-
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management Aug 2004Skeletal muscle relaxants are a heterogeneous group of medications used to treat two different types of underlying conditions: spasticity from upper motor neuron... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Skeletal muscle relaxants are a heterogeneous group of medications used to treat two different types of underlying conditions: spasticity from upper motor neuron syndromes and muscular pain or spasms from peripheral musculoskeletal conditions. Although widely used for these indications, there appear to be gaps in our understanding of the comparative efficacy and safety of different skeletal muscle relaxants. This systematic review summarizes and assesses the evidence for the comparative efficacy and safety of skeletal muscle relaxants for spasticity and musculoskeletal conditions. Randomized trials (for comparative efficacy and adverse events) and observational studies (for adverse events only) that included oral medications classified as skeletal muscle relaxants by the FDA were sought using electronic databases, reference lists, and pharmaceutical company submissions. Searches were performed through January 2003. The validity of each included study was assessed using a data abstraction form and predefined criteria. An overall grade was allocated for the body of evidence for each key question. A total of 101 randomized trials were included in this review. No randomized trial was rated good quality, and there was little evidence of rigorous adverse event assessment in included trials or observational studies. There is fair evidence that baclofen, tizanidine, and dantrolene are effective compared to placebo in patients with spasticity (primarily multiple sclerosis). There is fair evidence that baclofen and tizanidine are roughly equivalent for efficacy in patients with spasticity, but insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of dantrolene compared to baclofen or tizanidine. There is fair evidence that although the overall rate of adverse effects between tizanidine and baclofen is similar, tizanidine is associated with more dry mouth and baclofen with more weakness. There is fair evidence that cyclobenzaprine, carisoprodol, orphenadrine, and tizanidine are effective compared to placebo in patients with musculoskeletal conditions (primarily acute back or neck pain). Cyclobenzaprine has been evaluated in the most clinical trials and has consistently been found to be effective. There is very limited or inconsistent data regarding the effectiveness of metaxalone, methocarbamol, chlorzoxazone, baclofen, or dantrolene compared to placebo in patients with musculoskeletal conditions. There is insufficient evidence to determine the relative efficacy or safety of cyclobenzaprine, carisoprodol, orphenadrine, tizanidine, metaxalone, methocarbamol, and chlorzoxazone. Dantrolene, and to a lesser degree chlorzoxazone, have been associated with rare serious hepatotoxicity.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Comorbidity; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Motor Neuron Disease; Muscle Spasticity; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Neuromuscular Agents; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 15276195
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2004.05.002 -
British Journal of Sports Medicine Jan 2022To assess the effectiveness of interventions for acute and subacute non-specific low back pain (NS-LBP) based on pain and disability outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness of interventions for acute and subacute non-specific low back pain (NS-LBP) based on pain and disability outcomes.
DESIGN
A systematic review of the literature with network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception until 17 October 2020.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) involving adults with NS-LBP who experienced pain for less than 6 weeks (acute) or between 6 and 12 weeks (subacute).
RESULTS
Forty-six RCTs (n=8765) were included; risk of bias was low in 9 trials (19.6%), unclear in 20 (43.5%), and high in 17 (36.9%). At immediate-term follow-up, for pain decrease, the most efficacious treatments against an inert therapy were: exercise (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.41 to -0.40), heat wrap (SMD -1.38; 95% CI -2.60 to -0.17), opioids (SMD -0.86; 95% CI -1.62 to -0.10), manual therapy (SMD -0.72; 95% CI -1.40 to -0.04) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (SMD -0.53; 95% CI -0.97 to -0.09). Similar findings were confirmed for disability reduction in non-pharmacological and pharmacological networks, including muscle relaxants (SMD -0.24; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.04). Mild or moderate adverse events were reported in the opioids (65.7%), NSAIDs (54.3%) and steroids (46.9%) trial arms.
CONCLUSION
With uncertainty of evidence, NS-LBP should be managed with non-pharmacological treatments which seem to mitigate pain and disability at immediate-term. Among pharmacological interventions, NSAIDs and muscle relaxants appear to offer the best harm-benefit balance.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Low Back Pain; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33849907
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-103596 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jun 2011Herniated lumbar disc is a displacement of disc material (nucleus pulposus or annulus fibrosis) beyond the intervertebral disc space. The highest prevalence is among... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Herniated lumbar disc is a displacement of disc material (nucleus pulposus or annulus fibrosis) beyond the intervertebral disc space. The highest prevalence is among people aged 30 to 50 years, with a male to female ratio of 2:1. There is little evidence to suggest that drug treatments are effective in treating herniated disc.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments, non-drug treatments, and surgery for herniated lumbar disc? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 37 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, advice to stay active, analgesics, antidepressants, bed rest, corticosteroids (epidural injections), cytokine inhibitors (infliximab), discectomy (automated percutaneous, laser, microdiscectomy, standard), exercise therapy, heat, ice, massage, muscle relaxants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), percutaneous disc decompression, spinal manipulation, and traction.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Diskectomy; Humans; Injections, Epidural; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Manipulation, Spinal; Traction
PubMed: 21711958
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management May 2022Pain is the most fearful symptom in cancer. Although there is a relationship between psychosocial variables and oncologic pain, psychological and non-pharmacological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
Pain is the most fearful symptom in cancer. Although there is a relationship between psychosocial variables and oncologic pain, psychological and non-pharmacological treatments for pain management in cancer patients are not very widespread.
