-
Health Technology Assessment... Oct 2023Tendinopathy is a common, painful and functionally limiting condition, primarily managed conservatively using exercise therapy.
BACKGROUND
Tendinopathy is a common, painful and functionally limiting condition, primarily managed conservatively using exercise therapy.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
(i) What exercise interventions have been reported in the literature for which tendinopathies? (ii) What outcomes have been reported in studies investigating exercise interventions for tendinopathy? (iii) Which exercise interventions are most effective across all tendinopathies? (iv) Does type/location of tendinopathy or other specific covariates affect which are the most effective exercise therapies? (v) How feasible and acceptable are exercise interventions for tendinopathies?
METHODS
A scoping review mapped exercise interventions for tendinopathies and outcomes reported to date (questions i and ii). Thereafter, two contingent systematic review workstreams were conducted. The first investigated a large number of studies and was split into three efficacy reviews that quantified and compared efficacy across different interventions (question iii), and investigated the influence of a range of potential moderators (question iv). The second was a convergent segregated mixed-method review (question v). Searches for studies published from 1998 were conducted in library databases ( = 9), trial registries ( = 6), grey literature databases ( = 5) and Google Scholar. Scoping review searches were completed on 28 April 2020 with efficacy and mixed-method search updates conducted on 19 January 2021 and 29 March 2021.
RESULTS
- 555 included studies identified a range of exercise interventions and outcomes across a range of tendinopathies, most commonly Achilles, patellar, lateral elbow and rotator cuff-related shoulder pain. Strengthening exercise was most common, with flexibility exercise used primarily in the upper limb. Disability was the most common outcome measured in Achilles, patellar and rotator cuff-related shoulder pain; physical function capacity was most common in lateral elbow tendinopathy. - 204 studies provided evidence that exercise therapy is safe and beneficial, and that patients are generally satisfied with treatment outcome and perceive the improvement to be substantial. In the context of generally low and very low-quality evidence, results identified that: (1) the shoulder may benefit more from flexibility (effect size = 0.18 [95% CrI 0.07 to 0.29]) and proprioception (effect size = 0.16 [95% CrI -1.8 to 0.32]); (2) when performing strengthening exercise it may be most beneficial to combine concentric and eccentric modes (effect size = 0.48 [95% CrI -0.13 to 1.1]; and (3) exercise may be most beneficial when combined with another conservative modality (e.g. injection or electro-therapy increasing effect size by ≈0.1 to 0.3). - 94 studies (11 qualitative) provided evidence that exercise interventions for tendinopathy can largely be considered feasible and acceptable, and that several important factors should be considered when prescribing exercise for tendinopathy, including an awareness of potential barriers to and facilitators of engaging with exercise, patients' and providers' prior experience and beliefs, and the importance of patient education, self-management and the patient-healthcare professional relationship.
LIMITATIONS
Despite a large body of literature on exercise for tendinopathy, there are methodological and reporting limitations that influenced the recommendations that could be made.
CONCLUSION
The findings provide some support for the use of exercise combined with another conservative modality; flexibility and proprioception exercise for the shoulder; and a combination of eccentric and concentric strengthening exercise across tendinopathies. However, the findings must be interpreted within the context of the quality of the available evidence.
FUTURE WORK
There is an urgent need for high-quality efficacy, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and qualitative research that is adequately reported, using common terminology, definitions and outcomes.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This project is registered as DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00175 (scoping review); PROSPERO CRD 42020168187 (efficacy reviews); https://osf.io/preprints/sportrxiv/y7sk6/ (efficacy review 1); https://osf.io/preprints/sportrxiv/eyxgk/ (efficacy review 2); https://osf.io/preprints/sportrxiv/mx5pv/ (efficacy review 3); PROSPERO CRD42020164641 (mixed-method review).
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) HTA programme and will be published in full in HTA Journal; Vol. 27, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: Humans; Shoulder Pain; Feasibility Studies; Exercise Therapy; Tendinopathy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37929629
DOI: 10.3310/TFWS2748 -
BioMed Research International 2020Osteoarthritis is the most common musculoskeletal disease. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy had shown an effect on osteoarthritis in both some animal experiments and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Osteoarthritis is the most common musculoskeletal disease. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy had shown an effect on osteoarthritis in both some animal experiments and clinical studies, but there was no systematic review to confirm the value of shockwave therapy in the treatment of all types of osteoarthritis and compare it with other traditional therapies (especially traditional Chinese medicine).
