. The first assessment after the end of treatment was chosen for analysis. Effect sizes are reported as standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the certainty of evidence for findings was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
Ten RCTs involving 4379 participants were included. In comparison with SATS, acupuncture was significantly associated with improvements in both pain (SMD, -0.33; 95% CI, -0.52 to -0.15) and function outcomes (SMD, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.25 to -0.02); however, there were no differences between acupuncture and SATV. In comparison with SATS, SATV was significantly associated with better pain (SMD, -0.45; 95% CI, -0.88 to -0.03) and function outcomes (SMD, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.56 to -0.05). The risk of bias that could affect the interpretation of the results was usually low, and the certainty of evidence was moderate to low.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this NMA, sham acupuncture needling at the same points as those in acupuncture was not a true placebo control for assessing the efficacy of acupuncture for CLBP and might underestimate the outcome of acupuncture in clinical settings.
Topics: Humans; Low Back Pain; Network Meta-Analysis; Acupuncture Therapy; Vascular Surgical Procedures; Databases, Factual
PubMed: 37672270
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.32452 -
Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation... Sep 2018Clinical studies have shown that sensory input improves motor function when added to active training after neurological injuries in the spinal cord. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Clinical studies have shown that sensory input improves motor function when added to active training after neurological injuries in the spinal cord.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to determine the effect on motor function of extremities of adding an electrical sensory modality without motor recruitment before or with routine rehabilitation for hemiparesis after stroke by a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched databases including MEDLINE via PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1978 to the end of November 2017 for reports of randomized controlled trials or controlled studies of patients with a clinical diagnosis of stroke who underwent 1) transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) or peripheral electromyography-triggered sensory stimulation over a peripheral nerve and associated muscles or 2) acupuncture to areas that produced sensory effects, without motor recruitment, along with routine rehabilitation. Outcome measures were motor impairment, activity, and participation outcomes defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.
RESULTS
The search yielded 11studies with data that could be included in a meta-analysis. Electrical sensory inputs, when paired with routine therapy, improved peak torque dorsiflexion (mean difference [MD] 2.44 Nm, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-4.63). On subgroup analysis, the combined therapy yielded a significant difference in terms of sensory stimulation without motor recruitment only on the Timed Up and Go test in the chronic phase of stroke (MD 3.51sec, 95% CI 3.05-3.98). The spasticity score was reduced but not significantly (MD-0.83 points, 95% CI -1.77-0.10).
CONCLUSION
Electrical sensory input can contribute to routine rehabilitation to improve early post-stroke lower-extremity impairment and late motor function, with no change in spasticity. Prolonged periods of sensory stimulation such as TENS combined with activity can have beneficial effects on impairment and function after stroke.
Topics: Humans; Lower Extremity; Muscle Spasticity; Paresis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function; Stroke; Stroke Rehabilitation; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
PubMed: 29958963
DOI: 10.1016/j.rehab.2018.06.005 -
Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy 2019Orofacial pain of myofascial origin is often associated with temporomandibular joint dysfunction, affects chewing muscles and may lead to functional limitations. Dry... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Orofacial pain of myofascial origin is often associated with temporomandibular joint dysfunction, affects chewing muscles and may lead to functional limitations. Dry needling is an intervention commonly used for inactivating myofascial pain trigger points.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the effects of dry needling on orofacial pain of myofascial origin in patients with temporomandibular joint dysfunction.
METHODS
This systematic review has pain intensity as primary outcome. Searches were conducted on April 13th, 2018 in eight databases, without publication date restrictions. We selected randomized controlled trials published in English, Portuguese, or Spanish, with no restrictions regarding subject ethnicity, age or sex.
