-
The Spine Journal : Official Journal of... May 2018Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used to benefit patients with chronic low back pain. However, questions remain about their efficacy, dosing, safety,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND CONTEXT
Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used to benefit patients with chronic low back pain. However, questions remain about their efficacy, dosing, safety, and how these approaches compare with other therapies.
PURPOSE
The present study aims to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic low back pain.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING
This is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
OUTCOME MEASURES
The present study measures self-reported pain, function, health-related quality of life, and adverse events.
METHODS
We identified studies by searching multiple electronic databases from January 2000 to March 2017, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation or mobilization therapies with sham, no treatment, other active therapies, and multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Where possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project is funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under Award Number U19AT007912.
RESULTS
Fifty-one trials were included in the systematic review. Nine trials (1,176 patients) provided sufficient data and were judged similar enough to be pooled for meta-analysis. The standardized mean difference for a reduction of pain was SMD=-0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.09, p=.004; I=57% after treatment; within seven trials (923 patients), the reduction in disability was SMD=-0.33, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.03, p=.03; I=78% for manipulation or mobilization compared with other active therapies. Subgroup analyses showed that manipulation significantly reduced pain and disability, compared with other active comparators including exercise and physical therapy (SMD=-0.43, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.00; p=.05, I=79%; SMD=-0.86, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.45; p<.0001, I=46%). Mobilization interventions, compared with other active comparators including exercise regimens, significantly reduced pain (SMD=-0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.04; p=.01; I=0%) but not disability (SMD=-0.10, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.07; p=.25; I=21%). Studies comparing manipulation or mobilization with sham or no treatment were too few or too heterogeneous to allow for pooling as were studies examining relationships between dose and outcomes. Few studies assessed health-related quality of life. Twenty-six of 51 trials were multimodal studies and narratively described.
CONCLUSION
There is moderate-quality evidence that manipulation and mobilization are likely to reduce pain and improve function for patients with chronic low back pain; manipulation appears to produce a larger effect than mobilization. Both therapies appear safe. Multimodal programs may be a promising option.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Low Back Pain; Manipulation, Chiropractic
PubMed: 29371112
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.01.013 -
Physical Therapy Jan 2016Manual therapy (MT) and exercise have been extensively used to treat people with musculoskeletal conditions such as temporomandibular disorders (TMD). The evidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Manual therapy (MT) and exercise have been extensively used to treat people with musculoskeletal conditions such as temporomandibular disorders (TMD). The evidence regarding their effectiveness provided by early systematic reviews is outdated.
PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to summarize evidence from and evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials that examined the effectiveness of MT and therapeutic exercise interventions compared with other active interventions or standard care for treatment of TMD.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic data searches of 6 databases were performed, in addition to a manual search.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized controlled trials involving adults with TMD that compared any type of MT intervention (eg, mobilization, manipulation) or exercise therapy with a placebo intervention, controlled comparison intervention, or standard care were included. The main outcomes of this systematic review were pain, range of motion, and oral function. Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data were extracted in duplicate on specific study characteristics.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The overall evidence for this systematic review was considered low. The trials included in this review had unclear or high risk of bias. Thus, the evidence was generally downgraded based on assessments of risk of bias. Most of the effect sizes were low to moderate, with no clear indication of superiority of exercises versus other conservative treatments for TMD. However, MT alone or in combination with exercises at the jaw or cervical level showed promising effects.
LIMITATIONS
Quality of the evidence and heterogeneity of the studies were limitations of the study.
CONCLUSIONS
No high-quality evidence was found, indicating that there is great uncertainty about the effectiveness of exercise and MT for treatment of TMD.
Topics: Exercise Therapy; Humans; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Pain Measurement; Range of Motion, Articular; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
PubMed: 26294683
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20140548 -
Pain Physician Mar 2019Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used by patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain; however, questions remain around efficacy, dosing, and safety, as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used by patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain; however, questions remain around efficacy, dosing, and safety, as well as how these approaches compare to other therapies.
