-
Fertility and Sterility Aug 2022Climate change is a major risk factor for overall health, including reproductive health, and well-being. Increasing temperatures, due mostly to increased greenhouse... (Review)
Review
Climate change is a major risk factor for overall health, including reproductive health, and well-being. Increasing temperatures, due mostly to increased greenhouse gases trapping excess heat in the atmosphere, result in erratic weather patterns, wildfires, displacement of large communities, and stagnant water resulting in vector-borne diseases that, together, have set the stage for new and devastating health threats across the globe. These conditions disproportionately affect disadvantaged and vulnerable populations, including women, pregnant persons, young children, the elderly, and the disabled. This review reports on the evidence for the adverse impacts of air pollution, wildfires, heat stress, floods, toxic chemicals, and vector-borne diseases on male and female fertility, the developing fetus, and obstetric outcomes. Reproductive health care providers are uniquely positioned and have an unprecedented opportunity to educate patients and policy makers about mitigating the impact of climate change to assure reproductive health in this and future generations.
Topics: Air Pollution; Climate Change; Female; Humans; Male; Reproductive Health; Vulnerable Populations; Weather
PubMed: 35878942
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.06.005 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2022Schizophrenia is a disabling psychotic disorder characterised by positive symptoms of delusions, hallucinations, disorganised speech and behaviour; and negative symptoms... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Schizophrenia is a disabling psychotic disorder characterised by positive symptoms of delusions, hallucinations, disorganised speech and behaviour; and negative symptoms such as affective flattening and lack of motivation. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a psychological intervention that aims to change the way in which a person interprets and evaluates their experiences, helping them to identify and link feelings and patterns of thinking that underpin distress. CBT models targeting symptoms of psychosis (CBTp) have been developed for many mental health conditions including schizophrenia. CBTp has been suggested as a useful add-on therapy to medication for people with schizophrenia. While CBT for people with schizophrenia was mainly developed as an individual treatment, it is expensive and a group approach may be more cost-effective. Group CBTp can be defined as a group intervention targeting psychotic symptoms, based on the cognitive behavioural model. In group CBTp, people work collaboratively on coping with distressing hallucinations, analysing evidence for their delusions, and developing problem-solving and social skills. However, the evidence for effectiveness is far from conclusive.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate efficacy and acceptability of group CBT applied to psychosis compared with standard care or other psychosocial interventions, for people with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
SEARCH METHODS
On 10 February 2021, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registries. We handsearched the reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews and contacted experts in the field for supplemental data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials allocating adults with schizophrenia to receive either group CBT for schizophrenia, compared with standard care, or any other psychosocial intervention (group or individual).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We complied with Cochrane recommended standard of conduct for data screening and collection. Where possible, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary data and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a summary of findings table using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
The review includes 24 studies (1900 participants). All studies compared group CBTp with treatments that a person with schizophrenia would normally receive in a standard mental health service (standard care) or any other psychosocial intervention (group or individual). None of the studies compared group CBTp with individual CBTp. Overall risk of bias within the trials was moderate to low. We found no studies reporting data for our primary outcome of clinically important change. With regard to numbers of participants leaving the study early, group CBTp has little or no effect compared to standard care or other psychosocial interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.59; studies = 13, participants = 1267; I = 9%; low-certainty evidence). Group CBTp may have some advantage over standard care or other psychosocial interventions for overall mental state at the end of treatment for endpoint scores on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total (MD -3.73, 95% CI -4.63 to -2.83; studies = 12, participants = 1036; I = 5%; low-certainty evidence). Group CBTp seems to have little or no effect on PANSS positive symptoms (MD -0.45, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.40; studies =8, participants = 539; I = 0%) and on PANSS negative symptoms scores at the end of treatment (MD -0.73, 