-
International Journal of Sports... Sep 2019Dynamic balance is often an important criterion used during lower extremity musculoskeletal injury prediction, prevention, and rehabilitation processes. Methods to...
BACKGROUND
Dynamic balance is often an important criterion used during lower extremity musculoskeletal injury prediction, prevention, and rehabilitation processes. Methods to assess lower extremity dynamic balance include the Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT) and Lower Quarter Y-Balance Test (YBT). Due to the importance of dynamic balance it is imperative to establish reliable quantification techniques.
PURPOSE
To conduct a systematic review to assess the reliability and responsiveness of the SEBT/YBT.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic Review.
METHODS
Electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus) were searched from inception to August 2018. Included studies examined the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the SEBT/YBT in healthy adults. Two investigators independently assessed methodological quality, level of evidence and strength of recommendation with the Qualtiy Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL) scale. Relative intra and inter-rater reliability was examined through intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and responsiveness was evaluated through minimal detectable change (MDC). Data was analyzed based on reach direction (Anterior, Posteromedial, and Posterolateral) and normalization (normalized and non-normalized). Additionally, data were then synthesized using the strength of recommendation taxonomy to provide a grade of recommendation.
RESULTS
A total of nine studies were included in this review. Six studies examined the inter-rater reliability and seven assessed intra-rater reliability. The included studies had a median QAREL score of 66.89% (range = 55.56% to 75.00%) and 59.03% (range = 33.33 to 66.67%) for inter and intra-rater reliability respectively. Median ICC values for inter-rater reliability were 0.88 (Range = 0.83 - 0.96), 0.87 (range = 0.80 - 1.00), and 0.88 (range = 0.73 - 1.00) for the anterior, posteromedial, and posterolateral directions respectively. Median ICC values for intra-rater reliability were 0.88 (Range = 0.84 - 0.93), 0.88 (Range = 0.85 - 0.94), and 0.90 (Range = 0.68 - 0.94) for the anterior, posteromedial, and posterolateral directions, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
There is grade A evidence to support that the SEBT/YBT have excellent inter and intra-rater reliability when used in healthy adults. Furthermore, minimal detectable change values have been provided that can be used in practice to aid clinical decision making. Future research is needed to assess the reliability, responsiveness, and validity of the SEBT/YBT in pathologic populations.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
1a.
PubMed: 31598406
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Open May 2021To systematically review and summarise the evidence for the effects of neuromuscular training compared with any other therapy (conventional training/sham) on knee...
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and summarise the evidence for the effects of neuromuscular training compared with any other therapy (conventional training/sham) on knee proprioception following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury.
DESIGN
Systematic Review.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, AMED, Scopus and Physical Education Index were searched from inception to February 2020.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials investigating the effects of neuromuscular training on knee-specific proprioception tests following a unilateral ACL injury were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the eligible studies using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. Overall certainty in evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool.
RESULTS
Of 2706 articles retrieved, only 9 RCTs, comprising 327 individuals with an ACL reconstruction (ACLR), met the inclusion criteria. Neuromuscular training interventions varied across studies: whole body vibration therapy, Nintendo-Wii-Fit training, balance training, sport-specific exercises, backward walking, etc. Outcome measures included joint position sense (JPS; n=7), thresholds to detect passive motion (TTDPM; n=3) or quadriceps force control (QFC; n=1). Overall, between-group mean differences indicated inconsistent findings with an increase or decrease of errors associated with JPS by ≤2°, TTDPM by ≤1.5° and QFC by ≤6 Nm in the ACLR knee following neuromuscular training. Owing to serious concerns with three or more GRADE domains (risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness or imprecision associated with the findings) for each outcome of interest across studies, the certainty of evidence was very low.
CONCLUSIONS
The heterogeneity of interventions, methodological limitations, inconsistency of effects (on JPS/TTDPM/QFC) preclude recommendation of one optimal neuromuscular training intervention for improving proprioception following ACL injury in clinical practice. There is a need for methodologically robust RCTs with homogenous populations with ACL injury (managed conservatively or with reconstruction), novel/well-designed neuromuscular training and valid proprioception assessments, which also seem to be lacking.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42018107349.