OBJECTIVES
Based on published trials, to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic nonspecific neck pain.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We identified studies published between January 2000 and September 2017, by searching multiple electronic databases, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation and/or mobilization therapies to sham, no treatment, each other, and other active therapies, or when combined as multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias by using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. When possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project was funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under award number U19AT007912 and ultimately used to inform an appropriateness panel.
RESULTS
A total of 47 randomized trials (47 unique trials in 53 publications) were included in the systematic review. These studies were rated as having low risk of bias and included a total of 4,460 patients with nonspecific chronic neck pain who were being treated by a practitioner using various types of manipulation and/or mobilization interventions. A total of 37 trials were categorized as unimodal approaches and involved thrust or nonthrust compared with sham, no treatment, or other active comparators. Of these, only 6 trials with similar intervention styles, comparators, and outcome measures/timepoints were pooled for meta-analysis at 1, 3, and 6 months, showing a small effect in favor of thrust plus exercise compared to an exercise regimen alone for a reduction in pain and disability. Multimodal approaches appeared to be effective at reducing pain and improving function from the 10 studies evaluated. Health-related quality of life was seldom reported. Some 22/47 studies did not report or mention adverse events. Of the 25 that did, either no or minor events occurred.
LIMITATIONS
The current evidence is heterogeneous, and sample sizes are generally small.
CONCLUSIONS
Studies published since January 2000 provide low-moderate quality evidence that various types of manipulation and/or mobilization will reduce pain and improve function for chronic nonspecific neck pain compared to other interventions. It appears that multimodal approaches, in which multiple treatment approaches are integrated, might have the greatest potential impact. The studies comparing to no treatment or sham were mostly testing the effect of a single dose, which may or may not be helpful to inform practice. According to the published trials reviewed, manipulation and mobilization appear safe. However, given the low rate of serious adverse events, other types of studies with much larger sample sizes would be required to fully describe the safety of manipulation and/or mobilization for nonspecific chronic neck pain.
KEY WORDS
Chronic neck pain, nonspecific, chiropractic, manipulation, mobilization, systematic review, meta-analysis, appropriateness.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Humans; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Neck Pain
PubMed: 30921975
DOI: No ID Found -
British Journal of Sports Medicine Nov 2013Owing to the change in paradigm of the histological nature of epicondylitis, therapeutic modalities as exercises such as stretching and eccentric loading and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Owing to the change in paradigm of the histological nature of epicondylitis, therapeutic modalities as exercises such as stretching and eccentric loading and mobilisation are considered for its treatment.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the evidence for effectiveness of exercise therapy and mobilisation techniques for both medial and lateral epicondylitis.
METHODS
Searches in PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and Pedro were performed to identify relevant randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality.
RESULTS
One review and 12 RCTs, all studying lateral epicondylitis, were included. Different therapeutic regimes were evaluated: stretching, strengthening, concentric/eccentric exercises and manipulation of the cervical or thoracic spine, elbow or wrist. No statistical pooling of the results could be performed owing to heterogeneity of the included studies. Therefore, a best-evidence synthesis was used to summarise the results. Moderate evidence for the short-term effectiveness was found in favour of stretching plus strengthening exercises versus ultrasound plus friction massage. Moderate evidence for short-term and mid-term effectiveness was found for the manipulation of the cervical and thoracic spine as add-on therapy to concentric and eccentric stretching plus mobilisation of wrist and forearm. For all other interventions only limited, conflicting or no evidence was found.
CONCLUSIONS
Although not yet conclusive, these results support the belief that strength training decreases symptoms in tendinosis. The short-term analgesic effect of manipulation techniques may allow more vigorous stretching and strengthening exercises resulting in a better and faster recovery process of the affected tendon in lateral epicondylitis.