OBJECTIVES
To analyze the efficacy of psychological and non-pharmacological treatments for reducing pain in cancer patients.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review following the PRISMA protocol. In January 2021, data were extracted from PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus, including randomised controlled trials (RCT) published in the last five years (from 28 January, 2015 to December 15, 2020), in the English language and whose sample was patients with cancer pain. The database search used the following keywords: cancer, cancer-related pain, psychological intervention, non-pharmacologic intervention. The Cochrane risk of bias assess ment for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used for quality appraisal.
RESULTS
After the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, ten papers were fully screened. The evidence suggested that the most effective interventions to reduce cancer pain were mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, guided imagery and progressive muscle relaxation and emotional and symptom focused engagement (EASE). Music therapy and brief cognitive behavioral strategies (CBS) require more research, while coping skills training and yoga did not show positive effects. Overall, we obtained a moderate size effect (d = 0.642, 95% CI: 0.125-1.158) favourable to psychological and non-pharmacologic treatments at post-treatment, which increased at follow-up (k = 5, d = 0.826, 95% CI: 0.141-1.511).
CONCLUSION
This study provides insight into psychological interventions which might be applied and contribute to cancer-related pain reduction in adults. Although the results are not completely consistent, they may shed light on psychology applications in the oncology environment.
Topics: Adult; Cancer Pain; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Music Therapy; Neoplasms; Pain Management
PubMed: 34952171
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2021.12.021 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Aug 2008Non-specific neck pain has a postural or mechanical basis and affects about two thirds of people at some stage, especially in middle age. Acute neck pain resolves within... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Non-specific neck pain has a postural or mechanical basis and affects about two thirds of people at some stage, especially in middle age. Acute neck pain resolves within days or weeks, but may become chronic in about 10% of people. Whiplash injuries follow sudden acceleration-deceleration of the neck, such as in road traffic or sporting accidents. Up to 40% of people continue to report symptoms 15 years after the accident, although this varies between countries.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments for people with non-specific neck pain without severe neurological deficit? What are the effects of treatments for acute whiplash injury? What are the effects of treatments for chronic whiplash injury? What are the effects of treatments for neck pain with radiculopathy? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2007 (BMJ Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 91 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of the evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, biofeedback, drug treatments (analgesics, antidepressants, epidural steroid injections, muscle relaxants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]), early mobilisation, early return to normal activity, exercise, heat or cold, manipulation (alone or plus exercise), mobilisation, multimodal treatment, patient education, percutaneous radiofrequency neurotomy, physical treatments, postural techniques (yoga, pilates, Alexander technique), pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) treatment, soft collars and special pillows, spray and stretch, surgery, traction, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS).
Topics: Humans; Neck; Neck Pain; Physical Therapy Modalities; Radiculopathy; Time Factors; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
PubMed: 19445809
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Aug 2002To determine the effects of stretching before and after exercising on muscle soreness after exercise, risk of injury, and athletic performance. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine the effects of stretching before and after exercising on muscle soreness after exercise, risk of injury, and athletic performance.
METHOD
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
Randomised or quasi-randomised studies identified by searching Medline, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and PEDro, and by recursive checking of bibliographies.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Muscle soreness, incidence of injury, athletic performance.
RESULTS
Five studies, all of moderate quality, reported sufficient data on the effects of stretching on muscle soreness to be included in the analysis. Outcomes seemed homogeneous. Stretching produced small and statistically non-significant reductions in muscle soreness. The pooled estimate of reduction in muscle soreness 24 hours after exercising was only 0.9 mm on a 100 mm scale (95% confidence interval -2.6 mm to 4.4 mm). Data from two studies on army recruits in military training show that muscle stretching before exercising does not produce useful reductions in injury risk (pooled hazard ratio 0.95, 0.78 to 1.16).
CONCLUSIONS
Stretching before or after exercising does not confer protection from muscle soreness. Stretching before exercising does not seem to confer a practically useful reduction in the risk of injury, but the generality of this finding needs testing. Insufficient research has been done with which to determine the effects of stretching on sporting performance.
Topics: Athletic Injuries; Exercise; Humans; Leg Injuries; Muscle Contraction; Muscle Relaxation; Muscle, Skeletal; Musculoskeletal System; Pain; Risk Factors
PubMed: 12202327
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.325.7362.468 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2009Herniated lumbar disc is a displacement of disc material (nucleus pulposus or annulus fibrosis) beyond the intervertebral disc space. The highest prevalence is among... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Herniated lumbar disc is a displacement of disc material (nucleus pulposus or annulus fibrosis) beyond the intervertebral disc space. The highest prevalence is among people aged 30-50 years, with a male to female ratio of 2:1. There is little evidence to suggest that drug treatments are effective in treating herniated disc.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments, non-drug treatments, and surgery for herniated lumbar disc? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 49 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, advice to stay active, analgesics, antidepressants, bed rest, corticosteroids (epidural injections), cytokine inhibitors (infliximab), discectomy (automated percutaneous, laser, microdisectomy, standard), exercise therapy, heat, ice, massage, muscle relaxants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), percutaneous disc decompression, spinal manipulation, and traction.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Diskectomy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Manipulation, Spinal; Sciatica; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 19445754
DOI: No ID Found -
Sports (Basel, Switzerland) May 2023A massage is a tool that is frequently used in sports and exercise in general for recovery and increased performance. In this review paper, we aimed to search and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A massage is a tool that is frequently used in sports and exercise in general for recovery and increased performance. In this review paper, we aimed to search and systemize current literature findings relating to massages' effects on sports and exercise performance concerning its effects on motor abilities and neurophysiological and psychological mechanisms.
