-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Increased physical activity has been recommended as an important lifestyle modification for the prevention and control of hypertension. Walking is a low-cost form of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Increased physical activity has been recommended as an important lifestyle modification for the prevention and control of hypertension. Walking is a low-cost form of physical activity and one which most people can do. Studies testing the effect of walking on blood pressure have revealed inconsistent findings.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of walking as a physical activity intervention on blood pressure and heart rate.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to March 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2020, Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched the following Chinese databases up to May 2020: Index to Taiwan Periodical Literature System; National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertation in Taiwan; China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Journals, Theses & Dissertations; and Wanfang Medical Online. We contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of participants, aged 16 years and over, which evaluated the effects of a walking intervention compared to non-intervention control on blood pressure and heart rate were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Where data were not available in the published reports, we contacted authors. Pooled results for blood pressure and heart rate were presented as mean differences (MDs) between groups with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We undertook subgroup analyses for age and sex. We undertook sensitivity analyses to assess the effect of sample size on our findings.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 73 trials met our inclusion criteria. These 73 trials included 5763 participants and were undertaken in 22 countries. Participants were aged from 16 to 84 years and there were approximately 1.5 times as many females as males. The characteristics of walking interventions in the included studies were as follows: the majority of walking interventions was at home/community (n = 50) but supervised (n = 36 out of 47 reported the information of supervision); the average intervention length was 15 weeks, average walking time per week was 153 minutes and the majority of walking intensity was moderate. Many studies were at risk of selection bias and performance bias. Primary outcome We found moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that walking reduces systolic blood pressure (SBP) (MD -4.11 mmHg, 95% CI -5.22 to -3.01; 73 studies, n = 5060). We found moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that walking reduces SBP in participants aged 40 years and under (MD -4.41 mmHg, 95% CI -6.17 to -2.65; 14 studies, n = 491), and low-certainty evidence that walking reduces SBP in participants aged 41 to 60 years (MD -3.79 mmHg, 95% CI -5.64 to -1.94, P < 0.001; 35 studies, n = 1959), and those aged 60 years of over (MD -4.30 mmHg, 95% CI -6.17 to -2.44, 24 studies, n = 2610). We also found low certainty-evidence suggesting that walking reduces SBP in both females (MD -5.65 mmHg, 95% CI -7.89 to -3.41; 22 studies, n = 1149) and males (MD -4.64 mmHg, 95% CI -8.69 to -0.59; 6 studies, n = 203). Secondary outcomes We found low-certainty evidence suggesting that walking reduces diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (MD -1.79 mmHg, 95% CI -2.51 to -1.07; 69 studies, n = 4711) and heart rate (MD -2.76 beats per minute (bpm), 95% CI -4.57 to -0.95; 26 studies, n = 1747). We found moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that walking reduces DBP for participants aged 40 years and under (MD -3.01 mmHg, 95% CI -4.44 to -1.58; 14 studies, n = 491) and low-certainty evidence suggesting that walking reduces DBP for participants aged 41 to 60 years (MD -1.74 mmHg, 95% CI -2.95 to -0.52; 32 studies, n = 1730) and those aged 60 years and over (MD -1.33 mmHg, 95% CI -2.40 to -0.26; 23 studies, n = 2490). We found moderate-certainty evidence that suggests walking reduces DBP for males (MD -2.54 mmHg, 95% CI -4.84 to -0.24; 6 studies, n = 203) and low-certainty evidence that walking reduces DBP for females (MD -2.69 mmHg, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.23; 20 studies, n = 1000). Only 21 included studies reported adverse events. Of these 21 studies, 16 reported no adverse events, the remaining five studies reported eight adverse events, with knee injury being reported five times.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that walking probably reduces SBP. Moderate- or low-certainty evidence suggests that walking may reduce SBP for all ages and both sexes. Low-certainty evidence suggests that walking may reduce DBP and heart rate. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence suggests walking may reduce DBP and heart rate for all ages and both sexes.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Age Factors; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Bias; Blood Pressure; Diastole; Female; Heart Rate; Humans; Hypertension; Knee Injuries; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Systole; Time Factors; Walking; Young Adult