METHOD
PubMed, Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, WANFANG database, and VIP database were searched up to December 10, 2019, to identify randomized controlled trials comparing shockwave therapy and other treatments for osteoarthritis. Visual analogue scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index were extracted and analyzed by RevMan and STATA software as outcomes of pain reduction and functional improvement. Adverse reactions were recorded to evaluate the safety of shockwave therapy.
RESULTS
Shockwave therapy had significant improvement in both pain reduction and functional improvement compared with placebo, corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid, medication, and ultrasound ( < 0.05). In functional improvement, shockwave therapy showed statistical improvement compared with kinesiotherapy and moxibustion ( < 0.05) but not with acupotomy surgery ( = 0.24). A significant difference between shockwave therapy and platelet-rich plasma was observed in pain reduction ( < 0.05) but not in functional improvement ( = 0.89). Meanwhile, a statistical difference was found between shockwave therapy and fumigation in functional improvement ( < 0.05) but not in pain reduction ( = 0.26). Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference between shockwave therapy and manipulation in both pain reduction ( = 0.21) and functional improvement ( = 0.45). No serious adverse reaction occurred in all of studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Extracorporeal shockwave therapy could be recommended in the treatment of osteoarthritis as a noninvasive therapy with safety and effectiveness, but the grade of recommendations needs to be discussed in a further study.
Topics: Animals; Databases, Factual; Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Injections, Intra-Articular; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Osteoarthritis; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain; Pain Measurement; Placebos; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 32309424
DOI: 10.1155/2020/1907821 -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Oct 2022We describe the collection of cohorts together with the analysis plan for an update of the fracture risk prediction tool FRAX with respect to current and novel risk... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
We describe the collection of cohorts together with the analysis plan for an update of the fracture risk prediction tool FRAX with respect to current and novel risk factors. The resource comprises 2,138,428 participants with a follow-up of approximately 20 million person-years and 116,117 documented incident major osteoporotic fractures.
INTRODUCTION
The availability of the fracture risk assessment tool FRAX® has substantially enhanced the targeting of treatment to those at high risk of fracture with FRAX now incorporated into more than 100 clinical osteoporosis guidelines worldwide. The aim of this study is to determine whether the current algorithms can be further optimised with respect to current and novel risk factors.
METHODS
A computerised literature search was performed in PubMed from inception until May 17, 2019, to identify eligible cohorts for updating the FRAX coefficients. Additionally, we searched the abstracts of conference proceedings of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, European Calcified Tissue Society and World Congress of Osteoporosis. Prospective cohort studies with data on baseline clinical risk factors and incident fractures were eligible.
RESULTS
Of the 836 records retrieved, 53 were selected for full-text assessment after screening on title and abstract. Twelve cohorts were deemed eligible and of these, 4 novel cohorts were identified. These cohorts, together with 60 previously identified cohorts, will provide the resource for constructing an updated version of FRAX comprising 2,138,428 participants with a follow-up of approximately 20 million person-years and 116,117 documented incident major osteoporotic fractures. For each known and candidate risk factor, multivariate hazard functions for hip fracture, major osteoporotic fracture and death will be tested using extended Poisson regression. Sex- and/or ethnicity-specific differences in the weights of the risk factors will be investigated. After meta-analyses of the cohort-specific beta coefficients for each risk factor, models comprising 10-year probability of hip and major osteoporotic fracture, with or without femoral neck bone mineral density, will be computed.
CONCLUSIONS
These assembled cohorts and described models will provide the framework for an updated FRAX tool enabling enhanced assessment of fracture risk (PROSPERO (CRD42021227266)).
Topics: Bone Density; Hip Fractures; Humans; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Prospective Studies; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35639106
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-022-06435-6 -
Deutsches Arzteblatt International Jan 2022Involvement of the temporomandibular joint can be shown in 40-90% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), although it is often...
BACKGROUND
Involvement of the temporomandibular joint can be shown in 40-90% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), although it is often asymptomatic. Restricted jaw mobility and jaw pain can be found in approximately 20% of patients with JIA (prevalence: 70 per 100 000 persons). Early diagnosis and treatment of the underlying disease are essential for a good outcome, but uniform, consensus-based management is still lacking.