95% CI -1.68 to 0.21; studies = 9, participants = 768; I = 65%). Group CBTp seems to have an advantage over standard care or other psychosocial interventions on global functioning measured by Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF; MD -3.61, 95% CI -6.37 to -0.84; studies = 5, participants = 254; I = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence), Personal and Social Performance Scale (PSP; MD 3.30, 95% CI 2.00 to 4.60; studies = 1, participants = 100), and Social Disability Screening Schedule (SDSS; MD -1.27, 95% CI -2.46 to -0.08; studies = 1, participants = 116). Service use data were equivocal with no real differences between treatment groups for number of participants hospitalised (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.60; studies = 3, participants = 235; I = 34%). There was no clear difference between group CBTp and standard care or other psychosocial interventions endpoint scores on depression and quality of life outcomes, except for quality of life measured by World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment Instrument (WHOQOL-BREF) Psychological domain subscale (MD -4.64, 95% CI -9.04 to -0.24; studies = 2, participants = 132; I = 77%). The studies did not report relapse or adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Group CBTp appears to be no better or worse than standard care or other psychosocial interventions for people with schizophrenia in terms of leaving the study early, service use and general quality of life. Group CBTp seems to be more effective than standard care or other psychosocial interventions on overall mental state and global functioning scores. These results may not be widely applicable as each study had a low sample size. Therefore, no firm conclusions concerning the efficacy of group CBTp for people with schizophrenia can currently be made. More high-quality research, reporting useable and relevant data is needed.
Topics: Adult; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Hallucinations; Humans; Psychotic Disorders; Quality of Life; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 35866377
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009608.pub2 -
Lancet (London, England) Mar 2021Hearing loss affects access to spoken language, which can affect cognition and development, and can negatively affect social wellbeing. We present updated estimates from... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Hearing loss affects access to spoken language, which can affect cognition and development, and can negatively affect social wellbeing. We present updated estimates from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study on the prevalence of hearing loss in 2019, as well as the condition's associated disability.
METHODS
We did systematic reviews of population-representative surveys on hearing loss prevalence from 1990 to 2019. We fitted nested meta-regression models for severity-specific prevalence, accounting for hearing aid coverage, cause, and the presence of tinnitus. We also forecasted the prevalence of hearing loss until 2050.
FINDINGS
An estimated 1·57 billion (95% uncertainty interval 1·51-1·64) people globally had hearing loss in 2019, accounting for one in five people (20·3% [19·5-21·1]). Of these, 403·3 million (357·3-449·5) people had hearing loss that was moderate or higher in severity after adjusting for hearing aid use, and 430·4 million (381·7-479·6) without adjustment. The largest number of people with moderate-to-complete hearing loss resided in the Western Pacific region (127·1 million people [112·3-142·6]). Of all people with a hearing impairment, 62·1% (60·2-63·9) were older than 50 years. The Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index explained 65·8% of the variation in national age-standardised rates of years lived with disability, because countries with a low HAQ Index had higher rates of years lived with disability. By 2050, a projected 2·45 billion (2·35-2·56) people will have hearing loss, a 56·1% (47·3-65·2) increase from 2019, despite stable age-standardised prevalence.
INTERPRETATION
As populations age, the number of people with hearing loss will increase. Interventions such as childhood screening, hearing aids, effective management of otitis media and meningitis, and cochlear implants have the potential to ameliorate this burden. Because the burden of moderate-to-complete hearing loss is concentrated in countries with low health-care quality and access, stronger health-care provision mechanisms are needed to reduce the burden of unaddressed hearing loss in these settings.
FUNDING
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and WHO.
Topics: Age Factors; Disabled Persons; Female; Global Burden of Disease; Health Services Accessibility; Hearing Aids; Hearing Loss; Humans; Male; Prevalence; Tinnitus
PubMed: 33714390
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00516-X -
Journal of General Internal Medicine Mar 2020Headache disorders are currently the sixth leading cause of disability across the globe and therefore carry a significant disease burden. This systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Headache disorders are currently the sixth leading cause of disability across the globe and therefore carry a significant disease burden. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the effects of yoga on headache disorders.
