-
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research Sep 2022Variable eligibility criteria across studies on plantar heel pain may result in compromising the generalisability of meta-analyses when heterogeneity is not accounted... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Variable eligibility criteria across studies on plantar heel pain may result in compromising the generalisability of meta-analyses when heterogeneity is not accounted for. We aimed to explore: (i) heterogeneity of participant eligibility criteria in studies that have investigated plantar heel pain, and (ii) associations between key eligibility criteria and the characteristics of the participants included in the study.
METHODS
In this systematic review with narrative synthesis, we extracted participant eligibility criteria, and participants' age, body mass index (BMI), symptom duration and pain level from published studies on plantar heel pain. We performed a content analysis of criteria and aligned overarching criteria to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). We pooled studies that used the same thresholds for participant eligibility criteria into sub-groups. We also pooled and reported studies that did not have any eligibility criteria for the quantitative characteristics to use their data for reference values and pooled studies that did not have any eligibility criteria for the characteristics as reference.
RESULTS
Two hundred and fourteen articles were included. The most reported participant eligibility criteria (as aligned to the ICF) related to body structures/function and personal factors. Age, BMI, symptom duration and pain level were used with various ranges and/or thresholds across studies (age was reported in 23 different ways across 97 studies; BMI 7/13; symptom duration 14/100; and pain level 8/31). When eligibility criteria included thresholds close to the reference value of a participant characteristic, characteristics were associated with criteria (e.g., younger participants when an upper age threshold was used).
CONCLUSION
Participant eligibility criteria in studies on plantar heel pain vary widely; studies differed substantially in their use of quantitative thresholds. Participant characteristics of samples in studies were associated with the criteria used. This study emphasises a need for adjusting for participant heterogeneity in systematic reviews to improve their validity.
Topics: Fasciitis, Plantar; Foot; Foot Diseases; Heel; Humans; Pain
PubMed: 36076244
DOI: 10.1186/s13047-022-00573-0 -
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies Sep 2022Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a condition with local and referred pain characterized by trigger points (taut bands within the muscle). Ischemic compression is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a condition with local and referred pain characterized by trigger points (taut bands within the muscle). Ischemic compression is a noninvasive manual therapy technique that has been employed for the treatment of MPS in past decades. However, little attention has been devoted to this topic.
OBJECTIVES
The present review was designed to explore the efficacy of ischemic compression for myofascial pain syndrome by performing a descriptive systematic review and a meta-analysis to estimate the effect of ischemic compression on MPS.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis concerning randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with myofascial pain subjects who received ischemic compression versus placebo, sham, or usual interventions. Five databases (PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Ovid) were searched from the earliest data available to 2022.1.2. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for statistics. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk of tool 2 (RoB 2) was used to assess the quality of the included RCTs.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies were included in the systematic review, and 15 studies were included in the meta-analysis. For the pressure pain threshold (PPT) index, 11 studies and 427 subjects demonstrated statistically significant differences compared with the control at posttreatment (SMD = 0.67, 95% CI [0.35, 0.98], P < 0.0001, I = 59%). For visual analog scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS) indices, 7 studies and 251 subjects demonstrated that there was no significant difference between ischemic compression and controls posttreatment (SMD = - 0.22, 95% CI [- 0.53, 0.09], P = 0.16, I = 33%).
CONCLUSION
Ischemic compression, as a conservative and noninvasive therapy, only enhanced tolerance to pain in MPS subjects compared with inactive control. Furthermore, there was no evidence of benefit for self-reported pain. The number of currently included subjects was relatively small, so the conclusion may be changed by future studies. Big scale RCTs with more subjects will be critical in future.
Topics: Humans; Myofascial Pain Syndromes; Pain; Pain Measurement; Pain Threshold
PubMed: 36050701
DOI: 10.1186/s12998-022-00441-5 -
Scandinavian Journal of Pain Jan 2023The prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) is rising, and pain is the hallmark symptom of OA. Pain in OA is complicated and can be influenced by multiple joint-related...