Topics: Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction; Humans; Knee Joint; Proprioception; Range of Motion, Articular
PubMed: 34006560
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049226 -
Injury Prevention : Journal of the... Dec 2019To determine whether multifactorial falls prevention interventions are effective in preventing falls, fall injuries, emergency department (ED) re-presentations and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether multifactorial falls prevention interventions are effective in preventing falls, fall injuries, emergency department (ED) re-presentations and hospital admissions in older adults presenting to the ED with a fall.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
DATA SOURCES
Four health-related electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PEDro and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched (inception to June 2018).
STUDY SELECTION
RCTs of multifactorial falls prevention interventions targeting community-dwelling older adults ( ≥ 60 years) presenting to the ED with a fall with quantitative data on at least one review outcome.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two independent reviewers determined inclusion, assessed study quality and undertook data extraction, discrepancies resolved by a third.
DATA SYNTHESIS
12 studies involving 3986 participants, from six countries, were eligible for inclusion. Studies were of variable methodological quality. Multifactorial interventions were heterogeneous, though the majority included education, referral to healthcare services, home modifications, exercise and medication changes. Meta-analyses demonstrated no reduction in falls (rate ratio = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.05), number of fallers (risk ratio = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.18), rate of fractured neck of femur (risk ratio = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.25), fall-related ED presentations (rate ratio = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.16) or hospitalisations (rate ratio = 1.14; 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.89) with multifactorial falls prevention programmes.
CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to support the use of multifactorial interventions to prevent falls or hospital utilisation in older people presenting to ED following a fall. Further research targeting this population group is required.
Topics: Accidental Falls; Accidents, Home; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Emergency Service, Hospital; Environment Design; Hospitalization; Humans; Primary Prevention; Program Development; Program Evaluation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 31289112
DOI: 10.1136/injuryprev-2019-043214 -
Environment International Jan 2021The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.
BACKGROUND
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large network of experts. Evidence from mechanistic and human data suggests that occupational exposure to ergonomic (or physical) risk factors may cause osteoarthritis and other musculoskeletal diseases (excluding rheumatoid arthritis, gout, and back and neck pain). In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of occupational exposure to physical ergonomic risk factors for estimating the number of disability-adjusted life years from these diseases that are attributable to exposure to this risk factor, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors for osteoarthritis and other musculoskeletal diseases.
DATA SOURCES
We searched electronic bibliographic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA
We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. The exposure was defined as any occupational exposure to one or more of: force exertion, demanding posture, repetitive movement, hand-arm vibration, kneeling or squatting, lifting, and/or climbing. We included all study types with an estimate of the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence estimates using random-effect meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the ROB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.
RESULTS
Five studies (three cross-sectional studies and two cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising 150,895 participants (81,613 females) in 36 countries in two WHO regions (Africa, Europe). The exposure was generally assessed with questionnaire data about self-reported exposure. Estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors are presented for all five included studies, disaggregated by country, sex, 5-year age group, industrial sector or occupational group where feasible. The pooled prevalence of any occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.84, 3 studies, 148,433 participants, 35 countries in the WHO Europe region, I 100%, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses found no statistically significant differences in exposure by sex but differences by age group, occupation and country. No evidence was found for publication bias. We assessed this body evidence to be of low quality, based on serious concerns for risk of bias due to exposure assessment only being based on self-report and for indirectness due to evidence from two WHO regions only.
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review and meta-analysis found that occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors is highly prevalent. The current body of evidence is, however, limited, especially by risk of bias and indirectness. Producing estimates for the burden of disease attributable to occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors appears evidence-based, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review may perhaps be used as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Protocol identifier:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.053. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018102631.