METHODS
MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO were screened through May 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included when they assessed the effects of yoga in patients with a diagnosis of chronic or episodic headache (tension-type headache and/or migraine). Usual care (no specific treatment) or any active treatments were acceptable as control interventions. Primary outcome measures were headache frequency, headache duration, and pain intensity. For each outcome, standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.
RESULTS
Meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant overall effect in favor of yoga for headache frequency (5 RCTs; standardized mean difference (SMD) = - 1.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 2.75 to - 1.20; I = 63.0%, τ = 0.25, P = 0.03), headache duration (4 RCTs; SMD = - 1.45; 95% CI - 2.54 to - 0.37; I = 69.0%, τ = 0.33, P = 0.02), and pain intensity (5 RCTs; SMD = - 3.43; 95% CI - 6.08 to - 0.70, I = 95.0%, τ = 4.25, P < 0.01). The significant overall effect was mainly due to patients with tension-type headaches. For patients with migraine, no statistically significant effect was observed.
DISCUSSION
Despite discussed limitations, this review found preliminary evidence of short-term efficacy of yoga in improving headache frequency, headache duration, and pain intensity in patients suffering from tension-type headaches. Further studies are urgently needed to draw deeper conclusions from the available results.
Topics: Disabled Persons; Headache; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Tension-Type Headache; Yoga
PubMed: 31667736
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-019-05413-9 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is a multidimensional interdisciplinary diagnostic process focused on determining an older person's medical, psychological and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is a multidimensional interdisciplinary diagnostic process focused on determining an older person's medical, psychological and functional capability in order to develop a co-ordinated and integrated care plan. CGA is not limited simply to assessment, but also directs a holistic management plan for older people, which leads to tangible interventions. While there is established evidence that CGA reduces the likelihood of death and disability in acutely unwell older people, the effectiveness of CGA for community-dwelling, frail, older people at risk of poor health outcomes is less clear.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of CGA for community-dwelling, frail, older adults at risk of poor health outcomes in terms of mortality, nursing home admission, hospital admission, emergency department visits, serious adverse events, functional status, quality of life and resource use, when compared to usual care.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, three trials registers (WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov and McMaster Aging Portal) and grey literature up to April 2020; we also checked reference lists and contacted study authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised trials that compared CGA for community-dwelling, frail, older people at risk of poor healthcare outcomes to usual care in the community. Older people were defined as 'at risk' either by being frail or having another risk factor associated with poor health outcomes. Frailty was defined as a vulnerability to sudden health state changes triggered by relatively minor stressor events, placing the individual at risk of poor health outcomes, and was measured using objective screening tools. Primary outcomes of interest were death, nursing home admission, unplanned hospital admission, emergency department visits and serious adverse events. CGA was delivered by a team with specific gerontological training/expertise in the participant's home (domiciliary Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (dCGA)) or other sites such as a general practice or community clinic (community Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (cCGA)).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics (methods, participants, intervention, outcomes, notes) using standardised data collection forms adapted from the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) data collection form. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias for each included study and used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for outcomes of interest.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 studies involving 7893 participants across 10 countries and four continents. Regarding selection bias, 12/21 studies used random sequence generation, while 9/21 used allocation concealment. In terms of performance bias, none of the studies were able to blind participants and personnel due to the nature of the intervention, while 14/21 had a blinded outcome assessment. Eighteen studies were at low risk of attrition bias, and risk of reporting bias was low in 7/21 studies. Fourteen studies were at low risk of bias in terms of differences of baseline characteristics. Three studies were at low risk of bias across all domains (accepting that it was not possible to blind participants and personnel to the intervention). CGA probably leads to little or no difference in mortality during a median follow-up of 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.02; 18 studies, 7151 participants (adjusted for clustering); moderate-certainty evidence). CGA results in little or no difference in nursing home admissions during a median follow-up of 12 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.14; 13 studies, 4206 participants (adjusted for clustering); high-certainty evidence). CGA may decrease the risk of unplanned hospital admissions during a median follow-up of 14 months (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.99; 6 studies, 1716 participants (adjusted for clustering); low-certainty evidence). The effect of CGA on emergency department visits is uncertain and evidence was very low certainty (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.59; 3 studies, 873 participants (adjusted for clustering)). Only two studies (1380 participants; adjusted for clustering) reported serious adverse events (falls) with no impact on the risk; however, evidence was very low certainty (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.17).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
CGA had no impact on death or nursing home admission. There is low-certainty evidence that community-dwelling, frail, older people who undergo CGA may have a reduced risk of unplanned hospital admission. Further studies examining the effect of CGA on emergency department visits and change in function and quality of life using standardised assessments are required.
