-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022Land-based exercise therapy is recommended in clinical guidelines for hip or knee osteoarthritis. Adjunctive non-pharmacological therapies are commonly used alongside... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Land-based exercise therapy is recommended in clinical guidelines for hip or knee osteoarthritis. Adjunctive non-pharmacological therapies are commonly used alongside exercise in hip or knee osteoarthritis management, but cumulative evidence for adjuncts to land-based exercise therapy is lacking.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of adjunctive therapies used in addition to land-based exercise therapy compared with placebo adjunctive therapy added to land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy only for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and clinical trials registries up to 10 June 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of people with hip or knee osteoarthritis comparing adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy (experimental group) versus placebo adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy (control groups). Exercise had to be identical in both groups. Major outcomes were pain, physical function, participant-reported global assessment, quality of life (QOL), radiographic joint structural changes, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. We evaluated short-term (6 months), medium-term (6 to 12 months) and long-term (12 months onwards) effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence for major outcomes using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 62 trials (60 RCTs and 2 quasi-RCTs) totalling 6508 participants. One trial included people with hip osteoarthritis, one hip or knee osteoarthritis and 59 included people with knee osteoarthritis only. Thirty-six trials evaluated electrophysical agents, seven manual therapies, four acupuncture or dry needling, or taping, three psychological therapies, dietary interventions or whole body vibration, two spa or peloid therapy and one foot insoles. Twenty-one trials included a placebo adjunctive therapy. We presented the effects stratified by different adjunctive therapies along with the overall results. We judged most trials to be at risk of bias, including 55% at risk of selection bias, 74% at risk of performance bias and 79% at risk of detection bias. Adverse events were reported in eight (13%) trials. Comparing adjunctive therapies plus land-based exercise therapy against placebo therapies plus exercise up to six months (short-term), we found low-certainty evidence for reduced pain and function, which did not meet our prespecified threshold for a clinically important difference. Mean pain intensity was 5.4 in the placebo group on a 0 to 10 numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) (lower scores represent less pain), and 0.77 points lower (0.48 points better to 1.16 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 10% (6% to 15% better) (22 studies; 1428 participants). Mean physical function on the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) 0 to 68 physical function (lower scores represent better function) subscale was 32.5 points in the placebo group and reduced by 5.03 points (2.57 points better to 7.61 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 12% (6% better to 18% better) (20 studies; 1361 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies did not improve QOL (SF-36 0 to 100 scale, higher scores represent better QOL). Placebo group mean QOL was 81.8 points, and 0.75 points worse (4.80 points worse to 3.39 points better) in the placebo adjunctive therapy group; relative improvement 1% (7% worse to 5% better) (two trials; 82 participants). Low-certainty evidence (two trials; 340 participants) indicates adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared to placebo therapies plus exercise (31% versus 13%; risk ratio (RR) 2.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 21.90). Participant-reported global assessment was not measured in any studies. Compared with land-based exercise therapy, low-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive electrophysical agents alongside exercise produced short-term (0 to 6 months) pain reduction of 0.41 points (0.17 points better to 0.63 points better); mean pain in the exercise-only group was 3.8 points and 0.41 points better in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group (0 to 10 NPRS); relative improvement 7% (3% better to 11% better) (45 studies; 3322 participants). Mean physical function (0 to 68 WOMAC subscale) was 18.2 points in the exercise group and 2.83 points better (1.62 points better to 4.04 points better) in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group; relative improvement 9% (5% better to 13% better) (45 studies; 3323 participants). These results are not clinically important. Mean QOL in the exercise group was 56.1 points and 1.04 points worse in the adjunctive therapies plus exercise therapy group (1.04 points worse to 3.12 points better); relative improvement 2% (2% worse to 5% better) (11 studies; 1483 participants), indicating no benefit (low-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise probably result in a slight increase in participant-reported global assessment (short-term), with success reported by 45% in the exercise therapy group and 17% more individuals receiving adjunctive therapies and exercise (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.62) (5 studies; 840 participants). One study (156 participants) showed little difference in radiographic joint structural changes (0.25 mm less, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.18 mm); 12% relative improvement (6% better to 18% better). Low-certainty evidence (8 trials; 1542 participants) indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared with exercise only (8.6% versus 6.5%; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.27).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate- to low-certainty evidence showed no difference in pain, physical function or QOL between adjunctive therapies and placebo adjunctive therapies, or in pain, physical function, QOL or joint structural changes, compared to exercise only. Participant-reported global assessment was not reported for placebo comparisons, but there is probably a slight clinical benefit for adjunctive therapies plus exercise compared with exercise, based on a small number of studies. This may be explained by additional constructs captured in global measures compared with specific measures. Although results indicate no increased adverse events for adjunctive therapies used with exercise, these were poorly reported. Most studies evaluated short-term effects, with limited medium- or long-term evaluation. Due to a preponderance of knee osteoarthritis trials, we urge caution in extrapolating the findings to populations with hip osteoarthritis.
