-
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies Jun 2020To investigate for congenital muscular torticollis (CMT) and positional plagiocephaly (PP) the effectiveness and safety of manual therapy, repositioning and helmet...
The effectiveness and safety of conservative interventions for positional plagiocephaly and congenital muscular torticollis: a synthesis of systematic reviews and guidance.
AIM
To investigate for congenital muscular torticollis (CMT) and positional plagiocephaly (PP) the effectiveness and safety of manual therapy, repositioning and helmet therapy (PP only) using a systematic review of systematic reviews and national guidelines.
METHODS
We searched four major relevant databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and MANTIS for research studies published between the period 1999-2019. Inclusion criteria were systematic reviews that analysed results from multiple studies and guidelines that used evidence and expert opinion to recommend treatment and care approaches. Three reviewers independently selected articles by title, abstract and full paper review, and extracted data. Selected studies were described by two authors and assessed for quality. Where possible meta-analysed data for change in outcomes (range of movement and head shape) were extracted and qualitative conclusions were assessed.
RESULTS
We found 10 systematic reviews for PP and 4 for CMT. One national guideline was found for each PP and CMT. For PP, manual therapy was found to be more effective than repositioning including tummy time (moderate to high evidence) but not better than helmet therapy (low evidence). Helmet therapy was better than usual care or repositioning (low evidence); and repositioning better than usual care (moderate to high evidence). The results for CMT showed that manual therapy in the form of practitioner-led stretching had moderate favourable evidence for increased range of movement. Advice, guidance and parental support was recommended in all the guidance to reassure parents of the favourable trajectory and nature of these conditions over time.
CONCLUSIONS
Distinguishing between superiority of treatments was difficult due to the lack of standardised measurement systems, the variety of outcomes and limited high quality studies. More well powered effectiveness and efficacy studies are needed. However overall, advice and guidance on repositioning (including tummy-time) and practitioner-led stretching were low risk, potentially helpful and inexpensive interventions for parents to consider.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER
PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019139074.
Topics: Head Protective Devices; Humans; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Plagiocephaly, Nonsynostotic; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Torticollis
PubMed: 32522230
DOI: 10.1186/s12998-020-00321-w -
BMC Complementary and Alternative... Mar 2019This systematic review evaluates the use of manual therapy for clinical conditions in the pediatric population, assesses the methodological quality of the studies found,...
BACKGROUND
This systematic review evaluates the use of manual therapy for clinical conditions in the pediatric population, assesses the methodological quality of the studies found, and synthesizes findings based on health condition. We also assessed the reporting of adverse events within the included studies and compared our conclusions to those of the UK Update report.
METHODS
Six databases were searched using the following inclusion criteria: children under the age of 18 years old; treatment using manual therapy; any type of healthcare profession; published between 2001 and March 31, 2018; and English. Case reports were excluded from our study. Reference tracking was performed on six published relevant systematic reviews to find any missed article. Each study that met the inclusion criteria was screened by two authors to: (i) determine its suitability for inclusion, (ii) extract data, and (iii) assess quality of study.
RESULTS
Of the 3563 articles identified, 165 full articles were screened, and 50 studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-six articles were included in prior reviews with 24 new studies identified. Eighteen studies were judged to be of high quality. Conditions evaluated were: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, asthma, cerebral palsy, clubfoot, constipation, cranial asymmetry, cuboid syndrome, headache, infantile colic, low back pain, obstructive apnea, otitis media, pediatric dysfunctional voiding, pediatric nocturnal enuresis, postural asymmetry, preterm infants, pulled elbow, suboptimal infant breastfeeding, scoliosis, suboptimal infant breastfeeding, temporomandibular dysfunction, torticollis, and upper cervical dysfunction. Musculoskeletal conditions, including low back pain and headache, were evaluated in seven studies. Twenty studies reported adverse events, which were transient and mild to moderate in severity.