Topics: Aged; Frail Elderly; Geriatric Assessment; Hospitalization; Humans; Independent Living; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35521829
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012705.pub2 -
Anales Del Sistema Sanitario de Navarra Apr 2022Stroke is the second cause of death and the first cause of disability in Europe. The number of stroke patients shows a rapidly increasing due to the increase in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Stroke is the second cause of death and the first cause of disability in Europe. The number of stroke patients shows a rapidly increasing due to the increase in the elderly population. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the prevalence and incidence of stroke in Europe.
METHOD
We conducted a literature search in MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CINAHL Complete and EMBASE, using the keywords "stroke", "cerebrovascular accident", "epidemiology", "prevalence", "incidence" and "Europe". In order to evaluate the quality and risk of bias, we used the Hoy's modified scale for prevalence studies and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for incidence studies. A random effects model with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) was used for the meta-analysis. The I2 statistic was applied to assess heterogeneity.
RESULTS
The prevalence of stroke in Europe adjusted for sex was estimated at 9.2% (95%CI: 4.4-14.0). The prevalence was 9.1% (95%CI: 4.7-13.6) in men and 9.2% (95%CI: 4.1-14.4) in women, and increased with age. The incidence of stroke in Europe adjusted for sex was 191.9 per 100,000 person-years (95%CI: 156.4-227.3); it was 195.7 per 100,000 person-years (95%CI: 142.4-249.0) in men and 188.1 per 100,000 person-years (95%CI: 138.6-237.7) in women. Again, these rates increased with age.
CONCLUSION
The prevalence of stroke in Europe is 9.2%. The incidence of stroke in Europe is 191.9 per 100,000 person-years. The prevalence of stroke has increased, whereas the incidence of stroke is stable in comparison with studies conducted at the beginning of the 21st century.
Topics: Aged; Cohort Studies; Europe; Female; Humans; Incidence; Male; Prevalence; Stroke
PubMed: 34751194
DOI: 10.23938/ASSN.0979 -
European Journal of Pain (London,... Jan 2023Phantom limb pain (PLP) concerns >50% of amputees and has a negative impact on their rehabilitation, mental health and quality of life. Mirror therapy (MT) is a... (Review)
Review
Effect of mirror therapy in the treatment of phantom limb pain in amputees: A systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled trials does not find any evidence of efficacy.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Phantom limb pain (PLP) concerns >50% of amputees and has a negative impact on their rehabilitation, mental health and quality of life. Mirror therapy (MT) is a promising strategy, but its effectiveness remains controversial. We performed a systematic review to: (i) evaluate the effectiveness of MT versus placebo in reducing PLP, and (ii) determine MT effect on disability and quality of life.
DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT
We selected randomized-controlled trials in five databases (Medline, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PEDro and Embase) that included patients with unilateral lower or upper limb amputation and PLP and that compared the effects on PLP of MT versus a placebo technique. The primary outcome was PLP intensity changes and the secondary outcomes were PLP duration, frequency, patients' disability and quality of life.