Topics: Exercise Movement Techniques; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Manipulation, Chiropractic; Massage; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tennis Elbow; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 23709519
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2012-091990 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Low-back pain (LBP) is one of the most common and costly musculoskeletal problems in modern society. It is experienced by 70% to 80% of adults at some time in their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Low-back pain (LBP) is one of the most common and costly musculoskeletal problems in modern society. It is experienced by 70% to 80% of adults at some time in their lives. Massage therapy has the potential to minimize pain and speed return to normal function.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of massage therapy for people with non-specific LBP.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched PubMed to August 2014, and the following databases to July 2014: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and Proquest Dissertation Abstracts. We also checked reference lists. There were no language restrictions used.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included only randomized controlled trials of adults with non-specific LBP classified as acute, sub-acute or chronic. Massage was defined as soft-tissue manipulation using the hands or a mechanical device. We grouped the comparison groups into two types: inactive controls (sham therapy, waiting list, or no treatment), and active controls (manipulation, mobilization, TENS, acupuncture, traction, relaxation, physical therapy, exercises or self-care education).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures and followed CBN guidelines. Two independent authors performed article selection, data extraction and critical appraisal.
MAIN RESULTS
In total we included 25 trials (3096 participants) in this review update. The majority was funded by not-for-profit organizations. One trial included participants with acute LBP, and the remaining trials included people with sub-acute or chronic LBP (CLBP). In three trials massage was done with a mechanical device, and the remaining trials used only the hands. The most common type of bias in these studies was performance and measurement bias because it is difficult to blind participants, massage therapists and the measuring outcomes. We judged the quality of the evidence to be "low" to "very low", and the main reasons for downgrading the evidence were risk of bias and imprecision. There was no suggestion of publication bias. For acute LBP, massage was found to be better than inactive controls for pain ((SMD -1.24, 95% CI -1.85 to -0.64; participants = 51; studies = 1)) in the short-term, but not for function ((SMD -0.50, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.06; participants = 51; studies = 1)). For sub-acute and chronic LBP, massage was better than inactive controls for pain ((SMD -0.75, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.60; participants = 761; studies = 7)) and function (SMD -0.72, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.39; 725 participants; 6 studies; ) in the short-term, but not in the long-term; however, when compared to active controls, massage was better for pain, both in the short ((SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.13; participants = 964; studies = 12)) and long-term follow-up ((SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.01; participants = 757; studies = 5)), but no differences were found for function (both in the short and long-term). There were no reports of serious adverse events in any of these trials. Increased pain intensity was the most common adverse event reported in 1.5% to 25% of the participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We have very little confidence that massage is an effective treatment for LBP. Acute, sub-acute and chronic LBP had improvements in pain outcomes with massage only in the short-term follow-up. Functional improvement was observed in participants with sub-acute and chronic LBP when compared with inactive controls, but only for the short-term follow-up. There were only minor adverse effects with massage.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Bias; Chronic Pain; Humans; Low Back Pain; Manipulation, Spinal; Massage; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26329399
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001929.pub3 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Mar 2019To assess the benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for the treatment of chronic low back pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for the treatment of chronic low back pain.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Index to Chiropractic Literature, and trial registries up to 4 May 2018, including reference lists of eligible trials and related reviews.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised controlled trials examining the effect of spinal manipulation or mobilisation in adults (≥18 years) with chronic low back pain with or without referred pain. Studies that exclusively examined sciatica were excluded, as was grey literature. No restrictions were applied to language or setting.
REVIEW METHODS
Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The effect of SMT was compared with recommended therapies, non-recommended therapies, sham (placebo) SMT, and SMT as an adjuvant therapy. Main outcomes were pain and back specific functional status, examined as mean differences and standardised mean differences (SMD), respectively. Outcomes were examined at 1, 6, and 12 months. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. A random effects model was used and statistical heterogeneity explored.