CONCLUSIONS
Fifty studies investigated the clinical effects of manual therapies for a wide variety of pediatric conditions. Moderate-positive overall assessment was found for 3 conditions: low back pain, pulled elbow, and premature infants. Inconclusive unfavorable outcomes were found for 2 conditions: scoliosis (OMT) and torticollis (MT). All other condition's overall assessments were either inconclusive favorable or unclear. Adverse events were uncommonly reported. More robust clinical trials in this area of healthcare are needed.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERA registration number: CRD42018091835.
Topics: Adolescent; Cerebral Palsy; Child; Child, Preschool; Colic; Constipation; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Musculoskeletal Manipulations
PubMed: 30866915
DOI: 10.1186/s12906-019-2447-2 -
The Journal of Manual & Manipulative... Feb 2022To assess the effects of mobilization with movement (MWM) on pain, range of motion (ROM), and disability in the management of shoulder musculoskeletal disorders. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effects of mobilization with movement (MWM) on pain, range of motion (ROM), and disability in the management of shoulder musculoskeletal disorders.
METHODS
Six databases and Scopus, were searched for randomized control trials. The ROB 2.0 tool was used to determine risk-of-bias and GRADE used for quality of evidence. Meta-analyses were performed for the sub-category of frozen shoulder and shoulder pain with movement dysfunction to evaluate the effect of MWM in isolation or in addition to exercise therapy and/or electrotherapy when compared with other conservative interventions.
RESULTS
Out of 25 studies, 21 were included in eight separate meta-analyses for pain, ROM, and disability in the two sub-categories. For frozen shoulder, the addition of MWM significantly improved pain (SMD -1.23, 95% CI -1.96, -0.51)), flexion ROM (MD -11.73, 95% CI -17.83, -5.64), abduction ROM (mean difference -13.14, 95% CI -19.42, -6.87), and disability (SMD -1.50, 95% CI (-2.30, -0.7). For shoulder pain with movement dysfunction, the addition of MWM significantly improved pain (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.87, -0.26), flexion ROM (mean difference -18.48, 95% CI- 32.43, -4.54), abduction ROM (MD -32.46, 95% CI - 69.76, 4.84), and disability (SMD -0.88, 95% CI -2.18, 0.43). The majority of studies were found to have a high risk of bias.
DISCUSSION
MWM is associated with improved pain, mobility, and function in patients with a range of shoulder musculoskeletal disorders and the effects clinically meaningful. However, these findings need to be interpreted with caution due to the high levels of heterogeneity and risk of bias.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Treatment, level 1a.
Topics: Bursitis; Humans; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Range of Motion, Articular; Shoulder; Shoulder Pain
PubMed: 34334099
DOI: 10.1080/10669817.2021.1955181 -
Complementary Therapies in Medicine Jun 2021The purpose of this meta-analytic review was to quantitatively examine the effects of myofascial release technique (MFR) on pain intensity, back disability, lumbar range... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this meta-analytic review was to quantitatively examine the effects of myofascial release technique (MFR) on pain intensity, back disability, lumbar range of motion, and quality of life in patients with low back pain (LBP).
METHODS
Potential articles were retrieved using five electronic databases (Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang). The search period was from inception to January 27, 2021. Two researchers independently completed record retrieval and selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of MFR on pain intensity, back disability, lumbar range of motion, and quality of life in LBP patients were included. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using random effects models and 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI).