Topics: Adolescent; Cost of Illness; Cross-Sectional Studies; Ergonomics; Europe; Female; Humans; Occupational Diseases; Occupational Exposure; Prevalence; World Health Organization
PubMed: 33395953
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106157 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Improving mobility outcomes after hip fracture is key to recovery. Possible strategies include gait training, exercise and muscle stimulation. This is an update of a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Improving mobility outcomes after hip fracture is key to recovery. Possible strategies include gait training, exercise and muscle stimulation. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions aimed at improving mobility and physical functioning after hip fracture surgery in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, trial registers and reference lists, to March 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised or quasi-randomised trials assessing mobility strategies after hip fracture surgery. Eligible strategies aimed to improve mobility and included care programmes, exercise (gait, balance and functional training, resistance/strength training, endurance, flexibility, three-dimensional (3D) exercise and general physical activity) or muscle stimulation. Intervention was compared with usual care (in-hospital) or with usual care, no intervention, sham exercise or social visit (post-hospital).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Members of the review author team independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the assessment time point closest to four months for in-hospital studies, and the time point closest to the end of the intervention for post-hospital studies. Critical outcomes were mobility, walking speed, functioning, health-related quality of life, mortality, adverse effects and return to living at pre-fracture residence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 40 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 4059 participants from 17 countries. On average, participants were 80 years old and 80% were women. The median number of study participants was 81 and all trials had unclear or high risk of bias for one or more domains. Most trials excluded people with cognitive impairment (70%), immobility and/or medical conditions affecting mobility (72%). In-hospital setting, mobility strategy versus control Eighteen trials (1433 participants) compared mobility strategies with control (usual care) in hospitals. Overall, such strategies may lead to a moderate, clinically-meaningful increase in mobility (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.96; 7 studies, 507 participants; low-certainty evidence) and a small, clinically meaningful improvement in walking speed (CI crosses zero so does not rule out a lack of effect (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.37; 6 studies, 360 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mobility strategies may make little or no difference to short-term (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.30; 6 studies, 489 participants; low-certainty evidence) or long-term mortality (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.12; 2 studies, 133 participants; low-certainty evidence), adverse events measured by hospital re-admission (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.11; 4 studies, 322 participants; low-certainty evidence), or return to pre-fracture residence (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.56; 2 studies, 240 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether mobility strategies improve functioning or health-related quality of life as the certainty of evidence was very low. Gait, balance and functional training probably causes a moderate improvement in mobility (SMD 0.57, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.06; 6 studies, 463 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little or no difference in effects on mobility for resistance training. No studies of other types of exercise or electrical stimulation reported mobility outcomes. Post-hospital setting, mobility strategy versus control Twenty-two trials (2626 participants) compared mobility strategies with control (usual care, no intervention, sham exercise or social visit) in the post-hospital setting. Mobility strategies lead to a small, clinically meaningful increase in mobility (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.54; 7 studies, 761 participants; high-certainty evidence) and a small, clinically meaningful improvement in walking speed compared to control (SMD 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.29; 14 studies, 1067 participants; high-certainty evidence). Mobility strategies lead to a small, non-clinically meaningful increase in functioning (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.36; 9 studies, 936 participants; high-certainty evidence), and probably lead to a slight increase in quality of life that may not be clinically meaningful (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.29; 10 studies, 785 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mobility strategies probably make little or no difference to short-term mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.06; 8 studies, 737 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mobility strategies may make little or no difference to long-term mortality (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 4 studies, 588 participants; low-certainty evidence) or adverse events measured by hospital re-admission (95% CI includes a large reduction and large increase, RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.42; 2 studies, 206 participants; low-certainty evidence). Training involving gait, balance and functional exercise leads to a small, clinically meaningful increase in mobility (SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.36; 5 studies, 621 participants; high-certainty evidence), while training classified as being primarily resistance or strength exercise may lead to a clinically meaningful increase in mobility measured using distance walked in six minutes (mean difference (MD) 55.65, 95% CI 28.58 to 82.72; 3 studies, 198 participants; low-certainty evidence). Training involving multiple intervention components probably leads to a substantial, clinically meaningful increase in mobility (SMD 0.94, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.34; 2 studies, 104 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of aerobic training on mobility (very low-certainty evidence). No studies of other types of exercise or electrical stimulation reported mobility outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Interventions targeting improvement in mobility after hip fracture may cause clinically meaningful improvement in mobility and walking speed in hospital and post-hospital settings, compared with conventional care. Interventions that include training of gait, balance and functional tasks are particularly effective. There was little or no between-group difference in the number of adverse events reported. Future trials should include long-term follow-up and economic outcomes, determine the relative impact of different types of exercise and establish effectiveness in emerging economies.
Topics: Aged, 80 and over; Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Female; Hip Fractures; Humans; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resistance Training; Walking
PubMed: 36070134
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001704.pub5 -
The Lancet. Neurology Aug 2023Although meningitis is largely preventable, it still causes hundreds of thousands of deaths globally each year. WHO set ambitious goals to reduce meningitis cases by...
BACKGROUND
Although meningitis is largely preventable, it still causes hundreds of thousands of deaths globally each year. WHO set ambitious goals to reduce meningitis cases by 2030, and assessing trends in the global meningitis burden can help track progress and identify gaps in achieving these goals. Using data from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019, we aimed to assess incident cases and deaths due to acute infectious meningitis by aetiology and age from 1990 to 2019, for 204 countries and territories.