OBJECTIVES
The prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) is rising, and pain is the hallmark symptom of OA. Pain in OA is complicated and can be influenced by multiple joint-related factors and factors related to, e.g., physiological, epigenetic, and pain sensory profiles. Increasing evidence suggests that a subset of patients with OA are pain sensitive. This can be assessed using quantitative sensory testing (QST). Common treatments of OA are total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and administration of 3-weeks of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which provide pain relief to many patients with OA. However, approx. 20% of patients experience chronic postoperative pain after TKA, whereas NSAIDs provide an average pain relief of approx. 25%. The current topical review focuses on the emerging evidence linking pretreatment QST to the treatment response of TKA and NSAID treatments.
CONTENT
MEDLINE was systematically searched for all studies from 2000 to 2022 on pretreatment QST, TKA, and NSAIDs. Pre-clinical studies, reviews, and meta-analyses were excluded.
SUMMARY
Currently, 14 studies on TKA and four studies on NSAIDs have been published with the aim to attempt prediction of the treatment response. The QST methodologies in the studies are inconsistent, but 11/14 (79%) studies on TKA and 4/4 (100%) studies on NSAIDs report statistically significant associations between pretreatment QST and chronic postoperative pain after TKA or analgesic effect after NSAID treatment. The strength of the associations remains low-to-moderate. The most consistent pretreatment QST predictors are pressure pain thresholds, temporal summation of pain, and conditioned pain modulation.
OUTLOOK
The use of QST as predictors of standard OA treatment is interesting, but the predictive strength remains low-to-moderate. A transition of QST from a research-based setting and into the clinic is not advised until the predictive strength has been improved and the methodology has been standardized.
Topics: Humans; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Pain Management; Pain Threshold; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 35993966
DOI: 10.1515/sjpain-2022-0082 -
Complementary Therapies in Medicine Dec 2022Sciatica results from primary or secondary damage to the sciatic nerve in the lumbar or gluteal region. The first option for sciatica is analgesics, but their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Sciatica results from primary or secondary damage to the sciatic nerve in the lumbar or gluteal region. The first option for sciatica is analgesics, but their therapeutic effect and safety in long-term use are questionable. On the other hand, acupuncture has recently been recognized as a complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to conventional medicine, and studies on its effectiveness and safety have been actively conducted.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically compare acupuncture with analgesics in terms of effect, safety, and durability in the treatment of sciatica METHODS: This review was performed in accordance with Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.2. Four databases were searched for this review: Wangfang, the Korean Traditional Knowledge Portal (KTKP), PubMed, and EBSCOhost. The primary outcome measures in the review were total effective rate (TER), visual analog scale (VAS) score and pain threshold, and the secondary ones were adverse effects (AEs) and relapse rates. Risk ratio (RR) for TER and mean difference (MD) for VAS score and pain threshold were used as statistics for the meta-analysis of effectiveness, along with associated 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values. AEs and relapse rates were used for the safety and durability of the interventions. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was used for the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in the review.
RESULTS
The synthesized TER of 28 RCTs involving 2707 participants was significantly higher in the acupuncture group compared to the analgesic group (RR [95 % CI] = 1.20 [1.16, 1.24], P < 0.001). The synthesized VAS score of 7 RCTs involving 589 participants was significantly reduced in the acupuncture group compared to the analgesic group (MD [95 % CI] = - 1.78 [- 2.44, - 1.12], P < 0.001). In 5 RCTs involving 311 participants, the synthesized pain threshold was significantly elevated in the acupuncture group compared to the analgesic group (MD [95 % CI] = 0.93 [0.64, 1.22], P < 0.001). Additionally, adverse effects (AEs) and relapse rates of RCTs in the review were lower in the acupuncture group compared to the analgesic group.
CONCLUSION
In this systematic review, acupuncture treatment was significantly effective and safe compared to analgesics in sciatica. In the future, studies with a rigorous study design are required to increase the validity of the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture treatment for sciatica.
