-
British Journal of Sports Medicine Jan 2022To assess the effectiveness of interventions for acute and subacute non-specific low back pain (NS-LBP) based on pain and disability outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness of interventions for acute and subacute non-specific low back pain (NS-LBP) based on pain and disability outcomes.
DESIGN
A systematic review of the literature with network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception until 17 October 2020.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) involving adults with NS-LBP who experienced pain for less than 6 weeks (acute) or between 6 and 12 weeks (subacute).
RESULTS
Forty-six RCTs (n=8765) were included; risk of bias was low in 9 trials (19.6%), unclear in 20 (43.5%), and high in 17 (36.9%). At immediate-term follow-up, for pain decrease, the most efficacious treatments against an inert therapy were: exercise (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.41 to -0.40), heat wrap (SMD -1.38; 95% CI -2.60 to -0.17), opioids (SMD -0.86; 95% CI -1.62 to -0.10), manual therapy (SMD -0.72; 95% CI -1.40 to -0.04) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (SMD -0.53; 95% CI -0.97 to -0.09). Similar findings were confirmed for disability reduction in non-pharmacological and pharmacological networks, including muscle relaxants (SMD -0.24; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.04). Mild or moderate adverse events were reported in the opioids (65.7%), NSAIDs (54.3%) and steroids (46.9%) trial arms.
CONCLUSION
With uncertainty of evidence, NS-LBP should be managed with non-pharmacological treatments which seem to mitigate pain and disability at immediate-term. Among pharmacological interventions, NSAIDs and muscle relaxants appear to offer the best harm-benefit balance.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Low Back Pain; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33849907
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-103596 -
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management May 2022Pain is the most fearful symptom in cancer. Although there is a relationship between psychosocial variables and oncologic pain, psychological and non-pharmacological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
Pain is the most fearful symptom in cancer. Although there is a relationship between psychosocial variables and oncologic pain, psychological and non-pharmacological treatments for pain management in cancer patients are not very widespread.
OBJECTIVES
To analyze the efficacy of psychological and non-pharmacological treatments for reducing pain in cancer patients.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review following the PRISMA protocol. In January 2021, data were extracted from PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus, including randomised controlled trials (RCT) published in the last five years (from 28 January, 2015 to December 15, 2020), in the English language and whose sample was patients with cancer pain. The database search used the following keywords: cancer, cancer-related pain, psychological intervention, non-pharmacologic intervention. The Cochrane risk of bias assess ment for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used for quality appraisal.
RESULTS
After the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, ten papers were fully screened. The evidence suggested that the most effective interventions to reduce cancer pain were mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, guided imagery and progressive muscle relaxation and emotional and symptom focused engagement (EASE). Music therapy and brief cognitive behavioral strategies (CBS) require more research, while coping skills training and yoga did not show positive effects. Overall, we obtained a moderate size effect (d = 0.642, 95% CI: 0.125-1.158) favourable to psychological and non-pharmacologic treatments at post-treatment, which increased at follow-up (k = 5, d = 0.826, 95% CI: 0.141-1.511).
CONCLUSION
This study provides insight into psychological interventions which might be applied and contribute to cancer-related pain reduction in adults. Although the results are not completely consistent, they may shed light on psychology applications in the oncology environment.
Topics: Adult; Cancer Pain; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Music Therapy; Neoplasms; Pain Management
PubMed: 34952171
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2021.12.021 -
Sports (Basel, Switzerland) May 2023A massage is a tool that is frequently used in sports and exercise in general for recovery and increased performance. In this review paper, we aimed to search and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A massage is a tool that is frequently used in sports and exercise in general for recovery and increased performance. In this review paper, we aimed to search and systemize current literature findings relating to massages' effects on sports and exercise performance concerning its effects on motor abilities and neurophysiological and psychological mechanisms.
METHODS
The review has been written following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) guidelines. One hundred and fourteen articles were included in this review.
RESULTS
The data revealed that massages, in general, do not affect motor abilities, except flexibility. However, several studies demonstrated that positive muscle force and strength changed 48 h after the massage was given. Concerning neurophysiological parameters, the massage did not change blood lactate clearance, muscle blood flow, muscle temperature, or activation. However, many studies indicate pain reduction and delayed onset muscle soreness, which are probably correlated with the reduction of the level of creatine kinase enzyme and psychological mechanisms. In addition, the massage treatment led to a decrease in depression, stress, anxiety, and the perception of fatigue and an increase in mood, relaxation, and the perception of recovery.
