-
European Spine Journal : Official... Feb 2023Physiotherapy interventions are prescribed as first-line treatment for people with sciatica; however, their effectiveness remains controversial. The purpose of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Physiotherapy interventions are prescribed as first-line treatment for people with sciatica; however, their effectiveness remains controversial. The purpose of this systematic review was to establish the short-, medium- and long-term effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions compared to control interventions for people with clinically diagnosed sciatica.
METHODS
This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO CRD42018103900. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, PEDro, PubMed, Scopus and grey literature were searched from inception to January 2021 without language restrictions. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials evaluating physiotherapy interventions compared to a control intervention in people with clinical or imaging diagnosis of sciatica. Primary outcome measures were pain and disability. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers with consensus reached by discussion or third-party arbitration if required. Risk of bias was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool with third-party consensus if required. Meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed with random effects models using Revman v5.4. Subgroup analyses were undertaken to examine the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions compared to minimal (e.g. advice only) or substantial control interventions (e.g. surgery).
RESULTS
Three thousand nine hundred and fifty eight records were identified, of which 18 trials were included, with a total number of 2699 participants. All trials had a high or unclear risk of bias. Meta-analysis of trials for the outcome of pain showed no difference in the short (SMD - 0.34 [95%CI - 1.05, 0.37] p = 0.34, I = 98%), medium (SMD 0.15 [95%CI - 0.09, 0.38], p = 0.22, I= 80%) or long term (SMD 0.09 [95%CI - 0.18, 0.36], p = 0.51, I= 82%). For disability there was no difference in the short (SMD - 0.00 [95%CI - 0.36, 0.35], p = 0.98, I = 92%, medium (SMD 0.25 [95%CI - 0.04, 0.55] p = 0.09, I = 87%), or long term (SMD 0.26 [95%CI - 0.16, 0.68] p = 0.22, I = 92%) between physiotherapy and control interventions. Subgroup analysis of studies comparing physiotherapy with minimal intervention favoured physiotherapy for pain at the long-term time points. Large confidence intervals and high heterogeneity indicate substantial uncertainly surrounding these estimates. Many trials evaluating physiotherapy intervention compared to substantial intervention did not use contemporary physiotherapy interventions.
CONCLUSION
Based on currently available, mostly high risk of bias and highly heterogeneous data, there is inadequate evidence to make clinical recommendations on the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions for people with clinically diagnosed sciatica. Future studies should aim to reduce clinical heterogeneity and to use contemporary physiotherapy interventions.
Topics: Humans; Sciatica; Physical Therapy Modalities
PubMed: 36580149
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-022-07356-y -
Cureus Jun 2022Diabetic neuropathy is a clinical condition that can have a significant impact on quality of life, presenting as numbness, tingling, and burning in the extremities.... (Review)
Review
Diabetic neuropathy is a clinical condition that can have a significant impact on quality of life, presenting as numbness, tingling, and burning in the extremities. Current treatment options focus on symptom alleviation and reducing exposure to risk factors as treating the pathophysiological causes of diabetic neuropathy remains a significant challenge. Novel studies have proposed that the use of antioxidants, including alpha-lipoic acid (⍺-lipoic acid), may represent a beneficial intervention for treating neuropathic pain in diabetic patients. This study aims to evaluate the effect of ⍺-lipoic acid in the treatment of diabetic neuropathy and determine its effectiveness in reducing the symptoms of diabetic neuropathy. To achieve our objective, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were screened on March 3, 2022. Randomized controlled trials that investigated ⍺-lipoic acid treatment in diabetes mellitus patients with neuropathic pain and made an appropriate comparison were included. The reduction of neuropathic symptoms was the primary outcome, and the secondary outcome was the incidence of adverse events. Eight studies comprising 1,500 diabetic patients were evaluated in this systematic review. The findings were inconsistent among the literature concerning the effectiveness of ⍺-lipoic acid in the treatment of diabetic neuropathy, with three trials (37.5%) observing significant improvements in symptoms and five trials (62.5%) not observing any notable results. All studies found ⍺-lipoic acid to be a safe and tolerable intervention, with no reported adverse effects. The administration of ⍺-lipoic acid may result in symptom reduction and offers a safe and tolerable treatment option. However, there is limited evidence to support the beneficial outcomes of this approach. Further trials are warranted to corroborate or contradict the hypothesis that ⍺-lipoic acid is an effective intervention for the treatment of diabetic neuropathy.