Topics: Exercise Therapy; Humans; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36250418
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011915.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2017Non-specific low back pain is a common, potentially disabling condition usually treated with self-care and non-prescription medication. For chronic low back pain,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Non-specific low back pain is a common, potentially disabling condition usually treated with self-care and non-prescription medication. For chronic low back pain, current guidelines state that exercise therapy may be beneficial. Yoga is a mind-body exercise sometimes used for non-specific low back pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of yoga for treating chronic non-specific low back pain, compared to no specific treatment, a minimal intervention (e.g. education), or another active treatment, with a focus on pain, function, and adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and four trials registers to 11 March 2016 without restriction of language or publication status. We screened reference lists and contacted experts in the field to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials of yoga treatment in people with chronic non-specific low back pain. We included studies comparing yoga to any other intervention or to no intervention. We also included studies comparing yoga as an adjunct to other therapies, versus those other therapies alone.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently screened and selected studies, extracted outcome data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors to obtain missing or unclear information. We evaluated the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 trials (1080 participants) carried out in the USA (seven trials), India (three trials), and the UK (two trials). Studies were unfunded (one trial), funded by a yoga institution (one trial), funded by non-profit or government sources (seven trials), or did not report on funding (three trials). Most trials used Iyengar, Hatha, or Viniyoga forms of yoga. The trials compared yoga to no intervention or a non-exercise intervention such as education (seven trials), an exercise intervention (three trials), or both exercise and non-exercise interventions (two trials). All trials were at high risk of performance and detection bias because participants and providers were not blinded to treatment assignment, and outcomes were self-assessed. Therefore, we downgraded all outcomes to 'moderate' certainty evidence because of risk of bias, and when there was additional serious risk of bias, unexplained heterogeneity between studies, or the analyses were imprecise, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence further.For yoga compared to non-exercise controls (9 trials; 810 participants), there was low-certainty evidence that yoga produced small to moderate improvements in back-related function at three to four months (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.66 to -0.14; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of mean difference (MD) -2.18, 95% -3.60 to -0.76), moderate-certainty evidence for small to moderate improvements at six months (SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.22; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of MD -2.15, 95% -3.23 to -1.08), and low-certainty evidence for small improvements at 12 months (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.05; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of MD -1.36, 95% -2.41 to -0.26). On a 0-100 scale there was very low- to moderate-certainty evidence that yoga was slightly better for pain at three to four months (MD -4.55, 95% CI -7.04 to -2.06), six months (MD -7.81, 95% CI -13.37 to -2.25), and 12 months (MD -5.40, 95% CI -14.50 to -3.70), however we pre-defined clinically significant changes in pain as 15 points or greater and this threshold was not met. Based on information from six trials, there was moderate-certainty evidence that the risk of adverse events, primarily increased back pain, was higher in yoga than in non-exercise controls (risk difference (RD) 5%, 95% CI 2% to 8%).For yoga compared to non-yoga exercise controls (4 trials; 394 participants), there was very-low-certainty evidence for little or no difference in back-related function at three months (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.20; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of MD -0.99, 95% -2.87 to 0.90) and six months (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.19; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of MD -0.90, 95% -2.61 to 0.81), and no information on back-related function after six months. There was very low-certainty evidence for lower pain on a 0-100 scale at seven months (MD -20.40, 95% CI -25.48 to -15.32), and no information on pain at three months or after seven months. Based on information from three trials, there was low-certainty evidence for no difference in the risk of adverse events between yoga and non-yoga exercise controls (RD 1%, 95% CI -4% to 6%).For yoga added to exercise compared to exercise alone (1 trial; 24 participants), there was very-low-certainty evidence for little or no difference at 10 weeks in back-related function (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.42 to 0.22; corresponding to a change in the Oswestry Disability Index of MD -17.05, 95% -22.96 to 11.14) or pain on a 0-100 scale (MD -3.20, 95% CI -13.76 to 7.36). There was no information on outcomes at other time points. There was no information on adverse events.Studies provided limited evidence on risk of clinical improvement, measures of quality of life, and depression. There was no evidence on work-related disability.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence that yoga compared to non-exercise controls results in small to moderate improvements in back-related function at three and six months. Yoga may also be slightly more effective for pain at three and six months, however the effect size did not meet predefined levels of minimum clinical importance. It is uncertain whether there is any difference between yoga and other exercise for back-related function or pain, or whether yoga added to exercise is more effective than exercise alone. Yoga is associated with more adverse events than non-exercise controls, but may have the same risk of adverse events as other back-focused exercise. Yoga is not associated with serious adverse events. There is a need for additional high-quality research to improve confidence in estimates of effect, to evaluate long-term outcomes, and to provide additional information on comparisons between yoga and other exercise for chronic non-specific low back pain.