RESULTS
Data from eight RCTs (386 patients with back pain) meeting the inclusion criteria were extracted for meta-analysis with methodological quality assessment scores ranging from 6 to 10. Compared to the control intervention, MFR induced significant decrease in back disability (SMD = -0.35, 95 % confidence interval [CI] = -0.68, -0.02, P = 0.04, I² = 46 %, n = 284). MFR induced non-significant decrease in the pain intensity (SMD = -0.12, 95 % confidence interval[CI] = -0.35, 0.11, P = 0.32, I² = 0%, n = 294), non-significant improvement in quality of life (SMD = -0.09, 95 % confidence interval [CI] = -0.46, 0.28, P = 0.62, I² = 0%, n = 114), and non-significant improvement in lumbar range of motion (Flexion SMD = 0.57,95 % confidence interval [CI] = -0.09, 1.24, P = 0.09, I² = 54 %, n = 80) (Extension SMD = 0.68, 95 % confidence interval[CI] = -0.72, 2.08, P = 0.34, I² = 89 %, n = 80) (Right flexion SMD = 0.05, 95 % confidence interval[CI] = -0.90, 0.99, P = 0.92, I² = 78 %, n = 80) (Left flexion SMD = 0.14, 95 % confidence interval[CI] = -0.59, 0.88, P = 0.70, I² = 64 %, n = 80).
CONCLUSION
The findings suggest that MFR can improve the effect of physical therapy alone and exercise therapy alone, and that MFR can be an effective adjuvant therapy. Meta-analysis showed that MFR has a significant effect on reducing back disability in patients with low back pain, but no significant effect on reducing pain intensity, improving quality of life, and improving lumbar range of motion.
Topics: Back Pain; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Low Back Pain; Manipulation, Osteopathic; Physical Therapy Modalities; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33984499
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctim.2021.102737 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Aug 2014Nonspecific back pain is common, disabling, and costly. Therefore, we assessed effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) in the management of nonspecific... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Nonspecific back pain is common, disabling, and costly. Therefore, we assessed effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) in the management of nonspecific low back pain (LBP) regarding pain and functional status.
METHODS
A systematic literature search unrestricted by language was performed in October 2013 in electronic and ongoing trials databases. Searches of reference lists and personal communications identified additional studies. Only randomized clinical trials were included; specific back pain or single treatment techniques studies were excluded. Outcomes were pain and functional status. Studies were independently reviewed using a standardized form. The mean difference (MD) or standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and overall effect size were calculated at 3 months posttreatment. GRADE was used to assess quality of evidence.
RESULTS
We identified 307 studies. Thirty-one were evaluated and 16 excluded. Of the 15 studies reviewed, 10 investigated effectiveness of OMT for nonspecific LBP, 3 effect of OMT for LBP in pregnant women, and 2 effect of OMT for LBP in postpartum women. Twelve had a low risk of bias. Moderate-quality evidence suggested OMT had a significant effect on pain relief (MD, -12.91; 95% CI, -20.00 to -5.82) and functional status (SMD, -0.36; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.14) in acute and chronic nonspecific LBP. In chronic nonspecific LBP, moderate-quality evidence suggested a significant difference in favour of OMT regarding pain (MD, -14.93; 95% CI, -25.18 to -4.68) and functional status (SMD, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.07). For nonspecific LBP in pregnancy, low-quality evidence suggested a significant difference in favour of OMT for pain (MD, -23.01; 95% CI, -44.13 to -1.88) and functional status (SMD, -0.80; 95% CI, -1.36 to -0.23), whereas moderate-quality evidence suggested a significant difference in favour of OMT for pain (MD, -41.85; 95% CI, -49.43 to -34.27) and functional status (SMD, -1.78; 95% CI, -2.21 to -1.35) in nonspecific LBP postpartum.
CONCLUSION
Clinically relevant effects of OMT were found for reducing pain and improving functional status in patients with acute and chronic nonspecific LBP and for LBP in pregnant and postpartum women at 3 months posttreatment. However, larger, high-quality randomized controlled trials with robust comparison groups are recommended.
Topics: Female; Humans; Low Back Pain; Manipulation, Osteopathic; Postnatal Care; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25175885
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-286 -
Medicine and Science in Sports and... Jun 2019Conduct a systematic umbrella review to evaluate the relationship of physical activity (PA) with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and incident...