PubMed: 35812639
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.25750 -
Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome Oct 2022Metformin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients are at higher risk of vitamin B deficiency and more severe neuropathy symptoms. There is still no guideline... (Review)
Review
The efficacy of vitamin B supplementation for treating vitamin B deficiency and peripheral neuropathy in metformin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus patients: A systematic review.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Metformin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients are at higher risk of vitamin B deficiency and more severe neuropathy symptoms. There is still no guideline suggesting vitamin B supplementation for this population. This study aimed to analyze the efficacy of vitamin B supplementation in this population.
METHOD
Studies reporting the efficacy of vitamin B supplementation in metformin-treated T2DM patients were systematically searched in PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCOHost, and Scopus following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Additional relevant studies were searched manually through citations. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using suitable tools.
RESULTS
Seven clinical trials with a total of 506 participants were included. Using the Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 tools for clinical trials, 4 studies were assessed to have high risk of bias and 3 studies had low risk of bias. There were 5 studies that measured changes in serum vitamin B level, all of which reported a statistically significant increase after supplementation. Significant reductions in homocysteine after supplementation were found in 2 studies. Its effect on neuropathy symptoms was still unclear, with 2 studies reporting a significant improvement and 1 study reporting no significant effect.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this systematic review support the implementation of vitamin B supplementation for metformin-treated T2DM to prevent or treat vitamin B deficiency and neuropathy. More high-quality clinical studies are required to generate quantitative analysis and to encourage supplementation in available guidelines.
Topics: Humans; Metformin; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Vitamin B 12; Hypoglycemic Agents; Vitamin B 12 Deficiency; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases; Homocysteine; Dietary Supplements; Vitamins
PubMed: 36240684
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsx.2022.102634 -
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Mar 2022Pharmacological strategies for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN) are very limited. We systematically reviewed data on rehabilitation, exercise,... (Review)
Review
Rehabilitation, exercise, and related non-pharmacological interventions for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity: Systematic review and evidence-based recommendations.
Pharmacological strategies for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN) are very limited. We systematically reviewed data on rehabilitation, exercise, physical therapy, and other physical non-pharmacological interventions and offered evidence-based recommendations for the prevention and treatment of CIPN. A literature search using PubMed, Web of Science and CINAHL was conducted from database inception until May 31st, 2021. 2791 records were title-abstract screened, 71 papers were full-text screened, 41 studies were included, 21 on prevention and 20 on treatment of CIPN. Treatment type, cancer type, chemotherapy compounds were heterogeneous, sample size was small (median: N = 34) and intention-to-treat analysis was lacking in 26/41 reports. Because of the methodological issues of included studies, the reviewed evidence should be considered as preliminary. Exercise, endurance, strength, balance, and sensorimotor training have been studied in low-to-moderate quality studies, while the evidence for other treatments is preliminary/inconclusive. We offer recommendation for the design of future trials on CIPN.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Exercise; Humans; Neoplasms; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases
PubMed: 34968623
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103575 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a painful and disabling condition that usually manifests in response to trauma or surgery and is associated with significant... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a painful and disabling condition that usually manifests in response to trauma or surgery and is associated with significant pain and disability. CRPS can be classified into two types: type I (CRPS I) in which a specific nerve lesion has not been identified and type II (CRPS II) where there is an identifiable nerve lesion. Guidelines recommend the inclusion of a variety of physiotherapy interventions as part of the multimodal treatment of people with CRPS. This is the first update of the review originally published in Issue 2, 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions for treating pain and disability associated with CRPS types I and II in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, PEDro, Web of Science, DARE and Health Technology Assessments from February 2015 to July 2021 without language restrictions, we searched the reference lists of included studies and we contacted an expert in the field. We also searched additional online sources for unpublished trials and trials in progress.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of physiotherapy interventions compared with placebo, no treatment, another intervention or usual care, or other physiotherapy interventions in adults with CRPS I and II. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were composite scores for CRPS symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), patient global impression of change (PGIC) scales and adverse effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened database searches for eligibility, extracted data, evaluated risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE system.