RESULTS
Among the five studies included, only one reported a significant difference between the MT group and control group, with a positive MT effect at week 4. Only one study assessed MT effect on disability and found a significant improvement in the MT group at week 10 and month 6.
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review did not allow concluding that MT reduces PLP and disability in amputees. This lack of strong evidence is probably due to (i) the low methodological quality of the included studies, and (ii) the lack of statistical power. Future trials should include a higher number of patients, increase the number and frequency of MT sessions, have a long-term follow-up and improve the methodological quality.
SIGNIFICANCE
Recent meta-analyses concluded that MT is effective for reducing phantom limb pain. Conversely, the present systematic review that included only studies with the best level of evidence did not find any evidence about its effectiveness for this condition. We identified many ways to improve future randomized-controlled trials on this topic: increasing the number of participants, reducing the intra-group heterogeneity, using a suitable placebo and intensifying the MT sessions and frequency.
Topics: Humans; Phantom Limb; Quality of Life; Mirror Movement Therapy; Amputees; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36094758
DOI: 10.1002/ejp.2035 -
PloS One 2020Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a common and often disabling musculoskeletal condition. Yoga has been proven to be an effective therapy for chronic low back pain.... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Yoga compared to non-exercise or physical therapy exercise on pain, disability, and quality of life for patients with chronic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a common and often disabling musculoskeletal condition. Yoga has been proven to be an effective therapy for chronic low back pain. However, there are still controversies about the effects of yoga at different follow-up periods and compared with other physical therapy exercises.
OBJECTIVE
To critically compare the effects of yoga for patients with chronic low back pain on pain, disability, quality of life with non-exercise (e.g. usual care, education), physical therapy exercise.
METHODS
This study was registered in PROSPERO, and the registration number was CRD42020159865. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of online databases included PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase which evaluated effects of yoga for patients with chronic low back pain on pain, disability, and quality of life were searched from inception time to November 1, 2019. Studies were eligible if they assessed at least one important outcome, namely pain, back-specific disability, quality of life. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included randomized controlled trials. The continuous outcomes were analyzed by calculating the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) according to whether combining outcomes measured on different scales or not.
RESULTS
A total of 18 randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. Yoga could significantly reduce pain at 4 to 8 weeks (MD = -0.83, 95% CI = -1.19 to -0.48, p<0.00001, I2 = 0%), 3 months (MD = -0.43, 95% CI = -0.64 to -0.23, p<0.0001, I2 = 0%), 6 to 7 months (MD = -0.56, 95% CI = -1.02 to -0.11, p = 0.02, I2 = 50%), and was not significant in 12 months (MD = -0.52, 95% CI = -1.64 to 0.59, p = 0.36, I2 = 87%) compared with non-exercise. Yoga was better than non-exercise on disability at 4 to 8 weeks (SMD = -0.30, 95% CI = -0.51 to -0.10, p = 0.003, I2 = 0%), 3 months (SMD = -0.31, 95% CI = -0.45 to -0.18, p<0.00001, I2 = 30%), 6 months (SMD = -0.38, 95% CI = -0.53 to -0.23, p<0.00001, I2 = 0%), 12 months (SMD = -0.33, 95% CI = -0.54 to -0.12, p = 0.002, I2 = 9%). There was no significant difference on pain, disability compared with physical therapy exercise group. Furthermore, it suggested that there was a non-significant difference on physical and mental quality of life between yoga and any other interventions.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis provided evidence from very low to moderate investigating the effectiveness of yoga for chronic low back pain patients at different time points. Yoga might decrease pain from short term to intermediate term and improve functional disability status from short term to long term compared with non-exercise (e.g. usual care, education). Yoga had the same effect on pain and disability as any other exercise or physical therapy. Yoga might not improve the physical and mental quality of life based on the result of a merging.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Disabled Persons; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Low Back Pain; Muscle Stretching Exercises; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Yoga
PubMed: 32870936
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238544 -
The Journal of Pain Nov 2022This systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression investigated the effects of individualized interventions, based on exercise alone or combined with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Individualized Exercise in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Exercise Alone or in Combination with Psychological Interventions on Pain and Disability.
This systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression investigated the effects of individualized interventions, based on exercise alone or combined with psychological treatment, on pain intensity and disability in patients with chronic non-specific low-back-pain. Databases were searched up to January 31, 2022 to retrieve respective randomized controlled trials of individualized and/or personalized and/or stratified exercise interventions with or without psychological treatment compared to any control. Fifty-eight studies (n = 10084) were included. At short-term follow-up (12 weeks), low-certainty evidence for pain intensity (SMD -0.28 [95%CI -0.42 to -0.14]) and very low-certainty evidence for disability (-0.17 [-0.31 to -0.02]) indicates effects of individualized versus active exercises, and very low-certainty evidence for pain intensity (-0.40; [-0.58 to -0.22])), but not (low-certainty evidence) for disability (-0.18; [-0.22 to 0.01]) compared to passive controls. At long-term follow-up (1 year), moderate-certainty evidence for pain intensity (-0.14 [-0.22 to -0.07]) and disability (-0.20 [-0.30 to -0.10]) indicates effects versus passive controls. Sensitivity analyses indicates that the effects on pain, but not on disability (always short-term and versus active treatments) were robust. Pain reduction caused by individualized exercise treatments in combination with psychological interventions (in particular behavioral-cognitive therapies) (-0.28 [-0.42 to -0.14], low certainty) is of clinical importance. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to evidence of risk of bias, publication bias and inconsistency that could not be explained. Individualized exercise can treat pain and disability in chronic non-specific low-back-pain. The effects at short term are of clinical importance (relative differences versus active 38% and versus passive interventions 77%), especially in regard to the little extra effort to individualize exercise. Sub-group analysis suggests a combination of individualized exercise (especially motor-control based treatments) with behavioral therapy interventions to booster effects. PERSPECTIVE: The relative benefit of individualized exercise therapy on chronic low back pain compared to other active treatments is approximately 38% which is of clinical importance. Still, sustainability of effects (> 12 months) is doubtable. As individualization in exercise therapies is easy to implement, its use should be considered. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021247331.
Topics: Humans; Low Back Pain; Psychosocial Intervention; Exercise Therapy; Disabled Persons; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Chronic Pain
PubMed: 35914641
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2022.07.005 -
International Journal of Environmental... Nov 2021Virtual reality (VR) can present advantages in the treatment of chronic low back pain. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Virtual reality (VR) can present advantages in the treatment of chronic low back pain. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the effectiveness of VR in chronic low back pain. This review was designed according to PRISMA and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020222129). Four databases (PubMed, Cinahl, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched up to August 2021. Inclusion criteria were defined following PICOS recommendations. Methodological quality was assessed with the Downs and Black scale and the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Fourteen studies were included in the systematic review and eleven in the meta-analysis. Significant differences were found in favor of VR compared to no VR in pain intensity postintervention (11 trials; = 569; SMD = -1.92; 95% CI = -2.73, -1.11; < 0.00001) and followup (4 trials; = 240; SDM = -6.34; 95% CI = -9.12, -3.56; < 0.00001); and kinesiophobia postintervention (3 trials; = 192; MD = -8.96; 95% CI = -17.52, -0.40; = 0.04) and followup (2 trials; = 149; MD = -12.04; 95% CI = -20.58, -3.49; = 0.006). No significant differences were found in disability. In conclusion, VR can significantly reduce pain intensity and kinesiophobia in patients with chronic low back pain after the intervention and at followup. However, high heterogeneity exists and can influence the consistency of the results.
Topics: Adult; Disabled Persons; Humans; Low Back Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Virtual Reality
PubMed: 34831562
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182211806