PURPOSE
Conduct a systematic umbrella review to evaluate the relationship of physical activity (PA) with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and incident cardiovascular disease (CVD); to evaluate the shape of the dose-response relationships; and to evaluate these relationships relative to the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Report.
METHODS
Primary search encompassing 2006 to March, 2018 for existing systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses reporting on these relationships. Graded the strength of evidence using a matrix developed for the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee.
RESULTS
The association of self-reported moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) on all-cause mortality, CVD mortality, and atherosclerotic CVD-including incident coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke and heart failure-are very similar. Increasing MVPA to guidelines amounts in the inactive US population has the potential to have an important and substantial positive impact on these outcomes in the adult population. The following points are clear: the associations of PA with beneficial health outcomes begin when adopting very modest (one-third of guidelines) amounts; any MVPA is better than none; meeting the 2008 PA guidelines reduces mortality and CVD risk to about 75% of the maximal benefit obtained by physical activity alone; PA amounts beyond guidelines recommendations amount reduces risk even more, but greater amounts of PA are required to obtain smaller health benefits; and there is no evidence of excess risk over the maximal effect observed at about three to five times the amounts associated with current guidelines. When PA is quantified in terms of energy expenditure (MET·h·wk), these relationships hold for walking, running, and biking.
CONCLUSIONS
To avoid the risks associated with premature mortality and the development of ischemic heart disease, ischemic stroke, and all-cause heart failure, all adults should strive to reach the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Body Weight; Cardiovascular Diseases; Coronary Disease; Energy Metabolism; Exercise; Heart Failure; Humans; Incidence; Mortality; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Risk Reduction Behavior; Socioeconomic Factors; Stroke; United States
PubMed: 31095084
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001939 -
Pain Physician Mar 2019Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used by patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain; however, questions remain around efficacy, dosing, and safety, as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used by patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain; however, questions remain around efficacy, dosing, and safety, as well as how these approaches compare to other therapies.
OBJECTIVES
Based on published trials, to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic nonspecific neck pain.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We identified studies published between January 2000 and September 2017, by searching multiple electronic databases, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation and/or mobilization therapies to sham, no treatment, each other, and other active therapies, or when combined as multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias by using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. When possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project was funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under award number U19AT007912 and ultimately used to inform an appropriateness panel.
RESULTS
A total of 47 randomized trials (47 unique trials in 53 publications) were included in the systematic review. These studies were rated as having low risk of bias and included a total of 4,460 patients with nonspecific chronic neck pain who were being treated by a practitioner using various types of manipulation and/or mobilization interventions. A total of 37 trials were categorized as unimodal approaches and involved thrust or nonthrust compared with sham, no treatment, or other active comparators. Of these, only 6 trials with similar intervention styles, comparators, and outcome measures/timepoints were pooled for meta-analysis at 1, 3, and 6 months, showing a small effect in favor of thrust plus exercise compared to an exercise regimen alone for a reduction in pain and disability. Multimodal approaches appeared to be effective at reducing pain and improving function from the 10 studies evaluated. Health-related quality of life was seldom reported. Some 22/47 studies did not report or mention adverse events. Of the 25 that did, either no or minor events occurred.
LIMITATIONS
The current evidence is heterogeneous, and sample sizes are generally small.
CONCLUSIONS
Studies published since January 2000 provide low-moderate quality evidence that various types of manipulation and/or mobilization will reduce pain and improve function for chronic nonspecific neck pain compared to other interventions. It appears that multimodal approaches, in which multiple treatment approaches are integrated, might have the greatest potential impact. The studies comparing to no treatment or sham were mostly testing the effect of a single dose, which may or may not be helpful to inform practice. According to the published trials reviewed, manipulation and mobilization appear safe. However, given the low rate of serious adverse events, other types of studies with much larger sample sizes would be required to fully describe the safety of manipulation and/or mobilization for nonspecific chronic neck pain.