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 new trials (600 participants) along with the 18 trials from the original review totalling 34 RCTs (1339 participants). Thirty-three trials included participants with CRPS I and one trial included participants with CRPS II. Included trials compared a diverse range of interventions including physical rehabilitation, electrotherapy modalities, cortically directed rehabilitation, electroacupuncture and exposure-based approaches. Most interventions were tested in small, single trials. Most were at high risk of bias overall (27 trials) and the remainder were at 'unclear' risk of bias (seven trials). For all comparisons and outcomes where we found evidence, we graded the certainty of the evidence as very low, downgraded due to serious study limitations, imprecision and inconsistency. Included trials rarely reported adverse effects. Physiotherapy compared with minimal care for adults with CRPS I One trial (135 participants) of multimodal physiotherapy, for which pain data were unavailable, found no between-group differences in pain intensity at 12-month follow-up. Multimodal physiotherapy demonstrated a small between-group improvement in disability at 12 months follow-up compared to an attention control (Impairment Level Sum score, 5 to 50 scale; mean difference (MD) -3.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.13 to -0.27) (very low-certainty evidence). Equivalent data for pain were not available. Details regarding adverse events were not reported. Physiotherapy compared with minimal care for adults with CRPS II We did not find any trials of physiotherapy compared with minimal care for adults with CRPS II.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of physiotherapy interventions on pain and disability in CRPS. This conclusion is similar to our 2016 review. Large-scale, high-quality RCTs with longer-term follow-up are required to test the effectiveness of physiotherapy-based interventions for treating pain and disability in adults with CRPS I and II.
Topics: Adult; Complex Regional Pain Syndromes; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Humans; Pain; Pain Measurement; Physical Therapy Modalities
PubMed: 35579382
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010853.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Spasticity and chronic neuropathic pain are common and serious symptoms in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). These symptoms increase with disease progression and lead... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Spasticity and chronic neuropathic pain are common and serious symptoms in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). These symptoms increase with disease progression and lead to worsening disability, impaired activities of daily living and quality of life. Anti-spasticity medications and analgesics are of limited benefit or poorly tolerated. Cannabinoids may reduce spasticity and pain in people with MS. Demand for symptomatic treatment with cannabinoids is high. A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and harms of these drugs is required.
OBJECTIVES
To assess benefit and harms of cannabinoids, including synthetic, or herbal and plant-derived cannabinoids, for reducing symptoms for adults with MS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases from inception to December 2021: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library), CINAHL (EBSCO host), LILACS, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the US National Institutes of Health clinical trial register, the European Union Clinical Trials Register, the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines databank. We hand searched citation lists of included studies and relevant reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised parallel or cross-over trials (RCTs) evaluating any cannabinoid (including herbal Cannabis, Cannabis flowers, plant-based cannabinoids, or synthetic cannabinoids) irrespective of dose, route, frequency, or duration of use for adults with MS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool for parallel RCTs and crossover trials. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: reduction of 30% in the spasticity Numeric Rating Scale, pain relief of 50% or greater in the Numeric Rating Scale-Pain Intensity, much or very much improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL), withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs) (tolerability), serious adverse events (SAEs), nervous system disorders, psychiatric disorders, physical dependence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 RCTs with 3763 participants of whom 2290 received cannabinoids. Age ranged from 18 to 60 years, and between 50% and 88% participants across the studies were female. The included studies were 3 to 48 weeks long and compared nabiximols, an oromucosal spray with a plant derived equal (1:1) combination of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) (13 studies), synthetic cannabinoids mimicking THC (7 studies), an oral THC extract of Cannabis sativa (2 studies), inhaled herbal Cannabis (1 study) against placebo. One study compared dronabinol, THC extract of Cannabis sativa and placebo, one compared inhaled herbal Cannabis, dronabinol and placebo. We identified eight ongoing studies. Critical outcomes • Spasticity: nabiximols probably increases the number of people who report an important reduction of perceived severity of spasticity compared with placebo (odds ratio (OR) 2.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 4.04; 5 RCTs, 1143 participants; I = 67%; moderate-certainty evidence). The absolute effect was 216 more people (95% CI 99 more to 332 more) per 1000 reporting benefit with cannabinoids than with placebo. • Chronic neuropathic pain: we found only one small trial that measured the number of participants reporting substantial pain relief with a synthetic cannabinoid compared with placebo (OR 4.