RESULTS
Seven trials were considered eligible. There was discrepancy among dry needling treatment protocols. Meta-analysis showed that dry needling is better than other interventions for pain intensity as well as than sham therapy on pressure pain threshold, but there is very low-quality evidence and a small effect size. There were no statistically significant differences in other outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Clinicians can use dry needling for the treatment of temporomandibular joint dysfunction, nevertheless, due the low quality of evidence and high risk of bias of some included studies, larger and low risk of bias trials are needed to assess the effects of dry needling on orofacial pain associated with temporomandibular joint dysfunction.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Facial Pain; Humans; Myofascial Pain Syndromes; Pain Measurement; Pain Threshold
PubMed: 30146108
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjpt.2018.08.008 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022Land-based exercise therapy is recommended in clinical guidelines for hip or knee osteoarthritis. Adjunctive non-pharmacological therapies are commonly used alongside... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Land-based exercise therapy is recommended in clinical guidelines for hip or knee osteoarthritis. Adjunctive non-pharmacological therapies are commonly used alongside exercise in hip or knee osteoarthritis management, but cumulative evidence for adjuncts to land-based exercise therapy is lacking.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of adjunctive therapies used in addition to land-based exercise therapy compared with placebo adjunctive therapy added to land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy only for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and clinical trials registries up to 10 June 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of people with hip or knee osteoarthritis comparing adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy (experimental group) versus placebo adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy (control groups). Exercise had to be identical in both groups. Major outcomes were pain, physical function, participant-reported global assessment, quality of life (QOL), radiographic joint structural changes, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. We evaluated short-term (6 months), medium-term (6 to 12 months) and long-term (12 months onwards) effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence for major outcomes using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 62 trials (60 RCTs and 2 quasi-RCTs) totalling 6508 participants. One trial included people with hip osteoarthritis, one hip or knee osteoarthritis and 59 included people with knee osteoarthritis only. Thirty-six trials evaluated electrophysical agents, seven manual therapies, four acupuncture or dry needling, or taping, three psychological therapies, dietary interventions or whole body vibration, two spa or peloid therapy and one foot insoles. Twenty-one trials included a placebo adjunctive therapy. We presented the effects stratified by different adjunctive therapies along with the overall results. We judged most trials to be at risk of bias, including 55% at risk of selection bias, 74% at risk of performance bias and 79% at risk of detection bias. Adverse events were reported in eight (13%) trials. Comparing adjunctive therapies plus land-based exercise therapy against placebo therapies plus exercise up to six months (short-term), we found low-certainty evidence for reduced pain and function, which did not meet our prespecified threshold for a clinically important difference. Mean pain intensity was 5.4 in the placebo group on a 0 to 10 numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) (lower scores represent less pain), and 0.77 points lower (0.48 points better to 1.16 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 10% (6% to 15% better) (22 studies; 1428 participants). Mean physical function on the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) 0 to 68 physical function (lower scores represent better function) subscale was 32.5 points in the placebo group and reduced by 5.03 points (2.57 points better to 7.61 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 12% (6% better to 18% better) (20 studies; 1361 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies did not improve QOL (SF-36 0 to 100 scale, higher scores represent better QOL). Placebo group mean QOL was 81.8 points, and 0.75 points worse (4.80 points worse to 3.39 points better) in the placebo adjunctive therapy group; relative improvement 1% (7% worse to 5% better) (two trials; 82 participants). Low-certainty evidence (two trials; 340 participants) indicates adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared to placebo therapies plus exercise (31% versus 13%; risk ratio (RR) 2.