Topics: Adult; Chronic Pain; Humans; Low Back Pain; Middle Aged; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surveys and Questionnaires; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Yoga
PubMed: 28076926
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010671.pub2 -
Obesity Surgery Mar 2016Pain is an integral part of life and has an important protective function. Pain perception has been shown to differ between subjects and changes with gender, race, and... (Review)
Review
Pain is an integral part of life and has an important protective function. Pain perception has been shown to differ between subjects and changes with gender, race, and culture. In addition, it has been suggested that obesity influences pain perception and that obesity can be a risk factor for increased pain thresholds. The aim of this systematic review was to examine pain thresholds in obese subjects compared to non-obese subjects. The electronic databases of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, and EMBASE were searched using combinations of terms for obese, pain measurement, visual analog scale, quantitative sensory testing, and pain perception. Studies without comparison as well as cross-sectional studies, case series, and case reports were excluded. The search was conducted without restrictions on language or date of publication. From a total of 1818 identified studies, seven studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, whereby only one study tested the pain threshold difference between obese and non-obese and also before and after body weight loss surgery. Two studies showed a lower pain threshold and four studies a higher pain threshold in obese subjects compared to non-obese subjects. Two studies showed no difference in pain threshold before and after substantial body weight loss due to surgery. Weight loss after surgery was not identified as a factor for higher pain thresholds in obese subjects. In view of the heterogeneity of the studies, the variability of the subjects and differences in methodological quality, a meta-analysis could not be performed. From the available literature, there is a tendency towards higher pain thresholds in obese subjects. Neither substantial weight loss, nor gender, were factors explaining difference in threshold. Future randomized, controlled trials should explore demographic variables that could influence pain perception or pain thresholds in obese individuals, and multimodal pain testing is necessary for better understanding of the apparent differences in pain thresholds in obese individuals.
Topics: Bariatric Surgery; Humans; Obesity; Pain; Pain Measurement; Pain Perception; Pain Threshold
PubMed: 26661107
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-015-2008-9 -
Racial and ethnic differences in experimental pain sensitivity: systematic review and meta-analysis.Pain Feb 2017Our objective was to describe the racial and ethnic differences in experimental pain sensitivity. Four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Our objective was to describe the racial and ethnic differences in experimental pain sensitivity. Four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO) were searched for studies examining racial/ethnic differences in experimental pain sensitivity. Thermal-heat, cold-pressor, pressure, ischemic, mechanical cutaneous, electrical, and chemical experimental pain modalities were assessed. Risk of bias was assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality guideline. Meta-analysis was used to calculate standardized mean differences (SMDs) by pain sensitivity measures. Studies comparing African Americans (AAs) and non-Hispanic whites (NHWs) were included for meta-analyses because of high heterogeneity in other racial/ethnic group comparisons. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by subgroup analyses by sex, sample size, sample characteristics, and pain modalities. A total of 41 studies met the review criteria. Overall, AAs, Asians, and Hispanics had higher pain sensitivity compared with NHWs, particularly lower pain tolerance, higher pain ratings, and greater temporal summation of pain. Meta-analyses revealed that AAs had lower pain tolerance (SMD: -0.90, 95% confidence intervals [CIs]: -1.10 to -0.70) and higher pain ratings (SMD: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.30-0.69) but no significant differences in pain threshold (SMD: -0.06, 95% CI: -0.23 to 0.10) compared with NHWs. Estimates did not vary by pain modalities, nor by other demographic factors; however, SMDs were significantly different based on the sample size. Racial/ethnic differences in experimental pain sensitivity were more pronounced with suprathreshold than with threshold stimuli, which is important in clinical pain treatment. Additional studies examining mechanisms to explain such differences in pain tolerance and pain ratings are needed.