Topics: Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Acupuncture Therapy; Analgesics; Complementary Therapies; Sciatica
PubMed: 35985442
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctim.2022.102872 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Oct 2022
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Child; Chronic Pain; Humans; Pain Measurement; Pain Threshold; Sensory Thresholds
PubMed: 35973840
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.07.001 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2022Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is common, and defined as a sudden decrease in sensorineural hearing sensitivity of unknown aetiology. Systemic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is common, and defined as a sudden decrease in sensorineural hearing sensitivity of unknown aetiology. Systemic corticosteroids are widely used, however their value remains unclear. Intratympanic injections of corticosteroids have become increasingly common in the treatment of ISSNHL.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of intratympanic corticosteroids in people with ISSNHL.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; CENTRAL (2021, Issue 9); PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials (search date 23 September 2021).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people with ISSNHL and follow-up of over a week. Intratympanic corticosteroids were given as primary or secondary treatment (after failure of systemic therapy).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods, including GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcome was change in hearing threshold with pure tone audiometry. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people whose hearing improved, final hearing threshold, speech audiometry, frequency-specific hearing changes and adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 30 studies, comprising 2133 analysed participants. Some studies had more than two treatment arms and were therefore relevant to several comparisons. Studies investigated intratympanic corticosteroids as either primary (initial) therapy or secondary (rescue) therapy after failure of initial treatment. 1. Intratympanic corticosteroids versus systemic corticosteroids as primary therapy We identified 16 studies (1108 participants). Intratympanic therapy may result in little to no improvement in the change in hearing threshold (mean difference (MD) -5.93 dB better, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.61 to -4.26; 10 studies; 701 participants; low-certainty). We found little to no difference in the proportion of participants whose hearing was improved (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.12; 14 studies; 972 participants; moderate-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may result in little to no difference in the final hearing threshold (MD -3.31 dB, 95% CI -6.16 to -0.47; 7 studies; 516 participants; low-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may increase the number of people who experience vertigo or dizziness (RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.41 to 4.54; 1 study; 250 participants; low-certainty) and probably increases the number of people with ear pain (RR 15.68, 95% CI 6.22 to 39.49; 2 studies; 289 participants; moderate-certainty). It also resulted in persistent tympanic membrane perforation (range 0% to 3.9%; 3 studies; 359 participants; very low-certainty), vertigo/dizziness at the time of injection (1% to 21%, 3 studies; 197 participants; very low-certainty) and ear pain at the time of injection (10.5% to 27.1%; 2 studies; 289 participants; low-certainty). 2. Intratympanic plus systemic corticosteroids (combined therapy) versus systemic corticosteroids alone as primary therapy We identified 10 studies (788 participants). Combined therapy may have a small effect on the change in hearing threshold (MD -8.55 dB better, 95% CI -12.48 to -4.61; 6 studies; 435 participants; low-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain as to whether combined therapy changes the proportion of participants whose hearing is improved (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.41; 10 studies; 788 participants; very low-certainty). Combined therapy may result in slightly lower (more favourable) final hearing thresholds but the evidence is very uncertain, and it is not clear whether the change would be important to patients (MD -9.11 dB, 95% CI -16.56 to -1.67; 3 studies; 194 participants; very low-certainty). Some adverse effects only occurred in those who received combined therapy. These included persistent tympanic membrane perforation (range 0% to 5.5%; 5 studies; 474 participants; very low-certainty), vertigo or dizziness at the time of injection (range 0% to 8.1%; 4 studies; 341 participants; very low-certainty) and ear pain at the time of injection (13.5%; 1 study; 73 participants; very low-certainty). 3. Intratympanic corticosteroids versus no treatment or placebo as secondary therapy We identified seven studies (279 participants). Intratympanic therapy may have a small effect on the change in hearing threshold (MD -9.07 dB better, 95% CI -11.47 to -6.66; 7 studies; 280 participants; low-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may result in a much higher proportion of participants whose hearing is improved (RR 5.55, 95% CI 2.89 to 10.68; 6 studies; 232 participants; low-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may result in lower (more favourable) final hearing thresholds (MD -11.09 dB, 95% CI -17.46 to -4.72; 5 studies; 203 participants; low-certainty). Some adverse effects only occurred in those who received intratympanic injection. These included persistent tympanic membrane perforation (range 0% to 4.2%; 5 studies; 185 participants; very low-certainty), vertigo or dizziness at the time of injection (range 6.7% to 33%; 3 studies; 128 participants; very low-certainty) and ear pain at the time of injection (0%; 1 study; 44 participants; very low-certainty). 