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 21.90). Participant-reported global assessment was not measured in any studies. Compared with land-based exercise therapy, low-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive electrophysical agents alongside exercise produced short-term (0 to 6 months) pain reduction of 0.41 points (0.17 points better to 0.63 points better); mean pain in the exercise-only group was 3.8 points and 0.41 points better in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group (0 to 10 NPRS); relative improvement 7% (3% better to 11% better) (45 studies; 3322 participants). Mean physical function (0 to 68 WOMAC subscale) was 18.2 points in the exercise group and 2.83 points better (1.62 points better to 4.04 points better) in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group; relative improvement 9% (5% better to 13% better) (45 studies; 3323 participants). These results are not clinically important. Mean QOL in the exercise group was 56.1 points and 1.04 points worse in the adjunctive therapies plus exercise therapy group (1.04 points worse to 3.12 points better); relative improvement 2% (2% worse to 5% better) (11 studies; 1483 participants), indicating no benefit (low-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise probably result in a slight increase in participant-reported global assessment (short-term), with success reported by 45% in the exercise therapy group and 17% more individuals receiving adjunctive therapies and exercise (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.62) (5 studies; 840 participants). One study (156 participants) showed little difference in radiographic joint structural changes (0.25 mm less, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.18 mm); 12% relative improvement (6% better to 18% better). Low-certainty evidence (8 trials; 1542 participants) indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared with exercise only (8.6% versus 6.5%; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.27).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate- to low-certainty evidence showed no difference in pain, physical function or QOL between adjunctive therapies and placebo adjunctive therapies, or in pain, physical function, QOL or joint structural changes, compared to exercise only. Participant-reported global assessment was not reported for placebo comparisons, but there is probably a slight clinical benefit for adjunctive therapies plus exercise compared with exercise, based on a small number of studies. This may be explained by additional constructs captured in global measures compared with specific measures. Although results indicate no increased adverse events for adjunctive therapies used with exercise, these were poorly reported. Most studies evaluated short-term effects, with limited medium- or long-term evaluation. Due to a preponderance of knee osteoarthritis trials, we urge caution in extrapolating the findings to populations with hip osteoarthritis.
Topics: Exercise Therapy; Humans; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36250418
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011915.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2020Glaucoma is a multi-factorial optic neuropathy characterized by an acquired loss of retinal ganglion cells at levels beyond normal age-related loss and corresponding... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Glaucoma is a multi-factorial optic neuropathy characterized by an acquired loss of retinal ganglion cells at levels beyond normal age-related loss and corresponding atrophy of the optic nerve. Although many treatments are available to manage glaucoma, patients may seek complementary or alternative medicine approaches such as acupuncture to supplement their regular treatment. The underlying plausibility of acupuncture is that disorders related to the flow of Chi (traditional Chinese concept of vital force or energy) can be managed by stimulating relevant points on the body surface.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture compared with other treatments, no treatment, or placebo in patients with glaucoma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register (2018, Issue 11); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED); PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS); ZETOC; the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT); ClinicalTrials.gov; the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP); and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) website. We did not use any language or date restrictions in the search for trials. We last searched electronic databases on November 16, 2018, with the exception of NCCAM, which we last searched on July 14, 2010, and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), which we last searched on January 8, 2013. We handsearched Chinese medical journals at Peking Union Medical College Library in April 2007. We searched the Chinese Acupuncture Trials Register, the Traditional Chinese Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System (TCMLARS), the Chinese Biological Database (CBM), and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). We last searched Chinese electronic databases on November 19, 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which one arm involved acupuncture treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened results, then extracted the data and assessed risk of bias for eligible trials.