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 16.17; 1 study, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether cannabinoids reduce chronic neuropathic pain intensity. • Treatment discontinuation due to AEs: cannabinoids may increase slightly the number of participants who discontinue treatment compared with placebo (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.84; 21 studies, 3110 participants; I² = 17%; low-certainty evidence); the absolute effect is 39 more people (95% CI 15 more to 76 more) per 1000 people. Important outcomes • PGIC: cannabinoids probably increase the number of people who report 'very much' or 'much' improvement in health status compared with placebo (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.36; 8 studies, 1215 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The absolute effect is 113 more people (95% CI 57 more to 175 more) per 1000 people reporting improvement. • HRQoL: cannabinoids may have little to no effect on HRQoL (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.02; 8 studies, 1942 participants; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • SAEs: cannabinoids may result in little to no difference in the number of participants who have SAEs compared with placebo (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.99; 20 studies, 3124 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • AEs of the nervous system: cannabinoids may increase nervous system disorders compared with placebo (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.53 to 4.44; 7 studies, 1154 participants; I² = 63%; low-certainty evidence); • Psychiatric disorders: cannabinoids may increase psychiatric disorders compared with placebo (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.88; 6 studies, 1122 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • Drug tolerance: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cannabinoids on drug tolerance (OR 3.07, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.95; 2 studies, 458 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with placebo, nabiximols probably reduces the severity of spasticity in the short-term in people with MS. We are uncertain about the effect on chronic neurological pain and health-related quality of life. Cannabinoids may increase slightly treatment discontinuation due to AEs, nervous system and psychiatric disorders compared with placebo. We are uncertain about the effect on drug tolerance. The overall certainty of evidence is limited by short-term duration of the included studies.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Adolescent; Adult; Analgesics; Cannabinoids; Cannabis; Chronic Pain; Dronabinol; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Multiple Sclerosis; Neuralgia; Plant Extracts; Quality of Life; Young Adult
PubMed: 35510826
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013444.pub2 -
Neurosurgery Jun 2022Although numerous articles have been published not only on the classification of thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS) but also on diagnostic standards, timing, and type of... (Review)
Review
Thoracic Outlet Syndrome Part I: Systematic Review of the Literature and Consensus on Anatomy, Diagnosis, and Classification of Thoracic Outlet Syndrome by the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies' Section of Peripheral Nerve Surgery.
BACKGROUND
Although numerous articles have been published not only on the classification of thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS) but also on diagnostic standards, timing, and type of surgical intervention, there still remains some controversy because of the lack of level 1 evidence. So far, attempts to generate uniform reporting standards have not yielded conclusive results.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the body of evidence and reach a consensus among neurosurgeons experienced in TOS regarding anatomy, diagnosis, and classification.
METHODS
A systematic literature search on PubMed/MEDLINE was performed on February 13, 2021, yielding 2853 results. Abstracts were screened and classified. Recommendations were developed in a meeting held online on February 10, 2021, and refined according to the Delphi consensus method.
RESULTS
Six randomized controlled trials (on surgical, conservative, and injection therapies), 4 "guideline" articles (on imaging and reporting standards), 5 observational studies (on diagnostics, hierarchic designs of physiotherapy vs surgery, and quality of life outcomes), and 6 meta-analyses were identified. The European Association of Neurosurgical Societies' section of peripheral nerve surgery established 18 statements regarding anatomy, diagnosis, and classification of TOS with agreement levels of 98.4 % (±3.0).
CONCLUSION
Because of the lack of level 1 evidence, consensus statements on anatomy, diagnosis, and classification of TOS from experts of the section of peripheral nerve surgery of the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies were developed with the Delphi method. Further work on reporting standards, prospective data collections, therapy, and long-term outcome is necessary.
Topics: Humans; Neurosurgical Procedures; Peripheral Nerves; Physical Therapy Modalities; Quality of Life; Thoracic Outlet Syndrome
PubMed: 35319532
DOI: 10.1227/neu.0000000000001908 -
The Journal of Manual & Manipulative... Aug 2022To systematically review the effects of treatment-based classification (TBC) in patients with specific and nonspecific acute, subacute and chronic low back pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the effects of treatment-based classification (TBC) in patients with specific and nonspecific acute, subacute and chronic low back pain.
METHODS
The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Global Health, CENTRAL, Web of Science, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro and WHO from inception up to December 2021. We used the PEDro scale, the TIDieR checklist and the GRADE approach to evaluate the risk of bias, quality on reporting and the certainty of the evidence, respectively.