RESULTS
47 randomised controlled trials including a total of 9211 participants were identified, who were on average middle aged (35-60 years). Most trials compared SMT with recommended therapies. Moderate quality evidence suggested that SMT has similar effects to other recommended therapies for short term pain relief (mean difference -3.17, 95% confidence interval -7.85 to 1.51) and a small, clinically better improvement in function (SMD -0.25, 95% confidence interval -0.41 to -0.09). High quality evidence suggested that compared with non-recommended therapies SMT results in small, not clinically better effects for short term pain relief (mean difference -7.48, -11.50 to -3.47) and small to moderate clinically better improvement in function (SMD -0.41, -0.67 to -0.15). In general, these results were similar for the intermediate and long term outcomes as were the effects of SMT as an adjuvant therapy. Evidence for sham SMT was low to very low quality; therefore these effects should be considered uncertain. Statistical heterogeneity could not be explained. About half of the studies examined adverse and serious adverse events, but in most of these it was unclear how and whether these events were registered systematically. Most of the observed adverse events were musculoskeletal related, transient in nature, and of mild to moderate severity. One study with a low risk of selection bias and powered to examine risk (n=183) found no increased risk of an adverse event (relative risk 1.24, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.81) or duration of the event (1.13, 0.59 to 2.18) compared with sham SMT. In one study, the Data Safety Monitoring Board judged one serious adverse event to be possibly related to SMT.
CONCLUSION
SMT produces similar effects to recommended therapies for chronic low back pain, whereas SMT seems to be better than non-recommended interventions for improvement in function in the short term. Clinicians should inform their patients of the potential risks of adverse events associated with SMT.
Topics: Chronic Disease; Humans; Low Back Pain; Manipulation, Spinal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30867144
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l689 -
PloS One 2019To investigate the role of thoracic spine manipulation (TSM) on pain and disability in the management of mechanical neck pain (MNP). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the role of thoracic spine manipulation (TSM) on pain and disability in the management of mechanical neck pain (MNP).
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, Pedro, Embase, AMED, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched in January 2018.
STUDY SELECTION
Eligible studies were completed RCTs, written in English, had at least 2 groups with one group receiving TSM, had at least one measure of pain or disability, and included patients with MNP of any duration. The search identified 1717 potential articles, with 14 studies meeting inclusion criteria.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
Methodological quality was evaluated independently by two authors using the guidelines published by the Cochrane Collaboration. Pooled analyses were analyzed using a random-effects model with inverse variance methods to calculate mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals for pain (VAS 0-100mm, NPRS 0-10pts; 0 = no pain) and disability (NDI and NPQ 0-100%; 0 = no disability).
RESULTS
Across the included studies, there was increased risk of bias for inadequate provider and participant blinding. The GRADE approach demonstrated an overall level of evidence ranging from very low to moderate. Meta-analysis that compared TSM to thoracic or cervical mobilization revealed a significant effect favoring the TSM group for pain (MD -13.63; 95% CI: -21.79, -5.46) and disability (MD -9.93; 95% CI: -14.38, -5.48). Meta-analysis that compared TSM to standard care revealed a significant effect favoring the TSM group for pain (MD -13.21; 95% CI: -21.87, -4.55) and disability (MD -11.36; 95% CI: -18.93, -3.78) at short-term follow-up, and a significant effect for disability (MD -4.75; 95% CI: -6.54, -2.95) at long-term follow-up. Meta-analysis that compared TSM to cervical spine manipulation revealed a non-significant effect (MD 3.43; 95% CI: -7.26, 14.11) for pain without a distinction between immediate and short-term follow-up.
LIMITATIONS
The greatest limitation in this systematic review was the heterogeneity among the studies making it difficult to assess the true clinical benefit, as well as the overall level of quality of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
TSM has been shown to be more beneficial than thoracic mobilization, cervical mobilization, and standard care in the short-term, but no better than cervical manipulation or placebo thoracic spine manipulation to improve pain and disability.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42017068287.
Topics: Adult; Disabled Persons; Female; Humans; Low Back Pain; Male; Manipulation, Spinal; Middle Aged; Neck; Neck Pain; Spine; Stress, Mechanical
PubMed: 30759118
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211877 -
Journal of Bodywork and Movement... Oct 2017Low back pain (LBP) is a common complaint during pregnancy. This study examined the effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) for LBP in pregnant or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Low back pain (LBP) is a common complaint during pregnancy. This study examined the effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) for LBP in pregnant or postpartum women.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials unrestricted by language were reviewed. Outcomes were pain and functional status. Mean difference (MD) or standard mean difference (SMD) and overall effect size were calculated.