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three completed trials and one ongoing trial in the 2019 update of this review. The three completed trials, conducted in Taiwan and the United States, included participants with glaucoma or intraocular hypertension. The interventions investigated varied across trials. One trial compared auricular acupressure-a non-standard acupuncture technique-with the sham procedure in 33 patients. Another trial compared transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) with a sham procedure in 82 patients. The third trial compared 12 sessions of acupuncture on eye-points versus on non-eye-points in 22 patients. All three trials were rated at high risk of bias for at least one domain. The certainty of evidence across all outcomes was very low due to high risk of bias in at least one contributing study; substantial clinical heterogeneity and methodological heterogeneity; and imprecision of results. One trial reported change in the visual field from baseline without any between-group comparison. Because of the quantity of missing data (50%), we did not calculate a between-group comparison, as the quantitative results are difficult to interpret. All three trials reported data for estimation of reduction of intraocular pressure (IOP). However, time points of IOP measurement varied. For the trial comparing acupressure to a sham procedure, the difference in IOP reduction (measured in mm Hg) is estimated to be -3.70 (95% confidence interval [CI] -7.11 to -0.29) for the right eye and -4.90 (95% CI -8.08 to -1.72) for the left eye at four weeks, and -1.30 mm Hg (95% CI -4.78 to 2.18) for the right eye and -2.30 mm Hg (95% CI -5.73 to 1.13) for the left eye at eight weeks. For the trial comparing TENS to sham treatment, the difference reduction is estimated to be -2.81 (95% CI -3.8 to -1.84) for the right eye and -2.58 (95% CI -3.36 to -1.80) for the left eye immediately after treatment, -2.93 (95% CI -3.72 to -2.13) for the right eye and -3.56 (95% CI -4.35 to 2.78) for the left eye 30 minutes after treatment, and finally -3.61 (95% CI -4.47 to -2.75) for the right eye and -3.61 (95% -4.47 to -2.74) for the left eye. For the trial that compared acupuncture on eye-points versus non-eye-points, 11 out of 22 (50%) participants did not complete the treatment. One trial reported data for estimation of visual acuity. When acupressure is compared to sham treatment, the difference in uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA, measured in logMAR) is estimated to be -0.01 (95% CI -0.24 to 0.22) for the right eye and -0.04 (95% CI -0.27 to 0.19) for the left eye at four months, and -0.03 logMAR (95% CI -0.27 to 0.21) for the right eye and -0.16 logMAR (95% CI -0.43 to 0.11) for the left eye at eight months. The difference in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) is estimated to be 0.10 (95% CI -0.06 to 0.26) for the right eye and 0 (95% CI -0.14 to 0.14) for the left eye at four months, and -0.04 logMAR (95% CI -0.09 to 0.17) for the right eye and -0.04 logMAR (95% CI -0.18 to 0.10) for the left eye at eight months. One trial reported progression of optic disc damage or nerve fiber layer loss without any between-group comparison. Because of the quantity of missing data (50%), we did not calculate a between-group comparison, as the quantitative results are difficult to interpret. One trial reported adverse events in two patients (out of 22) who experienced needle sensitivity. However, the study did not report between-group comparisons. Because of the quantity of missing data (50%), we did not calculate a between-group comparison, as the quantitative results are difficult to interpret.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
At this time, it is impossible to draw reliable conclusions from available data to support the use of acupuncture for treatment of patients with glaucoma. Because of ethical considerations, RCTs comparing acupuncture alone with standard glaucoma treatment or placebo are unlikely to be justified in countries where the standard of care has already been established.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Glaucoma; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 32032457
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006030.pub4 -
Arquivos de Neuro-psiquiatria Dec 2023Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a common source of pain in primary care or pain clinics. There are many different ways to manage and treat MPS, such as physical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a common source of pain in primary care or pain clinics. There are many different ways to manage and treat MPS, such as physical exercise, trigger points massage, and dry needling.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this overview is to highlight and discuss the evidence-based treatment of myofascial pain by dry needling in patients with low back pain.
METHODS
A systematic review was made based on meta-analysis (MA) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to dry needling treatment for myofascial pain in patients with lumbar pain, published from 2000 to 2023.
RESULTS
A total of 509 records were identified at first. Seventy were published before 2000, so they were excluded. From the remaining 439 studies, ninety-two were RCTs or MA, of which 86 additional studies were excluded for the following reasons: not related to dry needling treatment (n = 79), not published in English (n = 4), duplicated (n = 1), project protocol (n = 1), and not related to myofascial pain (n = 1). So, this review was based on 4 RCTs and two MA. These studies compared dry needling efficacy to other treatments, such as acupuncture, sham dry needling, laser therapy, physical therapy, local anesthetic injection, ischemic compression, and neuroscience education. Despite outcomes and follow-up period varied between them, they showed that dry needling can decrease post-intervention pain intensity and pain disability.
CONCLUSION
Dry needling is an effective procedure for the treatment of myofascial pain in patients with acute and chronic low back pain. Further high-quality studies are needed to clarify the long-term outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Evidence-Based Practice; Low Back Pain; Myofascial Pain Syndromes; Percutaneous Collagen Induction; Trigger Points; Dry Needling
PubMed: 38157883
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1777731