METHODS
The clinical practice guideline is based on the findings of a systematic literature review in multiple databases and a Delphi procedure to obtain consensus on the recommendations.
RESULTS
Most of the identified studies were retrospective. Patients with JIA should undergo clinical screening with a structured examination protocol once per year in childhood and adolescence, and thereafter as well if the temporomandibular joint is involved. The diagnosis of chronic rheumatoid arthritis of the temporomandibular joint is established with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Conservative treatment (antirheumatic basal therapy, local measures) is unsuccessful in less than 10% of patients. In such cases, arthroscopy and arthrocentesis can be used for temporary symptom relief and functional improvement. Intra-articular corticosteroid injections should be given only once, and only in otherwise intractable cases. In severe cases where all other options have been exhausted (<1%), open surgical treatment can be considered, including alloplastic joint replacement.
CONCLUSION
Oligosymptomatic and asymptomatic cases are common even with radiologic evidence of marked joint damage. The possibility of rheumatic involvement of the temporomandibular joint must be kept in mind so that serious complications can be avoided. Regular clinical evaluation of the temporomandibular joint is recommended, particularly for patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.
Topics: Adolescent; Arthritis, Juvenile; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Retrospective Studies; Temporomandibular Joint; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
PubMed: 34874262
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.m2021.0388 -
BMJ Open Oct 2019Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) is not recommended in major knee osteoarthritis (KOA) treatment guidelines. We investigated whether a LLLT dose-response relationship... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) is not recommended in major knee osteoarthritis (KOA) treatment guidelines. We investigated whether a LLLT dose-response relationship exists in KOA.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Eligible articles were identified through PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Physiotherapy Evidence Database and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on 18 February 2019, reference lists, a book, citations and experts in the field.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
We solely included randomised placebo-controlled trials involving participants with KOA according to the American College of Rheumatology and/or Kellgren/Lawrence criteria, in which LLLT was applied to participants' knee(s). There were no language restrictions.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The included trials were synthesised with random effects meta-analyses and subgrouped by dose using the World Association for Laser Therapy treatment recommendations. Cochrane's risk-of-bias tool was used.
RESULTS
22 trials (n=1063) were meta-analysed. Risk of bias was insignificant. Overall, pain was significantly reduced by LLLT compared with placebo at the end of therapy (14.23 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; 95% CI 7.31 to 21.14)) and during follow-ups 1-12 weeks later (15.92 mm VAS (95% CI 6.47 to 25.37)). The subgroup analysis revealed that pain was significantly reduced by the recommended LLLT doses compared with placebo at the end of therapy (18.71 mm (95% CI 9.42 to 27.99)) and during follow-ups 2-12 weeks after the end of therapy (23.23 mm VAS (95% CI 10.60 to 35.86)). The pain reduction from the recommended LLLT doses peaked during follow-ups 2-4 weeks after the end of therapy (31.87 mm VAS significantly beyond placebo (95% CI 18.18 to 45.56)). Disability was also statistically significantly reduced by LLLT. No adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSION
LLLT reduces pain and disability in KOA at 4-8 J with 785-860 nm wavelength and at 1-3 J with 904 nm wavelength per treatment spot.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42016035587.
Topics: Arthralgia; Humans; Low-Level Light Therapy; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31662383
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031142 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2019Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are a group of musculoskeletal disorders that comprise one of the most common disorders related to occupational sick leave...