RESULTS
Of 102 studies, 5 examined OMT for LBP in pregnancy and 3 for postpartum LBP. Moderate-quality evidence suggested OMT had a significant medium-sized effect on decreasing pain (MD, -16.65) and increasing functional status (SMD, -0.50) in pregnant women with LBP. Low-quality evidence suggested OMT had a significant moderate-sized effect on decreasing pain (MD, -38.00) and increasing functional status (SMD, -2.12) in postpartum women with LBP.
CONCLUSIONS
This review suggests OMT produces clinically relevant benefits for pregnant or postpartum women with LBP. Further research may change estimates of effect, and larger, high-quality randomized controlled trials with robust comparison groups are recommended.
Topics: Disability Evaluation; Female; Humans; Low Back Pain; Manipulation, Osteopathic; Pain Measurement; Pelvic Girdle Pain; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy; Pregnant Women; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29037623
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2017.05.014 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2014Adhesive capsulitis (also termed frozen shoulder) is commonly treated by manual therapy and exercise, usually delivered together as components of a physical therapy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Adhesive capsulitis (also termed frozen shoulder) is commonly treated by manual therapy and exercise, usually delivered together as components of a physical therapy intervention. This review is one of a series of reviews that form an update of the Cochrane review, 'Physiotherapy interventions for shoulder pain.'
OBJECTIVES
To synthesise available evidence regarding the benefits and harms of manual therapy and exercise, alone or in combination, for the treatment of patients with adhesive capsulitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP clinical trials registries up to May 2013, unrestricted by language, and reviewed the reference lists of review articles and retrieved trials, to identify potentially relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials, including adults with adhesive capsulitis, and comparing any manual therapy or exercise intervention versus placebo, no intervention, a different type of manual therapy or exercise or any other intervention. Interventions included mobilisation, manipulation and supervised or home exercise, delivered alone or in combination. Trials investigating the primary or adjunct effect of a combination of manual therapy and exercise were the main comparisons of interest. Main outcomes of interest were participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater, overall pain (mean or mean change), function, global assessment of treatment success, active shoulder abduction, quality of life and the number of participants experiencing adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted the data, performed a risk of bias assessment and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 trials (1836 participants). No trial compared a combination of manual therapy and exercise versus placebo or no intervention. Seven trials compared a combination of manual therapy and exercise versus other interventions but were clinically heterogeneous, so opportunities for meta-analysis were limited. The overall impression gained from these trials is that the few outcome differences between interventions that were clinically important were detected only up to seven weeks. Evidence of moderate quality shows that a combination of manual therapy and exercise for six weeks probably results in less improvement at seven weeks but a similar number of adverse events compared with glucocorticoid injection. The mean change in pain with glucocorticoid injection was 58 points on a 100-point scale, and 32 points with manual therapy and exercise (mean difference (MD) 26 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 15 points to 37 points; one RCT, 107 participants), for an absolute difference of 26% (15% to 37%). Mean change in function with glucocorticoid injection was 39 points on a 100-point scale, and 14 points with manual therapy and exercise (MD 25 points, 95% CI 35 points to 15 points; one RCT, 107 participants), for an absolute difference of 25% (15% to 35%). Forty-six per cent (26/56) of participants reported treatment success with manual therapy and exercise compared with 77% (40/52) of participants receiving glucocorticoid injection (risk ratio (RR) 0.6, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.83; one RCT, 108 participants), with an absolute risk difference of 30% (13% to 48%). The number reporting adverse events did not differ between groups: 56% (32/57) reported events with manual therapy and exercise, and 53% (30/57) with glucocorticoid injection (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.49; one RCT, 114 participants), with an absolute risk difference of 4% (-15% to 22%). Group differences in improvement in overall pain and function at six months and 12 months were not clinically important.We are uncertain of the effect of other combinations of manual therapy and exercise, as most evidence is of low quality. Meta-analysis of two trials (86 participants) suggested no clinically important differences between a combination of manual therapy, exercise, and electrotherapy for four weeks and placebo injection compared with glucocorticoid injection alone or