METHODS
The review has been written following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) guidelines. One hundred and fourteen articles were included in this review.
RESULTS
The data revealed that massages, in general, do not affect motor abilities, except flexibility. However, several studies demonstrated that positive muscle force and strength changed 48 h after the massage was given. Concerning neurophysiological parameters, the massage did not change blood lactate clearance, muscle blood flow, muscle temperature, or activation. However, many studies indicate pain reduction and delayed onset muscle soreness, which are probably correlated with the reduction of the level of creatine kinase enzyme and psychological mechanisms. In addition, the massage treatment led to a decrease in depression, stress, anxiety, and the perception of fatigue and an increase in mood, relaxation, and the perception of recovery.
CONCLUSION
The direct usage of massages just for gaining results in sport and exercise performance seems questionable. However, it is indirectly connected to performance as an important tool when an athlete should stay focused and relaxed during competition or training and recover after them.
PubMed: 37368560
DOI: 10.3390/sports11060110 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jul 2021To investigate the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of muscle relaxants for low back pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of muscle relaxants for low back pain.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and WHO ICTRP from inception to 23 February 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION
Randomised controlled trials of muscle relaxants compared with placebo, usual care, waiting list, or no treatment in adults (≥18 years) reporting non-specific low back pain.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations, respectively. Random effects meta-analytical models through restricted maximum likelihood estimation were used to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Outcomes included pain intensity (measured on a 0-100 point scale), disability (0-100 point scale), acceptability (discontinuation of the drug for any reason during treatment), and safety (adverse events, serious adverse events, and number of participants who withdrew from the trial because of an adverse event).
RESULTS
49 trials were included in the review, of which 31, sampling 6505 participants, were quantitatively analysed. For acute low back pain, very low certainty evidence showed that at two weeks or less non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics were associated with a reduction in pain intensity compared with control (mean difference -7.7, 95% confidence interval-12.1 to-3.3) but not a reduction in disability (-3.3, -7.3 to 0.7). Low and very low certainty evidence showed that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might increase the risk of an adverse event (relative risk 1.6, 1.2 to 2.0) and might have little to no effect on acceptability (0.8, 0.6 to 1.1) compared with control for acute low back pain, respectively. The number of trials investigating other muscle relaxants and different durations of low back pain were small and the certainty of evidence was reduced because most trials were at high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Considerable uncertainty exists about the clinical efficacy and safety of muscle relaxants. Very low and low certainty evidence shows that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might provide small but not clinically important reductions in pain intensity at or before two weeks and might increase the risk of an adverse event in acute low back pain, respectively. Large, high quality, placebo controlled trials are urgently needed to resolve uncertainty.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42019126820 and Open Science Framework https://osf.io/mu2f5/.
Topics: Benzodiazepines; Humans; Low Back Pain; Muscle Relaxants, Central; Parasympatholytics
PubMed: 34233900
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n1446 -
European Journal of Sport Science Sep 2017Although the effects of short versus long inter-set rest intervals in resistance training on measures of muscle hypertrophy have been investigated in several studies,... (Review)
Review
Although the effects of short versus long inter-set rest intervals in resistance training on measures of muscle hypertrophy have been investigated in several studies, the findings are equivocal and the practical implications remain unclear. In an attempt to provide clarity on the topic, we performed a systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) electronic databases. Six studies were found to have met the inclusion criteria: (a) an experimental trial published in an English-language peer-reviewed journal; (b) the study compared the use of short (≤60 s) to long (>60 s) inter-set rest intervals in a traditional dynamic resistance exercise using both concentric and eccentric muscle actions, with the only difference in resistance training among groups being the inter-set rest interval duration; (c) at least one method of measuring changes in muscle mass was used in the study; (d) the study lasted for a minimum of four weeks, employed a training frequency of ≥2 resistance training days per week, and (e) used human participants without known chronic disease or injury. Current evidence indicates that both short and long inter-set rest intervals may be useful when training for achieving gains in muscle hypertrophy. Novel findings involving trained participants using measures sensitive to detect changes in muscle hypertrophy suggest a possible advantage for the use of long rest intervals to elicit hypertrophic effects. However, due to the paucity of studies with similar designs, further research is needed to provide a clear differentiation between these two approaches.
Topics: Humans; Hypertrophy; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Research Design; Resistance Training; Rest; Time Factors
PubMed: 28641044
DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2017.1340524