BACKGROUND
Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are a group of musculoskeletal disorders that comprise one of the most common disorders related to occupational sick leave worldwide. Musculoskeletal disorders accounted for 21% to 28% of work absenteeism days in 2017/2018 in the Netherlands, Germany and the UK. There are several interventions that may be effective in tackling the high prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among workers, such as physical, cognitive and organisational interventions. In this review, we will focus on work breaks as a measure of primary prevention, which are a type of organisational intervention.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness of different work-break schedules for preventing work-related musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders in healthy workers, when compared to conventional or alternate work-break schedules.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to April/May 2019. In addition, we searched references of the included studies and of relevant literature reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of work-break interventions for preventing work-related musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders among workers. The studies were eligible for inclusion when intervening on work-break frequency, duration and/or type, compared to conventional or an alternate work-break intervention. We included only those studies in which the investigated population included healthy, adult workers, who were free of musculoskeletal complaints during study enrolment, without restrictions to sex or occupation. The primary outcomes were newly diagnosed musculoskeletal disorders, self-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue, and productivity or work performance. We considered workload changes as secondary outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts for study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional study data where required. We performed meta-analyses, where possible, and we assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome of each comparison using the five GRADE considerations.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six studies (373 workers), four parallel RCTs, one cross-over RCT, and one combined parallel plus cross-over RCT. At least 295 of the employees were female and at least 39 male; for the remaining 39 employees, the sex was not specified in the study trial. The studies investigated different work-break frequencies (five studies) and different work-break types (two studies). None of the studies investigated different work-break durations. We judged all studies to have a high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of self-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue was low; the quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of productivity and work performance was very low. The studies were executed in Europe or Northern America, with none from low- to middle-income countries. One study could not be included in the data analyses, because no detailed results have been reported.Changes in the frequency of work breaksThere is low-quality evidence that additional work breaks may not have a considerable effect on musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue, when compared with no additional work breaks (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.08; 95% CI -0.35 to 0.18; three studies; 225 participants). Additional breaks may not have a positive effect on productivity or work performance, when compared with no additional work breaks (SMD -0.07; 95% CI -0.33 to 0.19; three studies; 225 participants; very low-quality evidence).We found low-quality evidence that additional work breaks may not have a considerable effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue (MD 1.80 on a 100-mm VAS scale; 95% CI -41.07 to 64.37; one study; 15 participants), when compared to work breaks as needed (i.e. microbreaks taken at own discretion). There is very low-quality evidence that additional work breaks may have a positive effect on productivity or work performance, when compared to work breaks as needed (MD 542.5 number of words typed per 3-hour recording session; 95% CI 177.22 to 907.78; one study; 15 participants).Additional higher frequency work breaks may not have a considerable effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue (MD 11.65 on a 100-mm VAS scale; 95% CI -41.07 to 64.37; one study; 10 participants; low-quality evidence), when compared to additional lower frequency work breaks. We found very low-quality evidence that additional higher frequency work breaks may not have a considerable effect on productivity or work performance (MD -83.00 number of words typed per 3-hour recording session; 95% CI -305.27 to 139.27; one study; 10 participants), when compared to additional lower frequency work breaks.Changes in the duration of work breaksNo trials were identified that assessed the effect of different durations of work breaks.Changes in the type of work breakWe found low-quality evidence that active breaks may not have a considerable positive effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue (MD -0.17 on a 1-7 NRS scale; 95% CI -0.71 to 0.37; one study; 153 participants), when compared to passive work breaks.Relaxation work breaks may not have a considerable effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue, when compared to physical work breaks (MD 0.20 on a 1-7 NRS scale; 95% CI -0.43 to 0.82; one study; 97 participants; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low-quality evidence that different work-break frequencies may have no effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue. For productivity and work performance, evidence was of very low-quality that different work-break frequencies may have a positive effect. For different types of break, there may be no effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue according to low-quality evidence. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of frequency, duration and type of work-break interventions among workers, if possible, with much higher sample sizes than the studies included in the current review. Furthermore, work-break interventions should be reconsidered, taking into account worker populations other than office workers, and taking into account the possibility of combining work-break intervention with other interventions such as ergonomic training or counselling, which may may possibly have an effect on musculoskeletal outcomes and work performance.
Topics: Adult; Ergonomics; Health Personnel; Health Workforce; Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Occupational Diseases; Personnel Staffing and Scheduling; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Workplace
PubMed: 31334564
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012886.pub2 -
PloS One 2022To investigate the effectiveness of exercise and/or educational intervention on physical activity and pain in patients with hip/knee osteoarthritis (OA) using systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effectiveness of exercise and/or educational intervention on physical activity and pain in patients with hip/knee osteoarthritis (OA) using systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched randomized controlled trials that investigated physical activity and pain and compared exercise and/or educational intervention with usual care in patients with hip/knee OA in MEDLINE (PubMed), ProQuest, Scopus, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), including all those published by April 30, 2022 and written in English. Studies that newly applied analgesics after onset of the intervention were excluded. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used to assess the methodological qualities. The random-effects model was used for meta-analysis with standard mean differences using RevMan version 5.4. The body of evidence for each study was synthesized using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
Twenty studies including 2,350 patients were included (7 exercise studies, 8 educational intervention studies and 5 combination studies). The meta-analysis demonstrated that there is very low evidence that combination therapy of exercise and educational intervention improve the physical activity level at the endpoint (4 articles; SMD 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.51, P = 0.03). Low evidence was observed for combination therapy reducing pain (4 articles; SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.02, P = 0.03).