Topics: Databases, Bibliographic; Ethnicity; Humans; Pain; Pain Threshold; United States
PubMed: 27682208
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000731 -
Clinical Rehabilitation Apr 2023To analyse the effectiveness of exercise therapy in improving pain and active or passive maximum mouth opening in patients with temporomandibular disorders. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To analyse the effectiveness of exercise therapy in improving pain and active or passive maximum mouth opening in patients with temporomandibular disorders.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL Complete and Physiotherapy Evidence Database, until April 2022, in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
REVIEW METHODS
We included randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of exercise therapy on pain and on active and passive maximum mouth opening in patients with temporomandibular disorders. Effect size was calculated using Cohen's standardized mean difference (SMD) and their 95% confidence interval (95% CI) in a random-effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies with 812 participants were included. Exercise therapy is effective in reducing pain (SMD: -0.58; 95% CI: -1.01 to -0.12) and increasing the pain pressure threshold (SMD: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.14-0.76), active and passive maximum mouth opening (SMD: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.14-0.71 and SMD: 0.4; 95% CI: 0.06-0.75, respectively). Subgroup analyses showed more effect of exercise therapy more splints versus splints on pain (SMD: -0.5; 95% CI: -0.73 to -0.26), active and passive maximum mouth opening (SMD: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.22-2.07 and SMD: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.06-1.06, respectively). On pain pressure threshold, exercise therapy was better than physiotherapy approach (manual therapy and electrotherapy) (SMD: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.09-0.87).
CONCLUSIONS
Therapeutic exercise is an effective therapy to reduce pain and increase pain pressure threshold and active and passive maximum mouth opening in patients with temporomandibular disorders.
Topics: Humans; Exercise Therapy; Pain; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders; Physical Therapy Modalities; Musculoskeletal Manipulations
PubMed: 36263523
DOI: 10.1177/02692155221133523 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Jan 2023Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic condition following inciting events such as fractures or surgeries with sensorimotor and autonomic manifestations and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic condition following inciting events such as fractures or surgeries with sensorimotor and autonomic manifestations and poor prognosis. This review aimed to provide conclusive evidence about the sensory phenotype of CRPS based on quantitative sensory testing (QST) to understand the underlying pain mechanisms and guide treatment strategies.
DATABASES
Eight databases were searched based on a previously published protocol. Forty studies comparing QST outcomes (thermal, mechanical, vibration, and electric detection thresholds, thermal, mechanical, pressure, and electric pain thresholds, wind-up ratio, mechanical pain sensitivity, allodynia, flare area, area after pinprick hyperalgesia, pleasantness after C-tactile stimulation, and pain ratings) in chronic CRPS (adults and children) versus healthy controls were included.
RESULTS
From 37 studies (14 of low quality, 22 of fair quality, and 1 of good quality), adults with CRPS showed: (i) significant loss of thermal, mechanical, and vibration sensations, significant gain of thermal and mechanical pain thresholds, significant elevation of pain ratings, and no difference in wind-up ratio; (ii) significant reduction of pleasantness levels and increased area of pinprick hyperalgesia, in the affected limb. From three fair-quality studies, adolescents and children with CRPS showed loss of cold detection with cold hyperalgesia in the affected limb. There was moderate to substantial overall heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION
Diffuse thermal and mechanical hypoesthesia with primary and secondary hyperalgesia, enhanced pain facilitation evidenced by increased area of pinprick hyperalgesia, and elevated pain ratings are dominant in adults with CRPS. Adolescents and children with CRPS showed less severe sensory abnormalities.
Topics: Humans; Hyperalgesia; Pain Measurement; Pain; Complex Regional Pain Syndromes; Pain Threshold
PubMed: 36593515
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-022-03461-2 -
Journal of Pain Research 2017Primary dysmenorrhea (PD) has been the focus of a number of experimental pain studies. Although a number of reviews exist, few have critically evaluated the existing... (Review)
Review
Primary dysmenorrhea (PD) has been the focus of a number of experimental pain studies. Although a number of reviews exist, few have critically evaluated the existing body of research on PD and experimental and procedural pain. Data from 19 published research articles that include women with PD and responses to an experimental or procedural pain stimulus (or stimuli) suggest that women with PD may have elevated pain reactivity, as compared to women without PD. This pattern appears to be true across different phases of the menstrual cycle. However, there is an abundance of conflicting findings, which may be due to significant methodological issues such as inconsistent definitions of PD, wide variation in experimental pain methodologies, and inaccurate assessment of the menstrual cycle. Future research should focus on identifying specific symptoms (i.e., pain threshold ratings) to more clearly define what constitutes PD, establish reliable and valid laboratory testing protocols, and assess the menstrual cycle with greater precision.
PubMed: 29066929
DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S143512 -
European Journal of Pain (London,... Jan 2022The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the effectiveness of electrical stimulation (ES) for neck pain (NP). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the effectiveness of electrical stimulation (ES) for neck pain (NP).
DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT
The databases CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE (via OVID), PEDro and Web of Science were searched, with no date restrictions. Two independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting pain, range of motion or psychosocial factors in people with NP, in which ES was applied. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. Thirty studies met eligibility criteria.
RESULTS
Main results showed evidence of moderate quality that ES combined with other intervention significantly decreases the pain intensity compared to other intervention immediately post-treatment and at short-term follow-up; evidence of low quality showed significant effects of ES combined with other intervention in decreasing neck disability compared to other intervention immediately post-treatment; evidence of very-low quality that ES increased the pressure pain threshold compared to placebo immediately post-treatment and that ES + other intervention also increased the pressure pain threshold compared to other intervention at short-term follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
ES combined with other intervention seems to be useful to relieve pain and to improve disability in people with NP, however, more studies are needed.
SIGNIFICANCE
Electrical stimulation seems to be effective for improving pain intensity, immediately post-treatment in people with neck pain, mainly as an adjunct therapeutic modality. Nevertheless, high-quality RCTs are still needed to investigate the efficacy of electrical stimulation in neck pain.
Topics: Humans; Neck; Neck Pain; Pain Measurement; Range of Motion, Articular; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
PubMed: 34288255
DOI: 10.1002/ejp.1845 -
Clinical Rehabilitation Nov 2020This meta-analysis evaluated the effect of dry needling alone or combined with other treatment interventions on pain, related-disability, pressure pain sensitivity, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis evaluated the effect of dry needling alone or combined with other treatment interventions on pain, related-disability, pressure pain sensitivity, and strength in people with lateral epicondylalgia of musculoskeletal origin.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases from their inception to 5 April 2020.
REVIEW METHODS
Randomized controlled trials collecting outcomes on pain, related-disability, pressure pain thresholds, or strength where one group received dry needling for lateral epicondylalgia of musculoskeletal origin. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Guidelines, methodological quality was assessed with the PEDro score, and the quality of evidence by using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
Seven studies including 320 patients with lateral epicondylalgia were included. The meta-analysis found that dry needling reduced pain intensity (SMD ‒1.13, 95%CI ‒1.64 to ‒0.62) and related-disability (SMD ‒2.17, 95%CI ‒3.34 to ‒1.01) with large effect sizes compared to a comparative group. Dry needling also increased pressure pain thresholds with a large effect size (SMD 0.98, 95%CI 0.30 to 1.67) and grip strength with a small size effect (SMD 0.48, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.81) when compared to a comparative group. The most significant effect was at short-term. The risk of bias was generally low, but the heterogenicity of the results downgraded the evidence level.
CONCLUSION
Low to moderate evidence suggests a positive effect of dry needling for pain, pain-related disability, pressure pain sensitivity and strength at short-term in patients with lateral epicondylalgia of musculoskeletal origin.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Therapy, level 1a.
REGISTRATION NUMBER
OSF Registry - https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZY3E8.
Topics: Dry Needling; Humans; Pain Measurement; Pain Threshold; Tennis Elbow; Trigger Points
PubMed: 32576044
DOI: 10.1177/0269215520937468 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Dec 2022Myofascial trigger points (TrP) are diagnosed upon the presence of clinical signs among which hypersensitivity is considered one of the most important. The detection of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Myofascial trigger points (TrP) are diagnosed upon the presence of clinical signs among which hypersensitivity is considered one of the most important. The detection of the pressure pain threshold (PPT) is used to quantify the degree of hypersensitivity. However, there is a lack of normative data about how hypersensitive a TrP is. Therefore, the objective was to quantify the PPT for myofascial TrP in the upper trapezius muscle and its modification after manual or instrumental physical therapy interventions.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted among three databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and PEDro). Two independent reviewers conducted the electronic search and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies.
RESULTS
Eleven studies with a high-risk bias indicated that the PPT at TrP sites was 105.11 kPa lower (95% CI: -148.93; -61.28) at active TrP sites (Chi-squared = 1.07, df = 1 ( = 0.30), I = 7%) compared to the PPT of the upper trapezius muscles of healthy subjects. In addition, the PPT of TrP was also lower than the reference values coming from the pain-free population. Moreover, the PPT increased after both manual and instrumental treatment by 28.36 kPa (95% CI: 10.75; 45.96) and 75.49 kPa (95% CI: 18.02; 132.95), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the present study show that TrP has a decreased PPT when compared to healthy muscles and that physical therapy may increase the PPT. However, the clinical relevance of this decreased PPT needs to be further elucidated. Further, the high risk of bias in all the retrieved studies undermines the validity of the results.
PubMed: 36498817
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11237243