PubMed: 33630309
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008823.pub2 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Jan 2023This meta-analysis and systematic review aimed to evaluate the global prevalence and risk factors of mental problems (i.e., depression, anxiety, stress, sleep disorder,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This meta-analysis and systematic review aimed to evaluate the global prevalence and risk factors of mental problems (i.e., depression, anxiety, stress, sleep disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), burnout, psychological distress, and suicidal ideation) among medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHOD
We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, psycARTICLES, PsycINFO, CNKI, and Wan Fang for studies on the prevalence of mental problems among medical students from January 1, 2020, to April 1, 2022. The pooled prevalence was calculated by random-effect models. We performed a narrative review to identify the risk factors.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis included 201 studies (N = 198,000). The prevalence of depression (41 %, 95 % CI, 37-45 %,), anxiety (38 %,95 % CI, 34 %-42 %), stress (34 %, 95 % CI, 27 %-42 %), sleep disorder (52 %, 95 % CI, 44 %-60 %), psychological distress (58 %, 95 % CI, 51 %-65 %), PTSD (34 %, 95 % CI, 22 %-46 %), suicidal ideation (15 %, 95 % CI, 11 %-18 %) and burnout (38 %, 95 % CI, 25 %-50 %) was high. The major risk factors were being female, being junior or preclinical students, exposure to COVID-19, academic stress, psychiatric or physical disorders history, economic trouble, fear of education impairment, online learning trouble, fear of infection, loneliness, low physical activity, low social support, problematic internet or smartphone use, and young age.
LIMITATIONS
Most studies were cross-sectional. Few studies provided a reasonable response rate, suggesting potential selection bias.
CONCLUSIONS
The study demonstrated a high prevalence and risk factors for mental problems during COVID-19, calling for mental health services. Our findings are valuable for college and health authorities to identify high-risk students and provide targeted intervention.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Students, Medical; COVID-19; Prevalence; Pandemics; Risk Factors; Sleep Wake Disorders
PubMed: 36341802
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2022.10.040 -
International Urogynecology Journal Mar 2021To evaluate the evidence for pathologies underlying stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS
To evaluate the evidence for pathologies underlying stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women.
METHODS
For the data sources, a structured search of the peer-reviewed literature (English language; 1960-April 2020) was conducted using predefined key terms in PubMed and Embase. Google Scholar was also searched. Peer-reviewed manuscripts that reported on anatomical, physiological or functional differences between females with signs and/or symptoms consistent with SUI and a concurrently recruited control group of continent females without any substantive urogynecological symptoms. Of 4629 publications screened, 84 met the inclusion criteria and were retained, among which 24 were included in meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Selection bias was moderate to high; < 25% of studies controlled for major confounding variables for SUI (e.g., age, BMI and parity). There was a lack of standardization of methods among studies, and several measurement issues were identified. Results were synthesized qualitatively, and, where possible, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Deficits in urethral and bladder neck structure and support, neuromuscular and mechanical function of the striated urethral sphincter (SUS) and levator ani muscles all appear to be associated with SUI. Meta-analyses showed that observed bladder neck dilation and lower functional urethral length, bladder neck support and maximum urethral closure pressures are strong characteristic signs of SUI.
CONCLUSION
The pathology of SUI is multifactorial, with strong evidence pointing to bladder neck and urethral incompetence. While there is also evidence of impaired urethral support and levator ani function, standardized approaches to measurement are needed to generate higher levels of evidence.