KEY WORDS
Chronic neck pain, nonspecific, chiropractic, manipulation, mobilization, systematic review, meta-analysis, appropriateness.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Humans; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Neck Pain
PubMed: 30921975
DOI: No ID Found -
The Journal of Manual & Manipulative... Feb 2022To determine the effectiveness of manual therapy (MT) for functional outcomes in patients with distal radius fracture (DRF). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine the effectiveness of manual therapy (MT) for functional outcomes in patients with distal radius fracture (DRF).
METHODS
An electronic search was performed in the Medline, Central, Embase, PEDro, Lilacs, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases. The eligibility criteria for selecting studies included randomized clinical trials that included MT techniques with or without other therapeutic interventions in functional outcomes, such as wrist or upper limb function, pain, grip strength, and wrist range of motion in patients older than 18 years with DRF.
RESULTS
Eight clinical trials met the eligibility criteria; for the quantitative synthesis, six studies were included. For supervised physiotherapy plus joint mobilization versus home exercise program at 6 weeks follow-up, the mean difference (MD) for wrist flexion was 7.1 degrees (p = 0.20), and extension was 11.99 degrees (p = 0.16). For exercise program plus mobilization with movement versus exercise program at 12 weeks follow-up, the PRWE was -10.2 points (p = 0.02), the DASH was -9.86 points (p = 0.0001), and grip strength was 3.9 percent (p = 0.25). For conventional treatment plus manual lymph drainage versus conventional treatment, for edema the MD at 3-7 days was -14.58 ml (p = 0.03), at 17-21 days -17.96 ml (p = 0.009), at 33-42 days -15.34 ml (p = 0.003), and at 63-68 days -13.97 ml (p = 0.002).
CONCLUSION
There was very low to high evidence according to the GRADE rating. Adding mobilization with movement and manual lymphatic drainage showed statistically significant differences in wrist, upper limb function, and hand edema in patients with DRF.
Topics: Exercise Therapy; Humans; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Physical Therapy Modalities; Radius Fractures; Range of Motion, Articular
PubMed: 34668847
DOI: 10.1080/10669817.2021.1992090 -
Theranostics 2022Small extracellular vesicles (sEVs) have been proposed as a possible solution to the current lack of therapeutic interventions for endogenous skin regeneration. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Small extracellular vesicles (sEVs) have been proposed as a possible solution to the current lack of therapeutic interventions for endogenous skin regeneration. We conducted a systematic review of the available evidence to assess sEV therapeutic efficacy and safety in wound healing and skin regeneration in animal models. 68 studies were identified in Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed that satisfied a set of prespecified inclusion criteria. We critically analyzed the quality of studies that satisfied our inclusion criteria, with an emphasis on methodology, reporting, and adherence to relevant guidelines (including MISEV2018 and ISCT criteria). Overall, our systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that sEV interventions promoted skin regeneration in diabetic and non-diabetic animal models and influenced various facets of the healing process regardless of cell source, production protocol and disease model. The EV source, isolation methods, dosing regimen, and wound size varied among the studies. Modification of sEVs was achieved mainly by manipulating source cells via preconditioning, nanoparticle loading, genetic manipulation, and biomaterial incorporation to enhance sEV therapeutic potential. Evaluation of potential adverse effects received only minimal attention, although none of the studies reported harmful events. Risk of bias as assessed by the SYRCLE's ROB tool was uncertain for most studies due to insufficient reporting, and adherence to guidelines was limited. In summary, sEV therapy has enormous potential for wound healing and skin regeneration. However, reproducibility and comprehensive evaluation of evidence are challenged by a general lack of transparency in reporting and adherence to guidelines. Methodological rigor, standardization, and risk analysis at all stages of research are needed to promote translation to clinical practice.
Topics: Animals; Biocompatible Materials; Extracellular Vesicles; Reproducibility of Results; Skin; Wound Healing
PubMed: 36185607
DOI: 10.7150/thno.73436