CONCLUSION
The direct usage of massages just for gaining results in sport and exercise performance seems questionable. However, it is indirectly connected to performance as an important tool when an athlete should stay focused and relaxed during competition or training and recover after them.
PubMed: 37368560
DOI: 10.3390/sports11060110 -
Australian Dental Journal Mar 2022Anxiety is an adaptive emotional response to potentially threatening or dangerous situations; moderated by the sympathetic nervous system. Dental anxiety is common and... (Review)
Review
Anxiety is an adaptive emotional response to potentially threatening or dangerous situations; moderated by the sympathetic nervous system. Dental anxiety is common and presents before, during or after dental treatment. The physiological response includes an increase in heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and cardiac output. Consequently, extensive distress leads to avoidance of dental treatment and multiple failed appointments, impacting both oral and general health. Dental anxiety can generate a variety of negative consequences for both the dentist and the patient. Evidence-based strategies are essential for mitigating and relieving anxiety in the dental clinic. Psychotherapeutic behavioural strategies can modify the patient's experience through a minimally invasive approach with nil or negligible side effects, depending on patient characteristics, anxiety level and clinical situations. These therapies involve muscle relaxation, guided imagery, physiological monitoring, utilizing biofeedback, hypnosis, acupuncture, distraction and desensitization. Pharmacological intervention utilizes either relative analgesia (nitrous oxide), conscious intravenous sedation or oral sedation, which can have undesirable side effects, risks and contraindications. These modalities increase the cost and availability of dental treatment.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Dental Anxiety; Dental Clinics; Conscious Sedation; Anesthesia; Anesthesia, Dental
PubMed: 35735746
DOI: 10.1111/adj.12926 -
Cureus Aug 2021Tension-type headache is one of the most prevalent types of headache. The common presentation is a mild-to-moderate dull aching pain around the temporal region, like a... (Review)
Review
Tension-type headache is one of the most prevalent types of headache. The common presentation is a mild-to-moderate dull aching pain around the temporal region, like a tight band around the forehead, neck, shoulder, and sometimes behind eyes. It can occur at any age but most commonly in the adult female population. The exact underlying mechanism is not clear but muscle tension is one of the main causes, which can be due to stress and anxiety. There are several non-pharmacologic treatment options suggested for tension-type headaches, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, relaxation, biofeedback, acupuncture, exercise, manual therapy, and even some home remedies. This systematic review was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture and manual therapy in tension-type headaches. The literature search was primarily done on PubMed. Eight articles involving 3846 participants showed evidence that acupuncture and manual therapy can be valuable non-pharmacological treatment options for tension-type headaches. Acupuncture was compared to routine care or sham intervention. Acupuncture was not found to be superior to physiotherapy, exercise, and massage therapy. Randomized controlled trials done in various countries showed manual therapy also significantly decreased headache intensity. Manual therapy has an efficacy that equals prophylactic medication and tricyclic antidepressants in treating tension-type headaches. The available data suggests that both acupuncture and manual therapy have beneficial effects on treating symptoms of tension-type headache. However, further clinical trials looking at long-term benefits and risks are needed.
PubMed: 34646653
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.17601 -
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies May 2022To identify and descriptively compare medication recommendations among low back pain (LBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPG). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To identify and descriptively compare medication recommendations among low back pain (LBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPG).
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, Index to Chiropractic Literature, AMED, CINAHL, and PEDro to identify CPGs that described the management of mechanical LBP in the prior five years. Two investigators independently screened titles and abstracts and potentially relevant full text were considered for eligibility. Four investigators independently applied the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument for critical appraisal. Data were extracted for pharmaceutical intervention, the strength of recommendation, and appropriateness for the duration of LBP.
RESULTS
316 citations were identified, 50 full-text articles were assessed, and nine guidelines with global representation met the eligibility criteria. These CPGs addressed pharmacological treatments with or without non-pharmacological treatments. All CPGS focused on the management of acute, chronic, or unspecified duration of LBP. The mean overall AGREE II score was 89.3% (SD 3.5%). The lowest domain mean score was for applicability, 80.4% (SD 5.2%), and the highest was Scope and Purpose, 94.0% (SD 2.4%). There were ten classifications of medications described in the included CPGs: acetaminophen, antibiotics, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, benzodiazepines, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, oral corticosteroids, skeletal muscle relaxants (SMRs), and atypical opioids.