METHODS
We modelled meningitis mortality using vital registration, verbal autopsy, sample-based vital registration, and mortality surveillance data. Meningitis morbidity was modelled with a Bayesian compartmental model, using data from the published literature identified by a systematic review, as well as surveillance data, inpatient hospital admissions, health insurance claims, and cause-specific meningitis mortality estimates. For aetiology estimation, data from multiple causes of death, vital registration, hospital discharge, microbial laboratory, and literature studies were analysed by use of a network analysis model to estimate the proportion of meningitis deaths and cases attributable to the following aetiologies: Neisseria meningitidis, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, group B Streptococcus, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, viruses, and a residual other pathogen category.
FINDINGS
In 2019, there were an estimated 236 000 deaths (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 204 000-277 000) and 2·51 million (2·11-2·99) incident cases due to meningitis globally. The burden was greatest in children younger than 5 years, with 112 000 deaths (87 400-145 000) and 1·28 million incident cases (0·947-1·71) in 2019. Age-standardised mortality rates decreased from 7·5 (6·6-8·4) per 100 000 population in 1990 to 3·3 (2·8-3·9) per 100 000 population in 2019. The highest proportion of total all-age meningitis deaths in 2019 was attributable to S pneumoniae (18·1% [17·1-19·2]), followed by N meningitidis (13·6% [12·7-14·4]) and K pneumoniae (12·2% [10·2-14·3]). Between 1990 and 2019, H influenzae showed the largest reduction in the number of deaths among children younger than 5 years (76·5% [69·5-81·8]), followed by N meningitidis (72·3% [64·4-78·5]) and viruses (58·2% [47·1-67·3]).
INTERPRETATION
Substantial progress has been made in reducing meningitis mortality over the past three decades. However, more meningitis-related deaths might be prevented by quickly scaling up immunisation and expanding access to health services. Further reduction in the global meningitis burden should be possible through low-cost multivalent vaccines, increased access to accurate and rapid diagnostic assays, enhanced surveillance, and early treatment.
FUNDING
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Topics: Child; Humans; Global Burden of Disease; Bayes Theorem; Meningitis; Risk Factors; Global Health
PubMed: 37479374
DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(23)00195-3 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Nov 2022We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary RCTs to determine the clinical effectiveness of spinal vs general anaesthesia (SA vs GA) in patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Clinical effectiveness and safety of spinal anaesthesia compared with general anaesthesia in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery using a consensus-based core outcome set and patient-and public-informed outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary RCTs to determine the clinical effectiveness of spinal vs general anaesthesia (SA vs GA) in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery using a consensus-based core outcome set, and outcomes defined as important by patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives.
METHODS
RCTs comparing any of the core outcomes (mortality, time from injury to surgery, acute coronary syndrome, hypotension, acute kidney injury, delirium, pneumonia, orthogeriatric input, being out of bed at day 1 postoperatively, and pain) or PPI-defined outcomes (return to preoperative residence, quality of life, and mobility status) between SA and GA were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (2000 to February 2022). Pooled relative risks (RRs) and mean differences (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were estimated.
RESULTS
There was no significant difference in the risk of delirium comparing SA vs GA (RR=1.07; 95% CI, 0.90-1.29). Comparing SA vs GA, the RR for mortality was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.22-1.44) in-hospital, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.52-2.23) at 30 days, and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.55-2.12) at 90 days. Spinal anaesthesia reduced the risk of acute kidney injury compared with GA: RR=0.59 (95% CI, 0.39-0.89). There were no significant differences in the risk of other outcomes. Few studies reported PPI-defined outcomes, with most studies reporting on one to three core outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Except for acute kidney injury, there were no differences between SA and GA in hip fracture surgery when using a consensus-based core outcome set and patient and public involvement-defined outcomes. Most studies reported limited outcomes from the core outcome set, and few reported outcomes important to patients, which should be considered when designing future RCTs.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42021275206.
Topics: Humans; Anesthesia, Spinal; Consensus; Quality of Life; Postoperative Complications; Anesthesia, General; Hip Fractures; Treatment Outcome; Delirium; Acute Kidney Injury; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36270701
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.07.031 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2023Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a compression neuropathy of the median nerve causing pain and numbness and tingling typically in the thumb, index and middle finger. It... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a compression neuropathy of the median nerve causing pain and numbness and tingling typically in the thumb, index and middle finger. It sometimes results in muscle wasting, diminished sensitivity and loss of dexterity. Splinting the wrist (with or without the hand) using an orthosis is usually offered to people with mild-to-moderate findings, but its effectiveness remains unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of splinting for people with CTS.