RESULTS
Twenty-three trials (pooled n = 2,649) met the inclusion criteria. We have identified a total of 22 comparisons and 134 estimates of treatment effects. There was a very large heterogeneity with regards to the comparison groups. Most of individual trials had low risk of bias with a mean score of 6.8 (SD = 1.3) on a 0-10 scale. The certainty of evidence for most comparisons was low, which indicates that more high quality and robust trials are needed. We were able to pool the data using a meta-analysis approach for only two comparisons (TBC versus mobility exercises in patients with acute low back pain and traction for patients with sciatica). In general, the TBC approach seems to be useful for patients with acute low back pain, sciatica and with spinal stenosis. We strongly suggest readers to carefully read our summary of findings table for further details on each comparison.
CONCLUSION
The TBC approach seems to be useful for patients with acute low back pain, sciatica and with spinal stenosis.
Topics: Acute Pain; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Low Back Pain; Sciatica; Spinal Stenosis
PubMed: 35067217
DOI: 10.1080/10669817.2021.2024677 -
In Vivo (Athens, Greece) 2023Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common side effect of cancer treatment, resulting in pain, numbness, instability, and thus affecting quality of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND/AIM
Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common side effect of cancer treatment, resulting in pain, numbness, instability, and thus affecting quality of life (QoL), occasionally leading to discontinuation of chemotherapy. Pharmacological treatments are not sufficient. Non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) have also been tried. This study aimed to systematically review the efficacy of NPIs on pain and QoL in patients suffering from CIPN.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The databases searched were Pubmed, Cohrane, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the last 5 years (2017-2022). Studies were considered eligible, if they assessed adult patients suffering from CIPN because of any chemotherapeutic drug for any type and any stage of cancer and if study protocols included non-pharmacological intervention with a structured protocol.
RESULTS
A total of 1,496 records were identified. Finally, 10 RCTs including 495 patients (253 in the intervention group and 242 in the control group) were included for meta-analysis. Intervention protocols included acupuncture (n=6), exercise (n=3), and yoga (n=1). NPIs significantly reduced neuropathic pain. However, the effect on QoL was not significant.
CONCLUSION
NPIs are beneficial in the treatment of pain in patients with CIPN but their impact on QoL is not statistically supported. Larger sample sizes, more homogenous in outcome measures and interventions are needed to further explore NPIs' efficacy on CIPN symptoms.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antineoplastic Agents; Neoplasms; Polyneuropathies; Neuralgia; Quality of Life
PubMed: 36593011
DOI: 10.21873/invivo.13053 -
BioMed Research International 2021Cervical radiculopathy is defined as a disorder involving dysfunction of the cervical nerve roots characterised by pain radiating and/or loss of motor and sensory...
BACKGROUND
Cervical radiculopathy is defined as a disorder involving dysfunction of the cervical nerve roots characterised by pain radiating and/or loss of motor and sensory function towards the root affected. There is no consensus on a good definition of the term. In addition, the evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual therapy in radiculopathy is contradictory.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness of manual therapy in improving pain, functional capacity, and range of motion in treating cervical radiculopathy with and without confirmation of altered nerve conduction.
METHODS
Systematic review of randomised clinical trials on cervical radiculopathy and manual therapy, in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, PEDro, and Cochrane Library Plus databases. The PRISMA checklist was followed. Methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale and RoB 2.0. tool.
RESULTS
17 clinical trials published in the past 10 years were selected. Manual therapy was effective in the treatment of symptoms related to cervical radiculopathy in all studies, regardless of the type of technique and dose applied.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review did not establish which manual therapy techniques are the most effective for cervical radiculopathy with electrophysiological confirmation of altered nerve conduction. Without this confirmation, the application of manual therapy, regardless of the protocol applied and the manual therapy technique selected, appears to be effective in reducing chronic cervical pain and decreasing the index of cervical disability in cervical radiculopathy in the short term. However, it would be necessary to agree on a definition and diagnostic criteria of radiculopathy, as well as the definition and standardisation of manual techniques, to analyse the effectiveness of manual therapy in cervical radiculopathy in depth.
Topics: Cervical Vertebrae; Clinical Trials as Topic; Electromyography; Humans; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Neck Pain; Radiculopathy; Range of Motion, Articular
PubMed: 34189141
DOI: 10.1155/2021/9936981