CONCLUSIONS
Nine CPGs, included ten medication classes for the management of LBP. NSAIDs were the most frequently recommended medication for the treatment of both acute and chronic LBP as a first line pharmacological therapy. Acetaminophen and SMRs were inconsistently recommended for acute LBP. Meanwhile, with less consensus among CPGs, acetaminophen and antidepressants were proposed as second-choice therapies for chronic LBP. There was significant heterogeneity of recommendations within many medication classes, although oral corticosteroids, benzodiazepines, anticonvulsants, and antibiotics were not recommended by any CPGs for acute or chronic LBP.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Benzodiazepines; Humans; Low Back Pain; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 35562756
DOI: 10.1186/s12998-022-00435-3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological interventions for LBP published in the Cochrane Library, is limited by lack of a comprehensive overview.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP.
METHODS
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched from inception to 3 June 2021, to identify reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools. The review focused on placebo comparisons and the main outcomes were pain intensity, function, and safety.
MAIN RESULTS
Seven Cochrane Reviews that included 103 studies (22,238 participants) were included. There is high confidence in the findings of five reviews, moderate confidence in one, and low confidence in the findings of another. The reviews reported data on six medicines or medicine classes: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), muscle relaxants, benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants. Three reviews included participants with acute or sub-acute LBP and five reviews included participants with chronic LBP. Acute LBP Paracetamol There was high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD 0.49 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.99 to 2.97), reducing disability (MD 0.05 on a 0 to 24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -0.50 to 0.60), and increasing the risk of adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33). NSAIDs There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -7.29 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.98 to -3.61), high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for reducing disability (MD -2.02 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15), and very low-certainty evidence for no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0. 63 to 1.18). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring muscle relaxants compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76), and higher chance of improving physical function (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77), and increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1. 14 to 1.98). Opioids None of the included Cochrane Reviews aimed to identify evidence for acute LBP. Antidepressants No evidence was identified by the included reviews for acute LBP. Chronic LBP Paracetamol No evidence was identified by the included reviews for chronic LBP. NSAIDs There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD -6.97 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.74 to -3.19), reducing disability (MD -0.85 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -1.30 to -0.40), and no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.17), all at intermediate-term follow-up (> 3 months and ≤ 12 months postintervention). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring benzodiazepines compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93), and low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between muscle relaxants and placebo in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.57). Opioids There was high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tapentadol compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -8.00 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.22 to -0.38), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.33), low-certainty evidence for a medium between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44) and very low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.26). There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids compared to placebo for reducing disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing disability (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07), and low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing disability (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.25). There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for an increased risk of adverse events for opioids (all types) compared to placebo; nausea (RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14), headaches (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05), constipation (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), and dizziness (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11). Antidepressants There was low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference for antidepressants (all types) compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.17) and reducing disability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.29).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no high- or moderate-certainty evidence that any investigated pharmacological intervention provided a large or medium effect on pain intensity for acute or chronic LBP compared to placebo. For acute LBP, we found moderate-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and muscle relaxants may provide a small effect on pain, and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo. For safety, we found very low- and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference with NSAIDs and paracetamol compared to placebo for the risk of adverse events, and moderate-certainty evidence that muscle relaxants may increase the risk of adverse events. For chronic LBP, we found low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and very low- to high-certainty evidence that opioids may provide a small effect on pain. For safety, we found low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between NSAIDs and placebo for the risk of adverse events, and low-certainty evidence that opioids may increase the risk of adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Acetaminophen; Low Back Pain; Tramadol; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Acute Pain; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine
PubMed: 37014979
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013815.pub2 -
Annals of Medicine and Surgery (2012) Oct 2021Asthma is one of the commonest respiratory illnesses among elderly patients undergoing surgery. Detailed preoperative assessment, pharmacotherapy and safe anaesthetic... (Review)
Review
Asthma is one of the commonest respiratory illnesses among elderly patients undergoing surgery. Detailed preoperative assessment, pharmacotherapy and safe anaesthetic measures throughout perioperative period are the keys to decrease complications. Resistance to expiratory airflow results in positive alveolar pressures at the end of expiration, which causes air-trapping and hyperinflation of the lungs and thorax, increased work of breathing, and alteration of respiratory muscle function. This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for systematic review and metanalysis (PRISMA) statement. Search engines like PubMed through HINARI, Cochrane database and Google Scholars were used to find evidences. Low-dose IV ketamine, midazolam, IV lidocaine or combined with salbutamol are recommended to be used as premedication before induction. Propofol, ketamine, halothane, isoflurane and sevoflurane are best induction agents and maintenance for asthmatic surgical patients respectively. Among the muscle relaxants, vecuronium is safe for use in asthmatics. In addition, Succinylcholine and pancronium which releases low levels of histamine has been used safely in asthmatics with little morbidity.