Topics: Female; Humans; Parity; Pelvic Floor; Pregnancy; Urethra; Urinary Bladder; Urinary Incontinence, Stress
PubMed: 33416968
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-020-04622-9 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020Chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP) is very common; it is defined as pain without a recognizable etiology that lasts for more than three months. Some clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP) is very common; it is defined as pain without a recognizable etiology that lasts for more than three months. Some clinical practice guidelines suggest that acupuncture can offer an effective alternative therapy. This review is a split from an earlier Cochrane review and it focuses on chronic LBP.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of acupuncture compared to sham intervention, no treatment, or usual care for chronic nonspecific LBP.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, two Chinese databases, and two trial registers to 29 August 2019 without restrictions on language or publication status. We also screened reference lists and LBP guidelines to identify potentially relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for chronic nonspecific LBP in adults. We excluded RCTs that investigated LBP with a specific etiology. We included trials comparing acupuncture with sham intervention, no treatment, and usual care. The primary outcomes were pain, back-specific functional status, and quality of life; the secondary outcomes were pain-related disability, global assessment, or adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted the data. We meta-analyzed data that were clinically homogeneous using a random-effects model in Review Manager 5.3. Otherwise, we reported the data qualitatively. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 33 studies (37 articles) with 8270 participants. The majority of studies were carried out in Europe, Asia, North and South America. Seven studies (5572 participants) conducted in Germany accounted for 67% of the participants. Sixteen trials compared acupuncture with sham intervention, usual care, or no treatment. Most studies had high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding of the acupuncturist. A few studies were found to have high risk of detection, attrition, reporting or selection bias. We found low-certainty evidence (seven trials, 1403 participants) that acupuncture may relieve pain in the immediate term (up to seven days) compared to sham intervention (mean difference (MD) -9.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -13.82 to -4.61, visual analogue scale (VAS) 0-100). The difference did not meet the clinically important threshold of 15 points or 30% relative change. Very low-certainty evidence from five trials (1481 participants) showed that acupuncture was not more effective than sham in improving back-specific function in the immediate term (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.06; corresponding to the Hannover Function Ability Questionnaire (HFAQ, 0 to 100, higher values better) change (MD 3.33 points; 95% CI -1.25 to 7.90)). Three trials (1068 participants) yielded low-certainty evidence that acupuncture seemed not to be more effective clinically in the short term for quality of life (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.45; corresponding to the physical 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12, 0-100, higher values better) change (MD 2.33 points; 95% CI 0.29 to 4.37)). The reasons for downgrading the certainty of the evidence to either low to very low were risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. We found moderate-certainty evidence that acupuncture produced greater and clinically important pain relief (MD -20.32, 95% CI -24.50 to -16.14; four trials, 366 participants; (VAS, 0 to 100), and improved back function (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.34; five trials, 2960 participants; corresponding to the HFAQ change (MD 11.50 points; 95% CI 7.38 to 15.84)) in the immediate term compared to no treatment. The evidence was downgraded to moderate certainty due to risk of bias. No studies reported on quality of life in the short term or adverse events. Low-certainty evidence (five trials, 1054 participants) suggested that acupuncture may reduce pain (MD -10.26, 95% CI -17.11 to -3.40; not clinically important on 0 to 100 VAS), and improve back-specific function immediately after treatment (SMD: -0.47; 95% CI: -0.77 to -0.17; five trials, 1381 participants; corresponding to the HFAQ change (MD 9.78 points, 95% CI 3.54 to 16.02)) compared to usual care. Moderate-certainty evidence from one trial (731 participants) found that acupuncture was more effective in improving physical quality of life (MD 4.20, 95% CI 2.82 to 5.58) but not mental quality of life in the short term (MD 1.90, 95% CI 0.25 to 3.55). The certainty of evidence was downgraded to moderate to low because of risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. Low-certainty evidence suggested a similar incidence of adverse events immediately after treatment in the acupuncture and sham intervention groups (four trials, 465 participants) (RR 0.68 95% CI 0.46 to 1.01), and the acupuncture and usual care groups (one trial, 74 participants) (RR 3.34, 95% CI 0.36 to 30.68). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision. No trial reported adverse events for acupuncture when compared to no treatment. The most commonly reported adverse events in the acupuncture groups were insertion point pain, bruising, hematoma, bleeding, worsening of LBP, and pain other than LBP (pain in leg and shoulder).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found that acupuncture may not play a more clinically meaningful role than sham in relieving pain immediately after treatment or in improving quality of life in the short term, and acupuncture possibly did not improve back function compared to sham in the immediate term. However, acupuncture was more effective than no treatment in improving pain and function in the immediate term. Trials with usual care as the control showed acupuncture may not reduce pain clinically, but the therapy may improve function immediately after sessions as well as physical but not mental quality of life in the short term. The evidence was downgraded to moderate to very low-certainty considering most of studies had high risk of bias, inconsistency, and small sample size introducing imprecision. The decision to use acupuncture to treat chronic low back pain might depend on the availability, cost and patient's preferences.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Bias; Chronic Pain; Confidence Intervals; Humans; Low Back Pain; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33306198
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013814 -
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 -
Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine Jan 2022To evaluate the effects and safety of exercise training, and to determine the most effective exercise intervention for people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effects and safety of exercise training, and to determine the most effective exercise intervention for people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Exercise training was compared with no training, placebo or alternative exercise training. Primary outcomes were functioning and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes were muscular strength, endurance and lung function. Data sources: A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central, PEDro and Scopus. Study selection and data extraction: Screening, data extraction, risk of bias and quality assessment were carried out. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaborations risk of bias tools. The certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Twelve studies with 282 participants were included. A narrative synthesis showed limited or no improvements in functioning compared with controls. Health-related quality of life was assessed in only 1 study. A meta-analysis showed a significant difference in muscular strength and endurance in favour of exercise training compared with no training and placebo. However, the certainty of evidence was very low.