4. Intratympanic plus systemic corticosteroids (combined therapy) versus systemic corticosteroids alone as secondary therapy We identified one study with 76 participants. Change in hearing threshold was not reported. Combined therapy may result in a higher proportion with hearing improvement, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.24, 95% CI 1.10 to 4.55; very low-certainty). Adverse effects were poorly reported with only data for persistent tympanic membrane perforation (rate 8.1%, very low-certainty).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Most of the evidence in this review is low- or very low-certainty, therefore it is likely that further studies may change our conclusions. For primary therapy, intratympanic corticosteroids may have little or no effect compared with systemic corticosteroids. There may be a slight benefit from combined treatment when compared with systemic treatment alone, but the evidence is uncertain. For secondary therapy, there is low-certainty evidence that intratympanic corticosteroids, when compared to no treatment or placebo, may result in a much higher proportion of participants whose hearing is improved, but may only have a small effect on the change in hearing threshold. It is very uncertain whether there is additional benefit from combined treatment over systemic steroids alone. Although adverse effects were poorly reported, the different risk profiles of intratympanic treatment (including tympanic membrane perforation, pain and dizziness/vertigo) and systemic treatment (for example, blood glucose problems) should be considered when selecting appropriate treatment.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Dizziness; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural; Humans; Pain; Tympanic Membrane Perforation; Vertigo
PubMed: 35867413
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008080.pub2 -
Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and... Jun 2022Despite manual therapy has been used as an effective treatment but there is limited of literature emphasizing its role to improve quality of life and pain pressure...
Effects of Manual Therapy in Somatic Tinnitus Patients Associated with Cervicogenic and Temporomandibular Dysfunction Domain: Systematic Review and Meta Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.
Despite manual therapy has been used as an effective treatment but there is limited of literature emphasizing its role to improve quality of life and pain pressure threshold in patients with somatic tinnitus. In this Meta analysis we compared the effects of manual therapy on quality of life and pain pressure threshold in the patients with somatic tinnitus associated with cervicogenic and temporomandibular dysfunction domain. We systematically searched different databases such as Pubmed, Google Scholar and Scopus to find out the relevant studies compairing the effects of manual therapy with quality of life and pain pressure threshold. Two independent reviewers performed quality check and data extraction. We analyzed the data using RevMan ver. 5.4 software. Total three randomised controlled trials were included in this study. Manual Therapy proven to be effective in improving quality of life as well pain pressure threshold in somatic tinnitus patients. {ORs 0.80; 95% Confidence Interval (95%CI), = 0.97}. Further clinical trials are needed to explore manual therapy as an effective intervention.
PubMed: 35813786
DOI: 10.1007/s12070-021-02426-x -
Pharmaceutics May 2022The aim of the present systematic review was to provide a clear overview of the clinical current research progress in the use of adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells... (Review)
Review
The aim of the present systematic review was to provide a clear overview of the clinical current research progress in the use of adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ASCs) as an effective therapeutic option for the management of tendinopathies, pathologies clinically characterized by persistent mechanical pain and structural alteration of the tendons. The review was carried out using three databases (Scopus, ISI Web of Science and PubMed) and analyzed records from 2013 to 2021. Only English-language papers describing the isolation and manipulation of adipose tissue as source of ASCs and presenting ASCs as treatment for clinical tendinopathies were included. Overall, seven clinical studies met the inclusion criteria and met the minimum quality inclusion threshold. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by groups of three reviewers. The available evidence showed the efficacy and safety of ASCs treatment for tendinopathies, although it lacked a clear description of the biomolecular mechanisms underlying the beneficial properties of ASCs.
PubMed: 35745724
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14061151 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jun 2022To evaluate the diagnostic performance of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) thresholds for acute heart failure and to develop and validate a decision... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the diagnostic performance of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) thresholds for acute heart failure and to develop and validate a decision support tool that combines NT-proBNP concentrations with clinical characteristics.