PubMed: 34603720
DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102874 -
International Journal of Environmental... Oct 2022Assess the effectiveness of physical therapy, including supervised physical exercise for body mass index (BMI) restoration; improving muscle strength and the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Assess the effectiveness of physical therapy, including supervised physical exercise for body mass index (BMI) restoration; improving muscle strength and the psychological, behavioural, cognitive symptoms and quality of life in patients with anorexia nervosa (AN).
METHODS
A Systematic Review (SR) was conducted in the following scientific databases: Medline, PubMed, PEDro, PsychInfo, Cochrane Library plus, Nursing and Allied Health database, Scopus and Web of Science databases, from inception until November 2021. An assessment of the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence across studies was conducted. Articles were eligible if they followed randomized and non-randomized control trial designs with treatments based on physical therapy or exercise or physical activity in AN patients.
RESULTS
496 records were screened, and after eligibility assessment, 6 studies from 8 articles were finally analysed. The studies, involving 176 AN patient (85.02% of patients), reported improvements in muscle strength, eating behaviour, eating attitude, mood and quality of life. Three studies included nutritional co-interventions and four studies included psychological therapy. None of the studies reported adverse effects.
CONCLUSIONS
In two of the RCTs included in this SR, strength training and high intensity resistance improved the muscle strength of patients with AN. In addition, in two RCTs, improvements were observed in patients' attitudes towards their bodies after basic body awareness therapy or after full body massage and instruction to relax. In addition, quality of life improved in two studies, with stretching, isometrics, endurance cardiovascular and muscular exercising.
Topics: Humans; Anorexia Nervosa; Quality of Life; Exercise; Muscle Strength; Physical Therapy Modalities
PubMed: 36360815
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192113921 -
JMIR MHealth and UHealth Apr 2021Connected mental health, which refers to the use of technology for mental health care and technology-based therapeutic solutions, has become an established field of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Connected mental health, which refers to the use of technology for mental health care and technology-based therapeutic solutions, has become an established field of research. Biofeedback is one of the approaches used in connected mental health solutions, which is mainly based on the analysis of physiological indicators for the assessment and management of the psychological state. Biofeedback is recommended by many therapists and has been used for conditions including depression, insomnia, and anxiety. Anxiety is associated with several physiological symptoms, including muscle tension and breathing issues, which makes the inclusion of biofeedback useful for anxiety detection and management.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to identify interventions using biofeedback as a part of their process for anxiety management and investigate their perceived effectiveness.
METHODS
A systematic literature review of publications presenting empirically evaluated biofeedback-based interventions for anxiety was conducted. The systematic literature review was based on publications retrieved from IEEE Digital Library, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus. A preliminary selection of papers was identified, examined, and filtered to include only relevant publications. Studies in the final selection were classified and analyzed to extract the modalities of use of biofeedback in the identified interventions, the types of physiological data that were collected and analyzed and the sensors used to collect them. Processes and outcomes of the empirical evaluations were also extracted.
RESULTS
After final selection, 13 publications presenting different interventions were investigated. The interventions addressed either primarily anxiety disorders or anxiety associated with health issues such as migraine, Parkinson disease, and rheumatology. Solutions combined biofeedback with other techniques including virtual reality, music therapy, games, and relaxation practices and used different sensors including cardiovascular belts, wrist sensors, or stretch sensors to collect physiological data such as heart rate, respiration indicators, and movement information. The interventions targeted different cohorts including children, students, and patients. Overall, outcomes from the empirical evaluations yielded positive results and emphasized the effectiveness of connected mental health solutions using biofeedback for anxiety; however, certain unfavorable outcomes, such as interventions not having an effect on anxiety and patients' preferring traditional therapy, were reported in studies addressing patients with specific physical health issues.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of biofeedback in connected mental health interventions for the treatment and management of anxiety allows better screening and understanding of both psychological and physiological patient information, as well as of the association between the two. The inclusion of biofeedback could improve the outcome of interventions and boost their effectiveness; however, when used with patients suffering from certain physical health issues, suitability investigations are needed.
Topics: Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Biofeedback, Psychology; Child; Humans; Mental Health; Students
PubMed: 33792548
DOI: 10.2196/26038