CONCLUSION
Exercise training may be beneficial in Duchenne muscular dystrophy, but the evidence remains uncertain. Further research is needed on exercise training to promote functioning and health-related quality of life in Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
Topics: Exercise; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscular Dystrophy, Duchenne; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35642324
DOI: 10.2340/jrm.v53.985 -
JAMA Pediatrics Apr 2023The 5-item Sick, Control, One, Fat, Food (SCOFF) questionnaire is the most widely used screening measure for eating disorders. However, no previous systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The 5-item Sick, Control, One, Fat, Food (SCOFF) questionnaire is the most widely used screening measure for eating disorders. However, no previous systematic review and meta-analysis determined the proportion of disordered eating among children and adolescents.
OBJECTIVE
To establish the proportion among children and adolescents of disordered eating as assessed with the SCOFF tool.
DATA SOURCES
Four databases were systematically searched (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) with date limits from January 1999 to November 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies were required to meet the following criteria: (1) participants: studies of community samples of children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years and (2) outcome: disordered eating assessed by the SCOFF questionnaire. The exclusion criteria included (1) studies conducted with young people who had a diagnosis of physical or mental disorders; (2) studies that were published before 1999 because the SCOFF questionnaire was designed in that year; (3) studies in which data were collected during COVID-19 because they could introduce selection bias; (4) studies based on data from the same surveys/studies to avoid duplication; and (5) systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses and qualitative and case studies.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Proportion of disordered eating among children and adolescents assessed with the SCOFF tool.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies, including 63 181 participants, from 16 countries were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The overall proportion of children and adolescents with disordered eating was 22.36% (95% CI, 18.84%-26.09%; P < .001; n = 63 181) (I2 = 98.58%). Girls were significantly more likely to report disordered eating (30.03%; 95% CI, 25.61%-34.65%; n = 27 548) than boys (16.98%; 95% CI, 13.46%-20.81%; n = 26 170) (P < .001). Disordered eating became more elevated with increasing age (B, 0.03; 95% CI, 0-0.06; P = .049) and body mass index (B, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.05; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the available evidence from 32 studies comprising large samples from 16 countries showed that 22% of children and adolescents showed disordered eating according to the SCOFF tool. Proportion of disordered eating was further elevated among girls, as well as with increasing age and body mass index. These high figures are concerning from a public health perspective and highlight the need to implement strategies for preventing eating disorders.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Child; Adolescent; COVID-19; Surveys and Questionnaires; Body Mass Index; Feeding and Eating Disorders
PubMed: 36806880
DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.5848 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021The balance of benefits and harms associated with enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia is not clear. An increasing number of guidelines highlight the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The balance of benefits and harms associated with enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia is not clear. An increasing number of guidelines highlight the lack of evidenced benefit and potential risks of enteral tube feeding. In some areas of the world, the use of enteral tube feeding is decreasing, and in other areas it is increasing.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia who develop problems with eating and swallowing or who have reduced food and fluid intake.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registers on 14 April 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or controlled non-randomised studies. Our population of interest was adults of any age with a diagnosis of primary degenerative dementia of any cause, with severe cognitive and functional impairment, and poor nutritional intake. Eligible studies evaluated the effectiveness and complications of enteral tube feeding via a nasogastric or gastrostomy tube, or via jejunal post-pyloric feeding, in comparison with standard care or enhanced standard care, such as an intervention to promote oral intake. Our primary outcomes were survival time, quality of life, and pressure ulcers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors screened citations and two review authors assessed full texts of potentially eligible studies against inclusion criteria. One review author extracted data, which were then checked independently by a second review author. We used the 'Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions' (ROBINS-I) tool to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Risk of confounding was assessed against a pre-agreed list of key potential confounding variables. Our primary outcomes were survival time, quality of life, and pressure ulcers. Results were not suitable for meta-analysis, so we presented them narratively. We presented results separately for studies of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding, nasogastric tube feeding and studies using mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding methods. We used GRADE methods to assess the overall certainty of the evidence related to each outcome for each study.