placebo injection alone in terms of overall pain, function, active range of motion and quality of life at six weeks, six months and 12 months (though the 95% CI suggested function may be better with glucocorticoid injection at six weeks). The same two trials found that adding a combination of manual therapy, exercise and electrotherapy for four weeks to glucocorticoid injection did not confer clinically important benefits over glucocorticoid injection alone at each time point. Based on one high quality trial (148 participants), following arthrographic joint distension with glucocorticoid and saline, a combination of manual therapy and supervised exercise for six weeks conferred similar effects to those of sham ultrasound in terms of overall pain, function and quality of life at six weeks and at six months, but provided greater patient-reported treatment success and active shoulder abduction at six weeks. One trial (119 participants) found that a combination of manual therapy, exercise, electrotherapy and oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) for three weeks did not confer clinically important benefits over oral NSAID alone in terms of function and patient-reported treatment success at three weeks.On the basis of 25 clinically heterogeneous trials, we are uncertain of the effect of manual therapy or exercise when not delivered together, or one type of manual therapy or exercise versus another, as most reported differences between groups were not clinically or statistically significant, and the evidence is mostly of low quality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The best available data show that a combination of manual therapy and exercise may not be as effective as glucocorticoid injection in the short-term. It is unclear whether a combination of manual therapy, exercise and electrotherapy is an effective adjunct to glucocorticoid injection or oral NSAID. Following arthrographic joint distension with glucocorticoid and saline, manual therapy and exercise may confer effects similar to those of sham ultrasound in terms of overall pain, function and quality of life, but may provide greater patient-reported treatment success and active range of motion. High-quality RCTs are needed to establish the benefits and harms of manual therapy and exercise interventions that reflect actual practice, compared with placebo, no intervention and active interventions with evidence of benefit (e.g. glucocorticoid injection).
Topics: Adult; Bursitis; Exercise Therapy; Female; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Injections, Intra-Articular; Male; Middle Aged; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Shoulder Pain
PubMed: 25157702
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011275 -
The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports... Sep 2017Study Design Systematic review with meta-analysis. Objectives To determine the efficacy of neural mobilization (NM) for musculoskeletal conditions with a neuropathic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Study Design Systematic review with meta-analysis. Objectives To determine the efficacy of neural mobilization (NM) for musculoskeletal conditions with a neuropathic component. Background Neural mobilization, or neurodynamics, is a movement-based intervention aimed at restoring the homeostasis in and around the nervous system. The current level of evidence for NM is largely unknown. Methods A database search for randomized trials investigating the effect of NM on neuromusculoskeletal conditions was conducted, using standard methods for article identification, selection, and quality appraisal. Where possible, studies were pooled for meta-analysis, with pain, disability, and function as the primary outcomes. Results Forty studies were included in this review, of which 17 had a low risk of bias. Meta-analyses could only be performed on self-reported outcomes. For chronic low back pain, disability (Oswestry Disability Questionnaire [0-50]: mean difference, -9.26; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -14.50, -4.01; P<.001) and pain (intensity [0-10]: mean difference, -1.78; 95% CI: -2.55, -1.01; P<.001) improved following NM. For chronic neck-arm pain, pain improved (intensity: mean difference, -1.89; 95% CI: -3.14, -0.64; P<.001) following NM. For most of the clinical outcomes in individuals with carpal tunnel syndrome, NM was not effective (P>.11) but showed some positive neurophysiological effects (eg, reduced intraneural edema). Due to a scarcity of studies or conflicting results, the effect of NM remains uncertain for various conditions, such as postoperative low back pain, cubital tunnel syndrome, and lateral epicondylalgia. Conclusion This review reveals benefits of NM for back and neck pain, but the effect of NM on other conditions remains unclear. Due to the limited evidence and varying methodological quality, conclusions may change over time. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1a. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(9):593-615. Epub 13 Jul 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7117.
Topics: Arm; Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; Chronic Pain; Heel; Humans; Low Back Pain; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Neck Pain; Neuralgia; Tennis Elbow
PubMed: 28704626
DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2017.7117