DESIGN
Individual patient level data meta-analysis and modelling study.
SETTING
Fourteen studies from 13 countries, including randomised controlled trials and prospective observational studies.
PARTICIPANTS
Individual patient level data for 10 369 patients with suspected acute heart failure were pooled for the meta-analysis to evaluate NT-proBNP thresholds. A decision support tool (Collaboration for the Diagnosis and Evaluation of Heart Failure (CoDE-HF)) that combines NT-proBNP with clinical variables to report the probability of acute heart failure for an individual patient was developed and validated.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE
Adjudicated diagnosis of acute heart failure.
RESULTS
Overall, 43.9% (4549/10 369) of patients had an adjudicated diagnosis of acute heart failure (73.3% (2286/3119) and 29.0% (1802/6208) in those with and without previous heart failure, respectively). The negative predictive value of the guideline recommended rule-out threshold of 300 pg/mL was 94.6% (95% confidence interval 91.9% to 96.4%); despite use of age specific rule-in thresholds, the positive predictive value varied at 61.0% (55.3% to 66.4%), 73.5% (62.3% to 82.3%), and 80.2% (70.9% to 87.1%), in patients aged <50 years, 50-75 years, and >75 years, respectively. Performance varied in most subgroups, particularly patients with obesity, renal impairment, or previous heart failure. CoDE-HF was well calibrated, with excellent discrimination in patients with and without previous heart failure (area under the receiver operator curve 0.846 (0.830 to 0.862) and 0.925 (0.919 to 0.932) and Brier scores of 0.130 and 0.099, respectively). In patients without previous heart failure, the diagnostic performance was consistent across all subgroups, with 40.3% (2502/6208) identified at low probability (negative predictive value of 98.6%, 97.8% to 99.1%) and 28.0% (1737/6208) at high probability (positive predictive value of 75.0%, 65.7% to 82.5%) of having acute heart failure.
CONCLUSIONS
In an international, collaborative evaluation of the diagnostic performance of NT-proBNP, guideline recommended thresholds to diagnose acute heart failure varied substantially in important patient subgroups. The CoDE-HF decision support tool incorporating NT-proBNP as a continuous measure and other clinical variables provides a more consistent, accurate, and individualised approach.
STUDY REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42019159407.
Topics: Biomarkers; Diagnosis, Differential; Heart Failure; Humans; Natriuretic Peptide, Brain; Observational Studies as Topic; Peptide Fragments; Predictive Value of Tests; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 35697365
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-068424 -
The British Journal of Surgery Jul 2022The aim of this study was to develop a symptom severity instrument (ParaOesophageal hernia SympTom (POST) tool) specific to para-oesophageal hernia (POH).
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to develop a symptom severity instrument (ParaOesophageal hernia SympTom (POST) tool) specific to para-oesophageal hernia (POH).
METHODS
The POST tool was developed in four stages. The first was establishment of a Steering Committee. In the second stage, items were generated through a systematic review and online scoping survey of international experts. In the third stage, a three-round modified Delphi consensus process was conducted with a group of international experts who were asked to rate the importance of candidate items. An a priori threshold for inclusion was set at 80 per cent. The modified Delphi process culminated in a consensus meeting to develop the first iteration of the tool. In the final stage, two international patient workshops were held to assess the content validity and acceptability of the POST tool.
RESULTS
The systematic review and scoping survey generated 64 symptoms, refined to 20 for inclusion in the modified Delphi consensus process. Twenty-six global experts participated in the Delphi consensus process. Five symptoms reached consensus across two rounds: difficulty getting solid foods down, chest pain after meals, difficulty getting liquids down, shortness of breath only after meals, and an early feeling of fullness after eating. The subsequent patient workshops deemed these five symptoms to be relevant and suggested that reflux should be included; these were taken forward to create the final POST tool.
CONCLUSION
The POST tool is the first instrument designed to capture POH-specific symptoms. It will allow clinicians to standardize reporting of symptoms of POH and evaluate the response to surgical intervention.
Topics: Consensus; Delphi Technique; Hernia, Hiatal; Humans; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 35640625
DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znac139