MAIN RESULTS
We found no eligible RCTs. We included fourteen controlled, non-randomised studies. All the included studies compared outcomes between groups of people who had been assigned to enteral tube feeding or oral feeding by prior decision of a healthcare professional. Some studies controlled for a range of confounding factors, but there were high or very high risks of bias due to confounding in all studies, and high or critical risks of selection bias in some studies. Four studies with 36,816 participants assessed the effect of PEG feeding on survival time. None found any evidence of effects on survival time (low-certainty evidence). Three of four studies using mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding methods in 310 participants (227 enteral tube feeding, 83 no enteral tube feeding) found them to be associated with longer survival time. The fourth study (1386 participants: 135 enteral tube feeding, 1251 no enteral tube feeding) found no evidence of an effect. The certainty of this body of evidence is very low. One study of PEG feeding (4421 participants: 1585 PEG, 2836 no enteral tube feeding) found PEG feeding increased the risk of pressure ulcers (moderate-certainty evidence). Two of three studies reported an increase in the number of pressure ulcers in those receiving mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding (234 participants: 88 enteral tube feeding, 146 no enteral tube feeding). The third study found no effect (very-low certainty evidence). Two studies of nasogastric tube feeding did not report data on survival time or pressure ulcers. None of the included studies assessed quality of life. Only one study, using mixed methods of enteral tube feeding, reported on pain and comfort, finding no difference between groups. In the same study, a higher proportion of carers reported very heavy burden in the enteral tube feeding group compared to no enteral tube feeding. Two studies assessed the effect of nasogastric tube feeding on mortality (236 participants: 144 nasogastric group, 92 no enteral tube feeding). One study of 67 participants (14 nasogastric, 53 no enteral tube feeding) found nasogastric feeding was associated with increased mortality risk. The second study found no difference in mortality between groups. The certainty of this evidence is very low. Results on mortality for those using PEG or mixed methods of enteral tube feeding were mixed and the certainty of evidence was very low. There was some evidence from two studies for enteral tube feeding improving nutritional parameters, but this was very low-certainty evidence. Five studies reported a variety of harm-related outcomes with inconsistent results. The balance of evidence suggested increased risk of pneumonia with enteral tube feeding. None of the included studies assessed behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no evidence that tube feeding improves survival; improves quality of life; reduces pain; reduces mortality; decreases behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia; leads to better nourishment; improves family or carer outcomes such as depression, anxiety, carer burden, or satisfaction with care; and no indication of harm. We found some evidence that there is a clinically significant risk of pressure ulcers from enteral tube feeding. Future research should focus on better reporting and matching of control and intervention groups, and clearly defined interventions, measuring all the outcomes referred to here.
Topics: Adult; Caregivers; Dementia; Enteral Nutrition; Gastrostomy; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Malnutrition; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34387363
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013503.pub2 -
The Journal of Manual & Manipulative... Feb 2023Low back pain can present with radicular pain caused by lumbosacral nerve root pathology. Neural mobilization (NM) is a treatment technique used to treat low back and...
BACKGROUND
Low back pain can present with radicular pain caused by lumbosacral nerve root pathology. Neural mobilization (NM) is a treatment technique used to treat low back and radicular pain (LBRP).
PURPOSE
To evaluate the effectiveness of NM interventions in improving pain, disability, and function in adults with LBRP.
DATA SOURCES
CINAHL Plus, MEDLINE (Ovid), Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and Cochrane databases were searched.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of NM on pain, disability, and/or function in adults with LBRP.
DATA EXTRACTION
Authors reviewed studies and used the PEDro scale and the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool to assess methodological quality and risk of bias.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Eight studies were included. Six of the eight studies found the addition of NM to conservative treatment improved all measured outcomes. One study found improvements in some but not all functional measures, and delayed improvements in pain. One study found improvements in measures of neural sensitivity, but not overall pain and disability.