SEARCH METHODS
On 12 December 2021, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP with no limitations. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials were included if the effect of splinting could be isolated from other treatment modalities. The comparisons included splinting versus no active treatment (or placebo), splinting versus another disease-modifying non-surgical treatment, and comparisons of different splint-wearing regimens. We excluded studies comparing splinting with surgery or one splint design with another. We excluded participants if they had previously undergone surgical release.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed study risk of bias and the certainty in the body of evidence for primary outcomes using the GRADE approach, according to standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 29 trials randomising 1937 adults with CTS. The trials ranged from 21 to 234 participants, with mean ages between 42 and 60 years. The mean duration of CTS symptoms was seven weeks to five years. Eight studies with 523 hands compared splinting with no active intervention (no treatment, sham-kinesiology tape or sham-laser); 20 studies compared splinting (or splinting delivered along with another non-surgical intervention) with another non-surgical intervention; and three studies compared different splinting regimens (e.g. night-time only versus full time). Trials were generally at high risk of bias for one or more domains, including lack of blinding (all included studies) and lack of information about randomisation or allocation concealment in 23 studies. For the primary comparison, splinting compared to no active treatment, splinting may provide little or no benefits in symptoms in the short term (< 3 months). The mean Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) (scale 1 to 5, higher is worse; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 1 point) was 0.37 points better with splint (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 better to 0.08 worse; 6 studies, 306 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared with no active treatment. Removing studies with high or unclear risk of bias due to lack of randomisation or allocation concealment supported our conclusion of no important effect (mean difference (MD) 0.01 points worse with splint; 95% CI 0.20 better to 0.22 worse; 3 studies, 124 participants). In the long term (> 3 months), we are uncertain about the effect of splinting on symptoms (mean BCTQ SSS 0.64 better with splinting; 95% CI 1.2 better to 0.08 better; 2 studies, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Splinting probably does not improve hand function in the short term and may not improve hand function in the long term. In the short term, the mean BCTQ Functional Status Scale (FSS) (1 to 5, higher is worse; MCID 0.7 points) was 0.24 points better (95% CI 0.44 better to 0.03 better; 6 studies, 306 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) with splinting compared with no active treatment. In the long term, the mean BCTQ FSS was 0.25 points better (95% CI 0.68 better to 0.18 worse; 1 study, 34 participants; low-certainty evidence) with splinting compared with no active treatment. Night-time splinting may result in a higher rate of overall improvement in the short term (risk ratio (RR) 3.86, 95% CI 2.29 to 6.51; 1 study, 80 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 2, 95% CI 2 to 2; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if splinting decreases referral to surgery, RR 0.47 (95% CI 0.14 to 1.58; 3 studies, 243 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Low-certainty evidence from one study suggests that splinting may have a higher rate of adverse events, which were transient, but the 95% CIs included no effect. Seven of 40 participants (18%) reported adverse effects in the splinting group and 0 of 40 participants (0%) in the no active treatment group (RR 15.0, 95% CI 0.89 to 254.13; 1 study, 80 participants). There was low- to moderate-certainty evidence for the other comparisons: splinting may not provide additional benefits in symptoms or hand function when given together with corticosteroid injection (moderate-certainty evidence) or with rehabilitation (low-certainty evidence); nor when compared with corticosteroid (injection or oral; low certainty), exercises (low certainty), kinesiology taping (low certainty), rigid taping (low certainty), platelet-rich plasma (moderate certainty), or extracorporeal shock wave treatment (moderate certainty). Splinting for 12 weeks may not be better than six weeks, but six months of splinting may be better than six weeks of splinting in improving symptoms and function (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether splinting benefits people with CTS. Limited evidence does not exclude small improvements in CTS symptoms and hand function, but they may not be clinically important, and the clinical relevance of small differences with splinting is unclear. Low-certainty evidence suggests that people may have a greater chance of experiencing overall improvement with night-time splints than no treatment. As splinting is a relatively inexpensive intervention with no plausible long-term harms, small effects could justify its use, particularly when patients are not interested in having surgery or injections. It is unclear if a splint is optimally worn full time or at night-time only and whether long-term use is better than short-term use, but low-certainty evidence suggests that the benefits may manifest in the long term.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Middle Aged; Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; Hand; Occupational Therapy; Quality of Life; Upper Extremity
PubMed: 36848651
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010003.pub2 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews of interventions for shoulder disorders. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews of interventions for shoulder disorders.