DISCUSSION
The current evidence indicated that combination therapy of exercise and educational intervention leads to improved physical activity and pain reduction in hip/knee OA patients, but the risk of bias in each study, especially in allocation concealment, downgraded the evidence level. These findings support the use of a combination therapy of exercise and educational intervention to promote physical activity levels in patients with hip/knee OA.
TRAIL REGISTRATION
There was no financial support for this research. The protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration code: CRD42020205804).
Topics: Humans; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Exercise Therapy; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Exercise; Pain
PubMed: 36409668
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275591 -
JAMA Network Open Aug 2022Universal ultrasonographic screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) has gained increasing popularity despite the lack of benefit in terms of reducing the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Universal ultrasonographic screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) has gained increasing popularity despite the lack of benefit in terms of reducing the rates of late-detected cases (age ≥12 weeks) in randomized clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE
To report the reported incidence of DDH in the English scientific literature and compare rates of late-detected cases in settings with different DDH screening strategies.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched on November 25 and 27, 2021. No time filters were used in the search.
STUDY SELECTION
All observational studies reporting the incidence of early-detected or late-detected (age ≥12 weeks) DDH were included. Non-English reports were excluded if the abstract did not include enough information to be included for analysis.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The number of newborns screened and the detection rates were extracted. Meta-analysis calculated the pooled incidence of DDH per 1000 newborns with 95% CIs using a random- or fixed-effects model. This study is reported according to the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The main outcome measures were early detection, early treatment, late detection, and operative treatment incidences.
RESULTS
A total of 1899 studies were identified, 203 full texts were assessed, and 76 studies with 16 901 079 infants were included in final analyses. The early detection rate was 8.4 (95% CI, 4.8-14.8) infants with DDH per 1000 newborns with clinical screening, 4.4 (95% CI, 2.4-8.0) infants with DDH per 1000 newborns with selective ultrasonographic screening, and 23.0 (95% CI, 15.7-33.4) infants with DDH per 1000 newborns with universal ultrasonographic screening. Rates for nonoperative treatment were 5.5 (95% CI, 2.1-14) treatments per 1000 newborns with clinical screening, 3.1 (95% CI, 2.0-4.8) treatments per 1000 newborns with selective ultrasonographic screening, and 9.8 (95% CI, 6.7-14.4) treatments per 1000 newborns with universal ultrasonographic screening. The incidence of late-detected DDH was 0.5 (95% CI, 0.2-1.5) infants with DDH per 1000 newborns with clinical screening, 0.6 (95% CI, 0.3-1.3) infants with DDH per 1000 newborns with selective ultrasonographic screening, and 0.2 (95% CI, 0.0-0.8) infants with DDH per 1000 newborns with universal ultrasonographic screening. The corresponding incidences of operative treatment were 0.2 (95% CI, 0.0-0.9) operations per 1000 newborns with clinical screening, 0.5 (95% CI, 0.4-0.7) operations per 1000 newborns with selective ultrasonographic screening, and 0.4 (95% CI, 0.2-0.7) operations per 1000 newborns with universal ultrasonographic screening.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This meta-analysis found that early detection rates and nonoperative treatments were higher with universal screening. The late detection and operative treatment rates with universal screening were similar to those among selectively and clinically screened newborns. Based on these results, universal screening may cause initial overtreatment without reducing the rates of late detection and operative treatment.
Topics: Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip; Hip Dislocation, Congenital; Humans; Incidence; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Neonatal Screening; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 35980635
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.27638 -
Archives of Physical Medicine and... Jun 2024To compare single and multiple physiotherapy sessions to improve pain, function, and quality of life (QoL) in patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
One and Done? The Effectiveness of a Single Session of Physiotherapy Compared With Multiple Sessions to Reduce Pain and Improve Function and Quality of Life in Patients With a Musculoskeletal Disorder: A Systematic Review With Meta-analyses.