CONCLUSIONS
NM may be an effective tool for short-term improvements in pain, function, and disability associated with LBRP. Additional high quality research is needed.
STUDY REGISTRATION
: This systematic review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020192338).
Topics: Humans; Low Back Pain; Physical Therapy Modalities; Musculoskeletal Pain
PubMed: 35583521
DOI: 10.1080/10669817.2022.2065599 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014. Chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP) has become one of the main causes of disability in the adult... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014. Chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP) has become one of the main causes of disability in the adult population around the world. Although therapeutic ultrasound is not recommended in recent clinical guidelines, it is frequently used by physiotherapists in the treatment of chronic LBP.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to determine the effectiveness of therapeutic ultrasound in the management of chronic non-specific LBP. A secondary objective was to determine the most effective dosage and intensity of therapeutic ultrasound for chronic LBP.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed electronic searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and two trials registers to 7 January 2020. We checked the reference lists of eligible studies and relevant systematic reviews and performed forward citation searching.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on therapeutic ultrasound for chronic non-specific LBP. We compared ultrasound (either alone or in combination with another treatment) with placebo or other interventions for chronic LBP.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of each trial and extracted the data. We performed a meta-analysis when sufficient clinical and statistical homogeneity existed. We determined the certainty of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 RCTs involving a total of 1025 participants with chronic LBP. The included studies were carried out in secondary care settings in Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Croatia, the UK, and the USA, and most applied therapeutic ultrasound in addition to another treatment, for six to 18 treatment sessions. The risk of bias was unclear in most studies. Eight studies (80%) had unclear or high risk of selection bias; no studies blinded care providers to the intervention; and only five studies (50%) blinded participants. There was a risk of selective reporting in eight studies (80%), and no studies adequately assessed compliance with the intervention. There was very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision, inconsistency, and limitations in design) of little to no difference between therapeutic ultrasound and placebo for short-term pain improvement (mean difference (MD) -7.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.99 to 3.75; n = 121, 3 RCTs; 0-to-100-point visual analogue scale (VAS)). There was also moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) of little to no difference in the number of participants achieving a 30% reduction in pain in the short term (risk ratio 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.44; n = 225, 1 RCT). There was low-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision and limitations in design) that therapeutic ultrasound has a small effect on back-specific function compared with placebo in the short term (standardised mean difference -0.29, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.07 (MD -1.07, 95% CI -1.89 to -0.26; Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire); n = 325; 4 RCTs), but this effect does not appear to be clinically important. There was moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) of little to no difference between therapeutic ultrasound and placebo on well-being (MD -2.71, 95% CI -9.85 to 4.44; n = 267, 2 RCTs; general health subscale of the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36)). Two studies (n = 486) reported on overall improvement and satisfaction between groups, and both reported little to no difference between groups (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious imprecision). One study (n = 225) reported on adverse events and did not identify any adverse events related to the intervention (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious imprecision). No study reported on disability for this comparison. We do not know whether therapeutic ultrasound in addition to exercise results in better outcomes than exercise alone because the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low (downgraded for imprecision and serious limitations in design). The estimate effect for pain was in favour of the ultrasound plus exercise group (MD -21.1, 95% CI -27.6 to -14.5; n = 70, 2 RCTs; 0-to-100-point VAS) at short term. Regarding back-specific function (MD - 0.41, 95% CI -3.14 to 2.32; n = 79, 2 RCTs; Oswestry Disability Questionnaire) and well-being (MD -2.50, 95% CI -9.53 to 4.53; n = 79, 2 RCTs; general health subscale of the SF-36), there was little to no difference between groups at short term. No studies reported on the number of participants achieving a 30% reduction in pain, patient satisfaction, disability, or adverse events for this comparison.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence from this systematic review is uncertain regarding the effect of therapeutic ultrasound on pain in individuals with chronic non-specific LBP. Whilst there is some evidence that therapeutic ultrasound may have a small effect on improving low back function in the short term compared to placebo, the certainty of evidence is very low. The true effect is likely to be substantially different. There are few high-quality randomised trials, and the available trials were very small. The current evidence does not support the use of therapeutic ultrasound in the management of chronic LBP.
Topics: Adult; Bias; Chronic Pain; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Low Back Pain; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 32623724
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009169.pub3