OBJECTIVES
To synthesise the available evidence regarding the benefits and harms of rotator cuff repair with or without subacromial decompression in the treatment of rotator cuff tears of the shoulder.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICRTP registry unrestricted by date or language until 8 January 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including adults with full-thickness rotator cuff tears and assessing the effect of rotator cuff repair compared to placebo, no treatment, or any other treatment were included. As there were no trials comparing surgery with placebo, the primary comparison was rotator cuff repair with or without subacromial decompression versus non-operative treatment (exercises with or without glucocorticoid injection). Other comparisons were rotator cuff repair and acromioplasty versus rotator cuff repair alone, and rotator cuff repair and subacromial decompression versus subacromial decompression alone. Major outcomes were mean pain, shoulder function, quality of life, participant-rated global assessment of treatment success, adverse events and serious adverse events. The primary endpoint for this review was one year.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine trials with 1007 participants. Three trials compared rotator cuff repair with subacromial decompression followed by exercises with exercise alone. These trials included 339 participants with full-thickness rotator cuff tears diagnosed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or ultrasound examination. One of the three trials also provided up to three glucocorticoid injections in the exercise group. All surgery groups received tendon repair with subacromial decompression and the postoperative exercises were similar to the exercises provided for the non-operative groups. Five trials (526 participants) compared repair with acromioplasty versus repair alone; and one trial (142 participants) compared repair with subacromial decompression versus subacromial decompression alone. The mean age of trial participants ranged between 56 and 68 years, and females comprised 29% to 56% of the participants. Symptom duration varied from a mean of 10 months up to 28 months. Two trials excluded tears with traumatic onset of symptoms. One trial defined a minimum duration of symptoms of six months and required a trial of conservative therapy before inclusion. The trials included mainly repairable full-thickness supraspinatus tears, six trials specifically excluded tears involving the subscapularis tendon. All trials were at risk of bias for several criteria, most notably due to lack of participant and personnel blinding, but also for other reasons such as unclearly reported methods of random sequence generation or allocation concealment (six trials), incomplete outcome data (three trials), selective reporting (six trials), and other biases (six trials). Our main comparison was subacromial decompression versus non-operative treatment and results are reported for the 12 month follow up. At one year, moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) from 3 trials with 258 participants indicates that surgery probably provides little or no improvement in pain; mean pain (range 0 to 10, higher scores indicate more pain) was 1.6 points with non-operative treatment and 0.87 points better (0.43 better to 1.30 better) with surgery.. Mean function (zero to 100, higher score indicating better outcome) was 72 points with non-operative treatment and 6 points better (2.43 better to 9.54 better) with surgery (3 trials; 269 participants), low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). Participant-rated global success rate was 873/1000 after non-operative treatment and 943/1000 after surgery corresponding to (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.22; low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). Health-related quality of life was 57.5 points (SF-36 mental component score, 0 to 100, higher score indicating better quality of life) with non-operative treatment and 1.3 points worse (4.5 worse to 1.9 better) with surgery (1 trial; 103 participants), low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). We were unable to estimate the risk of adverse events and serious adverse events as only one event was reported across the trials (very low-certainty evidence; downgraded once due to bias and twice due to very serious imprecision).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
At the moment, we are uncertain whether rotator cuff repair surgery provides clinically meaningful benefits to people with symptomatic tears; it may provide little or no clinically important benefits with respect to pain, function, overall quality of life or participant-rated global assessment of treatment success when compared with non-operative treatment. Surgery may not improve shoulder pain or function compared with exercises, with or without glucocorticoid injections. The trials included have methodology concerns and none included a placebo control. They included participants with mostly small degenerative tears involving the supraspinatus tendon and the conclusions of this review may not be applicable to traumatic tears, large tears involving the subscapularis tendon or young people. Furthermore, the trials did not assess if surgery could prevent arthritic changes in long-term follow-up. Further well-designed trials in this area that include a placebo-surgery control group and long follow-up are needed to further increase certainty about the effects of surgery for rotator cuff tears.
Topics: Aged; Arthroscopy; Decompression, Surgical; Exercise Therapy; Female; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rotator Cuff; Rotator Cuff Injuries; Shoulder Impingement Syndrome; Shoulder Pain; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31813166
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013502