OBJECTIVE
To compare single and multiple physiotherapy sessions to improve pain, function, and quality of life (QoL) in patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs).
DATA SOURCES
AMED, Cinahl, SportsDiscus, Medline, Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and reference lists.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing single and multiple physiotherapy sessions for MSKDs.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 and Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Six RCTs (n=2090) were included (conditions studied: osteoporotic vertebral fracture, neck, knee, and shoulder pain). Meta-analyses with low-certainty evidence showed a significant pain improvement at 6 months in favor of multiple sessions compared with single session interventions (3 RCTs; n=1035; standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.53; P=.02) but this significant difference in pain improvement was not observed at 3 months (4 RCTs; n=1312; SMD: 0.39; 95% CI: -0.11 to 0.89; P=.13) and at 12 months (4 RCTs; n=1266; SMD: -0.05; 95% CI: -0.49 to 0.39; P=.82). Meta-analyses with low-certainty evidence showed no significant differences in function at 3 (4 RCTs; n=1583; SMD: 0.05; 95% CI: -0.11 to 0.21; P=.56), 6 (4 RCTs; n=1538; SMD: 0.06; 95% CI: -0.12 to 0.23; P=.53) and 12 months (4 RCTs; n=1528; SMD: 0.08; 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.25; P=.30) and QoL at 3 (4 RCTs; n=1779; SMD: 0.08; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.17; P=.12), 6 (3 RCTs; n=1206; SMD: 0.03; 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.14; P=.59), and 12 months (4 RCTs; n=1729; SMD: -0.03; 95% CI: -0.12 to 0.07; P=.58).
CONCLUSIONS
Low certainty meta-analyses found no clinically significant differences in pain, function, and QoL between single and multiple physiotherapy sessions for MSKD management for the conditions studied. Future research should compare the cost-effectiveness of those different models of care.
Topics: Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Pain Management; Physical Therapy Modalities; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37805175
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2023.09.017 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Oct 2019Subacromial impingement syndrome is a common problem in primary healthcare. It often include tendinopathy. While exercise therapy is effective for this condition, it is... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Subacromial impingement syndrome is a common problem in primary healthcare. It often include tendinopathy. While exercise therapy is effective for this condition, it is not clear which type of exercise is the most effective. Eccentric exercises has proven effective for treating similar tendinopathies in the lower extremities. The aim of this systematic review was therefore to investigate the effects of eccentric exercise on pain and function in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome compared with other exercise regimens or interventions. A secondary aim was to describe the included components of the various eccentric exercise regimens that have been studied.
METHODS
Systematic searches of PubMed, Cochrane Library and PEDro by two independent authors. Included studies were assessed using the PEDro scale for quality and the Cochrane scale for clinical relevance by two independent authors. Data were combined in meta-analyses. GRADE was applied to assess the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
Sixty-eight records were identified. Seven studies (eight articles) were included, six were meta-analysed (n = 281). Included studies were of moderate quality (median PEDro score 7, range 5-8). Post-treatment pain was significantly lower after eccentric exercise compared with other exercise: MD -12.3 (95% CI - 17.8 to - 6.8, I = 7%, p < 0.001), but this difference was not clinically important. Eccentric exercise provided no significant post-treatment improvement in function compared with other exercise: SMD -0.10 (95% CI - 0.79 to 0.58, I = 85%, p = 0.76). Painful eccentric exercise showed no significant difference compared to pain-free eccentric exercise. Eccentric training regimes showed both similarities and diversity. Intervention duration of 6-8 weeks was almost as effective as 12 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence of low certainty suggests that eccentric exercise may provide a small but likely not clinically important reduction in pain compared with other types of exercise in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome. It is uncertain whether eccentric exercise improves function more than other types of exercise (very low certainty of evidence). Methodological limitations of existing studies make these findings susceptible to change in the future.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42019126917 , date of registration: 29-03-2019.
Topics: Exercise Therapy; Humans; Musculoskeletal Pain; Pain Measurement; Shoulder Impingement Syndrome; Tendinopathy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31610787
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-019-2796-5